Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on May 21, 2016, 09:02:PM
-
It's been said this week that the police destroyed evidence in 1996 'several months before new legislation was made making this illegal'.
This future legislation would not have been finalised by the government of the day when the police destroyed evidence. It would then have to go through parliament. The Queen's speeches from 1995 and 1996 do not mention any proposals of legislation regarding this.
Were EP aware of this future possible legislation ? If so how ? Which government minister told them ? It would have to a senior minister that would know that early discussions were taking place on this. But why would someone like Michael Howard tip off EP ? The Bamber case from ten years earlier was nothing to do with him. If discovered it would ruin his career.
If the police were not aware of future legislation, then they were not be panicking and trying to get evidence destroyed before the law came in.
The evidence which another poster said yesterday was destroyed was unlikely to support guilt or innocence to either Bamber or Sheila. If it was, then surely the police would have destroyed it sooner. They had ten years to do this.
Do other people believe that after ten years, the police simply felt it was an appropriate time to destroy evidence. Rather than knowing about future legislation which was 'several months away'.
-
It's been said this week that the police destroyed evidence in 1996 'several months before new legislation was made making this illegal'.
This future legislation would not have been finalised by the government of the day when the police destroyed evidence. It would then have to go through parliament. The Queen's speeches from 1995 and 1996 do not mention any proposals of legislation regarding this.
Were EP aware of this future possible legislation ? If so how ? Which government minister told them ? It would have to a senior minister that would know that early discussions were taking place on this. But why would someone like Michael Howard tip off EP ? The Bamber case from ten years earlier was nothing to do with him. If discovered it would ruin his career.
If the police were not aware of future legislation, then they were not be panicking and trying to get evidence destroyed before the law came in.
The evidence which another poster said was destroyed was unlikely to support guilt or innocence to either Bamber or Sheila. If it was, then surely the police would have destroyed it sooner. They had ten years to do this.
Do other people believe that after ten years, the police simply felt it was an appropriate time to destroy evidence. Rather than anything sinister ?
Only the really gullible and naive believe this version, Adam.
-
It's been said this week that the police destroyed evidence in 1996 'several months before new legislation was made making this illegal'.
This future legislation would not have been finalised by the government of the day when the police destroyed evidence. It would then have to go through parliament. The Queen's speeches from 1995 and 1996 do not mention any proposals of legislation regarding this.
Were EP aware of this future possible legislation ? If so how ? Which government minister told them ? It would have to a senior minister that would know that early discussions were taking place on this. But why would someone like Michael Howard tip off EP ? The Bamber case from ten years earlier was nothing to do with him. If discovered it would ruin his career.
If the police were not aware of future legislation, then they were not be panicking and trying to get evidence destroyed before the law came in.
The evidence which another poster said yesterday was destroyed was unlikely to support guilt or innocence to either Bamber or Sheila. If it was, then surely the police would have destroyed it sooner. They had ten years to do this.
Do other people believe that after ten years, the police simply felt it was an appropriate time to destroy evidence. Rather than anything sinister ?
I don't believe that police would have held on to ANYTHING which may have had the potential to come back and bite them at a later stage. There were such things as shredders in 1985. Failing that, there was the good, old fashioned but efficient bonfire.
-
Only the really gullible and naive believe this version, Adam.
Who do you believe tipped off EP of possible future legislation that was not in the Queens speech and was several months away ?
-
Who do you believe tipped off EP of possible future legislation that was not in the Queens speech and was several months away ?
Why do you believe that a police force need "tipping off" about pending legislation?
Do you imagine that the police get to find out about changes in the law on the day that the legislation is introduced? How does this happen do you think? Maybe they have to wait until it is in the papers.
Let us know what you imagine the usual procedure is for the police to be informed of legislation which directly affects their procedures, Adam.
Maybe they hope that someone "tips them off" ???
-
If people are saying the government or a senior minister tipped off EP, that puts the case up several notches. The framing conspiracy increasing substantially in numbers and seriousness.
If no one tipped off EP, then Nugs's thread this week is answered and some Items were destroyed after ten years as it was simply considered an appropriate time.
