Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on January 01, 2012, 01:12:AM
-
Letters written to her natural mother, by Sheila Caffell (latest on 24/07/1985)...
-
Sheila wrote to her natural mother weeks before her death, but the contents have never been revealed to Jeremy or those representing his interests...
-
Sheila was a sweet little girl who was placed in a terrible family - along with Jeremy, a little abandoned boy.
Those two little ones, without their birth parents, were placed in an unloving home with a highly unstable mother.
At least Sheila´s birth-mother had a desire to get to know her biological daughter. That is sweet actually, cudos to her!
Jeremy´s parents? Who gave him up and then later had more children together and now say they want nothing to do with him - like a piece of trash. And have no desire to ever see him. DAMN them! I am so mad at Jeremy´s biological parents! DAMN THEM!
This is not how it works, Jeremy´s parents!
-
This is so frustrating and why I get so annoyed! How can so much evidence be proved to exist but yet be withheld and please don't quote that ppi rubbish to me because I am sure that can not justify everything.
-
Sorry, I haven´t been around for a while, but it is clear to me that Sheila did the killings. So much led up to it. Her thinking her sons were the Devil and capable of having sex with her, the sudden reduction of her medicine, Haloperidol (look it up), her whole history of violence because of mental illness. Some people think that a lovely young woman couln´t do a thing like that.
I challenge you. Look into her past, look into her history. I can understand that it is easier for Colin Caffell, her ex-huband, to put the blame on Jeremy. But that is to avoid responsibility for leaving his sons with a highly unstable mother. To be cruel, I could say, if Colin had truly cared for his sons, he would never have let them out of his car, ever. A mother wouldn´t have left her children with an unstable father, would she? Turned upside down, would a mother willingly leave her children in the care of a man with a similar history of violence as Sheila had? I know I wouldn´t!
-
Colin must alos have known something about June's mental health issues and heard worrying things from Sheila about her as well as witnessing some of her behaviour in direct contact. Additionally he would not have been totally unware of his son's opinons of June.
Again this should have been an additional area of concern as well as serious questions marks hanging over Sheila and her condition.
-
Colin must alos have known something about June's mental health issues and heard worrying things from Sheila about her as well as witnessing some of her behaviour in direct contact. Additionally he would not have been totally unware of his son's opinons of June.
Again this should have been an additional area of concern as well as serious questions marks hanging over Sheila and her condition.
This is all true. However, 'hindsight is a wonderful thing'.
I don't suppose Colin in his worst nightmares would have envisaged such a terrible tragedy - who would?
He must have thought the twins would be safe, especially with their grandfather present, which is why he took them all to the farm, as he knew Sheila couldn't cope on her own.
It all comes down to 'if only'.
-
This is so frustrating and why I get so annoyed! How can so much evidence be proved to exist but yet be withheld and please don't quote that ppi rubbish to me because I am sure that can not justify everything.
Hang about, I've only just seen this, but what has been withheld?
Sheila's biological mother is interviewed in 2002 and has some letters sent by Sheila some 17 years ago, so what?
Is it being suggested that Essex Police knew about these letters and stopped them from being disclosed? If Sheila's mother still had them in Canada in 2002 then how would EP have even known about them.
Unless I'm missing something here (which if I am I apologise), but this is the exact sort of s*** that I have been vocal against for months. You are being lied to and misled, why would these letters have been disclosed, EP likely didn't even know the existed.
What's more, is I don't understand why other people can't see it, it's like I'm in a parallel universe or something. ???
-
Hang about, I've only just seen this, but what has been withheld?
Sheila's biological mother is interviewed in 2002 and has some letters sent by Sheila some 17 years ago, so what?
Is it being suggested that Essex Police knew about these letters and stopped them from being disclosed? If Sheila's mother still had them in Canada in 2002 then how would EP have even known about them.
Unless I'm missing something here (which if I am I apologise), but this is the exact sort of s*** that I have been vocal against for months. You are being lied to and misled, why would these letters have been disclosed, EP likely didn't even know the existed.
What's more, is I don't understand why other people can't see it, it's like I'm in a parallel universe or something. ???
