Allegations EP were tipped off about future legislation on evidence destruction:

[gringo]

Because they were denied access to it

  Adam knows this, David. We would have to believe that he doesn't even read the posts he replies to in order for him not to know this 

[Adam]

Because they were denied access to it

Really ? Have you got a source ?

[gringo]

Really ? Have you got a source ?

  DI John Soames. Pay attention Adam

[Adam]

Anyway.

As was said esrlier. The allegation is EP destroyed evidence in 1996. Because they were aware that 'in several months' time legislation was being introduced which would stop them doing this.

Sources of proof showing this is correct or possible need to be supplied.

If it is just an opinion of supporters, that is fine. Guilters will just think the police destroyed useless evidence after 10 years as protocol and common sense.

[Adam]

  DI John Soames. Pay attention Adam

No, links and sources please. Pay attention Gringo.

Supporting the claim police destroyed evidence in 1996. Because they somehow knew that future legislation in several months time would prevent them from destroying this evidence in an almost forgotten case.

[David1819]

No, links and sources please. Pay attention Gringo.

Supporting the claim police destroyed evidence in 1996. Because they somehow knew that future legislation in several months time would prevent them from destroying this evidence in an almost forgotten case.

Here is notes from the 2002 appeal

[Adam]

At last, a source.

So Soames asked for some evidence to be destroyed. Evidence which was useless regarding blood, DNA and finger prints. This letter was not dated so could have been months earlier.

The allegation is the police destroyed this evidence because they knew a law was coming in preventing them from ever destroying this.

The police had the options of assuming the evidence would not change anything if they did ever release it.

Assume Bamber would never get another appeal. So the evidence would never be needed.

Destroy this evidence years earlier.

[David1819]

At last, a source.

So Soames asked for some evidence to be destroyed. Evidence which was useless regarding blood, DNA and finger prints. This letter was not dated so could have been months earlier.

Why are you making things up?

[gringo]

Why are you making things up?

  Because he has no valid argument.

[David1819]

No, links and sources please. Pay attention Gringo.

Supporting the claim police destroyed evidence in 1996. Because they somehow knew that future legislation in several months time would prevent them from destroying this evidence in an almost forgotten case.

Adam here is the proof the Home Office told Essex police to disclose the exhibits to Jeremy's lawyers in 1994, But instead they destroy it two month before new legislation would make it a crime!

sounds legit 

[Adam]

Why are you making things up?

I've already posted why it was useless.

[sami]

Adam here is the proof the Home Office told Essex police to disclose the exhibits to Jeremy's lawyers in 1994, But instead they destroy it two month before new legislation would make it a crime!

sounds legit 

where are the 2 signitures on it.why are they blank

[sami]

all police forceses will know well in advance of any new laws been debated after all they have to impliment them.but it cuts both ways they had knowledge why before that law came in are they then that stupid as to wait 2 or 3 months before it comes in and destroy the evidenmce i dont think so .if they wanted to destroy any evidence they would have done early way early.so no consripcy theorist years later can come and make it look like it was done on pupose only 3 months before the new law

[JackiePreece]

I thought the law was that items from crime, used at trial etc had to be kept indefinitely?

NGB are you able to confirm for us please? 

[Adam]

all police forceses will know well in advance of any new laws been debated after all they have to impliment them.but it cuts both ways they had knowledge why before that law came in are they then that stupid as to wait 2 or 3 months before it comes in and destroy the evidenmce i dont think so .if they wanted to destroy any evidence they would have done early way early.so no consripcy theorist years later can come and make it look like it was done on pupose only 3 months before the new law

Why would the police get informed of new laws months earlier ? They would not need to implement any new laws until the day it became law. So don't need months of warning.

Maybe a week beforehand , once it has gone through parliament and an exact date has been made all police will be  informed.

But it is a good point, if they were somehow aware months earlier, either as the norm or through a tip off, why not destroy the items months earlier ? They could then claim they knew nothing about the upcoming new law and have more chance of being believed.