-
Who do you believe tipped off EP of possible future legislation that was not in the Queens speech and was several months away ?
This is a very stupid question
-
Why do you believe that a police force need "tipping off" about pending legislation?
Do you imagine that the police get to find out about changes in the law on the day that the legislation is introduced? How does this happen do you think? Maybe they have to wait until it is in the papers.
Let us know what you imagine the usual procedure is for the police to be informed of legislation which directly affects their procedures, Adam.
Maybe they hope that someone "tips them off" ???
Hi Gringo
nice to see you. Bet EP read it on the internet :)) :)) :))
-
If people are saying the government or a senior minister tipped off EP, that puts the case up several notches. The framing conspiracy increasing substantially in numbers and seriousness.
If no one tipped off EP, then Nugs's thread this week is answered and Items were destroyed as it simply considered an appropriate time.
Nobody is saying that though. Read the post above.
Most are probably shaking their heads with incredulity that anyone could believe that a police force need tipping off by "the government or a senior minister" to warn them of impending legislation that is a matter of public record(hansard debates etc.).
I would imagine that most people would understand that all police forces have to be aware of all pending legislation and will have procedures in place to keep up with this.
I doubt that even you really believe the version of events that you are attempting, not very successfully, to support.
-
Hi Gringo
nice to see you. Bet EP read it on the internet :)) :)) :))
Hi Susan. Probably someone else read it on the internet and then "tipped them off"
-
That's more like it.
-
Nobody is saying that though. Read the post above.
Most are probably shaking their heads with incredulity that anyone could believe that a police force need tipping off by "the government or a senior minister" to warn them of impending legislation that is a matter of public record(hansard debates etc.).
I would imagine that most people would understand that all police forces have to be aware of all pending legislation and will have procedures in place to keep up with this.
I doubt that even you really believe the version of events that you are attempting, not very successfully, to support.
So EP were constantly monitoring internal discussions within parliament ? Ready to destroy evidence which wouldn't have made any difference anyway.
Why didn't they just destroy it sooner ? Or was ten years the protocol at the time ?
Has anyone got a source on the dates EP destroyed the evidence and the date this legislation was brought in ? Other posters have claimed this is what happened so must have a source.
If this new legislation was 'several months away' and had not even been discussed within the home office, then the guilters stance is a dead duck.
-
So EP were constantly monitoring internal discussions within parliament ? Ready to destroy evidence which wouldn't have made any difference anyway.
Why didn't they just destroy it sooner ? Or was ten years the protocol at the time ?
Has anyone got a source on the dates EP destroyed the evidence and the date this legislation was brought in ? If this new legislation had not even been discussed within the home office, then the guilters stance is a dead duck.
These are all very stupid questions even by your, admittedly low, standards.
How do you believe that police forces become aware of new legislation?
-
These are all very stupid questions even by your, admittedly low, standards.
How do you believe that police forces become aware of new legislation?
I have reported you to the moderators. I don't recall any threads or good posts from you. Although you're post yesterday about what items were apparently destroyed was interesting.
It wasn't new legislation. It was several months away and not included in the Queen's Speech. So how would EP know about legislation which did not exist ?
-
::) ::)
-
I have reported you to the moderators. I don't recall any threads or good posts from you. Although you're post yesterday about what items were apparently destroyed was interesting.
It wasn't new legislation. It was several months away and not included in the Queen's Speech. So how would EP know about legislation which did not exist.
Yeah, it must be at least 24 hours since you reported anyone. You must be due a fix.
-
Hi Susan. Probably someone else read it on the internet and then "tipped them off"
Good point Gringo never thought of that ;)
-
I have reported you to the moderators. I don't recall any threads or good posts from you. Although you're post yesterday about what items were apparently destroyed was interesting.
It wasn't new legislation. It was several months away and not included in the Queen's Speech. So how would EP know about legislation which did not exist ?
Thanks for the "tip off"
-
Thanks for the "tip off"
Gringo destroy the evidence quick hahaha :))
-
:)) :)) :))
Gringo destroy the evidence quick hahaha :))
-
The allegation from supporters is the police destroyed evidence because they knew a law was coming in which would stop them destroying this. The legislation was 'several months away'. Quite why this supposed important evidence was not destroyed before if it was important, I do not know.