Hartley, you are not alone (cue X files (not Z files) music)
As I have said before there is a lot of spin, elaboration and outright missrepresentations on this Forum (it is the nature of the beast).
I, for one, do not believe all I read (or hear)!
If all the so called evidence, or opinion, was so clear, irrefutable and truthful JB would have been out ages ago.
I believe there are aspects to this case that are debatable on a Forum, but that's all - its the legal guys that will, or will not, sort this. No matter how anyone looks at it, the decision on this case (right or wrong) was made in 1986.
I put the disclosure of all documents/photos/ videos etc. being held back (if they exist) first.
If the full disclosure leads to JB's release then so be it. If it doesn't then so be it.
-
Hartley, you are not alone (cue X files (not Z files) music)
As I have said before there is a lot of spin, elaboration and outright missrepresentations on this Formum (it is the nature of the beast).
I, for one, do not believe all I read (or hear)!
If all the so called evidence, or opinion, was so clear, irrefutable and truthful JB would have been out ages ago.
I believe there are aspects to this case that are debatable on a Forum, but that's all - its the legal guys that will, or will not, sort this. No matter how anyone looks at it, the decision on this case (right or wrong) was made in 1986.
I put the disclosure of all documents/photos/ videos etc. being held back (if they exist) first.
If the full disclosure leads to JB's release then so be it. If it doesn't then so be it.
I very much agree with what you have posted.
-
I very much agree with what you have posted.
I agree also.
-
I agree also.
I'm not sure that we can expect Jeremy to be that philosophical?
-
I'm not sure that we can expect Jeremy to be that philosophical?
Well I guess that's just tough. I'm not debating what JB's thinks, I am debating the system as that is what will release him and what he is up against.
If everything, paperwork, photo's, videos, lies etc., have all been declared, presented, exposed, reviewed, and double checked, and there is still nothing to release him, he won't be released.
Anything that EP has destroyed (as crass as that is) obviously cannot be brought back, just like the lives lost that night!
-
You have said what i have been thinking for a while Nick.
-
I'm not sure that we can expect Jeremy to be that philosophical?
I understand the point you are making Mike. I am sure Jeremy will never give up his fight to overturn his convictions.
Jeremy's position is that he believes the material he has now will be sufficient to secure an appeal and win that appeal. I do not know whether he is right on that, but I tend to take a cautious approach. If there is no referral I believe the focus should be on securing the release of all withheld evidence. There is a reason why the prosecution have doggedly resisted releasing this information and my belief is that much of it will be very helpful to the defence. In the light of full disclosure I believe a fresh application would be possible, drawing together in a single submission document all of the factors (many of them in isolation not in themselves conclusive) which taken as a whole render the convictions unsafe. The stark reality is that if in the light of full disclosure, and a proper reconsideration of the entire evidence in the light of that, an appeal is not successful that will effectively be the end of the road for Jeremy. The only way forward then would be if startling new evidence came to light, for example a former police officer breaking ranks.
I emphasise that this is not the current view of Jeremy. He believes he has enough already to prove that he did not commit the murders.
-
You have said what i have been thinking for a while Nick.
Well I suppose we must all accept that line of thinking? If I found myself in prison for a crime I didn't do I suppose I too should say, "Well, that's tough". I would either do what Jeremy does and fight untiringly that which was obviously a miscarriage of justice by any sane person's judgement. I would be found hanging from the bars in my cell one day. All because all others would say is "Well, that's tough". >:(
-
I understand the point you are making Mike. I am sure Jeremy will never give up his fight to overturn his convictions.
Jeremy's position is that he believes the material he has now will be sufficient to secure an appeal and win that appeal. I do not know whether he is right on that, but I tend to take a cautious approach. If there is no referral I believe the focus should be on securing the release of all withheld evidence. There is a reason why the prosecution have doggedly resisted releasing this information and my belief is that much of it will be very helpful to the defence. In the light of full disclosure I believe a fresh application would be possible, drawing together in a single submission document all of the factors (many of them in isolation not in themselves conclusive) which taken as a whole render the convictions unsafe. The stark reality is that if in the light of full disclosure, and a proper reconsideration of the entire evidence in the light of that, an appeal is not successful that will effectively be the end of the road for Jeremy. The only way forward then would be if startling new evidence came to light, for example a former police officer breaking ranks.
