Sorry this doesn’t relate to soil samples.
A one-off. Just to correct some incorrect remarks on this thread.
Maggie is right. The evidence I refer to was probably created before 06.09. Therefore of itself, it does not
directly relate to the point raised by Caroline.
Listed below is what I tried to previously express (together with some additional opinion):
(1) Evidence has always existed which clearly implicates Sheila Caffell’s involvement in the killings.
It is evidence that the police have always held - from day one. According to the forum, we are now up to 11592 days since Jeremy Bamber was imprisoned. Please take a moment just to consider the enormity of these two things existing in tandem. This is one of the reasons why the case is ‘political’ and therefore obdurate. It would take a brave officer currently serving, to reverse EP’s policy on this. I would like to think that they do have officers of a high calibre, who would go against the grain.
(2) It is evidence that was collated on the morning of the killings.
Some of that evidence exists on the forum – but it has been ‘misread’ – partly as a consequence of deliberate misrepresentation. Broad terms I accept. However I have left a little clue here - with my use of inverted commas.
(3) The official position of the relatives, is based upon the case as presented under the stewardship of Mick Ainsley: which was concocted by a combination of excluding and misrepresenting the evidence I refer to.
(4) It is not inconceivable, that during the period of animosity between DCI Jones and the relatives (re Sheila being / not being the killer), the relatives were made aware of certain facts pertaining to this evidence – or at the very least – opinion was given to the relatives, based upon facts pertaining to this evidence. My reasoning for this is based upon the fact that we know conversations took place and that the evidence in question would not in itself have impacted upon the reputation of police (i.e. how they handled events that morning). In addition, we know the fact that the house had been found secured from the inside was discussed with relatives around this time. Again – not a factor in any way reflecting badly upon the performance of Police that morning.
(5) My interpretation of the relatives’ stance fitting in with the case under Ainsley, is that this was born out of relatives being prepped, in order to obtain the conviction in the first place – i.e. if pressed, relatives are forever boxed-in to regurgitating the case under Ainsley. Privately, I suspect they harbour opinions that don’t fit with the official case under Ainsley (in fact I know they do).
(6) If the relatives were faced with a situation where this evidence was revealed publically (calling in to question the safety of the conviction etc.), my guess is they would fall-back upon a particular line of defence. This would be to claim they were not made privy to this specific evidence at the outset – thereby laying the blame for wrongful conviction solely at the feet of Essex Constabulary. I would hate for the relatives to be able to do that – they were THE driving force in the wrongful conviction.
(7) My opinion - the most likely dynamic here is that there were some police who were open to being ‘got at’ in some way or form. In particular, I strongly suspect that Mick Ainsley was susceptible to cooperating with the will of Robert Boutflour. It should be noted that after the first appeal and first review, Mick Ainsley retired from Essex Constabulary with his pension etc. Perhaps he felt the coast was clear? At some point he later became linked to operations at Osea Rd.
(
With regard to me passing / not passing evidence on to somebody else (whoever that may be). Completely irrelevant. In the first instance, the defence already know about this evidence. Secondly, the police have had it for more than 11592 days.
(9) With regard to me posting-up evidence on this forum to satisfy the capricious demands of others – including those who labelled me and Bill as ‘dishonest’ etc. No thanks. Reading the repeated scoffing remarks like ‘unsubstantiated and conspiracy’. It’s like hearing Theresa May drone on about ‘strong and stable’. Again – no thanks.
(10) I also saw that HG questioned why I took the approach that I did. The answer is that I was simply being honest and constrained at the same time.
