Author Topic: Allegations EP were tipped off about future legislation on evidence destruction:  (Read 9071 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13779
  Because he has no valid argument.

I should have realised this.  Shame on me  ;D

Offline JackiePreece

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4743
every police station in the land would be full up not with prisoners but with evidence

What would appeals be based on then?

Sean Hodgson was eventually cleared after 27 years.  DNA tests showed his semen didn't match that found at crime.  If the semen at crime had been destroyed he wouldn't have been cleared.

"No hour of life is wasted that is spent in the saddle" Winston Churchill

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44334
What would appeals be based on then?

Sean Hodgson was eventually cleared after 27 years.  DNA tests showed his semen didn't match that found at crime.  If the semen at crime had been destroyed he wouldn't have been cleared.

Appeals heard soon after a conviction may not have anything destroyed. And nothing was destroyed in 1989.

However 2002 and 2012 was 17 and 27 years after the trial and items had been destroyed. Bamber still included a lot in his 2002 appeal, which is online.

Not sure what the 1996 law was. Surely not every piece of evidence associated with a conviction has to be kept for ever.

However Bamber's crime was in 1985 and the police had the option of destroying some items. The twins Pyjama tops etc would have made no difference. Thread created today.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2016, 06:12:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline sami

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
You have the thread before commenting, I take it Sami.
   If so, then you will already know that EP had been withholding evidence and exhibits prior to 1996 despite requests from the defence.
   You also should already be aware that EP were forced into court over the issue and ordered to make the evidence available on 28/11/94. Perhaps this is why they didn't just destroy it years earlier.
   They then destroy the evidence in 1996 and only admit this in 2000 when the CCRC request it and this rings no alarm bells to you.
    It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to conclude that EP have something to hide.
    To conclude that EP have acted entirely reasonably you need to be either very foolish or alternatively you are simply an apologist for police  corruption.
what do youy mean ,you have,thread before commenting.if they were forced in 1994 why didnt they and who was ever held accountble for not providing it.no one.who can you and others directly accuse of not giving it up .certainly not the job of the whole of ep.why was an appeal not granted on the ground you have claimed above.they can hold all the evidence they want .jury were satisfied that sheila did not do it .how many more times .you keep banging on about withheld evidence but you havent got a clue what it could be,adam knows far MORE THAN YOU .so i will stick with what he says .

Offline sami

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
You have the thread before commenting, I take it Sami.
   If so, then you will already know that EP had been withholding evidence and exhibits prior to 1996 despite requests from the defence.
   You also should already be aware that EP were forced into court over the issue and ordered to make the evidence available on 28/11/94. Perhaps this is why they didn't just destroy it years earlier.
   They then destroy the evidence in 1996 and only admit this in 2000 when the CCRC request it and this rings no alarm bells to you.
    It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to conclude that EP have something to hide.
    To conclude that EP have acted entirely reasonably you need to be either very foolish or alternatively you are simply an apologist for police  corruption.
why dont you ask your mate jb why he oked it to burn evidence from whf.ie.carpet bedding .and now you and he have the cheek to cry about withheld evidence only one person to blame thats jb not ep
« Last Edit: May 22, 2016, 06:22:PM by sami »

Offline JackiePreece

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4743
Appeals heard soon after a conviction may not have anything destroyed. And nothing was destroyed in 1989.

However 2002 and 2012 was 17 and 27 years after the trial and items had been destroyed. Bamber still included a lot in his 2002 appeal, which is online.

Not sure what the 1996 law was. Surely not every piece of evidence associated with a conviction has to be kept for ever.

However Bamber's crime was in 1985 and the police had the option of destroying some items. The twins Pyjama tops etc would have made no difference. Thread created today.

Shaun Hodgson's appeal was decades after his conviction. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Teresa_De_Simone#Appeals

I think all trial things have to be kept.

NGB please can you help?  How long do things have to be kept after trial and what has to be kept and what can be thrown out?  Thank you, Jackie.
"No hour of life is wasted that is spent in the saddle" Winston Churchill

Offline gringo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
what do youy mean ,you have,thread before commenting.if they were forced in 1994 why didnt they and who was ever held accountble for not providing it.no one.who can you and others directly accuse of not giving it up .certainly not the job of the whole of ep.why was an appeal not granted on the ground you have claimed above.they can hold all the evidence they want .jury were satisfied that sheila did not do it .how many more times .you keep banging on about withheld evidence but you havent got a clue what it could be,adam knows far MORE THAN YOU .so i will stick with what he says .
   It would be preferable if your posts were readable but here we go.
    Read the thread and you will discover that the evidence which you claim I "havent got a clue what it could be", is in fact listed item by item. Is this the stuff that you claim I have no clue about?
    You would also know that it is not disputed by anyone that EP ignored a court order in November 1994 so what exactly are you "banging on about"?
    It would be helpful if you read before commenting and learnt how to construct something at least resembling a coherent sentence