It's time for supporters to put some meat in this allegation.
There needs to be sources of -
The date the evidence was destroyed.
The date the new legislation was introduced.
At what stage the legislation was at when the evidence was destroyed.
How EP found out about this evidence if the legislation had not been discussed prior to the evidence destruction.
-
I wonder if an informant came into play ?
-
The allegation from supporters is the police destroyed evidence because they knew a law was coming in which would stop them destroying this. The legislation was 'several months away'. Quite why this supposed important evidence was not destroyed before if it was important, I do not know.
It's time for supporters to put some meat in this allegation.
There needs to be sources of -
The date the evidence was destroyed.
The date the new legislation was introduced.
At what stage the legislation was at when the evidence was destroyed.
How EP found out about this evidence if the legislation had not been discussed prior to the evidence destruction.
Regardless of when EP found out about any new legislation, we already know that they didn't need tipping off anyway, Adam.
DI John Soames of Special Branch in his statement to the CCRC in 2000 refers to a document that makes clear that EP were aware of a court order compelling them to disclose the material in November 1994. They had helpfully documented these dates.
There is clear and indisputable evidence that EP were not only aware that evidence had to be kept they were also aware that they were to hand over for testing the retained evidence and yet within two years they had destroyed it with the connivance of Special Branch.
EP themselves came up with the vague "date" of 1996 in their reply to the CCRC when the the CCRC requested the evidence that was protected by court order but they had destroyed.
Adam still thinks the destruction was entirely innocent and just routine.
-
It was a deliberate and illegal act.
-
It was a deliberate and illegal act.
And not even arguable, Lookout. It was a crude and desperate intervention and one wonders what it was EP suspected may be discovered that they were obviously determined to keep hidden.
-
Regardless of when EP found out about any new legislation, we already know that they didn't need tipping off anyway, Adam.
DI John Soames of Special Branch in his statement to the CCRC in 2000 refers to a document that makes clear that EP were aware of a court order compelling them to disclose the material in November 1994. They had helpfully documented these dates.
There is clear and indisputable evidence that EP were not only aware that evidence had to be kept they were also aware that they were to hand over for testing the retained evidence and yet within two years they had destroyed it with the connivance of Special Branch.
EP themselves came up with the vague "date" of 1996 in their reply to the CCRC when the the CCRC requested the evidence that was protected by court order but they had destroyed.
Adam still thinks the destruction was entirely innocent and just routine.
I'm not interested in unsourced claims about what happened in 1994. This was five years after the last appeal and eight years before the next appeal. The police are probably always asked to keep useless evidence from optimistic prisoners. They have to draw the line somewhere.
Why hadn't Bamber and his lawyers tested this evidence before ? He had ten years.
Anyway. Sources that the police destroyed evidence because they knew that a law was being introduced (in several months) that would prevent them destroying this in the future. In the unlikely event the evidence would be important in an appeal, which was six years away.
Questions previously asked on reply 20.
-
And not even arguable, Lookout. It was a crude and desperate intervention and one wonders what it was EP suspected may be discovered that they were obviously determined to keep hidden.
Oh,lots of things I imagine, Gringo. The same as EP seem determined not to release any remaining documents. It's not as if they're any good to them after 30 years----------or are they ??
-
What was police protocol for destroying evidence. Prior to this legislation 'several months' after the police destroyed this supposed vital evidence ?
Was it that they had control on when evidence was destroyed. Or did they have to wait a set number of years ?
-
Why hadn't Bamber and his lawyers tested this evidence before ? He had ten years.
Because they were denied access to it
-
I'm not interested in unsourced claims about what happened in 1994. This was five years after the last appeal and eight years before the next appeal. The police are probably always asked to keep useless evidence from optimistic prisoners. They have to draw the line somewhere.
Why hadn't Bamber and his lawyers tested this evidence before ? He had ten years.
