I think you are beholden to significantly downplay the concerns because of your stance on the case. There was a consistency involved regarding concerns about position of head and Bible. It's there for all to see. Not only that but one officer goes so far as to say no recollection of gun - which is astounding given the circs (as I have already posted). If a meeting has to be set up with Ainsley (even after previous assurances were given by DCI Jones!) - I think that is an indicator of the level of collective concern among the first police officers to see her corpse and crime scene.
It would be interesting to know what time various TFG officers left the scene?
David recently provided a link to an old campaigning website for SH. I thought it had been removed from the www and wasn't aware it could still be found.
However, here are a list of some of the police errors regarding that case.
"Errors and misconduct by the Police:•
On January the 8 th , Lynne Hall (mother of the defendant) was let in to the victim's house without protective clothing with 2 officers also not wearing protective clothing to ascertain whether anything was missing from the house. Whilst in the property, things were touched and broken glass trodden in. This means the house may have been contaminated by Mrs Hall who then returned to her home which had not yet been forensically tested. It is therefore possible for any fibres found in her house (Mrs Hall's) to have been transferred on that day.
• Although Simon often stayed and kept some of his clothes during and after the murder at Stephanie Bon's house in Colchester , no forensic tests were ever carried out despite Stephanie herself telling the police when she was interviewed. Also, Simon was teaching Stephanie to drive at the time and did so in his vehicles, none of her clothes were ever analysed and yet the fibres found in one of the vehicle were secondary, she does have garments closely resembling the material described in reports.
• The police never took finger prints from Shaun Hall, Simon's brother during their investigation despite them trying to eliminate everyone.
• 4 bags of forensic evidence were left at Shaun's flat at the time by the police even though at the trial, they assured us of a foolproof system regarding forensic evidence.
• The police spent a lot of time chasing up pubic hair found at Joan's in the upstairs toilet to find it was one of their own officer whom had left them. To our knowledge, it is not common practice for police officers to use scene of crime for such activities.
• Police Pathologist did not attend and carry out certain tests at the scene (which are outlined in Home Office guidelines) which would have given us a time of death or at least some idea.
• When interviewing people, it was noted by certain potential witnesses that confidential information regarding Simon Hall and details of the case were disclosed by the police which could have influenced their statements or opinions.
• We feel that quite a substantial amount of evidence was held back from the defence prior and during the trial, such as Gastroenterologist report (see below, stomach content) this was kept as unused evidence. It as only found by the diligence of the solicitor for Simon who was reading files each night during the case. There were also evidence found from people stating that they had heard a loud noise around 2am , again in unused evidence files.
• Whilst trying to contact a member of Mrs Hall's family (her Brother) at his work place, as he was out of the office at the time, information was given to his colleagues regarding the case, this was even prior to Simon's arrest and is surely a case of gross misconduct.
• Mrs Hall recollected a jacket which may have been made of the same fibre and that had been borrowed from a work colleague so to help the police this garment was made available but when produced in court, the prosecution used it to accuse her of trying to mislead them as it was made of the wrong material.
• Although it was proven by other witness statements that Mrs Hall once had a clothes business run from home, the prosecution accused her of lying about it and not telling the police earlier on in the investigation. The defence were not given time after this accusation to prove otherwise. http://web.archive.org/web/20080511202109/http://justice4simon.co.uk/whyIsSimonInnocent.phpLike the Bamber case, the police were forced to admit they made mistakes.
Police officers aren't a superior breed of human being, they are the same as you and I Roch. Meaning they make mistakes, just like a group of people can collectively make a mistake.
I don't believe these mistakes should be downplayed nor indeed do I think they have been. Essex police most probably learned many vital lessons following their involvement in the Bamber case.
You don't state the names of the police officers to which you refer having had concerns of seeing "corpse and the crime scene.
But they had initially been duped by Bamber and thought they were dealing with a murder/suicide. I don't think you understand how deceptive and believable men like Bamber can be and the impact they can have on all those around them at the time.
The collective concern to which you refer, is supportive of how they may have initially been taken in by Bamber.
