Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: JackiePreece on April 02, 2017, 09:33:PM
-
DNA testing in the 80's
When did DNA testing began?
In 1986 was when DNA was first used in a criminal investigation by Dr.Jeffreys. 1986. The investigation used genetic fingerprinting in a case of two rapes and murders that had happened in 1983 and 1986. These crimes happened in a small town called Leicestershire, which is located in the United Kingdom.23 Feb 2015
In 1996, Essex Police Special Branch illegally destroyed all DNA exhibits (apart from the sound moderator) despite a judicial review ruling in favour of Bamber which ordered the Home Office to disclose the materials. No one has ever been called to account for this. Other police reports show that many pieces of evidence supposedly destroyed still existed after the date of their ‘destruction.’
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-36168459
-
I read about this case. He would no doubt have gone on to become a 'serial killer'. It seems that he brought about his own downfall by having focused his crimes upon small rural communities which were familiar to him. This made him vulnerable to being flushed out - when the police decided to pressure all local males to undertake tests.
-
I read about this case. He would no doubt have gone on to become a 'serial killer'. It seems that he brought about his own downfall by having focused his crimes upon small rural communities which were familiar to him. This made him vulnerable to being flushed out - when the police decided to pressure all local males to undertake tests.
Yes, he stupidly asked someone to do the test for him and that's how he was caught.
-
Yes, he stupidly asked someone to do the test for him and that's how he was caught.
Yeah and the lad was too thick or naive to cotton on - so he agreed. If Pitchfork had operated in a city, for example Leicester - the police would not have been able to go down the blood tests route. He would have gone on to kill more young women before DNA or some other circumstance ended his spree. He was a monster.
-
Yeah and the lad was too thick or naive to cotton on - so he agreed. If Pitchfork had operated in a city, for example Leicester - the police would not have been able to go down the blood tests route. He would have gone on to kill more young women before DNA or some other circumstance ended his spree. He was a monster.
I suspect he still is - good thing his parole was rejected!
-
I have to ask myself,what's he doing in an open prison ??
-
I have to ask myself,what's he doing in an open prison ??
It's only a recommendation, based upon his 'exceptional progress'. If true then it sounds like he has completed work around his offending and rehabilitation etc. I suppose you could argue that that is officially one of the main purposes of prison.
-
DNA testing in the 80's
When did DNA testing began?
In 1986 was when DNA was first used in a criminal investigation by Dr.Jeffreys. 1986. The investigation used genetic fingerprinting in a case of two rapes and murders that had happened in 1983 and 1986. These crimes happened in a small town called Leicestershire, which is located in the United Kingdom.23 Feb 2015
In 1996, Essex Police Special Branch illegally destroyed all DNA exhibits (apart from the sound moderator) despite a judicial review ruling in favour of Bamber which ordered the Home Office to disclose the materials. No one has ever been called to account for this. Other police reports show that many pieces of evidence supposedly destroyed still existed after the date of their ‘destruction.’
It was obviously no accident that special branch destroyed vital DNA exhibits when this case has always been under appeal
-
It was obviously no accident that special branch destroyed vital DNA exhibits when this case has always been under appeal
I see, so they had the ability to see into the future? ::)
-
I thought they tested the silencer for DNA ?
What else could they test for DNA ? The carpets and bed clothes were destroyed days after the massacre. The bodies are no longer available.
-
I thought they tested the silencer for DNA ?
What else could they test for DNA ? The carpets and bed clothes were destroyed days after the massacre. The bodies are no longer available.
Yes June's DNA was found in the silencer, possibly deposited when Jeremy shot her last between the eyes, vowing never to glimpse her again.
-
Yes June's DNA was found in the silencer, possibly deposited when Jeremy shot her last between the eyes, vowing never to glimpse her again.
Junes DNA got there by contamination. There were no contact wounds to June. There were however two contact wounds to Nicholas Caffell. However no biological material of Nicholas Caffell was ever found inside.
Why? ;)
-
Junes DNA got there by contamination. There were no contact wounds to June. There were however two contact wounds to Nicholas Caffell. However no biological material of Nicholas Caffell was ever found inside.
Why? ;)
The boys were found in their beds in their own room (formerly Sheila's room). They appeared to have been shot while in bed. The court heard that Daniel had been shot five times in the back of the head, four times with the gun held within one foot of his head, and once from over two feet away. Nicholas had been shot three times, all contact or close-proximity shots.
What was that phenomenon you were quoting earlier today of bombarding people with facts pertaining to be true and hope no-one would notice..
-
43. " Mrs Bamber was bare footed and dressed in a nightdress. She had received seven gunshot wounds, of which one to her forehead and one to the right side of the head would have caused death very quickly. She also suffered shots to the right side of the lower part of her neck, the right forearm, two injuries to the right side of the chest and to the right knee. There was a great deal of blood on her body and clothing and from its pattern, it appeared that at some stage of the attack she had been in an upright position".
This does not say whether any shots were or were not contact shots. However 7 shots surely some were contact shots. Bamber had the option of getting close to June as she was asleep in bed and then no threat on the floor.
-
It was obviously no accident that special branch destroyed vital DNA exhibits when this case has always been under appeal
It most certainly wasn't an accident, Jackie. The destruction was done after court orders were obtained ordering disclosure of certain items.
The destruction is also something that the Appeal Court demanded an explanation for. It cannot possibly be seen in any other light than the deliberate suppression of evidence.
To be clear EP were ordered by judicial review to disclose evidence. They partially complied and then for some reason Special Branch were called in and the remaining evidence was kept or destroyed. The fact that Special Branch were involved is unusual. The remit of SB is responsibility for "national security and intelligence gathering".
"National security" is generally a euphemism for protecting the dirty secrets of the state, so I think it can be safely assumed that Special Branch were following their remit.
There is no good reason why EP would destroy all forensic evidence, there is no good reason why Special Branch should be involved and it takes wilful blindness to pass this off as some sort of innocent mistake.
It should be obvious to anyone even half paying attention that the forensic evidence was destroyed because EP had something to hide. JB wanted full disclosure, the court ordered full disclosure but EP destroyed the evidence.
If the right person was convicted, why would EP have anything to hide?
-
My sentiments too and if everyone else was fair-minded,they'd agree as well.
-
My sentiments too and if everyone else was fair-minded,they'd agree as well.
It is self evident that EP must have known that the advancement of forensic science generally and DNA techniques, specifically, would destroy their case if items were disclosed. They would not defy court orders without reason.
-
It is self evident that EP must have known that the advancement of forensic science generally and DNA techniques, specifically, would destroy their case if items were disclosed. They would not defy court orders without reason.
What DNA evidence did EP destroy, a decade later that would have benefitted Bamber ?
The silencer was tested for DNA & found June's.
The bedclothes & carpets were destroyed in 1985. The bodies were not available.
-
It is self evident that EP must have known that the advancement of forensic science generally and DNA techniques, specifically, would destroy their case if items were disclosed. They would not defy court orders without reason.
If there'd been anything that could have pointed towards JB,it would never have been destroyed. Or for sure,if he'd been the killer,then it definitely wouldn't. We all know that this happens when a person is innocent.
This was all about the jiggery-pokery which went on with EP&co.!!
EP lived in the dark-ages back then and didn't see further than the ends of their noses as regards any forthcoming future skills in forensic science. Bumpkins !
-
If there'd been anything that could have pointed towards JB,it would never have been destroyed. Or for sure,if he'd been the killer,then it definitely wouldn't. We all know that this happens when a person is innocent.
This was all about the jiggery-pokery which went on with EP&co.!!
EP lived in the dark-ages back then and didn't see further than the ends of their noses as regards any forthcoming future skills in forensic science. Bumpkins !
What DNA evidence did EP destroy, a decade later that would have benefitted Bamber ?
The silencer was tested for DNA & found June's.
The bedclothes & carpets were destroyed in 1985. The bodies were not available.
-
What DNA evidence did EP destroy, a decade later that would have benefitted Bamber ?
The silencer was tested for DNA & found June's.
The bedclothes & carpets were destroyed in 1985. The bodies were not available.
The DNA of those who were murdered and the murderer herself,were destroyed. Carpets,sheets,etc,in the garden and clothing,paperwork destroyed in an incinerator. Lord knows what else !!
DNA on the silencer had been a mixture-------therefore contaminated.
-
The DNA of those who were murdered and the murderer herself,were destroyed. Carpets,sheets,etc,in the garden and clothing,paperwork destroyed in an incinerator. Lord knows what else !!
DNA on the silencer had been a mixture-------therefore contaminated.
Jeremy destroyed quit a few things in the farm fire pit. It is a sad case that items were destroyed but they may not have worked in Bambers favour.