I emphasise that this is not the current view of Jeremy. He believes he has enough already to prove that he did not commit the murders.
Mike? I'm Grahame.
-
Anything that EP has destroyed (as crass as that is) obviously cannot be brought back, just like the lives lost that night!
You have said what i have been thinking for a while Nick.
I'm afraid I do not agree.
Destruction of evidence needs to be properly accounted for. That means it should be meticulously checked against the original soc register (alleged by Mike to withheld under PII) and any other genuine evidence schedules. Explanations need to be first sought then investigated. If there are certain key pieces of evidence that have been destroyed, then the World and his Uncle need to know exactly what those pieces of evidence are and the defence should be allowed to proffer possible reasons for the destruction of said evidence. This reasoning should then be carefully considered. IMO.
-
Im not hopefull NGB, i agree with what you sadi about the witholding of evidence, there must be something in there thats helpful to the defence.
Do you have any idea what has been submitted to the CCRC ?
Also, IF there has been a conspiracy, do you think it involves the amount of people suggested?
-
Well I suppose we must all accept that line of thinking? If I found myself in prison for a crime I didn't do I suppose I too should say, "Well, that's tough". I would either do what Jeremy does and fight untiringly that which was obviously a miscarriage of justice by any sane person's judgement. I would be found hanging from the bars in my cell one day. All because all others would say is "Well, that's tough". >:(
Not only that, but there are certain people who have vowed to kill him as soon as he gets out. "Well, that's tough".
-
Mike? I'm Grahame.
Sorry Grahame, it is obviously going to be one of those days! :-[
-
Im not hopefull NGB, i agree with what you sadi about the witholding of evidence, there must be something in there thats helpful to the defence.
Do you have any idea what has been submitted to the CCRC ?
Also, IF there has been a conspiracy, do you think it involves the amount of people suggested?
NGB, what do you think ::)
-
Sorry Grahame, it is obviously going to be one of those days! :-[
Same here Neil. T is coming round later to get something printed up from the forum so his dad can have something to read in hospital. If he's still there at the weekend I may go and see him? He is still in a high dependency ward.
-
Im not hopefull NGB, i agree with what you sadi about the witholding of evidence, there must be something in there thats helpful to the defence.
Do you have any idea what has been submitted to the CCRC ?
Also, IF there has been a conspiracy, do you think it involves the amount of people suggested?
Andrea - I am not sure what you mean by your first question. I know what was contained in the submissions made to the CCRC before their provisional decision in February 2011. Since then there have not been substantive submissions, but there have been requests for the CCRC to use their powers to obtain further evidence and also requests for the CCRC to release material to the defence (in particular the negatives).
I do not believe there has been a single grand conspiracy in this case. I believe that there were several parts of the evidence presented at trial which were tainted by dishonest evidence given, in each case by a small number of individuals. In particular I believe that evidence relating to the silencer, the scratches to the aga surround and the movement of the bodies and rifle by police is all highly suspect.
-
Anything that EP has destroyed (as crass as that is) obviously cannot be brought back, just like the lives lost that night!
I'm afraid I do not agree.
Destruction of evidence needs to be properly accounted for. That means it should be meticulously checked against the original soc register (alleged by Mike to withheld under PII) and any other genuine evidence schedules. Explanations need to be first sought then investigated. If there are certain key pieces of evidence that have been destroyed, then the World and his Uncle need to know exactly what those pieces of evidence are and the defence should be allowed to proffer possible reasons for the destruction of said evidence. This reasoning should then be carefully considered. IMO.
Sorry Roch, I do not agree with you. My statement as it stands is fact!
However I agree with you that the destruction of evidence needs to be properly accounted for, but this will not actually bring back the physically destroyed evidence (e.g the bullets).
-
Same here Neil. T is coming round later to get something printed up from the forum so his dad can have something to read in hospital. If he's still there at the weekend I may go and see him? He is still in a high dependency ward.
Please send him my best wishes for a speedy recovery Grahame.
-
I agree with your last sentence NGB, they are suspect.
Do you think sheila was ever found in the kitchen? looking at the nightdress i would say no, unless her blood had gravity defying properties. But...we have have one male one female found on entry to property?