Anyway. Sources that the police destroyed evidence because they knew that a law was being introduced (in several months) that would prevent them destroying this in the future. In the unlikely event the evidence would be important in an appeal, which was six years away.
Questions previously asked on reply 20.
The "unsourced claims about what happened in 1994" are a direct quote from DI John Soames statement to the CCRC in 2000.
The reason that "Bamber and his lawyers hadn't tested this evidence before" was because EP were refusing to allow them, even forcing the issue into court, where the court agreed with "Bamber and his lawyers" that EP should release the evidence.
EP then prevented "Bamber and his lawyers" as well as the CCRC from testing the evidence by destroying it in 1996. EP informed the CCRC of this in 2000 when the CCRC requested the court order protected evidence from them.
Strangely EP didn't tell the CCRC that it was just routine after nearly ten years blah blah
-
Because they were denied access to it
Adam knows this, David. We would have to believe that he doesn't even read the posts he replies to in order for him not to know this ??? ???
-
Because they were denied access to it
Really ? Have you got a source ?
-
Really ? Have you got a source ?
DI John Soames. Pay attention Adam :o
-
Anyway.
As was said esrlier. The allegation is EP destroyed evidence in 1996. Because they were aware that 'in several months' time legislation was being introduced which would stop them doing this.
Sources of proof showing this is correct or possible need to be supplied.
If it is just an opinion of supporters, that is fine. Guilters will just think the police destroyed useless evidence after 10 years as protocol and common sense.
-
DI John Soames. Pay attention Adam :o
No, links and sources please. Pay attention Gringo.
Supporting the claim police destroyed evidence in 1996. Because they somehow knew that future legislation in several months time would prevent them from destroying this evidence in an almost forgotten case.
-
No, links and sources please. Pay attention Gringo.
Supporting the claim police destroyed evidence in 1996. Because they somehow knew that future legislation in several months time would prevent them from destroying this evidence in an almost forgotten case.
Here is notes from the 2002 appeal
-
At last, a source.
So Soames asked for some evidence to be destroyed. Evidence which was useless regarding blood, DNA and finger prints. This letter was not dated so could have been months earlier.
The allegation is the police destroyed this evidence because they knew a law was coming in preventing them from ever destroying this.
The police had the options of assuming the evidence would not change anything if they did ever release it.
Assume Bamber would never get another appeal. So the evidence would never be needed.
Destroy this evidence years earlier.
-
At last, a source.
So Soames asked for some evidence to be destroyed. Evidence which was useless regarding blood, DNA and finger prints. This letter was not dated so could have been months earlier.
Why are you making things up?
-
Why are you making things up?
Because he has no valid argument.
-
No, links and sources please. Pay attention Gringo.
Supporting the claim police destroyed evidence in 1996. Because they somehow knew that future legislation in several months time would prevent them from destroying this evidence in an almost forgotten case.
Adam here is the proof the Home Office told Essex police to disclose the exhibits to Jeremy's lawyers in 1994, But instead they destroy it two month before new legislation would make it a crime!
sounds legit ::)
-
Why are you making things up?
I've already posted why it was useless.
-
Adam here is the proof the Home Office told Essex police to disclose the exhibits to Jeremy's lawyers in 1994, But instead they destroy it two month before new legislation would make it a crime!
sounds legit ::)
where are the 2 signitures on it.why are they blank
-
all police forceses will know well in advance of any new laws been debated after all they have to impliment them.but it cuts both ways they had knowledge why before that law came in are they then that stupid as to wait 2 or 3 months before it comes in and destroy the evidenmce i dont think so .if they wanted to destroy any evidence they would have done early way early.so no consripcy theorist years later can come and make it look like it was done on pupose only 3 months before the new law
-
I thought the law was that items from crime, used at trial etc had to be kept indefinitely?
NGB are you able to confirm for us please?
-
all police forceses will know well in advance of any new laws been debated after all they have to impliment them.but it cuts both ways they had knowledge why before that law came in are they then that stupid as to wait 2 or 3 months before it comes in and destroy the evidenmce i dont think so .if they wanted to destroy any evidence they would have done early way early.so no consripcy theorist years later can come and make it look like it was done on pupose only 3 months before the new law
Why would the police get informed of new laws months earlier ? They would not need to implement any new laws until the day it became law. So don't need months of warning.