-
The DNA of those who were murdered and the murderer herself,were destroyed. Carpets,sheets,etc,in the garden and clothing,paperwork destroyed in an incinerator. Lord knows what else !!
DNA on the silencer had been a mixture-------therefore contaminated.
That was all destroyed in 1985.
What was destroyed in 1996 to stop DNA testing ?
-
That was all destroyed in 1985.
What was destroyed in 1996 to stop DNA testing ?
You tell me !
-
You tell me !
Supporters are claiming that the items were crucial so what were they? I'll start you off.
Nightdress
-
You tell me !
I don't need to
So nothing then.
So why are supporters claiming the police destroyed evidence to stop DNA testing ?
-
Supporters are claiming that the items were crucial so what were they? I'll start you off.
Nightdress
How would DNA testing on the nightdress benefit Bamber ?
Is there evidence the police kept this for 10 years. Then destroyed it just before DNA testing ? Don't see why they would as they were not aware of the huge advancements in technology that would occur.
They destroyed carpets & bedsheets within days on the massacre.
-
I don't need to
So nothing then.
So why are supporters claiming the police destroyed evidence to stop DNA testing ?
My own thoughts about what had been destroyed are more to do with finding out how crooked EP were.
-
My own thoughts about what had been destroyed are more to do with finding out how crooked EP were.
So there was no remaining evidence which could be DNA tested that would have benefitted Bamber.
However the police still destroyed this invisible evidence.
Except the silencer of course. Which was tested.
-
So there was no remaining evidence which could be DNA tested that would have benefitted Bamber.
However the police still destroyed this invisible evidence.
Except the silencer of course. Which was tested.
Why have you contradicted yourself ?
-
Why have you contradicted yourself ?
That's a good question.
The silencer was DNA tested.
But apparently everything else was destroyed to prevent DNA testing. Although no one can say what these items were.
-
How would DNA testing on the nightdress benefit Bamber ?
Is there evidence the police kept this for 10 years. Then destroyed it just before DNA testing ? Don't see why they would as they were not aware of the huge advancements in technology that would occur.
They destroyed carpets & bedsheets within days on the massacre.
Well, if the other victims DNA was present on her nightdress - that would benefit Bamber. If it wasn't, then they would be no further forward.
-
Well, if the other victims DNA was present on her nightdress - that would benefit Bamber. If it wasn't, then they would be no further forward.
I don't know why the police would let the silencer have DNA tests, but dispose of the nightdress to prevent DNA tests. That's if the nightie wasn't destroyed in 1985.
If other peoples blood was on Sheila's nightdress, that would have benefiitted Bamber more. However there wasn't as Bamber's defence team would have checked it. Sheila's blood is nothing to do with DNA.
-
I don't know why the police would let the silencer have DNA tests, but dispose of the nightdress to prevent DNA tests. That's if the nightie wasn't destroyed in 1985.
If other peoples blood was on Sheila's nightdress, that would have benefiitted Bamber more. However there wasn't as Bamber's defence team would have checked it. Sheila's blood is nothing to do with DNA.
Perhaps in the first instance, the nightie had blood from another victim on it?
Whereas in the second instance, the silencer was an introduced and controlled exhibit?
-
Perhaps in the first instance, the nightie had blood from another victim on it?
Whereas in the second instance, the silencer was an introduced and controlled exhibit?
Did Stan Jones also fabricate the nightie evidence ?
-
Did Stan Jones also fabricate the nightie evidence ?
In what sense?
-
Did Stan Jones also fabricate the nightie evidence ?
Adam do we know in what respect the nightie was tested for evidence or indeed if Sheila murdered her family was she actually wearing the said nightie maybe she changed or was changed.
-
Adam do we know in what respect the nightie was tested for evidence or indeed if Sheila murdered her family was she actually wearing the said nightie maybe she changed or was changed.
He's been accused of fabricating the silencer, writing Julie's WS & coaching Julie on court performance. Maybe he replaced Sheila's nightie which had everyone's blood on.
He was very active considering he wasn't even heading the investigation.
-
He's been accused of fabricating the silencer, writing Julie's WS & coaching Julie on court performance. Maybe he replaced Sheila's nightie which had everyone's blood on.
He was very active considering he wasn't even heading the investigation.
Maybe the whisky kept him going.
-
What DNA evidence did EP destroy, a decade later that would have benefitted Bamber ?
The silencer was tested for DNA & found June's.
The bedclothes & carpets were destroyed in 1985. The bodies were not available.
Off the top of my head, all of the bloodstained pyjamas, bullet casings and ballistic evidence plus bloodstained carpet and bed sheet samples were destroyed. Whilst it is true that the bedclothes and carpets were destroyed days after the killings, this was after samples were taken. This is well documented. The silencer is the only forensic exhibit not destroyed. There is much more but these alone could establish who committed the killings.
The blood and DNA of the victims would be all over Sheila's clothes, if she were the killer. Neville's pyjamas could have been tested for DNA to establish who he was struggling with, Jeremy or Sheila?
It is beyond dispute that these items were destroyed, contrary to court orders and is well documented. DNA testing would have established the truth or otherwise of the prosecution case but EP and Special Branch were apparently keen to prevent this.
-
Off the top of my head, all of the bloodstained pyjamas, bullet casings and ballistic evidence plus bloodstained carpet and bed sheet samples were destroyed. Whilst it is true that the bedclothes and carpets were destroyed days after the killings, this was after samples were taken. This is well documented. The silencer is the only forensic exhibit not destroyed. There is much more but these alone could establish who committed the killings.
The blood and DNA of the victims would be all over Sheila's clothes, if she were the killer. Neville's pyjamas could have been tested for DNA to establish who he was struggling with, Jeremy or Sheila?
It is beyond dispute that these items were destroyed, contrary to court orders and is well documented. DNA testing would have established the truth or otherwise of the prosecution case but EP and Special Branch were apparently keen to prevent this.
The police have been criticised for disposing of carpets and bed clothes days after the massacre. Now they apparently took samples of the carpets. But disposed of them 10 years later to prevent DNA testing.
I don't know why the police would keep pyjama's and nighties for 10 years. They may have disposed of them days later, upon Taff's instructions. If not then certainly after the 1986 conviction. No one knew DNA was coming.
Disposing of such items & letting the silencee be tested just makes the police look stupid.
-
The silencer was DNA tested. Upon Bamber's request. June's DNA was in the silencer. Supporters have this week said the silencer was contaminated.
This is similar to the Hanratty case. Supporters demanded DNA testing decades later. When these tests showed Hanratty was guilty, supporters claimed contamination.
Not sure Bamber or Hanratty's supporters would have claimed contamination if the results benefitted them.
You've got to love the tactics.
-
The police have been criticised for disposing of carpets and bed clothes days after the massacre. Now they apparently took samples of the carpets. But disposed of them 10 years later to prevent DNA testing.
I don't know why the police would keep pyjama's and nighties for 10 years. They may have disposed of them days later, upon Taff's instructions. If not then certainly after the 1986 conviction. No one knew DNA was coming.
Disposing of such items & letting the silencee be tested just makes the police look stupid.
It isn't disputed that EP took samples. Pyjamas and nightdress were destroyed in 1996. Why do you imagine they would have been destroyed in 1986?
It is not seriously in dispute that this evidence was destroyed in 1996. DS Whiddon and Soames of Special Branch overseeing it all.
-
It isn't disputed that EP took samples. Pyjamas and nightdress were destroyed in 1996. Why do you imagine they would have been destroyed in 1986?
It is not seriously in dispute that this evidence was destroyed in 1996. DS Whiddon and Soames of Special Branch overseeing it all.
I imagine because the trial was over in 1986.
But if it's police protocol to keep remaining items for 10 years, that's what they did. Then disposed of them.
They had not assisted Bamber in 1986 or beyond, so why keep them ? DNA was hardly known about then & confused jurors in the OJ Simpson case.
-
Jeremy destroyed quit a few things in the farm fire pit. It is a sad case that items were destroyed but they may not have worked in Bambers favour.
I don't believe for a moment that Jeremy decided to destroy anything until the police asked his permission.
We mustn't lose sight of what happened to the best of our knowledge and as yet I haven't seen anything that says jb was the one to suggest destroying anything.
upon requests from ep if he had no reason to object and if guilty he didn't ever know they were going to do that surely,
-
The police have been criticised for disposing of carpets and bed clothes days after the massacre. Now they apparently took samples of the carpets. But disposed of them 10 years later to prevent DNA testing.
I don't know why the police would keep pyjama's and nighties for 10 years. They may have disposed of them days later, upon Taff's instructions. If not then certainly after the 1986 conviction. No one knew DNA was coming.
Disposing of such items & letting the silencee be tested just makes the police look stupid.
