Witheld Docs

[lookout]

Yes there have been other threads on this. As you said you don't have the time to look.

Appreciate that if supporters cannot find any new evidence, they will bring this up.

No need to be funny.Notsure is a comparatively new poster,whereas you're here all through the night,every night.

[gringo]

I am sure Adam will be quick to tell me there is already a thread on this topic but I dont have time to look for it so I thought I would start a new one.

On the CT website it is again throwing light on the undisclosed information.

What I don't understand is that if there is a court order for EP to disclose why do they keep making excuses about not being able to locate and ignoring the court order.

Surely this is illegal and if it is why don't they go down the legal route again. Surely they could take it to the highest court in the land. I know this costs money but wouldn't that save an awful lot of messing about. They say that withheld information would prove his innocence so surely they should get another court order and another and another until ep cough up.

This is one thing that bugs the hell out of me with EP. They are so sure he is guilty then what bloody difference would it make if they did give all the information over. Oh yes more for him to appeal against sloppy police work. but surely this should be given. IMO it is a disgrace that EP do not hand over ALL information and be done with it.

   It is an affront to justice that EP have withheld documents,Notsure. As Lookout says, EP have ignored, repeatedly, orders to disclose information.
     Viewed objectively it is difficult to see EP's actions as anything other than an attempt to obstruct justice. It is not in dispute that EP, with the connivance of DC Soames of Special Branch, destroyed all forensic evidence in 1996 after they were ordered by Judicial Review to disclose. From this action alone it is reasonable to infer that EP have something to hide.
      We know that JB and his legal team wanted full disclosure and that EP for some reason fought this. Despite losing the argument in court and being ordered to disclose, EP then had some contact with Special Branch which resulted in DC Soames and PC Whiddon gathering all of the evidence in a large room and disposing of, by incineration, all forensic exhibits.
       Can this really be viewed as an honest mistake?
       That they still withhold evidence to this day is not seriously in dispute.

[Jane]

   It is an affront to justice that EP have withheld documents,Notsure. As Lookout says, EP have ignored, repeatedly, orders to disclose information.
     Viewed objectively it is difficult to see EP's actions as anything other than an attempt to obstruct justice. It is not in dispute that EP, with the connivance of DC Soames of Special Branch, destroyed all forensic evidence in 1996 after they were ordered by Judicial Review to disclose. From this action alone it is reasonable to infer that EP have something to hide.
      We know that JB and his legal team wanted full disclosure and that EP for some reason fought this. Despite losing the argument in court and being ordered to disclose, EP then had some contact with Special Branch which resulted in DC Soames and PC Whiddon gathering all of the evidence in a large room and disposing of, by incineration, all forensic exhibits.
       Can this really be viewed as an honest mistake?
       That they still withhold evidence to this day is not seriously in dispute.

Surely, before we accuse anyone of ANYthing, there has to be certain proof/evidence -as opposed to mere speculation- that they are guilty of what we're accusing them. It would seem beyond reason that ANYthing would be held which had the power to come back -at a future date- and bite.

[Caroline]

Surely, before we accuse anyone of ANYthing, there has to be certain proof/evidence -as opposed to mere speculation- that they are guilty of what we're accusing them. It would seem beyond reason that ANYthing would be held which had the power to come back -at a future date- and bite.

Even Jeremy's own admission that he has almost everything withheld isn't enough. Perhaps he's only saying that because he's such a brave boy 

[Adam]

No need to be funny.Notsure is a comparatively new poster,whereas you're here all through the night,every night.

Yes I'm on here all through the night Lookout.

You spend more time online than me. Check the forum statistics.

[David1819]

Surely, before we accuse anyone of ANYthing, there has to be certain proof/evidence -as opposed to mere speculation- that they are guilty of what we're accusing them.

Rather ironic statement. Since you accuse Jeremy on far less than mere speculation.

[lookout]

Even Jeremy's own admission that he has almost everything withheld isn't enough. Perhaps he's only saying that because he's such a brave boy 

Perhaps that's because he IS brave ! While the likes of Bronson,Sutcliffe and Brady have been given air time recently for different reasons, and considering Jeremy has been classed on the same level as they,he's never been given a mention,even in a derogatory way given his time in prison----which I find strange.Are people scared to to say anything in case it will open up the can of worms waiting to explode ?

