DNA Testing In the 80's

[JackiePreece]

In the eight years between the breakthrough in forensic science re: DNA and destruction of evidence in 1996, did Jeremy ever request DNA tests on any of the items in question? There was a lot of publicity when Pitchfork was convicted and it would have been an idea opportunity for Bamber to plead his case and make submissions based on this evidence? OR did he only make a fuss after these items were destroyed? You mentioned that a court order was obtained to request 'certain items'? Were these certain items those that were destroyed in 1996? Did Jeremy EVER request DNA testing on ANY of these items?

As for the SB officers being underhanded. They may have been involved in the legitimate destruction of items on a regular basis so it's not surprising that they wouldn't remember one case above all others. IF they wanted to make sure that DNA testing could never be carried out on items such as SC nightdress, I doubt they would wait 8 years to get rid of it.

Your usual reply you just don't know do you
You don't find it completely unacceptable that Special Branch were drafted in to deal with this 'special case' destroying evidence
And finally you use the words I doubt

Why ??

You just don't know

[Caroline]

Your usual reply you just don't know do you
You don't find it completely unacceptable that Special Branch were drafted in to deal with this 'special case' destroying evidence
And finally you use the words I doubt

Why ??

You just don't know

Do you know any of the answers to the above questions? You don't do you?  What do you mean by 'drafted in'? Each force had it's own Special Branch, they didn't have to be 'drafted in'!

[notsure]

In the eight years between the breakthrough in forensic science re: DNA and destruction of evidence in 1996, did Jeremy ever request DNA tests on any of the items in question? There was a lot of publicity when Pitchfork was convicted and it would have been an idea opportunity for Bamber to plead his case and make submissions based on this evidence? OR did he only make a fuss after these items were destroyed? You mentioned that a court order was obtained to request 'certain items'? Were these certain items those that were destroyed in 1996? Did Jeremy EVER request DNA testing on ANY of these items?
Oh
As for the SB officers being underhanded. They may have been involved in the legitimate destruction of items on a regular basis so it's not surprising that they wouldn't remember one case above all others. IF they wanted to make sure that DNA testing could never be carried out on items such as SC nightdress, I doubt they would wait 8 years to get rid of it.

Wasn't the case under appeal though Caroline. Although we differ on our view of the case I can't see how anyone can defend the fact police destroyed evidence which clearly shouldn't have been. If it hadn't it may well have been used to prove his guilt without any doubt or of course his innocence.

We don't have any information about what jb or his legal team did regarding requesting DNA so we can't be sure either way.

This for me is one more sticking point that could have proven beyond doubt guilt or innocence either way.

[Jane]

Wasn't the case under appeal though Caroline. Although we differ on our view of the case I can't see how anyone can defend the fact police destroyed evidence which clearly shouldn't have been. If it hadn't it may well have been used to prove his guilt without any doubt or of course his innocence.

We don't have any information about what jb or his legal team did regarding requesting DNA so we can't be sure either way.

This for me is one more sticking point that could have proven beyond doubt guilt or innocence either way.

Forgive me, but it's really of no moment -one way or the other- what is proven to you........OR me! As far as the police are concerned, the case HAS been proven. End of story.
NOW, let's have a look at this S(pecial)n B(ranch) thing. It's been bandied about this forum, certainly since I joined, I suspect, now, as lending added weight to the innocent side by adding 'something' mysterious and secret -there was a suggestion, at one moment, that Jeremy's biological surname was really Windsor, although a loyal employee had been coerced into allowing his name to be put on the birth certificate!!!! ergo, SB had been tailing him (and his family by adoption) since his birth!!!!!
When we reevaluate what SB means, it seems highly likely that each member probably spends their working day doing the every day duties that every day police persons do. When something comes up which requires their specialist skills, they reform to become SB. Caroline raises an excellent point. It CAN'T be possible -or it wasn't until the storing of information became digital- to hold on to reams of typewritten information. It's not unreasonable to believe that every so often it was necessary to have a mass clear out of ALL stored information. I find it unbelievable in the extreme to accept that "A" member of SB was employed JUST to destroy information pertaining to the Bamber case.

