DNA Testing In the 80's

[notsure]

Jeremy destroyed quit a few things in the farm fire pit. It is a sad case that items were destroyed but they may not have worked in Bambers favour.

I don't believe for a moment that Jeremy decided to destroy anything until the police asked his permission.

We mustn't lose sight of what happened to the best of our knowledge and as yet I haven't seen anything that says jb was the one to suggest destroying anything.

upon requests from ep if he had no reason to object and if guilty he didn't ever know they were going to do that surely,

[notsure]

The police have been criticised for disposing of carpets and bed clothes days after the massacre. Now they apparently took samples of the carpets. But disposed of them 10 years later to prevent DNA testing.

I don't know why the police would keep pyjama's and nighties for 10 years. They may have disposed of them days later, upon Taff's instructions. If not then certainly after the 1986 conviction. No one knew DNA was coming.

Disposing of such items & letting the silencee be tested just makes the police look stupid.

Honestly adam are you for real. You know as well as anyone else DNA testing ect has come on in leaps and bounds since these murders suicide.

will, you please stop putting a sarcastic slant on every post you make it it doing my head in.😡

[Adam]

Honestly adam are you for real. You know as well as anyone else DNA testing ect has come on in leaps and bounds since these murders suicide.

will, you please stop putting a sarcastic slant on every post you make it it doing my head in.😡

My post refers to 1986. When DNA didn't exist.

Altough I've been told today the police apparently kept samples of the carpets. Then apparently disposed of them in 1996 but let the silencer be tested.

Sources would be nice.

[notsure]

My post refers to 1986. When DNA didn't exist.

Altough I've been told today the police apparently kept samples of the carpets. Then apparently disposed of them in 1996 but let the silencer be tested.

Sources would be nice.

sources for what.

read the news DNA advances since 1986 should do it if you want to Google it.

How can anyone provide a source on something that is unable to be tested for DNA when it's been destroyed.

[Adam]

sources for what.

read the news DNA advances since 1986 should do it if you want to Google it.

How can anyone provide a source on something that is unable to be tested for DNA when it's been destroyed.

Sources that the police kept samples of the carpets. And what they disposed of. As it's been said pyjamas & night dresses were disposed of in 1996. Although the silencer was tested.

It's alright, I'm not expecting a source from you. But feel free to surprise me.

[JackiePreece]

   It most certainly wasn't an accident, Jackie. The destruction was done after court orders were obtained ordering disclosure of certain items.
    The destruction is also something that the Appeal Court demanded an explanation for. It cannot possibly be seen in any other light than the deliberate  suppression of evidence.
    To be clear EP were ordered by judicial review to disclose evidence. They partially complied and then for some reason Special Branch were called in and the remaining evidence was kept or destroyed. The fact that Special Branch were involved is unusual. The remit of SB is responsibility for "national security and intelligence gathering".
    "National security" is generally a euphemism for protecting the dirty secrets of the state, so I think it can be safely assumed that Special Branch were following their remit.
    There is no good reason why EP would destroy all forensic evidence, there is no good reason why Special Branch should be involved and it takes wilful blindness to pass this off as some sort of innocent mistake.
     It should be obvious to anyone even half paying attention that the forensic evidence was destroyed because EP had something to hide. JB wanted full disclosure, the court ordered full disclosure but EP destroyed the evidence.
    If the right person was convicted, why would EP have anything to hide?

Thank you Gringo
That is exactly what I believe and so obvious

[notsure]

Sources that the police kept samples of the carpets. And what they disposed of. As it's been said pyjamas & night dresses were disposed of in 1996. Although the silencer was tested.

It's alright, I'm not expecting a source from you. But feel free to surprise me.

did I mention carpets ? No and I have absolutely zero desire to surprise you.

you find the police confirmation  that exhibits were destroyed, why should I. We've both read them so find another avenue to get at me.

[JackiePreece]

I imagine because the trial was over in 1986.

But if it's police protocol to keep remaining items for 10 years, that's what they did. Then disposed of them.

They had not assisted Bamber in 1986 or beyond, so why keep them ? DNA was hardly known about then & confused jurors in the OJ Simpson case.

Don't be ridulous Adam

This is one of the biggest murder cases ever in the UK
This case has always been under appeal
There was a massive break through in DNA evidence around the times of the murder
For anyone who still has it in there head JB is guilty they cannot give a feasible explanation why Special Branch were involved in the destruction of evidence
At the very least someone should have been charged with perverting the course of justice
There must have been something very crucial to this case to take such steps

This, the changes in statements, the interventions from the greedy jealous relatives and the way they tried to mislead the jury
How can anyone believe in British Justice when you research this case

[Adam]

did I mention carpets ? No and I have absolutely zero desire to surprise you.

you find the police confirmation  that exhibits were destroyed, why should I. We've both read them so find another avenue to get at me.

Why should I find it. I am not making the allegation ?

[susan]

Maybe the whisky kept him going.

Hi lookout

  probably put a spring in his step

[susan]

Why should I find it. I am not making the allegation ?

Adam notsure maybe thinks you have a thread on the subject.

[lookout]

Hi lookout

  probably put a spring in his step

As well as a lot of mistakes in his notes-----crossings out,etc.

[susan]

As well as a lot of mistakes in his notes-----crossings out,etc.

Hahaha that must have been the effect of the drink 

[gringo]

Why should I find it. I am not making the allegation ?

   They are not allegations. It is not in dispute that samples were taken.
     My father always taught me to take nothing as fact and to always do your own fact checking and research.
You have the names of officers involved(Whiddon and Soames). There are statements from Whiddon and Soames regarding the destruction. I am not here to gather evidence for you and you should have enough information to find these statements yourself. If you are genuinely curious you will find them yourself.
     Whiddon, incidentally was exhibits officer, which informs but does not explain his presence when the evidence was gathered in order to decide whether it should be kept or destroyed.
     The presence and involvement of Soames and Special Branch remains unexplained and inexplicable.

[Caroline]

   They are not allegations. It is not in dispute that samples were taken.
     My father always taught me to take nothing as fact and to always do your own fact checking and research.
You have the names of officers involved(Whiddon and Soames). There are statements from Whiddon and Soames regarding the destruction. I am not here to gather evidence for you and you should have enough information to find these statements yourself. If you are genuinely curious you will find them yourself.
     Whiddon, incidentally was exhibits officer, which informs but does not explain his presence when the evidence was gathered in order to decide whether it should be kept or destroyed.
     The presence and involvement of Soames and Special Branch remains unexplained and inexplicable.

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.