-
I agree with your last sentence NGB, they are suspect.
Do you think sheila was ever found in the kitchen? looking at the nightdress i would say no, unless her blood had gravity defying properties. But...we have have one male one female found on entry to property?
I am undecided on this point. If it had been a single log entry I would probably dismiss it as an error, but it went a lot further than that so I believe we have to take it seriously. I am convinced something went on after the firearms team entered WHF, and it was something which the officers concerned felt necessary to cover up. Unless one of the officers comes forward I suspect that we are never likely to know the truth for certain.
-
I agree with your last sentence NGB, they are suspect.
Do you think sheila was ever found in the kitchen? looking at the nightdress i would say no, unless her blood had gravity defying properties. But...we have have one male one female found on entry to property?
Andrea, I am yet to be convinced that Sheila was seen in the kitchen when the police burst in.
I think that the reports were jumbled. It was first reported that a female was seen, but I think this sighting was Ralph. [ His long hair ]. After entry it was reported one dead male, so a mistake occured.
These reports were made separately, so it did not come in the same report ie. one dead male AND one dead female.
I am not saying the Sheila was not shot once in the kitchen [although I have my doubts about that], but the raid team did not find her there.
There were cops all over the place, so I don't think it was likely that she fled up one of the staircases after entry was gained.
Of course this is only an opinion.
-
I think she died where she was found Buddy.
the blood staining more or less tells us that.
-
I am undecided on this point. If it had been a single log entry I would probably dismiss it as an error, but it went a lot further than that so I believe we have to take it seriously. I am convinced something went on after the firearms team entered WHF, and it was something which the officers concerned felt necessary to cover up. Unless one of the officers comes forward I suspect that we are never likely to know the truth for certain.
[/quo
I do take it seriously NGB, had she been in kitchen then fled upstairs then there would have been blood down the front of her nightdress, she was photographed where she was found IMO.
Imo she was never on the bed either.
-
Andrea, I am yet to be convinced that Sheila was seen in the kitchen when the police burst in.
I think that the reports were jumbled. It was first reported that a female was seen, but I think this sighting was Ralph. [ His long hair ]. After entry it was reported one dead male, so a mistake occured.
These reports were made separately, so it did not come in the same report ie. one dead male AND one dead female.
I am not saying the Sheila was not shot once in the kitchen [although I have my doubts about that], but the raid team did not find her there.
There were cops all over the place, so I don't think it was likely that she fled up one of the staircases after entry was gained.
Of course this is only an opinion.
I find it worrying that there were two independent reports. One dead male and one dead female as they looked in the window. Then we read a completely separate report of one dead male and one dead female "upon entry". Rather a big mistake to make I think? I think I saw on the tv documentary (I'm not sure if this is true mind?) that one of the raid team was left in the kitchen to stand guard over the bodies, but was called upstairs by the others? As I said I haven't seen that written down in any documentary evidence.
-
I am undecided on this point. If it had been a single log entry I would probably dismiss it as an error, but it went a lot further than that so I believe we have to take it seriously. I am convinced something went on after the firearms team entered WHF, and it was something which the officers concerned felt necessary to cover up. Unless one of the officers comes forward I suspect that we are never likely to know the truth for certain.
[/quo
I do take it seriously NGB, had she been in kitchen then fled upstairs then there would have been blood down the front of her nightdress, she was photographed where she was found IMO.
Imo she was never on the bed either.
Not so sure of your of the last bit Andrea. If the police were using the scene for training [or horsing around] then it is possible she was on the bed. How significant that is I am not sure.
-
I am undecided on this point. If it had been a single log entry I would probably dismiss it as an error, but it went a lot further than that so I believe we have to take it seriously. I am convinced something went on after the firearms team entered WHF, and it was something which the officers concerned felt necessary to cover up. Unless one of the officers comes forward I suspect that we are never likely to know the truth for certain.
Well unfortunately that is the problem, it is just a single log entry to start with, the rest of the log entries are produced from the information passed along the line. It is a single instance.
-
We could look at any high profile murder case, and find mistakes, inconsistencies or whatever we want to call them, in the paperwork.