Maybe a week beforehand , once it has gone through parliament and an exact date has been made all police will be informed.
But it is a good point, if they were somehow aware months earlier, either as the norm or through a tip off, why not destroy the items months earlier ? They could then claim they knew nothing about the upcoming new law and have more chance of being believed.
-
I thought the law was that items from crime, used at trial etc had to be kept indefinitely?
NGB are you able to confirm for us please?
every police station in the land would be full up not with prisoners but with evidence
-
Why would the police get informed of new laws months earlier ? They would not need to implement any new laws until the day it became law. So don't need months of warning.
Maybe a week beforehand , once it has gone through parliament and an exact date has been made all police will be informed.
But it is a good point, if they were somehow aware months earlier, either as the norm or through a tip off, why not destroy the items months earlier ? They could then claim they knew nothing about the upcoming new law and have more chance of being believed.
i say well in advance because iam sure police are on hand from the begining to advise if law can be implamented. i think thats the way it was
-
every police station in the land would be full up not with prisoners but with evidence
If the police got it right in the first place,there'd be no need for police stations,etc to be snowed under with paperwork and evidence.
-
If the police got it right in the first place,there'd be no need for police stations,etc to be snowed under with paperwork and evidence.
It isn't just the police. Every aspect of public life is becoming snowed under with paperwork, ie the NHS. I rest my case. Part of our compensation culture, I guess.
-
we are only human we all make mistakes now and than. biggest ive made was to meet my wife ive now done 30years with her ,you only get 16 for murder.god help me
-
It isn't just the police. Every aspect of public life is becoming snowed under with paperwork, ie the NHS. I rest my case. Part of our compensation culture, I guess.
Even before I retired from the NHS,I can remember heaps of litigation cases coming in then,in the early 90's. Many,might I add,were something and nothing.In fact I was appalled by some and would have been quite astonished if they'd reached anywhere near a courtroom.
The compensation culture is another fiery viewpoint that I don't hold with,as it's had a massive impact on society in every workplace,and although my views on the police are pretty controversial,I do feel sorry for them at times,especially when they're dealing with troublesome people,that they have to be so careful not to use undue force,only that which is permissible. They must feel like punching the lights out of some of their " customers ",but leave them with the tiniest mark and the police then fall foul of being sued.
Teachers the same,with unruly kids. This compensation culture has created the state of society that we live in. Whoever thought of that one needs hanging.
-
if a law is being passed thts going to effect them do you think they dont know about it.
-
i have to agree with one of the above posters.the old days you would never go home and tell your parents you were canned in school because you would get it again this time by your parents.disaplin has gone yob culture is in.these days parents would be storming into the school to confront the teacher
-
Even before I retired from the NHS,I can remember heaps of litigation cases coming in then,in the early 90's. Many,might I add,were something and nothing.In fact I was appalled by some and would have been quite astonished if they'd reached anywhere near a courtroom.
The compensation culture is another fiery viewpoint that I don't hold with,as it's had a massive impact on society in every workplace,and although my views on the police are pretty controversial,I do feel sorry for them at times,especially when they're dealing with troublesome people,that they have to be so careful not to use undue force,only that which is permissible. They must feel like punching the lights out of some of their " customers ",but leave them with the tiniest mark and the police then fall foul of being sued.
Teachers the same,with unruly kids. This compensation culture has created the state of society that we live in. Whoever thought of that one needs hanging.
I have no argument with any of the above. It seems the pendulum never gets to sit comfortably in and around the middle.
-
all police forceses will know well in advance of any new laws been debated after all they have to impliment them.but it cuts both ways they had knowledge why before that law came in are they then that stupid as to wait 2 or 3 months before it comes in and destroy the evidenmce i dont think so .if they wanted to destroy any evidence they would have done early way early.so no consripcy theorist years later can come and make it look like it was done on pupose only 3 months before the new law
You have the thread before commenting, I take it Sami.
If so, then you will already know that EP had been withholding evidence and exhibits prior to 1996 despite requests from the defence.
