Video re photographs non-disclosure

[lookout]

Thats not bail.

What is it then ?

[IndigoJ]

The " ironic " situation in JB's bail having been granted would have been done through the courts who would have stipulated that JB hadn't posed a threat to the public--------yet he'd supposedly murdered 5 people ??

I think this is where the confusion has arisen , why would they be considering that he had supposedly murdered 5 people if they were bailing him for the caravan theft?

[lookout]

I think this is where the confusion has arisen , why would they be considering that he had supposedly murdered 5 people if they were bailing him for the caravan theft?

Because EP had nothing on JB as regards the murders they came up with the idea/pretext of arresting him for the burglary with a view to also throwing in the murders for good measure in 1986.
It was in the September 1985 when he was questioned by police, then bailed until his arrest in October 1986. Which meant he was on bail for a year up until his arrest.

[Steve_uk]

I think this is where the confusion has arisen , why would they be considering that he had supposedly murdered 5 people if they were bailing him for the caravan theft?

Well Police had been questioning him all week from Sunday 8 September 1985 hoping to break him. By Friday 13 September they only had the Osea Road theft to charge him with without the confession, and they knew that the magistrates at Chelmsford would have to grant him bail. Thereafter he fled to France for the holiday.

[lookout]

I can't seem to make myself understood for some reason.

[David1819]

I think this is where the confusion has arisen , why would they be considering that he had supposedly murdered 5 people if they were bailing him for the caravan theft?

JB was questioned under cautioned for the murders a few days before he went on holiday. From my point of view had they taken Julie's malicious crap seriously they would never have allowed him to leave the country in the first place.

[IndigoJ]

JB was questioned under cautioned for the murders a few days before he went on holiday. From my point of view had they taken Julie's malicious crap seriously they would never have allowed him to leave the country in the first place.

so what additional evidence did they have when he came back that meant they could charge him ?

[David1819]

so what additional evidence did they have when he came back that meant they could charge him ?

Human blood was found inside the silencer. (Prior to that it was only found outside the silencer)

[lookout]

None.

[Caroline]

Because EP had nothing on JB as regards the murders they came up with the idea/pretext of arresting him for the burglary with a view to also throwing in the murders for good measure in 1986.
It was in the September 1985 when he was questioned by police, then bailed until his arrest in October 1986. Which meant he was on bail for a year up until his arrest.

Why do you keep repeating this because it's completely untrue! He was NOT bailed, he was remanded into custody and stayed in custody until his trial. He was in prison for the year prior to trial!

[guest154]

What is it then ?

You said he was on BAILfor a year, he wasn't. He was on REMAND. You were wrong and instead of saying you were wrong, like we've all been at some point, you just pretended you weren't talking about that even though your posts from earlier have been re-posted numerous times.

And you keep on repeating it! Clueless.

Because EP had nothing on JB as regards the murders they came up with the idea/pretext of arresting him for the burglary with a view to also throwing in the murders for good measure in 1986.
It was in the September 1985 when he was questioned by police, then bailed until his arrest in October 1986. Which meant he was on bail for a year up until his arrest.

[IndigoJ]

ok he was arrested in connection with the murders on 8 September 1985 , he was BAILED from the POLICE STATION on 13 September which is when he went on his holiday to Saint-Tropez , ( amazing that the police didnt include a condition to surrender his passport ! ) then when he returned 29 September he was re arrested and charged , as far as i know he didn't get bail again.

[lookout]

Yes------BAILED. Which I'll never understand as it's only given to those " who don't pose a threat " yet-----------------he'd allegedly murdered 5 people ??

[Caroline]

Yes------BAILED. Which I'll never understand as it's only given to those " who don't pose a threat " yet-----------------he'd allegedly murdered 5 people ??

You're doing it again, pretending you didn't say he was on bail for a year prior to the trial. The police are only allowed to keep an individual in custody for a certain time without charging them. Once CHARGED with murder, he was remanded.

[lookout]

You're doing it again, pretending you didn't say he was on bail for a year prior to the trial. The police are only allowed to keep an individual in custody for a certain time without charging them. Once CHARGED with murder, he was remanded.

It still begs the question when after them KNOWING he was guilty of the murders why he was allowed to travel abroad when they " knew " he'd committed murder and KNEW what their intentions would have been future-wise. He could easily have scarpered to Australia to lose himself ? Why didn't he ?