Honestly adam are you for real. You know as well as anyone else DNA testing ect has come on in leaps and bounds since these murders suicide.
will, you please stop putting a sarcastic slant on every post you make it it doing my head in.😡
-
Honestly adam are you for real. You know as well as anyone else DNA testing ect has come on in leaps and bounds since these murders suicide.
will, you please stop putting a sarcastic slant on every post you make it it doing my head in.😡
My post refers to 1986. When DNA didn't exist.
Altough I've been told today the police apparently kept samples of the carpets. Then apparently disposed of them in 1996 but let the silencer be tested.
Sources would be nice.
-
My post refers to 1986. When DNA didn't exist.
Altough I've been told today the police apparently kept samples of the carpets. Then apparently disposed of them in 1996 but let the silencer be tested.
Sources would be nice.
sources for what.
read the news DNA advances since 1986 should do it if you want to Google it.
How can anyone provide a source on something that is unable to be tested for DNA when it's been destroyed.
-
sources for what.
read the news DNA advances since 1986 should do it if you want to Google it.
How can anyone provide a source on something that is unable to be tested for DNA when it's been destroyed.
Sources that the police kept samples of the carpets. And what they disposed of. As it's been said pyjamas & night dresses were disposed of in 1996. Although the silencer was tested.
It's alright, I'm not expecting a source from you. But feel free to surprise me.
-
It most certainly wasn't an accident, Jackie. The destruction was done after court orders were obtained ordering disclosure of certain items.
The destruction is also something that the Appeal Court demanded an explanation for. It cannot possibly be seen in any other light than the deliberate suppression of evidence.
To be clear EP were ordered by judicial review to disclose evidence. They partially complied and then for some reason Special Branch were called in and the remaining evidence was kept or destroyed. The fact that Special Branch were involved is unusual. The remit of SB is responsibility for "national security and intelligence gathering".
"National security" is generally a euphemism for protecting the dirty secrets of the state, so I think it can be safely assumed that Special Branch were following their remit.
There is no good reason why EP would destroy all forensic evidence, there is no good reason why Special Branch should be involved and it takes wilful blindness to pass this off as some sort of innocent mistake.
It should be obvious to anyone even half paying attention that the forensic evidence was destroyed because EP had something to hide. JB wanted full disclosure, the court ordered full disclosure but EP destroyed the evidence.
If the right person was convicted, why would EP have anything to hide?
Thank you Gringo
That is exactly what I believe and so obvious
-
Sources that the police kept samples of the carpets. And what they disposed of. As it's been said pyjamas & night dresses were disposed of in 1996. Although the silencer was tested.
It's alright, I'm not expecting a source from you. But feel free to surprise me.
did I mention carpets ? No and I have absolutely zero desire to surprise you.
you find the police confirmation that exhibits were destroyed, why should I. We've both read them so find another avenue to get at me.
-
I imagine because the trial was over in 1986.
But if it's police protocol to keep remaining items for 10 years, that's what they did. Then disposed of them.
They had not assisted Bamber in 1986 or beyond, so why keep them ? DNA was hardly known about then & confused jurors in the OJ Simpson case.
Don't be ridulous Adam
This is one of the biggest murder cases ever in the UK
This case has always been under appeal
There was a massive break through in DNA evidence around the times of the murder
For anyone who still has it in there head JB is guilty they cannot give a feasible explanation why Special Branch were involved in the destruction of evidence
At the very least someone should have been charged with perverting the course of justice
There must have been something very crucial to this case to take such steps
This, the changes in statements, the interventions from the greedy jealous relatives and the way they tried to mislead the jury
How can anyone believe in British Justice when you research this case
-
did I mention carpets ? No and I have absolutely zero desire to surprise you.
you find the police confirmation that exhibits were destroyed, why should I. We've both read them so find another avenue to get at me.
Why should I find it. I am not making the allegation ?
-
Maybe the whisky kept him going.
Hi lookout
:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) probably put a spring in his step :)
-
Why should I find it. I am not making the allegation ?
Adam notsure maybe thinks you have a thread on the subject.
-
Hi lookout
:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) probably put a spring in his step :)
As well as a lot of mistakes in his notes-----crossings out,etc. :o
-
As well as a lot of mistakes in his notes-----crossings out,etc. :o
Hahaha that must have been the effect of the drink ;D
-
Why should I find it. I am not making the allegation ?
They are not allegations. It is not in dispute that samples were taken.
My father always taught me to take nothing as fact and to always do your own fact checking and research.
You have the names of officers involved(Whiddon and Soames). There are statements from Whiddon and Soames regarding the destruction. I am not here to gather evidence for you and you should have enough information to find these statements yourself. If you are genuinely curious you will find them yourself.
Whiddon, incidentally was exhibits officer, which informs but does not explain his presence when the evidence was gathered in order to decide whether it should be kept or destroyed.
The presence and involvement of Soames and Special Branch remains unexplained and inexplicable.
-
They are not allegations. It is not in dispute that samples were taken.
My father always taught me to take nothing as fact and to always do your own fact checking and research.
You have the names of officers involved(Whiddon and Soames). There are statements from Whiddon and Soames regarding the destruction. I am not here to gather evidence for you and you should have enough information to find these statements yourself. If you are genuinely curious you will find them yourself.
Whiddon, incidentally was exhibits officer, which informs but does not explain his presence when the evidence was gathered in order to decide whether it should be kept or destroyed.
The presence and involvement of Soames and Special Branch remains unexplained and inexplicable.
In the eight years between the breakthrough in forensic science re: DNA and destruction of evidence in 1996, did Jeremy ever request DNA tests on any of the items in question? There was a lot of publicity when Pitchfork was convicted and it would have been an idea opportunity for Bamber to plead his case and make submissions based on this evidence? OR did he only make a fuss after these items were destroyed? You mentioned that a court order was obtained to request 'certain items'? Were these certain items those that were destroyed in 1996? Did Jeremy EVER request DNA testing on ANY of these items?
As for the SB officers being underhanded. They may have been involved in the legitimate destruction of items on a regular basis so it's not surprising that they wouldn't remember one case above all others. IF they wanted to make sure that DNA testing could never be carried out on items such as SC nightdress, I doubt they would wait 8 years to get rid of it.
-
In the eight years between the breakthrough in forensic science re: DNA and destruction of evidence in 1996, did Jeremy ever request DNA tests on any of the items in question? There was a lot of publicity when Pitchfork was convicted and it would have been an idea opportunity for Bamber to plead his case and make submissions based on this evidence? OR did he only make a fuss after these items were destroyed? You mentioned that a court order was obtained to request 'certain items'? Were these certain items those that were destroyed in 1996? Did Jeremy EVER request DNA testing on ANY of these items?
As for the SB officers being underhanded. They may have been involved in the legitimate destruction of items on a regular basis so it's not surprising that they wouldn't remember one case above all others. IF they wanted to make sure that DNA testing could never be carried out on items such as SC nightdress, I doubt they would wait 8 years to get rid of it.
Your usual reply you just don't know do you
You don't find it completely unacceptable that Special Branch were drafted in to deal with this 'special case' destroying evidence
And finally you use the words I doubt
Why ?????
You just don't know
-
Your usual reply you just don't know do you
You don't find it completely unacceptable that Special Branch were drafted in to deal with this 'special case' destroying evidence
And finally you use the words I doubt
Why ?????
You just don't know
Do you know any of the answers to the above questions? You don't do you? ;D ;D What do you mean by 'drafted in'? Each force had it's own Special Branch, they didn't have to be 'drafted in'!
-
In the eight years between the breakthrough in forensic science re: DNA and destruction of evidence in 1996, did Jeremy ever request DNA tests on any of the items in question? There was a lot of publicity when Pitchfork was convicted and it would have been an idea opportunity for Bamber to plead his case and make submissions based on this evidence? OR did he only make a fuss after these items were destroyed? You mentioned that a court order was obtained to request 'certain items'? Were these certain items those that were destroyed in 1996? Did Jeremy EVER request DNA testing on ANY of these items?
Oh
As for the SB officers being underhanded. They may have been involved in the legitimate destruction of items on a regular basis so it's not surprising that they wouldn't remember one case above all others. IF they wanted to make sure that DNA testing could never be carried out on items such as SC nightdress, I doubt they would wait 8 years to get rid of it.
Wasn't the case under appeal though Caroline. Although we differ on our view of the case I can't see how anyone can defend the fact police destroyed evidence which clearly shouldn't have been. If it hadn't it may well have been used to prove his guilt without any doubt or of course his innocence.
We don't have any information about what jb or his legal team did regarding requesting DNA so we can't be sure either way.
This for me is one more sticking point that could have proven beyond doubt guilt or innocence either way.
