Video re photographs non-disclosure

[Caroline]

Although I did find the stuff about the bible interesting. I thought they had released undisclosed pictures of the bible but it seems all that's been discovered is a reference to other pictures. Now that IS interesting!

[Steve_uk]

Although I did find the stuff about the bible interesting. I thought they had released undisclosed pictures of the bible but it seems all that's been discovered is a reference to other pictures. Now that IS interesting!

They disclosed the "Love one another" note, which is purported to have been written by June. What else are they withholding?

[Caroline]

They disclosed the "Love one another" note, which is purported to have been written by June. What else are they withholding?

They certainly did but that video still claims it's withheld.

[gringo]

https://youtu.be/CY9ei70E70k

    Interesting to see that Peter Tatchell is getting more involved. His narration seemed lacklustre to me, given his experience in public speaking, but he is high profile so his apparent growing involvement in the campaign should give it a boost.
     The mendacity of EP is exposed for anyone who cares to look. Full strips of negatives in 2001 turning into partial and sliced strips by 2012 along with explanations which contradict earlier claims. The CCRC acceptance of the the explanations offered by Mr. Eastbrook, on behalf of EP, show the CCRC as nothing more than gatekeepers.
     The following gem from the CCRC cannot be left unremarked.

     "As stated above, on the occasions when the negative strips have been cut short the subject matter  (with the exception of the gun cupboard) is not of significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction"

     The exact protocols used by the CCRC to discern that photographs they hadn't seen from negatives that no longer existed were of no evidential value is something we can only guess at. Even worse though is the admission shoved into brackets as if it doesn't matter.
     The tacit admission that the negative strips of the gun cupboard were not only cut short but were of "significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction".
      So the CCRC are aware that strips have been cut some time between 2001 and 2012. They apply some mysterious test which shows that the missing negatives are not important, except for the ones that are, but dismiss the ones that are, even though they  themselves concede that these missing negatives are of evidential value. No further reasoning is offered.
     
      I am sure that it is all a huge coincidence that the negative strips containing pictures of the gun cupboard have been cut short. I imagine EP and those relatives involved in the "finding of the silencer" must be disappointed that the pictures showing the gun cupboard were cut short. They would be able to prove once and for all that the silencer had been there all along and that it wasn't a fabrication by dishonest and greedy relatives with the connivance of dishonest officers. If only...

      The gun cupboard and its contents are clearly of the utmost importance in this case given the dubious and much disputed chain of custody of the contents of said cupboard. That the CCRC  dismiss the fact of the missing negatives without explanation, despite recognising the "significance to the safety of the conviction", does nothing to inspire confidence in either their integrity or competence.

[Caroline]

    Interesting to see that Peter Tatchell is getting more involved. His narration seemed lacklustre to me, given his experience in public speaking, but he is high profile so his apparent growing involvement in the campaign should give it a boost.
     The mendacity of EP is exposed for anyone who cares to look. Full strips of negatives in 2001 turning into partial and sliced strips by 2012 along with explanations which contradict earlier claims. The CCRC acceptance of the the explanations offered by Mr. Eastbrook, on behalf of EP, show the CCRC as nothing more than gatekeepers.
     The following gem from the CCRC cannot be left unremarked.

     "As stated above, on the occasions when the negative strips have been cut short the subject matter  (with the exception of the gun cupboard) is not of significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction"

     The exact protocols used by the CCRC to discern that photographs they hadn't seen from negatives that no longer existed were of no evidential value is something we can only guess at. Even worse though is the admission shoved into brackets as if it doesn't matter.
     The tacit admission that the negative strips of the gun cupboard were not only cut short but were of "significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction".
      So the CCRC are aware that strips have been cut some time between 2001 and 2012. They apply some mysterious test which shows that the missing negatives are not important, except for the ones that are, but dismiss the ones that are, even though they  themselves concede that these missing negatives are of evidential value. No further reasoning is offered.
     
      I am sure that it is all a huge coincidence that the negative strips containing pictures of the gun cupboard have been cut short. I imagine EP and those relatives involved in the "finding of the silencer" must be disappointed that the pictures showing the gun cupboard were cut short. They would be able to prove once and for all that the silencer had been there all along and that it wasn't a fabrication by dishonest and greedy relatives with the connivance of dishonest officers. If only...

      The gun cupboard and its contents are clearly of the utmost importance in this case given the dubious and much disputed chain of custody of the contents of said cupboard. That the CCRC  dismiss the fact of the missing negatives without explanation, despite recognising the "significance to the safety of the conviction", does nothing to inspire confidence in either their integrity or competence.

Not sure what those pictures could reveal, given that DB said he found the silencer in a box at the back of the cupboard? The likelihood is, there would have been at least one box in the cupboard, most cupboards have boxes in them. I doubt the silencer was sat on a silk cushion awaiting discovery.

I do however agree, that the photograph negatives should never have been cut, regardless of whether they contained material that was unusable.

[Steve_uk]

One thing which occurred to me on Peter Tatchell's narration ( by the way he's had the same delivery since the Bermondsey by-election in 1983) was when he mentioned the sound moderator changing the pitch of the sound, which got me thinking as to whether any dog inside the house might be less disposed to react to it.

[lookout]

Could be Steve, like the sound of a Christmas cracker of which the dog would have been used to hearing, or a kid's cap-gun being that a toy gun was found.

[gringo]

Not sure what those pictures could reveal, given that DB said he found the silencer in a box at the back of the cupboard? The likelihood is, there would have been at least one box in the cupboard, most cupboards have boxes in them. I doubt the silencer was sat on a silk cushion awaiting discovery.