To me it's ironic that Sutcliffe is not only given priority while the NHS operate on his eye/s,but the cost to the NHS alone could be going towards the fund of JB's forensic team which is far more important. How many needy patients will have to wait longer while the monster/Sutcliffe jumps the queue ? I honestly give up on this country !!

[Caroline]

Perhaps that's because he IS brave ! While the likes of Bronson,Sutcliffe and Brady have been given air time recently for different reasons, and considering Jeremy has been classed on the same level as they,he's never been given a mention,even in a derogatory way given his time in prison----which I find strange.Are people scared to to say anything in case it will open up the can of worms waiting to explode ?

To me it's ironic that Sutcliffe is not only given priority while the NHS operate on his eye/s,but the cost to the NHS alone could be going towards the fund of JB's forensic team which is far more important. How many needy patients will have to wait longer while the monster/Sutcliffe jumps the queue ? I honestly give up on this country !!

Rubbish! He's had numerous documentaries and a film made about him. He has a blog, his own website and has done interviews from prison. More than most prisoners EVER get!

[gringo]

Surely, before we accuse anyone of ANYthing, there has to be certain proof/evidence -as opposed to mere speculation- that they are guilty of what we're accusing them. It would seem beyond reason that ANYthing would be held which had the power to come back -at a future date- and bite.

  It isn't speculation that EP have withheld documents and still do. Nor is it speculation that Soames and Whiddon sent all forensic evidence to be incinerated, after the court order.
   The withheld items have all been referenced and listed so there is no serious debate about the existence of withheld documents.
   The Kenneally Report, as one example, has not been disclosed unless you know otherwise.
   I could go on but you all know perfectly well that much is still withheld and claiming that it is speculation doesn't make it so. 

[lookout]

Rubbish! He's had numerous documentaries and a film made about him. He has a blog, his own website and has done interviews from prison. More than most prisoners EVER get!

Again,considering his time inside---30+ years,it's not much. Still,to be hoped that the recent forensic findings throw more light on his innocence once the media get involved.

[Jane]

  It isn't speculation that EP have withheld documents and still do. Nor is it speculation that Soames and Whiddon sent all forensic evidence to be incinerated, after the court order.
   The withheld items have all been referenced and listed so there is no serious debate about the existence of withheld documents.
   The Kenneally Report, as one example, has not been disclosed unless you know otherwise.
   I could go on but you all know perfectly well that much is still withheld and claiming that it is speculation doesn't make it so.

There was a time when I'd have taken as being correct, anything which was stated with, what appeared to be, a modicum of authority. Those days are long past, aided by the copious flow of myth, supposition, and word manipulation which have emanated from this forum, so I guess the answer is "NO", I don't "know" "that much is still withheld", firstly because I don't believe that ANYTHING incriminating would be kept, and secondly, I believe that the Court has the power to override the police, and if it was a certainty that material was being held, I believe the Court has the powers to retrieve it forcibly if it isn't offered voluntarily. Last, and by no means, least, I wonder how it would be possible for the police to prove they can't produce material they haven't got. 

[lookout]

Jane,are you saying that because " nothing incriminating " would be kept that this material couldn't have been of use to the prosecution ? I beg to differ that if there'd been any hidden secrets about JB,or indeed something sinister,that it wouldn't have been used against him ?
So,that leaves us with the FACT that this paperwork ( original investigation ) must never see the light of day-----or else !

[Jane]

Jane,are you saying that because " nothing incriminating " would be kept that this material couldn't have been of use to the prosecution ? I beg to differ that if there'd been any hidden secrets about JB,or indeed something sinister,that it wouldn't have been used against him ?
So,that leaves us with the FACT that this paperwork ( original investigation ) must never see the light of day-----or else !