-
Wasn't the case under appeal though Caroline. Although we differ on our view of the case I can't see how anyone can defend the fact police destroyed evidence which clearly shouldn't have been. If it hadn't it may well have been used to prove his guilt without any doubt or of course his innocence.
We don't have any information about what jb or his legal team did regarding requesting DNA so we can't be sure either way.
This for me is one more sticking point that could have proven beyond doubt guilt or innocence either way.
Forgive me, but it's really of no moment -one way or the other- what is proven to you........OR me! As far as the police are concerned, the case HAS been proven. End of story.
NOW, let's have a look at this S(pecial)n B(ranch) thing. It's been bandied about this forum, certainly since I joined, I suspect, now, as lending added weight to the innocent side by adding 'something' mysterious and secret -there was a suggestion, at one moment, that Jeremy's biological surname was really Windsor, although a loyal employee had been coerced into allowing his name to be put on the birth certificate!!!! ergo, SB had been tailing him (and his family by adoption) since his birth!!!!!
When we reevaluate what SB means, it seems highly likely that each member probably spends their working day doing the every day duties that every day police persons do. When something comes up which requires their specialist skills, they reform to become SB. Caroline raises an excellent point. It CAN'T be possible -or it wasn't until the storing of information became digital- to hold on to reams of typewritten information. It's not unreasonable to believe that every so often it was necessary to have a mass clear out of ALL stored information. I find it unbelievable in the extreme to accept that "A" member of SB was employed JUST to destroy information pertaining to the Bamber case.
-
Forgive me, but it's really of no moment -one way or the other- what is proven to you........OR me! As far as the police are concerned, the case HAS been proven. End of story.
NOW, let's have a look at this S(pecial)n B(ranch) thing. It's been bandied about this forum, certainly since I joined, I suspect, now, as lending added weight to the innocent side by adding 'something' mysterious and secret -there was a suggestion, at one moment, that Jeremy's biological surname was really Windsor, although a loyal employee had been coerced into allowing his name to be put on the birth certificate!!!! ergo, SB had been tailing him (and his family by adoption) since his birth!!!!!
When we reevaluate what SB means, it seems highly likely that each member probably spends their working day doing the every day duties that every day police persons do. When something comes up which requires their specialist skills, they reform to become SB. Caroline raises an excellent point. It CAN'T be possible -or it wasn't until the storing of information became digital- to hold on to reams of typewritten information. It's not unreasonable to believe that every so often it was necessary to have a mass clear out of ALL stored information. I find it unbelievable in the extreme to accept that "A" member of SB was employed JUST to destroy information pertaining to the Bamber case.
Yes it is unreasonable to believe that every so often it is necessary to have a mass clear out. It also is something that you have just made up and is supported by no evidence. Which part of defying court orders are you struggling with. You finding something unbelievable is not a substitute for facts. Special Branch were called in to oversee the destruction of evidence, there is a wealth of evidence to confirm this.
Your "argument" that it wasn't possible to hold onto "reams of typewritten information" is a made up excuse supported by no facts. It is physical evidence (clothes, bullets, carpet and bed sheet samples) that were destroyed and are being discussed.
Quite how you manage to imagine that it is about typewritten information is a mystery.
For arguments sake let us assume that Special Branch duties do not include destruction of evidence in defiance of court orders, unless you can find something other than your imagination that says otherwise. This being the case do you have any reasonable arguments to put forth to support this action by SB and EP
-
In the eight years between the breakthrough in forensic science re: DNA and destruction of evidence in 1996, did Jeremy ever request DNA tests on any of the items in question? There was a lot of publicity when Pitchfork was convicted and it would have been an idea opportunity for Bamber to plead his case and make submissions based on this evidence? OR did he only make a fuss after these items were destroyed? You mentioned that a court order was obtained to request 'certain items'? Were these certain items those that were destroyed in 1996? Did Jeremy EVER request DNA testing on ANY of these items?
As for the SB officers being underhanded. They may have been involved in the legitimate destruction of items on a regular basis so it's not surprising that they wouldn't remember one case above all others. IF they wanted to make sure that DNA testing could never be carried out on items such as SC nightdress, I doubt they would wait 8 years to get rid of it.
What a specious argument this is. Entirely speculative, devoid of facts, full of unsupported assumptions. Do you know of any other instance of Special Branch destroying evidence in defiance of court orders? or have you made up a possibility based on nothing?
-
Yes it is unreasonable to believe that every so often it is necessary to have a mass clear out. It also is something that you have just made up and is supported by no evidence. Which part of defying court orders are you struggling with. You finding something unbelievable is not a substitute for facts. Special Branch were called in to oversee the destruction of evidence, there is a wealth of evidence to confirm this.
Your "argument" that it wasn't possible to hold onto "reams of typewritten information" is a made up excuse supported by no facts. It is physical evidence (clothes, bullets, carpet and bed sheet samples) that were destroyed and are being discussed.
Quite how you manage to imagine that it is about typewritten information is a mystery.
For arguments sake let us assume that Special Branch duties do not include destruction of evidence in defiance of court orders, unless you can find something other than your imagination that says otherwise. This being the case do you have any reasonable arguments to put forth to support this action by SB and EP
You haven't provided any sources for you're posts yesterday and today.
My view is I'm surprised if the police kept nighties and pyjamas after Bamber was convicted in 1986. There is no record of these being discussed at trial & no one knew about DNA then.
The exception being something like the silencer, which was discussed at the trial, kept and tested for DNA years later.
If not disposed in 1986, I suspect it was police protocol to dispose of items 10 years after a conviction. Which the police did.
Since disposal, supporters have made the optimistic claim that the police disposed of these items because Bamber's team, (after 10 years) had suddenly decided these items needed to be looked at again & the police were scared. Although not too scared to let the silencer be tested.
Unless you can provide the court order that items must be kept. And documents that items were disposed of after the court order.
A source that carpet samples were also kept & then disposed of would be good as well. Not sure how they decided which bits of carpet to keep.
-
The disposal of items claim is similar to the current alledged withholding of documents claim. In other words properganda.
-
Yes it is unreasonable to believe that every so often it is necessary to have a mass clear out. It also is something that you have just made up and is supported by no evidence. Which part of defying court orders are you struggling with. You finding something unbelievable is not a substitute for facts. Special Branch were called in to oversee the destruction of evidence, there is a wealth of evidence to confirm this.
Your "argument" that it wasn't possible to hold onto "reams of typewritten information" is a made up excuse supported by no facts. It is physical evidence (clothes, bullets, carpet and bed sheet samples) that were destroyed and are being discussed.
Quite how you manage to imagine that it is about typewritten information is a mystery.
For arguments sake let us assume that Special Branch duties do not include destruction of evidence in defiance of court orders, unless you can find something other than your imagination that says otherwise. This being the case do you have any reasonable arguments to put forth to support this action by SB and EP
There you go again! Throwing out "disobeying court orders"!!!! I truly don't believe such is possible. Have you never heard of sheriffs and bailiffs? They are those employed by courts to carry out the instructions previously laid down by courts which have hitherto been ignored. Please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that the courts don't have the authority to do this. If they didn't, please explain exactly WHAT is the point of issuing such. It seems to me that the mantras "Disobeying court orders" and "Documents hidden under PII" are simply comforting conveniences for Jeremy's supporters to cling to.
-
Wasn't the case under appeal though Caroline. Although we differ on our view of the case I can't see how anyone can defend the fact police destroyed evidence which clearly shouldn't have been. If it hadn't it may well have been used to prove his guilt without any doubt or of course his innocence.
We don't have any information about what jb or his legal team did regarding requesting DNA so we can't be sure either way.
This for me is one more sticking point that could have proven beyond doubt guilt or innocence either way.
DNA testing was new at this time as we all know, notsure. Whether DNA testing had been requested is moot, EP defied a court order and given the advances in DNA profiling, the ongoing appeals and court order it is beyond ridiculous to claim that SB "may have" routinely destroyed evidence as part of their remit.
Neither JB nor his legal team could have requested DNA testing for most of the preceding 8 years because it didn't exist for most of them. When DNA profiling became possible EP called in Special Branch to oversee the destruction.
The pretence that this was all somehow normal procedure is desperate stuff.
What is clear is whether or not DNA testing had yet been requested, it would become an issue. It is also apparent that EP were being obstructive in releasing evidence and were having to be dragged into court in order for JB's legal representatives to obtain evidence. There is a pattern of obstructiveness on EP,s part.
The Court of Appeal also found this behaviour by EP to be unusual, demanding an explanation from EP as to the circumstances. Funnily enough neither EP nor SB claimed that it was routine procedure. Claims that this "may" have been somehow routine are supported by no evidence at all.