You also should already be aware that EP were forced into court over the issue and ordered to make the evidence available on 28/11/94. Perhaps this is why they didn't just destroy it years earlier.
They then destroy the evidence in 1996 and only admit this in 2000 when the CCRC request it and this rings no alarm bells to you.
It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to conclude that EP have something to hide.
To conclude that EP have acted entirely reasonably you need to be either very foolish or alternatively you are simply an apologist for police corruption.
-
You have the thread before commenting, I take it Sami.
If so, then you will already know that EP had been withholding evidence and exhibits prior to 1996 despite requests from the defence.
You also should already be aware that EP were forced into court over the issue and ordered to make the evidence available on 28/11/94. Perhaps this is why they didn't just destroy it years earlier.
They then destroy the evidence in 1996 and only admit this in 2000 when the CCRC request it and this rings no alarm bells to you.
It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to conclude that EP have something to hide.
To conclude that EP have acted entirely reasonably you need to be either very foolish or alternatively you are simply an apologist for police corruption.
Hi Gringo
good post and as always well researched.
-
He's brilliant,Susan and knows what he's talking about. He's a breath of fresh air.
-
He's brilliant,Susan and knows what he's talking about. He's a breath of fresh air.
Hi lookout
I do find Gringo's posts very interesting wish he come on the forum more often.
-
Hi lookout
I do find Gringo's posts very interesting wish he come on the forum more often.
I'd imagine he's busy " studying form " to come up with such posts :) :) He's been on the forum for a long time now and knows a lot about the case. As for him not being here so often----------less is more,if you get my drift. ;D ;D
-
I've already posted why it was useless.
your reasons why are just things you have made up
-
Because he has no valid argument.
I should have realised this. Shame on me ;D
-
every police station in the land would be full up not with prisoners but with evidence
What would appeals be based on then?
Sean Hodgson was eventually cleared after 27 years. DNA tests showed his semen didn't match that found at crime. If the semen at crime had been destroyed he wouldn't have been cleared.
-
What would appeals be based on then?
Sean Hodgson was eventually cleared after 27 years. DNA tests showed his semen didn't match that found at crime. If the semen at crime had been destroyed he wouldn't have been cleared.
Appeals heard soon after a conviction may not have anything destroyed. And nothing was destroyed in 1989.
However 2002 and 2012 was 17 and 27 years after the trial and items had been destroyed. Bamber still included a lot in his 2002 appeal, which is online.
Not sure what the 1996 law was. Surely not every piece of evidence associated with a conviction has to be kept for ever.
However Bamber's crime was in 1985 and the police had the option of destroying some items. The twins Pyjama tops etc would have made no difference. Thread created today.
-
You have the thread before commenting, I take it Sami.
If so, then you will already know that EP had been withholding evidence and exhibits prior to 1996 despite requests from the defence.
You also should already be aware that EP were forced into court over the issue and ordered to make the evidence available on 28/11/94. Perhaps this is why they didn't just destroy it years earlier.
They then destroy the evidence in 1996 and only admit this in 2000 when the CCRC request it and this rings no alarm bells to you.
It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to conclude that EP have something to hide.
To conclude that EP have acted entirely reasonably you need to be either very foolish or alternatively you are simply an apologist for police corruption.
what do youy mean ,you have,thread before commenting.if they were forced in 1994 why didnt they and who was ever held accountble for not providing it.no one.who can you and others directly accuse of not giving it up .certainly not the job of the whole of ep.why was an appeal not granted on the ground you have claimed above.they can hold all the evidence they want .jury were satisfied that sheila did not do it .how many more times .you keep banging on about withheld evidence but you havent got a clue what it could be,adam knows far MORE THAN YOU .so i will stick with what he says .
-
You have the thread before commenting, I take it Sami.
If so, then you will already know that EP had been withholding evidence and exhibits prior to 1996 despite requests from the defence.
You also should already be aware that EP were forced into court over the issue and ordered to make the evidence available on 28/11/94. Perhaps this is why they didn't just destroy it years earlier.