I do however agree, that the photograph negatives should never have been cut, regardless of whether they contained material that was unusable.

   The pictures could reveal that DB is lying. We don't know whether the box was in the cupboard or not to begin with. The chain of custody for the silencer/s is dubious and it should not even be admissable as evidence, tainted as it is. It was also noted by the CCRC that the missing negatives were of, "significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction" ; surely an understatement.
     It is not believable that these negatives were cut out by accident. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the strips were deliberately cut in order to cover what was shown by them. Given that EP  cut the strips and then lied to the CCRC about it, it also seems reasonable to conclude that the negatives  would show something that blows a hole in the DB story of discovery.
     Was everything in the cupboard photographed? Do the negatives establish that the prosecution case re: the silencer/s is a lie. Nobody expects to see a silencer on a cushion but the photos could show if DB's version of events re the "finding" are consistent with the photographic evidence. 
     Given the circumstances, only a biased approach would or could give the benefit of doubt to the prosecution here.
     If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks; it's a duck.
     If it looks like a cover up, walks...

[Steve_uk]

   The pictures could reveal that DB is lying. We don't know whether the box was in the cupboard or not to begin with. The chain of custody for the silencer/s is dubious and it should not even be admissable as evidence, tainted as it is. It was also noted by the CCRC that the missing negatives were of, "significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction" ; surely an understatement.
     It is not believable that these negatives were cut out by accident. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the strips were deliberately cut in order to cover what was shown by them. Given that EP  cut the strips and then lied to the CCRC about it, it also seems reasonable to conclude that the negatives  would show something that blows a hole in the DB story of discovery.
     Was everything in the cupboard photographed? Do the negatives establish that the prosecution case re: the silencer/s is a lie. Nobody expects to see a silencer on a cushion but the photos could show if DB's version of events re the "finding" are consistent with the photographic evidence. 
     Given the circumstances, only a biased approach would or could give the benefit of doubt to the prosecution here.
     If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks; it's a duck.
     If it looks like a cover up, walks...

Gringo you make a valid point but do we know how many pictures were taken of the gun cupboard?

[Caroline]

   The pictures could reveal that DB is lying. We don't know whether the box was in the cupboard or not to begin with. The chain of custody for the silencer/s is dubious and it should not even be admissable as evidence, tainted as it is. It was also noted by the CCRC that the missing negatives were of, "significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction" ; surely an understatement.
     It is not believable that these negatives were cut out by accident. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the strips were deliberately cut in order to cover what was shown by them. Given that EP  cut the strips and then lied to the CCRC about it, it also seems reasonable to conclude that the negatives  would show something that blows a hole in the DB story of discovery.
     Was everything in the cupboard photographed? Do the negatives establish that the prosecution case re: the silencer/s is a lie. Nobody expects to see a silencer on a cushion but the photos could show if DB's version of events re the "finding" are consistent with the photographic evidence. 
     Given the circumstances, only a biased approach would or could give the benefit of doubt to the prosecution here.
     If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks; it's a duck.
     If it looks like a cover up, walks...

It could be a small goose good at impressions? 

[gringo]

Gringo you make a valid point but do we know how many pictures were taken of the gun cupboard?

  We don't know, Steve.
     All we do know is that the pictures that existed were in full strips in 2001 but became cut by 2012 and that the CCRC themselves acknowledge the significance of the missing photos.
     It is worth noting that the reason we don't know how many are missing is because EP have lied consistently about the photographic evidence and when finally forced to disclose by the CCRC they have disclosed evidence which has clearly been tampered with after 2001 but before 2012.
     The inescapable conclusion is that EP have tampered with evidence.
     The silencer/s issue is already much disputed given the "unusual" chain of custody. That the photos relating to these anomalous circumstances have also been tampered should be a big red flashing light to anyone with a modicum of sense.
 
 

[Caroline]

  We don't know, Steve.
     All we do know is that the pictures that existed were in full strips in 2001 but became cut by 2012 and that the CCRC themselves acknowledge the significance of the missing photos.
     It is worth noting that the reason we don't know how many are missing is because EP have lied consistently about the photographic evidence and when finally forced to disclose by the CCRC they have disclosed evidence which has clearly been tampered with after 2001 but before 2012.
     The inescapable conclusion is that EP have tampered with evidence.
     The silencer/s issue is already much disputed given the "unusual" chain of custody. That the photos relating to these anomalous circumstances have also been tampered should be a big red flashing light to anyone with a modicum of sense.

We don't even know if the negatives taken of the gun cupboard have been cut.

[gringo]

We don't even know if the negatives taken of the gun cupboard have been cut.

   The CCRC state unequivocally that the negative strip showing the gun cupboard has been cut. It is not in dispute that they have been cut short. The explanation offered by Mr. Eastbrook on EP's behalf seems, at best, misleading given that the strips were in complete uncut form in 2001.
     
   

[Caroline]

   The CCRC state unequivocally that the negative strip showing the gun cupboard has been cut. It is not in dispute that they have been cut short. The explanation offered by Mr. Eastbrook on EP's behalf seems, at best, misleading given that the strips were in complete uncut form in 2001.
     
   

Where does it state that?

[gringo]

Where does it state that?

  About 9 minutes in. Prior to this at about 8 minutes is the evidence of the strips being complete in 2001. The anomalies in Mr. Eastbrook's statement are left unaddressed.