-
Wasn't the case under appeal though Caroline. Although we differ on our view of the case I can't see how anyone can defend the fact police destroyed evidence which clearly shouldn't have been. If it hadn't it may well have been used to prove his guilt without any doubt or of course his innocence.
We don't have any information about what jb or his legal team did regarding requesting DNA so we can't be sure either way.
This for me is one more sticking point that could have proven beyond doubt guilt or innocence either way.
Under appeal in 1996? No, he's had an appeal in 1989 and another in 2002. So, I will ask again if the items destroyed were items requested by Jeremy and his legal team and if (given the strides made in forensic science through DNA) a request was made to test said items as part of submissions to the CCRC? OR was a fuss made about it after the fact?
-
I don't know why the courts would order that EP hand over alledged stored items to Bamber's team, in 1996. The 2002 appeal was 6 years away.
-
If the truth be known,nobody had known of the existence of further files/documents/other items in the first place until it was too damn late,as appears to have been the case.
-
What a specious argument this is. Entirely speculative, devoid of facts, full of unsupported assumptions. Do you know of any other instance of Special Branch destroying evidence in defiance of court orders? or have you made up a possibility based on nothing?
Where are your facts? Where is the evidence of court orders for these items? Fact is gringo, IF such court orders exist (and you have never provided ANY evidence of such), they do NOT relate to these items and you know it - also Bamber didn't ever instruct his defence to look into matters of DNA on these items until after the fact.
Every police force had it's own SB, they weren't brought in as some have suggested, they worked alongside other officers assisting were necessary. Do I know of any other case where SB legally destroyed old evidence? I don't follow any other case but I am certain that SB officers have done so. This is just another storm in a teacup. Were this some mass conspiracy, the guy would have made sure his name wasn't associated and they wouldn't have waited 8 years to prevent a DNA breakthrough from being discovered!
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1977/may/05/police-special-branch
-
If the truth be known,nobody had known of the existence of further files/documents/other items in the first place until it was too damn late,as appears to have been the case.
No one knew about the destroyed files until AFTER they were destroyed? So what did they know to ask for? Did SB make a list for everyone to find? ::)
-
No one knew about the destroyed files until AFTER they were destroyed? So what did they know to ask for? Did SB make a list for everyone to find? ::)
Did anyone know what was on/in them, is more to the point ?
-
Did anyone know what was on/in them, is more to the point ?
If no one knew about them, they wouldn't know what was in them. Here we go again, "docs were destroyed but we don't know what they are" ;D. It is well documented that the items were articles taken from WHF which had blood evidence on them, NOT files!
-
DNA testing was new at this time as we all know, notsure. Whether DNA testing had been requested is moot, EP defied a court order and given the advances in DNA profiling, the ongoing appeals and court order it is beyond ridiculous to claim that SB "may have" routinely destroyed evidence as part of their remit.
Neither JB nor his legal team could have requested DNA testing for most of the preceding 8 years because it didn't exist for most of them. When DNA profiling became possible EP called in Special Branch to oversee the destruction.
The pretence that this was all somehow normal procedure is desperate stuff.
What is clear is whether or not DNA testing had yet been requested, it would become an issue. It is also apparent that EP were being obstructive in releasing evidence and were having to be dragged into court in order for JB's legal representatives to obtain evidence. There is a pattern of obstructiveness on EP,s part.
The Court of Appeal also found this behaviour by EP to be unusual, demanding an explanation from EP as to the circumstances. Funnily enough neither EP nor SB claimed that it was routine procedure. Claims that this "may" have been somehow routine are supported by no evidence at all.
This is untrue! Pitchfork was convicted due to DNA profiling in 1988 so is WAS available. You keep saying that EP ignored a court order but won't clarify if such a court order was for the items that were destroyed and if a request was made by the Bamber team to test such items for DNA?
The CCRC demanded an explanation? Well, they must have been satisfied with the explanation given that nothing has come of it!
-
Forgive me, but it's really of no moment -one way or the other- what is proven to you........OR me! As far as the police are concerned, the case HAS been proven. End of story.
NOW, let's have a look at this S(pecial)n B(ranch) thing. It's been bandied about this forum, certainly since I joined, I suspect, now, as lending added weight to the innocent side by adding 'something' mysterious and secret -there was a suggestion, at one moment, that Jeremy's biological surname was really Windsor, although a loyal employee had been coerced into allowing his name to be put on the birth certificate!!!! ergo, SB had been tailing him (and his family by adoption) since his birth!!!!!
When we reevaluate what SB means, it seems highly likely that each member probably spends their working day doing the every day duties that every day police persons do. When something comes up which requires their specialist skills, they reform to become SB. Caroline raises an excellent point. It CAN'T be possible -or it wasn't until the storing of information became digital- to hold on to reams of typewritten information. It's not unreasonable to believe that every so often it was necessary to have a mass clear out of ALL stored information. I find it unbelievable in the extreme to accept that "A" member of SB was employed JUST to destroy information pertaining to the Bamber case.
Hey Jane, can't follow you're first paragraph sorry.
I don't know anything about the special branch coming in but I do find it incredulous that a high profile case which has had tv shows made on it, was under appeal review many times, etc etc that a police officer didn't know that theses docs/evidence should have been left well alone. Come on Jane even in the dark ages there should have been some sort of system that would work, maybe a wacking great sticky label on it which had the words do not destroy on it would have worked.
Nope sorry don't buy your take on this st all
-
The CCRC demanded an explanation? Well, they must have been satisfied with the explanation given that nothing has come of it!
What's to stop the CCRC from always being satisfied with the explanation?
What's to stop the IPCC from always being satisfied with the explanation?
How do we know that all these agencies don't simply back each other up? Are the police going to reply to the CCRC and say 'oh yes... we realised the case against Jeremy Bloggs would unravel if we didn't destroy this evidence'?
-
What's to stop the CCRC from always being satisfied with the explanation?
What's to stop the IPCC from always being satisfied with the explanation?
How do we know that all these agencies don't simply back each other up? Are the police going to reply to the CCRC and say 'oh yes... we realised the case against Jeremy Bloggs would unravel if we didn't destroy this evidence'?
If they're always satisfied, why ask for an explanation? If there was something sinister, they would never have admitted to SB officer being involved. Yes, he may have been a SB officer but that doesn't mean the destruction of these items was ordered by SB. See below ....
-
If they're always satisfied, why ask for an explanation?
Effectively to pay lip service. If their level of scrutiny ends with the first or second brush off by the police force... it's not a very effective level of scrutiny is it? And the police forces must know this.
If there was something sinister, they would never have admitted to SB officer being involved. Yes, he may have been a SB officer but that doesn't mean the destruction of these items was ordered by SB. See below ....
Personally I haven't argued for the 'Special Branch' case - so I cannot really disagree with you here. It's possible that SB has been given too much attention in this instance. However, I could be wrong.
-
The suggestion that EP defied a court order in 1996 has to be dismissed.
No source has ever be supplied. Posters just posting it happened is not enough.
-
Forgive me, but it's really of no moment -one way or the other- what is proven to you........OR me! As far as the police are concerned, the case HAS been proven. End of story.
NOW, let's have a look at this S(pecial)n B(ranch) thing. It's been bandied about this forum, certainly since I joined, I suspect, now, as lending added weight to the innocent side by adding 'something' mysterious and secret -there was a suggestion, at one moment, that Jeremy's biological surname was really Windsor, although a loyal employee had been coerced into allowing his name to be put on the birth certificate!!!! ergo, SB had been tailing him (and his family by adoption) since his birth!!!!!
When we reevaluate what SB means, it seems highly likely that each member probably spends their working day doing the every day duties that every day police persons do. When something comes up which requires their specialist skills, they reform to become SB. Caroline raises an excellent point. It CAN'T be possible -or it wasn't until the storing of information became digital- to hold on to reams of typewritten information. It's not unreasonable to believe that every so often it was necessary to have a mass clear out of ALL stored information. I find it unbelievable in the extreme to accept that "A" member of SB was employed JUST to destroy information pertaining to the Bamber case.
Here you go again Jane
The case has been proven
Your words, what exactly are you doing here?
For many people the case is not proven and this goes for Ewen Smith of the CCRC
There are genuine people on this forum who care about justice in our country and if you think there is nothing wrong with the handling of this case or mistreatment of evidence in this case I feel very sorry for you
One day one of your family maybe found guilty of something you believe they have not done but you will accept the verdict as proven
-
Effectively to pay lip service. If their level of scrutiny ends with the first or second brush off by the police force... it's not a very effective level of scrutiny is it? And the police forces must know this.
Personally I haven't argued for the 'Special Branch' case - so I cannot really disagree with you here. It's possible that SB has been given too much attention in this instance. However, I could be wrong.