-
Well unfortunately that is the problem, it is just a single log entry to start with, the rest of the log entries are produced from the information passed along the line. It is a single instance.
I do not believe that argument is credible. The idea that the information flow/traffic would not be checked / confirmed as it is being taken down doesn't seem a remotely realistic prospect. The alleged mistaken female seen through the window does not appear in documentary evidence, save that which is written after the fact.
-
We could look at any high profile murder case, and find mistakes, inconsistencies or whatever we want to call them, in the paperwork.
That is undoubtedly true, but in this case the documents containing inconsistencies/mistakes/points which could have assisted the defence were deliberately withheld. That in my view means that those documents need to be viewed more critically than might otherwise be the case.
-
I do not believe that argument is credible. The idea that the information flow/traffic would not be checked / confirmed as it is being taken down doesn't seem a remotely realistic prospect. The alleged mistaken female seen through the window does not appear in documentary evidence, save that which is written after the fact.
You don't have to believe it, however it remains a fact. Whether things were, or were not checked, is irrelevant, I said it stemmed from a single instance and travelled down the line, that is evidenced by the sender/receiver sections filled out in the logs. To say that it is recorded independently several times is inaccurate.
When did you expect Collins or the rest of the raid team to make their statements, two minutes after entry?
The thing which is missing from the logs is any mention of a shooting or Sheila being seen alive.
Again I find your argument to be weak, in fact I don't even see an argument.
-
I do not believe that argument is credible. The idea that the information flow/traffic would not be checked / confirmed as it is being taken down doesn't seem a remotely realistic prospect. The alleged mistaken female seen through the window does not appear in documentary evidence, save that which is written after the fact.
Furthermore, why would the DPP obstruct the defence to the point where the matter had to be taken before a court? Is it your argument that this obstruction related to there having been a female body mistaken through the window?
Is it also merely benign coincidence that only faxed versions of logs have been released? And another further coincidence that Essex Police will not release the original logs for forensic testing, despite numerous requests? An yet another inconsequential coincidence that the FSS have confirmed part of the event log has been tampered with, resulting in requests for these originals to enable forensic testing?
All these coincidences and all this obstruction, in a hugely controversial 26 year murder case... and yet all because somebody wrongly spied a female body through a window?
And you say it's as if you exist in another dimension, or words to that effect? :-\
-
Furthermore, why would the DPP obstruct the defence to the point where the matter had to be taken before a court? Is it your argument that this obstruction related to there having been a female body mistaken through the window?
Is it also merely benign coincidence that only faxed versions of logs have been released? And another further coincidence that Essex Police will not release the original logs for forensic testing, despite numerous requests? An yet another inconsequential coincidence that the FSS have confirmed part of the event log has been tampered with, resulting in requests for these originals to enable forensic testing?
All these coincidences and all this obstruction, in a hugely controversial 26 year murder case... and yet all because somebody wrongly spied a female body through a window?
And you say it's as if you exist in another dimension, or words to that effect? :-\
Good points David.
-
Whether things were, or were not checked, is irrelevant
It may be irrelevant in the Fifth Dimension. But back here inside the Ministry of Common Sense on lowly planet Earth, I can assure you it's very relevant.
-
Furthermore, why would the DPP obstruct the defence to the point where the matter had to be taken before a court? Is it your argument that this obstruction related to there having been a female body mistaken through the window?
Is it also merely benign coincidence that only faxed versions of logs have been released? And another further coincidence that Essex Police will not release the original logs for forensic testing, despite numerous requests? An yet another inconsequential coincidence that the FSS have confirmed part of the event log has been tampered with, resulting in requests for these originals to enable forensic testing?
All these coincidences and all this obstruction, in a hugely controversial 26 year murder case... and yet all because somebody wrongly spied a female body through a window?
And you say it's as if you exist in another dimension, or words to that effect? :-\
Obstinacy.
You are not trying to discuss with me, you are responding to posts by me with responses which bear no resemblance to the subject matter. Some old thing, I am not making an argument so please do not attempt to draw me into one.
You are more than welcome to your views and opinions, personally I disagree with them, but nevertheless they are your own.
Why don't you stick to talking about the things people say rather than trying to talk about the person. You appear to be in a very different frame of mind compared to discussions that we have respectfully held in months gone by.