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
He's only here to pick holes,Gringo. You must have realised by now.Supporters are the pariahs of the forum.
One has to have a modicum of sympathy. :-[

Offline sami

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
   It would be preferable if your posts were readable but here we go.
    Read the thread and you will discover that the evidence which you claim I "havent got a clue what it could be", is in fact listed item by item. Is this the stuff that you claim I have no clue about?
    You would also know that it is not disputed by anyone that EP ignored a court order in November 1994 so what exactly are you "banging on about"?
    It would be helpful if you read before commenting and learnt how to construct something at least resembling a coherent sentence
your advise is not welcome fella keep it to yourself .if your skills of reading a not good ask someone to do it for you.you may have been educated in a posh school.i never took any exams because i was in detention centre than bostal and finnally youth custody so i missed out .i learnt to read and write by myself.hence the bad grammer

Offline gringo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
He's only here to pick holes,Gringo. You must have realised by now.Supporters are the pariahs of the forum.
One has to have a modicum of sympathy. :-[
  I had made the mistake of imagining that he was here for honest debate, Lookout ::)

Offline sami

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
stop talking about me ,talk to me ,you didnt like it when adam was doing it to you

Offline gringo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
your advise is not welcome fella keep it to yourself .if your skills of reading a not good ask someone to do it for you.you may have been educated in a posh school.i never took any exams because i was in detention centre than bostal and finnally youth custody so i missed out .i learnt to read and write by myself.hence the bad grammer
  Went to a pretty poor comprehensive myself, not some posh school. It's not my reading skills in question "fella".

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
  I had made the mistake of imagining that he was here for honest debate, Lookout ::)





>>>>>>>>>>>>spluttering over my coffee. :))

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13779
Here is the relevant part of the law that was to take effect


5. Retention of material
(a) Duty to retain material
5.1 The investigator must retain material obtained in a criminal investigation which may be relevant to the investigation. Material may be photographed, video-recorded, captured digitally or otherwise retained in the form of a copy rather than the original at any time, if the original is perishable; the original was supplied to the investigator rather than generated by him and is to be returned to its owner; or the retention of a copy rather than the original is reasonable in all the circumstances.
5.2 Where material has been seized in the exercise of the powers of seizure conferred by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the duty to retain it under this code is subject to the provisions on the retention of seized material in section 22 of that Act.
5.3 If the officer in charge of an investigation becomes aware as a result of developments in the case that material previously examined but not retained (because it was not thought to be relevant) may now be relevant to the investigation, he should, wherever practicable, take steps to obtain it or ensure that it is retained for further inspection or for production in court if required.
5.4 The duty to retain material includes in particular the duty to retain material falling into the following categories, where it may be relevant to the investigation:
?
crime reports (including crime report forms, relevant parts of incident report books or police officer's notebooks);
?
custody records;
?
records which are derived from tapes of telephone messages (for example, 999 calls) containing descriptions of an alleged offence or offender;
?
final versions of witness statements (and draft versions where their content differs from the final version), including any exhibits mentioned (unless these have been returned to their owner on the understanding that they will be produced in court if required);
?
interview records (written records, or audio or video tapes, of interviews with actual or potential witnesses or suspects);
?
communications between the police and experts such as forensic scientists, reports of work carried out by experts, and schedules of scientific material prepared by the expert for the investigator, for the purposes of criminal proceedings;
?
records of the first description of a suspect by each potential witness who purports to identify or describe the suspect, whether or not the description differs from that of subsequent descriptions by that or other witnesses;
?
any material casting doubt on the reliability of a witness.
8
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (s. 23(1)) Revised Code of Practice
5.5 The duty to retain material, where it may be relevant to the investigation, also includes in particular the duty to retain material which may satisfy the test for prosecution disclosure in the Act, such as:
?
information provided by an accused person which indicates an explanation for the offence with which he has been charged;
?
any material casting doubt on the reliability of a confession;
?
any material casting doubt on the reliability of a prosecution witness.



Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
  I had made the mistake of imagining that he was here for honest debate, Lookout ::)

Why don't you try being a little less hostile and patronising - you might find people respond better!
Few people have the imagination for reality