Well, we don't know the reason that was given so we can't really say it was a brush off, a conspiracy or anything else. I admit that it 'seems' (on the surface) strange that SB were involved but too many times claims of conspiracy have dissolved and haven't held up to scrutiny. Unless someone can show evidence that court orders related to the evidence in question and/or that Bamber intended to have them tested for DNA purposes, this argument is a lot of points that are just unrelated and there could be a perfectly reasonable explanation why a SB officer was involved.
-
When blood had been discovered on the silencer,why wasn't JB arrested at that point ?? " Evidence " was already there-----------a smoking gun ? ( no pun intended )
-
When blood had been discovered on the silencer,why wasn't JB arrested at that point ?? " Evidence " was already there-----------a smoking gun ? ( no pun intended )
Because they have to put a case together.
-
When blood had been discovered on the silencer,why wasn't JB arrested at that point ?? " Evidence " was already there-----------a smoking gun ? ( no pun intended )
The silencer was sent away for testing. He was arrested after they got the results.
-
The silencer was sent away for testing. He was arrested after they got the results.
Yest it was in several places at once on a number of occasions :))
-
The silencer was handled by multiple people, and should never have been used as evidence.
Jeremy was stitched by Jones the family, and Mugford.
-
Yest it was in several places at once on a number of occasions :))
Oh yes.
Do you agree that RB found out he had similar blood to Sheila & shot himself. Then scratched the aga.
Or the treacherous Stan Jones somehow had access to Sheila's blood & expertly sprayed it inside, then scratched the aga ?
Or was it a joint effort ?
-
The silencer was handled by multiple people, and should never have been used as evidence.
Jeremy was stitched by Jones the family, and Mugford.
The police, DPP, courts, CCRC & COA disagree.
The relatives handed it to Jones. Jones then passed it onto Huntingdon for tests. It's called processing evidence.
-
Oh yes.
Do you agree that RB found out he had similar blood to Sheila & shot himself. Then scratched the aga. Or the treacherous Stan Jones somehow had access to Sheila's blood & expertly sprayed it inside, then scratched the aga ?
Or was it a joint effort ?
Personally, I suspect some kind of joint effort. However I was referring to the actual exhibit having been in two places at once on several occasions.
-
Personally, I suspect some kind of joint effort. However I was referring to the actual exhibit having been in two places at once on several occasions.
A joint effort.
You mean RB shot himself. Then Stan went back to WHF & scratched the aga & asked the relatives to say in their WS's they found it with paint on ?
-
The silencer was handled by multiple people, and should never have been used as evidence.
Jeremy was stitched by Jones the family, and Mugford.
Agreed.
-
Because they have to put a case together.
Erm,they had the " evidence " in front of them !! Shouldn't the case have been closed there and then ? Why did they take another 12 months ? Was it because the relatives kicked off ? He was even allowed to go abroad ??
-
The silencer was sent away for testing. He was arrested after they got the results.
The silencer was found on the 10th of August 1985--------sent to the lab. on the 13th !!
Why did EP wait 12 months before arresting him ??
-
The silencer was found on the 10th of August 1985--------sent to the lab. on the 13th !!
Why did EP wait 12 months before arresting him ??
Bamber was arrested in September 1985. Less than two months after the massacre.
It would have been sooner but he was in St Tropez.
-
Bamber was arrested in September 1985. Less than two months after the massacre.
It would have been sooner but he was in St Tropez.
He was arrested for questioning only in 1985. Why wasn't he imprisoned then after the blood had been found in the silencer a month before ??
He was re-arrested in October 1986,so what happened in-between time ?
Because he went on holiday ?? You ARE joking ::)
-
He was arrested for questioning only in 1985. Why wasn't he imprisoned then after the blood had been found in the silencer a month before ??
He was re-arrested in October 1986,so what happened in-between time ?
Because he went on holiday ?? You ARE joking ::)
No Lookout.
He was arrested on the 29th September 1985.
He was found guilty at court on 14th October 1986 after an 8 week trial.
-
Actually Wikipedia says Bamber was arrested on the 8th September 1985. Which was only a month after the massacre.
Either way, it wasn't a year after the massacre as Lookout claims.
-
The silencer was found on the 10th of August 1985--------sent to the lab. on the 13th !!
Why did EP wait 12 months before arresting him ??
Eh? 12 months? He was arrested in early September and remanded - where are you getting 12 months from? I think you need to check your facts Lookout - he spent over a year on remand!
-
No Lookout.
He was arrested on the 29th September 1985.
He was found guilty at court on 14th October 1986 after an 8 week trial.
12 MONTHS LATER !! So what exactly had been the proof given that D I Cook hadn't reported seeing blood on the silencer,even after he'd dismantled it ? DS Davidson who'd handled the evidence forms wasn't even aware there was a silencer involved ?
-
Which meant he was bailed for 12 months------but allowed a passport to go abroad ?? I thought that in the terms of bail,you couldn't leave the country ? EP waited until he'd finished his holiday ?? Very good of them wasn't it ?
-
Which meant he was bailed for 12 months------but allowed a passport to go abroad ?? I thought that in the terms of bail,you couldn't leave the country ? EP waited until he'd finished his holiday ?? Very good of them wasn't it ?
I believe a nee Howie and her husband stood bail for him.
-
TyJeremy Bamber: Police still withholding vital evidence
Share
|
Evidence not disclosed & destroyed, in defiance of three court orders
Essex police: Contempt of court & perverting justice?
Unfair trial? Miscarriage of justice? Police cover up? Time for retrial?
London, UK – 5 April 2017
Peter Tatchell has today written to the Chief Constable of Essex, Stephen Kavanagh, urging him to comply fully with three court orders to make available to Jeremy Bamber’s legal team hundreds of pieces of evidence that Essex police have failed to disclose for 32 years. Shockingly, some evidence has been destroyed, despite court orders to hand it over to the defence.
Bamber was convicted and jailed for killing five members of his family at White House Farm in Essex in 1985. He is serving a whole life tariff, which means he can never be released from prison.
In today’s letter, Mr Tatchell points out that the withholding of significant evidence means that Jeremy Bamber may not have had a fair trial and that:
“The partial, limited compliance with three successive court orders puts Essex police at risk of prosecution for contempt of court and perverting the course of justice.”
Here is a copy of the letter, which details the non-disclosed evidence and the court orders that have not been fully complied with:
Chief Constable Stephen Kavanagh
Essex Police
5 April 2017
Dear Stephen Kavanagh,
Jeremy Bamber – Withheld and non-disclosed evidence
I am writing to you concerning the allegation that Essex police have withheld and destroyed evidence, and defied three court orders, with regard to the White House Farm murders in 1985.
Jeremy Bamber’s legal defence team have requested hundreds of audio recordings, photographs, forensic and lab reports, public interest immunity files, medical records, diaries and police hand-written statements, notebooks and logs.
These are listed in full below, together with the three court orders that Essex police have failed to fully comply with.
This withholding and non-disclosure of evidence has continued for 32 years.
The partial, limited compliance with three successive court orders puts Essex police at risk of prosecution for contempt of court and perverting the course of justice.
I cannot say whether Jeremy Bamber is guilty or innocent. But I know that denying him access to relevant evidence at his trial and appeals is a grave injustice. He has a legal right to this evidence. Without it, he may not have had a fair trial and his conviction may be unsafe.
You have the power to remedy past police failings. I urge you to act.
I respectfully request you to confirm to me that you will provide Jeremy Bamber’s solicitor with all the material evidence requested in this letter:
Mark Newby, Jordans solicitors, 4 Priory Place, Doncaster DN1 1BP - 01302 365 374
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Tatchell
Director, Peter Tatchell Foundation
Jeremy Bamber case - itemisation of withheld evidence
Key material that Essex police are requested to disclose to Jeremy Bamber’s legal team
This request for evidence is relevant to Jeremy Bamber’s consideration of a new appeal against his conviction. Holmes references for most of the requested materials are available. Please see the ‘Disclosure Booklet’ for more information http://simplebooklet.com/disclosurebookletjeremybamber#page=0
These are the documents, recordings and photos requested:
Original manuscript/handwritten logs by Malcolm Bonnett (civilian telephone operator at police HQ) and PC West showing that Nevill Bamber (father of Jeremy Bamber) called the police saying: ‘daughter gone berserk' and 'has got hold of one of my guns’. There are two separate logs: one pertaining to Jeremy Bamber and one pertaining to Nevill Bamber.
Malcolm Bonnett’s original handwritten statements dated 13.09.85, 08.11.85 and 16.12.85 referring to: ‘Mr Bamber and 'Mr Bamber Junior'.