-
I don't see how I can be referring to something that isn't part of the subject matter, if the points I'm referring to are related to the subject I quoted you on.
Hartley, you portray your self on here almost as some lone voice of factual reason in a sea of Tesko spin. I don't see either you, nor most of Mike's work in that way. Sometimes I point this out to you.
It's got nothing to do with obstinacy on my part. Fair do's you've picked out a specific technical point to adduce a theory that a chain of recording was flawed due to an error from the outset. What you haven't mentioned is that this theory of yours relies upon somebody in the chain having first noted down the (alleged) mistaken sighting. Yet no documentary evidence exists for this whatsoever. If it did, it would have been released in order to shore up the statements you and I have both referred to, not to mention the logs themselves.
What I have done is to present you with some other facts separate to the technical one you have used, in order to call in to question the theory you have adduced.
-
Unless you're relying on this?
-
Anything that EP has destroyed (as crass as that is) obviously cannot be brought back, just like the lives lost that night!
Sorry Roch, I do not agree with you. My statement as it stands is fact!
However I agree with you that the destruction of evidence needs to be properly accounted for, but this will not actually bring back the physically destroyed evidence (e.g the bullets).
Let's say that the defence pinpoint key specific documentation needed to support their arguments. Let's say that either these documents existed at one point, either because every investigation would have such documents or because they're listed in schedules known to the defence. Due process then fails to produce the documentation. In my opinion, at this point, inference could be drawn in favour of the defence, stemming from the lack of cooperation on the part of either the custodians of the documents or on the part of a buffer agency, for example CCRC. Now what's the chance that these unavailable documents have been destroyed? Should that turn out to be the case, in my opinion inference should be drawn in favour of the defence.
-
Let's say that the defence pinpoint key specific documentation needed to support their arguments. Let's say that either these documents existed at one point, either because every investigation would have such documents or because they're listed in schedules known to the defence. Due process then fails to produce the documentation. In my opinion, at this point, inference could be drawn in favour of the defence, stemming from the lack of cooperation on the part of either the custodians of the documents or on the part of a buffer agency, for example CCRC. Now what's the chance that these unavailable documents have been destroyed? Should that turn out to be the case, in my opinion inference should be drawn in favour of the defence.
Hi Roch, as I say I agree with the documentation relating to destroyed evidence aspect, but your point about "inference", as valid as it is, is a fine line and is not IMO a weighty debatable point, when stuff has been destroyed and EP say "sorry, we should not have done that, it slipped through the procedural net" - as bollocks as EP are they I believe could twist out of this one too.
Let's hope for the sake of "all documents being released" JB's team has a handle on this point, if they feel it can be used effectively.
-
Hi Roch, as I say I agree with the documentation relating to destroyed evidence aspect, but your point about "inference", as valid as it is, is a fine line and is not IMO a weighty debatable point, when stuff has been destroyed and EP say "sorry, we should not have done that, it slipped through the procedural net" - as bollocks as EP are they I believe could twist out of this one too.
Let's hope for the sake of "all documents being released" JB's team has a handle on this point, if they feel it can be used effectively.
We might as well just say that all the cards are stacked in favour of the prosecuting authorities. Should the defence find they have a decent hand, it doesn't really matter, since cheating is either officially or unofficially sanctioned on the side of the prosecuting authorities anyway. So the defence can go and f*** itself.
That's how it sounds to me Nick, legally naive as I may be.
-
I don't see how I can be referring to something that isn't part of the subject matter, if the points I'm referring to are related to the subject I quoted you on.
Hartley, you portray your self on here almost as some lone voice of factual reason in a sea of Tesko spin. I don't see either you, nor most of Mike's work in that way. Sometimes I point this out to you.
It's got nothing to do with obstinacy on my part. Fair do's you've picked out a specific technical point to adduce a theory that a chain of recording was flawed due to an error from the outset. What you haven't mentioned is that this theory of yours relies upon somebody in the chain having first noted down the (alleged) mistaken sighting. Yet no documentary evidence exists for this whatsoever. If it did, it would have been released in order to shore up the statements you and I have both referred to, not to mention the logs themselves.