They then destroy the evidence in 1996 and only admit this in 2000 when the CCRC request it and this rings no alarm bells to you.
It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to conclude that EP have something to hide.
To conclude that EP have acted entirely reasonably you need to be either very foolish or alternatively you are simply an apologist for police corruption.
why dont you ask your mate jb why he oked it to burn evidence from whf.ie.carpet bedding .and now you and he have the cheek to cry about withheld evidence only one person to blame thats jb not ep
-
Appeals heard soon after a conviction may not have anything destroyed. And nothing was destroyed in 1989.
However 2002 and 2012 was 17 and 27 years after the trial and items had been destroyed. Bamber still included a lot in his 2002 appeal, which is online.
Not sure what the 1996 law was. Surely not every piece of evidence associated with a conviction has to be kept for ever.
However Bamber's crime was in 1985 and the police had the option of destroying some items. The twins Pyjama tops etc would have made no difference. Thread created today.
Shaun Hodgson's appeal was decades after his conviction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Teresa_De_Simone#Appeals
I think all trial things have to be kept.
NGB please can you help? How long do things have to be kept after trial and what has to be kept and what can be thrown out? Thank you, Jackie.
-
what do youy mean ,you have,thread before commenting.if they were forced in 1994 why didnt they and who was ever held accountble for not providing it.no one.who can you and others directly accuse of not giving it up .certainly not the job of the whole of ep.why was an appeal not granted on the ground you have claimed above.they can hold all the evidence they want .jury were satisfied that sheila did not do it .how many more times .you keep banging on about withheld evidence but you havent got a clue what it could be,adam knows far MORE THAN YOU .so i will stick with what he says .
It would be preferable if your posts were readable but here we go.
Read the thread and you will discover that the evidence which you claim I "havent got a clue what it could be", is in fact listed item by item. Is this the stuff that you claim I have no clue about?
You would also know that it is not disputed by anyone that EP ignored a court order in November 1994 so what exactly are you "banging on about"?
It would be helpful if you read before commenting and learnt how to construct something at least resembling a coherent sentence
-
He's only here to pick holes,Gringo. You must have realised by now.Supporters are the pariahs of the forum.
One has to have a modicum of sympathy. :-[
-
It would be preferable if your posts were readable but here we go.
Read the thread and you will discover that the evidence which you claim I "havent got a clue what it could be", is in fact listed item by item. Is this the stuff that you claim I have no clue about?
You would also know that it is not disputed by anyone that EP ignored a court order in November 1994 so what exactly are you "banging on about"?
It would be helpful if you read before commenting and learnt how to construct something at least resembling a coherent sentence
your advise is not welcome fella keep it to yourself .if your skills of reading a not good ask someone to do it for you.you may have been educated in a posh school.i never took any exams because i was in detention centre than bostal and finnally youth custody so i missed out .i learnt to read and write by myself.hence the bad grammer
-
He's only here to pick holes,Gringo. You must have realised by now.Supporters are the pariahs of the forum.
One has to have a modicum of sympathy. :-[
I had made the mistake of imagining that he was here for honest debate, Lookout ::)
-
stop talking about me ,talk to me ,you didnt like it when adam was doing it to you
-
your advise is not welcome fella keep it to yourself .if your skills of reading a not good ask someone to do it for you.you may have been educated in a posh school.i never took any exams because i was in detention centre than bostal and finnally youth custody so i missed out .i learnt to read and write by myself.hence the bad grammer
Went to a pretty poor comprehensive myself, not some posh school. It's not my reading skills in question "fella".
-
I had made the mistake of imagining that he was here for honest debate, Lookout ::)
>>>>>>>>>>>>spluttering over my coffee. :))
-
Here is the relevant part of the law that was to take effect
5. Retention of material
(a) Duty to retain material
5.1 The investigator must retain material obtained in a criminal investigation which may be relevant to the investigation. Material may be photographed, video-recorded, captured digitally or otherwise retained in the form of a copy rather than the original at any time, if the original is perishable; the original was supplied to the investigator rather than generated by him and is to be returned to its owner; or the retention of a copy rather than the original is reasonable in all the circumstances.