Original situation report made by PS Bews following the sighting of someone alive in White House Farm that he saw through a bedroom window prompting him to request firearms assistance.
Original statements made on 07.08.85 by PS Bews and PC Myall who saw movement in a bedroom window of White House Farm.
DI Kenneally’s 06.09.85 report following his investigation stating Sheila Caffell (sister of Jeremy Bamber) was responsible for shooting her family and then herself.
Plus DI Kenneally's statement made post trial for the Dickinson enquiry (1986).
Audio recordings of:
• PC West’s calls to HQ operator Malcolm Bonnett
• All radio traffic referred to by Malcolm Bonnett
• The raid team's open microphones
PC Milbank’s pocket book recording all his monitoring of the telephone line at White House Farm from 06:09 on 07.08.85.
All original handwritten statements and pocket book entries from the first case investigation of murder/suicide SC/688/85 including:
• PC 7975 David Bishop statements dated 14.09.85
• DI Cook statements dated 07.08.85.
• DS 219 Davidson statements dated 09.08.85
• DCI Jones statements dated 07.08.85
• PS Mildenhall statements dated 18.09.85
• Inspector Montgomery statements dated 20.08.85
• Chief Inspector Wright statements dated 09.09.85
• PS 36 Bews statements dated 18.09.85
• PC 1902 Cracknell statements dated 17.09.85
• PC 721 East statements
• DC George Henderson statements
• PC 1046 Maunder statements
• PC 1445 Reed statements
• PC 366 Shoulders statements
Original reports by forensic scientists referring to the blood in the sound moderator as identical to that of Sheila Caffell and of beneficiary Robert Boutflour (uncle of Jeremy Bamber).
Public Interest Immunity file on Julie Mugford (Jeremy Bamber's girlfriend at the time of the killings) referring to a ‘deal’ with the Crown Prosecution Service in exchange for immunity from prosecution for five criminal offences, three of which were unknown to the jury. Plus disclosure of the Essex police file on the £25,000 News of the World deal, agreed to in November/December 1985 (pre-trial) by Julie Mugford via her solicitors.
All photographs taken of all the rooms in White House Farm including those containing firearms and all telephones in situ.
Sheila Caffell's medical/psychiatric records referring to her conversations with her psychiatrist where she informs him she was afraid she would kill her children.
Plus Sheila's diaries during periods where she had psychotic episodes (1983 and 1985).
All forensic scientist's pre-trial handwritten statements, lab reports and post-trial DCI Dickinson enquiry interviews pertaining to the sound moderator(s).
Essex police failure to comply with court orders
Essex Police have not fully complied with three court orders to disclose material relevant to Jeremy Bamber’s case. These orders were as follows:
Judicial Review issued by the Central Criminal Court in 1994. An order to disclose material came after Jeremy Bamber sought disclosure of DNA evidence from Essex Police and they refused. Despite the judgement instructing the Home Secretary to disclose material to Jeremy Bamber all DNA material was destroyed apart from the sound moderator. A Special Branch officer instructed the incineration of evidence in 1996. In a statement to the Metropolitan Police in 2002 he claimed he was ‘unaware’ of the ruling to disclose.
Court of Appeal Criminal Division, Royal Courts of Justice, 30 July 2001. Issued before Jeremy Bamber’s 2002 Appeal, this general order was to disclose all material including pre-trial evidence, all details of the destruction of DNA material by Special Branch, laboratory submissions, all relevant material to the findings of the Police Complaints Authority enquiry, detail of material the Crown intends to withhold, all material from the Essex and City of London Police enquiries and all material previously made available to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. There was only partial disclosure of this material.
Court of Appeal Criminal Division, Royal Courts of Justice, 2 July 2002. This order was a specific request for material including audio tapes, diaries, witness statements, basis of information contained with a police report, documents held at the mortuary and Chelmsford and Essex Hospital, statement regarding regulations governing destruction of exhibits and statement of the officer authorising destruction in 1996, all statements and results in respect of DNA testing of the sound moderator, disclosure of police interviews with the Stokenchurch enquiry, guidelines regarding completion of exhibit books and forms, disclosure of fresh evidence and unused material. The order was only partially complied with.
Click here to return to the Civil Liberties Index
Back to the top of this page
-
Supporters are claiming that the items were crucial so what were they? I'll start you off.
Nightdress
The nightdress wasn't destroyed before being tested.
-
That gives us what was asked for in the court orders.
I don't understand though why they don't just take
Legal action to prosecute the police for not complying. Perhaps holly could give this some thought as she would like to get to the truth too
-
The nightdress wasn't destroyed before being tested.
It was tested for DNA? Then what are you complaining about?
-
Which meant he was bailed for 12 months------but allowed a passport to go abroad ?? I thought that in the terms of bail,you couldn't leave the country ? EP waited until he'd finished his holiday ?? Very good of them wasn't it ?
No Lookout. They couldn't arrest him until he returned from his holiday.
Once arrested, a month after the massacre, he stayed in prison until his trial in 1986.
-
That gives us what was asked for in the court orders.
I don't understand though why they don't just take
Legal action to prosecute the police for not complying. Perhaps holly could give this some thought as she would like to get to the truth too
Because there is nothing to prosecute them for. It's just properganda which supporters fall for.
-
Must admit, if Bamber was arrested a year after the massacre, supporters would create even more conspiracy theories.
But Lookout was wrong.
-
Which meant he was bailed for 12 months------but allowed a passport to go abroad ?? I thought that in the terms of bail,you couldn't leave the country ? EP waited until he'd finished his holiday ?? Very good of them wasn't it ?
Seriously Lookout, this is basic stuff! Jeremy went on holiday several times in the weeks between the murders and being arrested. He was charged with the murders in September of 85 - not 86 and was remanded. He spent over a year o remand before his trial.
-
Must admit, if Bamber was arrested a year after the massacre, supporters would create even more conspiracy theories.
But Lookout was wrong.
She will never admit it though!
-
Not sure how Bamber cam be arrested in August 1986 & then convicted in October 1986.
-
No Lookout. They couldn't arrest him until he returned from his holiday.
Once arrested, a month after the massacre, he stayed in prison until his trial in 1986.
Others are arrested while they're on their holidays ! No excuse is there when they found blood on the silencer within days ?? What was EP's excuse at waiting 12 months ?
He didn't stay in prison until his trial-------------when you've finished being funny !!
-
Others are arrested while they're on their holidays ! No excuse is there when they found blood on the silencer within days ?? What was EP's excuse at waiting 12 months ?
He didn't stay in prison until his trial-------------when you've finished being funny !!
I'm sorry Lookout but you are WRONG! I can't believe you thought he was walking around for a year before his trial ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Perhaps you will believe Scott Lomax? https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H8U7AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT186&lpg=PT186&dq=Bamber+was+remanded&source=bl&ots=E_UARH88gQ&sig=0DJsVnspQpv6VhPf-5QiGa3Zc7I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjfwt-SgY7TAhViLcAKHc-8Br4Q6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=Bamber%20was%20remanded&f=false
-
Perhaps you will believe Scott Lomax? https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H8U7AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT186&lpg=PT186&dq=Bamber+was+remanded&source=bl&ots=E_UARH88gQ&sig=0DJsVnspQpv6VhPf-5QiGa3Zc7I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjfwt-SgY7TAhViLcAKHc-8Br4Q6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=Bamber%20was%20remanded&f=false
How could Taff be removed from the case as late as 20th Sept? That seems odd - unless it was the official date but not the actual date?
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/crime-files/jeremy-bamber/arrest&ved=0ahUKEwig0LK6g47TAhWiOsAKHalECGUQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNEQx0Sks6y22XypfC0QhdGxOBcY5g
This link also says Bamber was arrested on the 29th September 1985. Although Wikipedia says it was the 8th September 1985.
Either way, Bamber wasn't a free man for a year after the massacre ;D ;D ;D
-
Perhaps you will believe Scott Lomax? https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=H8U7AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT186&lpg=PT186&dq=Bamber+was+remanded&source=bl&ots=E_UARH88gQ&sig=0DJsVnspQpv6VhPf-5QiGa3Zc7I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjfwt-SgY7TAhViLcAKHc-8Br4Q6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=Bamber%20was%20remanded&f=false
And we get to know that Liz Rimington slept with Jeremy on page 11..
-
Must admit, if Bamber was arrested a year after the massacre, supporters would create even more conspiracy theories.
But Lookout was wrong.
Adam am I correct in thinking Jeremy was taken in for questioning but not charged and was free to go on holiday again maybe lookout is getting mixed up or maybe I am just can't remember.
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/crime-files/jeremy-bamber/arrest&ved=0ahUKEwig0LK6g47TAhWiOsAKHalECGUQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNEQx0Sks6y22XypfC0QhdGxOBcY5g
This link also says Bamber was arrested on the 29th September 1985. Although Wikipedia says it was the 8th September 1985.