What I have done is to present you with some other facts separate to the technical one you have used, in order to call in to question the theory you have adduced.
That's not the point. I responded to a post which stated that the different logs all recorded the the same incident and I pointed out the it was because they are all coming from one source and passed down the line.
That is a completely undisputable fact.
Now, whether the sighting of a female is true or was a mistaken identity, changes nothing, the record in the logs and the duplication would be the same.
That's it, end of my input, I was not trying to be a lone voice or anything else, I am not saying that there are not other theories or anything else. I have already discussed this topic with you at length, snapping and sniping at me isn't going to entice me into a rerun.
Please do not try to make out that I am saying something that I am not.
-
Well I guess that's just tough. I'm not debating what JB's thinks, I am debating the system as that is what will release him and what he is up against.
If everything, paperwork, photo's, videos, lies etc., have all been declared, presented, exposed, reviewed, and double checked, and there is still nothing to release him, he won't be released.
Anything that EP has destroyed (as crass as that is) obviously cannot be brought back, just like the lives lost that night!
Funny How that happened exactly in 1996 when DNA science found its foot and freed so many people - in USA at least. You´d think they would have been at least CURIOUS about what happened, but no, let´s destroy the evidence from the murders of two little kids and three grown ups. Yep, destroy it. Does that even make sense?
Edit to add, and keep a man in jail on very dubious grounds for more than a quarter of a century, are you NUTS?
-
Funny How that happened exactly in 1996 when DNA science found its foot and freed so many people - in USA at least. You´d think they would have been at least CURIOUS about what happened, but no, let´s destroy the evidence from the murders of two little kids and three grown ups. Yep, destroy it. Does that even make sense?
Edit to add, and keep a man in jail on very dubious grounds for more than a quarter of a century, are you NUTS?
DNA evidence was first used in 1986, but was not accepted in British courts until later. Isn't it strange that in 1991 (I think) when it was becoming more popular to used DNA evidence that all evidence that could be used for DNA analysis was destroyed? Strange coincidence in my opinion.
-
Let's say that the defence pinpoint key specific documentation needed to support their arguments. Let's say that either these documents existed at one point, either because every investigation would have such documents or because they're listed in schedules known to the defence. Due process then fails to produce the documentation. In my opinion, at this point, inference could be drawn in favour of the defence, stemming from the lack of cooperation on the part of either the custodians of the documents or on the part of a buffer agency, for example CCRC. Now what's the chance that these unavailable documents have been destroyed? Should that turn out to be the case, in my opinion inference should be drawn in favour of the defence.
I agree with you David.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8996444/Eddie-Gilfoyles-wifes-diary-held-by-police-for-16-years.html This is what non disclosure can do !!
-
That's not the point. I responded to a post which stated that the different logs all recorded the the same incident and I pointed out the it was because they are all coming from one source and passed down the line.
That is a completely undisputable fact.
Now, whether the sighting of a female is true or was a mistaken identity, changes nothing, the record in the logs and the duplication would be the same.
That's it, end of my input, I was not trying to be a lone voice or anything else, I am not saying that there are not other theories or anything else. I have already discussed this topic with you at length, snapping and sniping at me isn't going to entice me into a rerun.
Please do not try to make out that I am saying something that I am not.
I didn't think I was making out that you were saying anything. Regarding the lone voice thing, I was merely referring to a post you made the other day to the effect of you being the only person who could see through Mike Tesko's spin. My point being that you your self are also effectively a spinner, at times in my opinion. His spin takes the form of maximising aspects of the evidence in favour of the defence via the way he would have us all interpret such aspects. Your spinning is in the complete opposite direction. For him many anomalies indicate something sinister. For you they indicate nothing more than benign inconsistencies, which will always favour an honest bobby or upstanding citizen relative.
I wasn't spoiling for a scrap on anything. Just felt I had to point it out. Yes you made a single specific technical point about the logs. Granted.
-
Roch,I agree with everything in your post as that is the way that I read things too.
I didnt read it as a critizism,merely an observation!
-
Roch,I agree with everything in your post as that is the way that I read things too.
I didnt read it as a critizism,merely an observation!
Yes, I'm not looking for conflict. Simply stating things how I see them. I'll have to phrase things differently when posting.