5.2 Where material has been seized in the exercise of the powers of seizure conferred by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the duty to retain it under this code is subject to the provisions on the retention of seized material in section 22 of that Act.
5.3 If the officer in charge of an investigation becomes aware as a result of developments in the case that material previously examined but not retained (because it was not thought to be relevant) may now be relevant to the investigation, he should, wherever practicable, take steps to obtain it or ensure that it is retained for further inspection or for production in court if required.
5.4 The duty to retain material includes in particular the duty to retain material falling into the following categories, where it may be relevant to the investigation:
?
crime reports (including crime report forms, relevant parts of incident report books or police officer's notebooks);
?
custody records;
?
records which are derived from tapes of telephone messages (for example, 999 calls) containing descriptions of an alleged offence or offender;
?
final versions of witness statements (and draft versions where their content differs from the final version), including any exhibits mentioned (unless these have been returned to their owner on the understanding that they will be produced in court if required);
?
interview records (written records, or audio or video tapes, of interviews with actual or potential witnesses or suspects);
?
communications between the police and experts such as forensic scientists, reports of work carried out by experts, and schedules of scientific material prepared by the expert for the investigator, for the purposes of criminal proceedings;
?
records of the first description of a suspect by each potential witness who purports to identify or describe the suspect, whether or not the description differs from that of subsequent descriptions by that or other witnesses;
?
any material casting doubt on the reliability of a witness.
8
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (s. 23(1)) Revised Code of Practice
5.5 The duty to retain material, where it may be relevant to the investigation, also includes in particular the duty to retain material which may satisfy the test for prosecution disclosure in the Act, such as:
?
information provided by an accused person which indicates an explanation for the offence with which he has been charged;
?
any material casting doubt on the reliability of a confession;
?
any material casting doubt on the reliability of a prosecution witness.
-
I had made the mistake of imagining that he was here for honest debate, Lookout ::)
Why don't you try being a little less hostile and patronising - you might find people respond better!
-
Why don't you try being a little less hostile and patronising - you might find people respond better!
Thanks for the advice
-
Went to a pretty poor comprehensive myself, not some posh school. It's not my reading skills in question "fella".
honest debate you and your pals just talk rubbish.you poor fella lose an arguement and you insult peoples education.
-
honest debate you and your pals just talk rubbish.you poor fella lose an arguement and you insult peoples education.you sure your school wasn't for xxxxxxxxx
You're very touchy, Sami.
What is this even meant to imply? You should remove this post yourself.
-
You're very touchy, Sami.
What is this even meant to imply? You should remove this post yourself.
done. it was a bit below the belt.but a response to your patranising
-
Why don't you try being a little less hostile and patronising - you might find people respond better!
Pot-Kettle-Black. ???
-
Pot-Kettle-Black. ???
I think you should take a long hard look at yourself before you EVER criticise someone else on this score - Oh I forgot, we just don't understand your sense of humour! ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
done it was a bit below the belt.but a response to your patranising
I debate as I find. If people insult and attempt to patronise me then I will respond as I see fit. If you are prepared to dish out the insults then don't complain if others respond in the same manner.
Glad that you removed the part of your post that you did :)
-
Anyway its pretty clear that ep would have known about any new forthcoming legislation and im sure most of us know that the cogs turn slowly with anything like this no matter what business we are in.
Adam probably best to concede on tbis one. Gringo has made his point verg well i think
-
I debate as I find. If people insult and attempt to patronise me then I will respond as I see fit. If you are prepared to dish out the insults then don't complain if others respond in the same manner.
Glad that you removed the part of your post that you did :)
thats what i did you patranised me about being uneducated.same goes to you if you cant take it dont dish it out
-
thats what i did you patranised me about being uneducated.same goes to youy if you cant take it dont dish it out
I can take it, carry on all you like :)
-
I can take it, carry on all you like :)
theres nothing to carry on .i was just explaining my point to you.but lets move on
-
theres nothing to carry on .i was just explaining my point to you.but lets move on
:)
-
plus when iam out of order iam happy to admit it and change it which ive done .i allways try not to act like that in the begining :)