[gringo]

Forgive me, but it's really of no moment -one way or the other- what is proven to you........OR me! As far as the police are concerned, the case HAS been proven. End of story.
NOW, let's have a look at this S(pecial)n B(ranch) thing. It's been bandied about this forum, certainly since I joined, I suspect, now, as lending added weight to the innocent side by adding 'something' mysterious and secret -there was a suggestion, at one moment, that Jeremy's biological surname was really Windsor, although a loyal employee had been coerced into allowing his name to be put on the birth certificate!!!! ergo, SB had been tailing him (and his family by adoption) since his birth!!!!!
When we reevaluate what SB means, it seems highly likely that each member probably spends their working day doing the every day duties that every day police persons do. When something comes up which requires their specialist skills, they reform to become SB. Caroline raises an excellent point. It CAN'T be possible -or it wasn't until the storing of information became digital- to hold on to reams of typewritten information. It's not unreasonable to believe that every so often it was necessary to have a mass clear out of ALL stored information. I find it unbelievable in the extreme to accept that "A" member of SB was employed JUST to destroy information pertaining to the Bamber case.

   Yes it is unreasonable to believe that every so often it is necessary to have a mass clear out. It also is something that you have just made up and is supported by no evidence. Which part of defying court orders are you struggling with. You finding something unbelievable is not a substitute for facts. Special Branch were called in to oversee the destruction of evidence, there is a wealth of evidence to confirm this.
    Your "argument" that it wasn't possible to hold onto "reams of typewritten information" is a made up excuse supported by no facts.  It is physical evidence (clothes, bullets, carpet and bed sheet samples) that were destroyed and are being discussed.
     Quite how you manage to imagine that it is about typewritten information is a mystery.
     For arguments sake let us assume that Special Branch duties do not include destruction of evidence in defiance of court orders, unless you can find something other than your imagination that says otherwise. This being the case do you have any reasonable arguments to put forth to support this action by SB and EP

[gringo]

In the eight years between the breakthrough in forensic science re: DNA and destruction of evidence in 1996, did Jeremy ever request DNA tests on any of the items in question? There was a lot of publicity when Pitchfork was convicted and it would have been an idea opportunity for Bamber to plead his case and make submissions based on this evidence? OR did he only make a fuss after these items were destroyed? You mentioned that a court order was obtained to request 'certain items'? Were these certain items those that were destroyed in 1996? Did Jeremy EVER request DNA testing on ANY of these items?

As for the SB officers being underhanded. They may have been involved in the legitimate destruction of items on a regular basis so it's not surprising that they wouldn't remember one case above all others. IF they wanted to make sure that DNA testing could never be carried out on items such as SC nightdress, I doubt they would wait 8 years to get rid of it.

   What a specious argument this is. Entirely speculative, devoid of facts, full of unsupported assumptions. Do you know of any other instance of Special Branch destroying evidence in defiance of court orders? or have you made up a possibility based on nothing?
   

[Adam]

   Yes it is unreasonable to believe that every so often it is necessary to have a mass clear out. It also is something that you have just made up and is supported by no evidence. Which part of defying court orders are you struggling with. You finding something unbelievable is not a substitute for facts. Special Branch were called in to oversee the destruction of evidence, there is a wealth of evidence to confirm this.
    Your "argument" that it wasn't possible to hold onto "reams of typewritten information" is a made up excuse supported by no facts.  It is physical evidence (clothes, bullets, carpet and bed sheet samples) that were destroyed and are being discussed.
     Quite how you manage to imagine that it is about typewritten information is a mystery.
     For arguments sake let us assume that Special Branch duties do not include destruction of evidence in defiance of court orders, unless you can find something other than your imagination that says otherwise. This being the case do you have any reasonable arguments to put forth to support this action by SB and EP

You haven't provided any sources for you're posts yesterday and today.

My view is I'm surprised if the police kept nighties and pyjamas after Bamber was convicted in 1986. There is no record of these being discussed at trial & no one knew about DNA then.

The exception being something like the silencer, which was discussed at the trial, kept and tested for DNA years later.

If not disposed in 1986, I suspect it was police protocol to dispose of items 10 years after a conviction. Which the police did.

Since disposal, supporters have made the optimistic claim that the police disposed of these items because  Bamber's team, (after 10 years) had suddenly decided these items needed to be looked at again & the police were scared. Although not too scared to let the silencer be tested.

Unless you can provide the court order that items must be kept.  And documents that items were disposed of after the court order.

A source that carpet samples were also kept & then disposed of would be good as well. Not sure how they decided which bits of carpet to keep. 

[Adam]

The disposal of items claim is similar to the current alledged withholding of documents claim. In other words properganda.