Take that thought a step further, Lookout. Doesn't it seem obvious that, HAD there been anything more -however small- that the prosecution could have used against Jeremy, bearing in mind that they and the police were part of the same team, ie seeking a guilty verdict, the police would have pulled out EVERY stop and used EVERYTHING at their disposal to assist the prosecution in their task. WHAT would have been the point of them doing otherwise? I remain perfectly certain that if -IF- there had EVER been the slightest thing which could have pointed to his innocence, it no longer exists. nor would it have done for some time. As the police often manage to convict on long hidden "trophies", I think it's reasonable to believe that they MAY have preempted a time when the tables would turn on them. As I said, I feel certain that it's within the Courts remit, to take by force, that which they have demanded, if it isn't given voluntarily. If it doesn't exist, all the demands in the kingdom, will be of no avail.

[lookout]

Take that thought a step further, Lookout. Doesn't it seem obvious that, HAD there been anything more -however small- that the prosecution could have used against Jeremy, bearing in mind that they and the police were part of the same team, ie seeking a guilty verdict, the police would have pulled out EVERY stop and used EVERYTHING at their disposal to assist the prosecution in their task. WHAT would have been the point of them doing otherwise? I remain perfectly certain that if -IF- there had EVER been the slightest thing which could have pointed to his innocence, it no longer exists. nor would it have done for some time. As the police often manage to convict on long hidden "trophies", I think it's reasonable to believe that they MAY have preempted a time when the tables would turn on them. As I said, I feel certain that it's within the Courts remit, to take by force, that which they have demanded, if it isn't given voluntarily. If it doesn't exist, all the demands in the kingdom, will be of no avail.

As things stood at the beginning of the investigation,EP were left scratching their heads and had to admit that " they had nothing on Jeremy ".  I imagine that in the situation,it's absolutely crucial in the first 24hrs of a murder/s that the main aim of the investigation is to go through everything with a fine tooth-comb,left to a forensic team---------------------that didn't happen. Dozens of officers piled inside the farmhouse dashing any hope of picking up the tiniest piece of evidence,all because it was established as 4 murders and a suicide. It was STILL a murder scene but was NEVER treated as such.

Have we seen all paperwork of JM's since she attended 32 times ? The statements we've seen of hers don't state that JB committed the murders.What EP worked on was the lie that JM told about the " hitman " in which she'd said that JB had told her. This lie then reverted back to JB as being part of " a plan to kill his family " which EP would have used against him by way of JB having tried to use it ( the hitman ) as an excuse in blaming someone else instead of himself for murdering the family.
Apart from that lie which had been told,as well as the site break-in,there was nothing on Jeremy,it was that EP made it look that way. Everything else was cobbled up by the relatives since the police couldn't find anything.

[Jane]

As things stood at the beginning of the investigation,EP were left scratching their heads and had to admit that " they had nothing on Jeremy ".  I imagine that in the situation,it's absolutely crucial in the first 24hrs of a murder/s that the main aim of the investigation is to go through everything with a fine tooth-comb,left to a forensic team---------------------that didn't happen. Dozens of officers piled inside the farmhouse dashing any hope of picking up the tiniest piece of evidence,all because it was established as 4 murders and a suicide. It was STILL a murder scene but was NEVER treated as such.

Have we seen all paperwork of JM's since she attended 32 times ? The statements we've seen of hers don't state that JB committed the murders.What EP worked on was the lie that JM told about the " hitman " in which she'd said that JB had told her. This lie then reverted back to JB as being part of " a plan to kill his family " which EP would have used against him by way of JB having tried to use it ( the hitman ) as an excuse in blaming someone else instead of himself for murdering the family.
Apart from that lie which had been told,as well as the site break-in,there was nothing on Jeremy,it was that EP made it look that way. Everything else was cobbled up by the relatives since the police couldn't find anything.

I totally concur with your first paragraph. "They had nothing on Jeremy" because Jeremy, by dint of alleged phone call allegedly implicating Sheila and being seen to arrive at WHF AFTER the police, had extricated himself from having at the scene since supper the previous evening.

You are also correct in saying Julie never told police that Jeremy had killed his family. As she was in London she wasn't there that night. Jeremy told Julie that he planned to. As Julie was never on trial, I don't feel it necessary to have her evidence in the public domain. I'll hazard a guess that if you thought Jeremy was guilty, you wouldn't be as interested in what she said. I wonder WHY it "has" to be a lie that Jeremy blamed a hit man?