It seems that there are a few on here who are just denying reality. The idea seems to have taken hold that it is somehow routine to destroy evidence after 10 years. This is stated without any supporting evidence and much to contradict this ridiculous evidence free assumption.
Three examples which make a mockery of this claim and there are many more.
The Birmingham 6, Guildford 4 and Maguire 7 all had their convictions overturned after 16, 16 and 15 years respectively. The evidence was not routinely destroyed after 10 years with the connivance of Special Branch. I can find no example of this happening. The Maguire 7, as a matter of fact had all completed their sentences and had already been released before their conviction was overturned and still the evidence hadn't been destroyed.
Interestingly enough there is a common thread between these overturned convictions and the allegations made by JB and his representatives.
All of the above convictions were overturned when it became clear that police had fabricated evidence and tampered with and edited statements(sound familiar). This editing and tampering with statements was discovered with the advent of a technique known as ESDA testing.
In a nutshell ESDA (electrostatic document analysis) examines pen indentations on succeeding pages to establish whether they have been written at one sitting or added to and edited later.
In all of the cases ESDA testing on documents proved that police had lied and fabricated throughout.
JB's defence team have been asking for the original documents since 1994, when they went to court to obtain, amongst other items, all original handwritten statements, police notebooks and the original handwritten logs in order to carry out ESDA testing.
Caroline misrepresents these requests by claiming that JB's team are asking for the log of Neville's call which according to her doesn't exist and therefore the request is "silly".
What are being requested are the original handwritten logs. Whether you believe a call from Neville exists or not is immaterial to this request. The original handwritten call logs exist whether or not Neville called police.
The excuse given by EP was that the original logs "couldn't be located". One does not need to be a cynic to treat this excuse from EP as self serving and obstructive. Quite why they would be so obstructive about this we can only guess, but it is apparent that EP do not want ESDA testing to take place.
Without being able to locate the 1994 order myself, it is referred to by so many interested parties that it is preposterous to deny it's existence.
Even if you really believe that the CT have forged EP notes referring to the order including, helpfully, the date of the court order referring to an allegedly mythical court case (I know it's too idiotic to even take seriously but this is what some claim to believe) you still have more obstacles to overcome.
We also are required to believe that any number of legal professionals, respected campaigners and journalists such as Eric Allison, Peter Tatchell, Andrew Hunter et al have all been either duped or are lying.
Peter Tatchell, in his letter posted earlier by notsure, actually gives the dates of the ignored court orders and refers specifically to requests for DNA exhibits for testing which EP refused hence the 1994 judicial review and court order to disclose. Here we are left with the choice of taking the words of informed, intelligent professionals with reputations for honesty, who have had access to all documents and correspondence on the one hand or Adam, Caroline and Jane on the other.
Essex Police, so some would have us believe are simply, "keeping a dignified silence" rather than denying the existence of court orders and withheld evidence. I would say that you couldn't make this shit up but self evidently you can because this is the kind of drivel that that has been posted as a substitute for actual reasoned debate.
Despite the efforts of some to disrupt the debate about withheld evidence and defiance of court orders it is perfectly clear that EP are guilty of all of the above. Read Peter Tatchell's letter where he lists the specific dates and courts so it is clear when and where the orders were made. Also listed is the evidence still required from EP.
Denying the truth of these claims in the face of such overwhelming evidence reveals an agenda other than truth seeking.