[Jane]

   Yes it is unreasonable to believe that every so often it is necessary to have a mass clear out. It also is something that you have just made up and is supported by no evidence. Which part of defying court orders are you struggling with. You finding something unbelievable is not a substitute for facts. Special Branch were called in to oversee the destruction of evidence, there is a wealth of evidence to confirm this.
    Your "argument" that it wasn't possible to hold onto "reams of typewritten information" is a made up excuse supported by no facts.  It is physical evidence (clothes, bullets, carpet and bed sheet samples) that were destroyed and are being discussed.
     Quite how you manage to imagine that it is about typewritten information is a mystery.
     For arguments sake let us assume that Special Branch duties do not include destruction of evidence in defiance of court orders, unless you can find something other than your imagination that says otherwise. This being the case do you have any reasonable arguments to put forth to support this action by SB and EP

There you go again! Throwing out "disobeying court orders"!!!! I truly don't believe such is possible. Have you never heard of sheriffs and bailiffs? They are those employed by courts to carry out the instructions previously laid down by courts which have hitherto been ignored. Please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that the courts don't have the authority to do this. If they didn't, please explain exactly WHAT is the point of issuing such. It seems to me that the mantras "Disobeying court orders" and "Documents hidden under PII" are simply comforting conveniences for Jeremy's supporters to cling to.

[gringo]

Wasn't the case under appeal though Caroline. Although we differ on our view of the case I can't see how anyone can defend the fact police destroyed evidence which clearly shouldn't have been. If it hadn't it may well have been used to prove his guilt without any doubt or of course his innocence.

We don't have any information about what jb or his legal team did regarding requesting DNA so we can't be sure either way.

This for me is one more sticking point that could have proven beyond doubt guilt or innocence either way.

   DNA testing was new at this time as we all know, notsure. Whether DNA testing had been requested is moot, EP defied a court order and given the advances in DNA profiling, the ongoing appeals and court order it is beyond ridiculous to claim that SB "may have" routinely destroyed evidence as part of their remit.
     Neither JB nor his legal team could have requested DNA testing for most of the preceding 8 years because it didn't exist for most of them. When DNA profiling became possible EP called in Special Branch to oversee the destruction.
     The pretence that this was all somehow normal procedure is desperate stuff.
     What is clear is whether or not DNA testing had yet been requested, it would become an issue. It is also apparent that EP were being obstructive in releasing evidence and were having to be dragged into court in order for JB's legal representatives to obtain evidence. There is a pattern of obstructiveness on EP,s part.
     The Court of Appeal also found this behaviour by EP to be unusual, demanding an explanation from EP as to the circumstances. Funnily enough neither EP nor SB claimed that it was routine procedure. Claims that this "may" have been somehow routine are supported by no evidence at all.
     
   

[Caroline]

Wasn't the case under appeal though Caroline. Although we differ on our view of the case I can't see how anyone can defend the fact police destroyed evidence which clearly shouldn't have been. If it hadn't it may well have been used to prove his guilt without any doubt or of course his innocence.

We don't have any information about what jb or his legal team did regarding requesting DNA so we can't be sure either way.

This for me is one more sticking point that could have proven beyond doubt guilt or innocence either way.

Under appeal in 1996? No, he's had an appeal in 1989 and another in 2002.  So, I will ask again if the items destroyed were items requested by Jeremy and his legal team and if (given the strides made in forensic science through DNA) a request was made to test said items as part of submissions to the CCRC? OR was a fuss made about it after the fact?

[Adam]

I don't know why the courts would order that EP hand over alledged stored items to Bamber's team, in 1996. The 2002 appeal was 6 years away.

[lookout]

If the truth be known,nobody had known of the existence of further files/documents/other items in the first place until it was too damn late,as appears to have been the case.

[Caroline]

   What a specious argument this is. Entirely speculative, devoid of facts, full of unsupported assumptions. Do you know of any other instance of Special Branch destroying evidence in defiance of court orders? or have you made up a possibility based on nothing?
   

Where are your facts? Where is the evidence of court orders for these items? Fact is gringo, IF such court orders exist (and you have never provided ANY evidence of such), they do NOT relate to these items and you know it - also Bamber didn't ever instruct his defence to look into matters of DNA on these items until after the fact.

Every police force had it's own SB, they weren't brought in as some have suggested, they worked alongside other officers assisting were necessary. Do I know of any other case where SB legally destroyed old evidence? I don't follow any other case but I am certain that SB officers have done so. This is just another storm in a teacup. Were this some mass conspiracy, the guy would have made sure his name wasn't associated and they wouldn't have waited 8 years to prevent a DNA breakthrough from being discovered! 

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1977/may/05/police-special-branch

[Caroline]

If the truth be known,nobody had known of the existence of further files/documents/other items in the first place until it was too damn late,as appears to have been the case.

No one knew about the destroyed files until AFTER they were destroyed? So what did they know to ask for? Did SB make a list for everyone to find?