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.
Hey Jane, can't follow you're first paragraph sorry.
I don't know anything about the special branch coming in but I do find it incredulous that a high profile case which has had tv shows made on it, was under appeal review many times, etc etc that a police officer didn't know that theses docs/evidence should have been left well alone. Come on Jane even in the dark ages there should have been some sort of system that would work, maybe a wacking great sticky label on it which had the words do not destroy on it would have worked.
Nope sorry don't buy your take on this st all