Either way, Bamber wasn't a free man for a year after the massacre ;D ;D ;D
He was initially arrested on 8th August and question about the murders and the Osea burglary on 13th August he appeared in court charged with the burglary - so spent around 5 days in police custody. He was bailed from court on 13th. He was rearrested on 29th and charged with murder, he was remanded until his trial the following year and has been inside every since.
-
TyJeremy Bamber: Police still withholding vital evidence
Share
|
Evidence not disclosed & destroyed, in defiance of three court orders
Essex police: Contempt of court & perverting justice?
Unfair trial? Miscarriage of justice? Police cover up? Time for retrial?
London, UK – 5 April 2017
Peter Tatchell has today written to the Chief Constable of Essex, Stephen Kavanagh, urging him to comply fully with three court orders to make available to Jeremy Bamber’s legal team hundreds of pieces of evidence that Essex police have failed to disclose for 32 years. Shockingly, some evidence has been destroyed, despite court orders to hand it over to the defence.
Bamber was convicted and jailed for killing five members of his family at White House Farm in Essex in 1985. He is serving a whole life tariff, which means he can never be released from prison.
In today’s letter, Mr Tatchell points out that the withholding of significant evidence means that Jeremy Bamber may not have had a fair trial and that:
“The partial, limited compliance with three successive court orders puts Essex police at risk of prosecution for contempt of court and perverting the course of justice.”
Here is a copy of the letter, which details the non-disclosed evidence and the court orders that have not been fully complied with:
Chief Constable Stephen Kavanagh
Essex Police
5 April 2017
Dear Stephen Kavanagh,
Jeremy Bamber – Withheld and non-disclosed evidence
I am writing to you concerning the allegation that Essex police have withheld and destroyed evidence, and defied three court orders, with regard to the White House Farm murders in 1985.
Jeremy Bamber’s legal defence team have requested hundreds of audio recordings, photographs, forensic and lab reports, public interest immunity files, medical records, diaries and police hand-written statements, notebooks and logs.
These are listed in full below, together with the three court orders that Essex police have failed to fully comply with.
This withholding and non-disclosure of evidence has continued for 32 years.
The partial, limited compliance with three successive court orders puts Essex police at risk of prosecution for contempt of court and perverting the course of justice.
I cannot say whether Jeremy Bamber is guilty or innocent. But I know that denying him access to relevant evidence at his trial and appeals is a grave injustice. He has a legal right to this evidence. Without it, he may not have had a fair trial and his conviction may be unsafe.
You have the power to remedy past police failings. I urge you to act.
I respectfully request you to confirm to me that you will provide Jeremy Bamber’s solicitor with all the material evidence requested in this letter:
Mark Newby, Jordans solicitors, 4 Priory Place, Doncaster DN1 1BP - 01302 365 374
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Tatchell
Director, Peter Tatchell Foundation
Jeremy Bamber case - itemisation of withheld evidence
Key material that Essex police are requested to disclose to Jeremy Bamber’s legal team
This request for evidence is relevant to Jeremy Bamber’s consideration of a new appeal against his conviction. Holmes references for most of the requested materials are available. Please see the ‘Disclosure Booklet’ for more information http://simplebooklet.com/disclosurebookletjeremybamber#page=0
These are the documents, recordings and photos requested:
Original manuscript/handwritten logs by Malcolm Bonnett (civilian telephone operator at police HQ) and PC West showing that Nevill Bamber (father of Jeremy Bamber) called the police saying: ‘daughter gone berserk' and 'has got hold of one of my guns’. There are two separate logs: one pertaining to Jeremy Bamber and one pertaining to Nevill Bamber.
Malcolm Bonnett’s original handwritten statements dated 13.09.85, 08.11.85 and 16.12.85 referring to: ‘Mr Bamber and 'Mr Bamber Junior'.
Original situation report made by PS Bews following the sighting of someone alive in White House Farm that he saw through a bedroom window prompting him to request firearms assistance.
Original statements made on 07.08.85 by PS Bews and PC Myall who saw movement in a bedroom window of White House Farm.
DI Kenneally’s 06.09.85 report following his investigation stating Sheila Caffell (sister of Jeremy Bamber) was responsible for shooting her family and then herself.
Plus DI Kenneally's statement made post trial for the Dickinson enquiry (1986).
Audio recordings of:
• PC West’s calls to HQ operator Malcolm Bonnett
• All radio traffic referred to by Malcolm Bonnett
• The raid team's open microphones
PC Milbank’s pocket book recording all his monitoring of the telephone line at White House Farm from 06:09 on 07.08.85.
All original handwritten statements and pocket book entries from the first case investigation of murder/suicide SC/688/85 including:
• PC 7975 David Bishop statements dated 14.09.85
• DI Cook statements dated 07.08.85.
• DS 219 Davidson statements dated 09.08.85
• DCI Jones statements dated 07.08.85
• PS Mildenhall statements dated 18.09.85
• Inspector Montgomery statements dated 20.08.85
• Chief Inspector Wright statements dated 09.09.85
• PS 36 Bews statements dated 18.09.85
• PC 1902 Cracknell statements dated 17.09.85
• PC 721 East statements
• DC George Henderson statements
• PC 1046 Maunder statements
• PC 1445 Reed statements
• PC 366 Shoulders statements
Original reports by forensic scientists referring to the blood in the sound moderator as identical to that of Sheila Caffell and of beneficiary Robert Boutflour (uncle of Jeremy Bamber).
Public Interest Immunity file on Julie Mugford (Jeremy Bamber's girlfriend at the time of the killings) referring to a ‘deal’ with the Crown Prosecution Service in exchange for immunity from prosecution for five criminal offences, three of which were unknown to the jury. Plus disclosure of the Essex police file on the £25,000 News of the World deal, agreed to in November/December 1985 (pre-trial) by Julie Mugford via her solicitors.
All photographs taken of all the rooms in White House Farm including those containing firearms and all telephones in situ.
Sheila Caffell's medical/psychiatric records referring to her conversations with her psychiatrist where she informs him she was afraid she would kill her children.
Plus Sheila's diaries during periods where she had psychotic episodes (1983 and 1985).
All forensic scientist's pre-trial handwritten statements, lab reports and post-trial DCI Dickinson enquiry interviews pertaining to the sound moderator(s).
Essex police failure to comply with court orders
Essex Police have not fully complied with three court orders to disclose material relevant to Jeremy Bamber’s case. These orders were as follows:
Judicial Review issued by the Central Criminal Court in 1994. An order to disclose material came after Jeremy Bamber sought disclosure of DNA evidence from Essex Police and they refused. Despite the judgement instructing the Home Secretary to disclose material to Jeremy Bamber all DNA material was destroyed apart from the sound moderator. A Special Branch officer instructed the incineration of evidence in 1996. In a statement to the Metropolitan Police in 2002 he claimed he was ‘unaware’ of the ruling to disclose.
Court of Appeal Criminal Division, Royal Courts of Justice, 30 July 2001. Issued before Jeremy Bamber’s 2002 Appeal, this general order was to disclose all material including pre-trial evidence, all details of the destruction of DNA material by Special Branch, laboratory submissions, all relevant material to the findings of the Police Complaints Authority enquiry, detail of material the Crown intends to withhold, all material from the Essex and City of London Police enquiries and all material previously made available to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. There was only partial disclosure of this material.
Court of Appeal Criminal Division, Royal Courts of Justice, 2 July 2002. This order was a specific request for material including audio tapes, diaries, witness statements, basis of information contained with a police report, documents held at the mortuary and Chelmsford and Essex Hospital, statement regarding regulations governing destruction of exhibits and statement of the officer authorising destruction in 1996, all statements and results in respect of DNA testing of the sound moderator, disclosure of police interviews with the Stodespite ce and unused material. The order was only partially complied with.
Click here to return to the Civil Liberties Index
Back to the top of this page
There is an abundance of evidence regarding withheld evidence and the ignored court orders, notsure. Rather than engage in debate about this issue some posters choose to divert and pretend that evidence isn't withheld or that the court orders are a myth.
Below is the 2002 order referred to in the letter you posted.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_AMpl4jeqWkQUpDT2pSQ1lZV2M/view
It has been claimed that this was merely a "list of things" required by the court despite being quite clear that it is an order.
It is also apparent that a number of the items in this order are still being sought. The order has clearly only been partially complied with.
Some would like us to believe that numerous legal professionals, Andrew Hunter MP., respected and intelligent campaigners such as Peter Tatchell, Eric Allison and many more credible and intelligent sources all of whom have had access to evidence, correspondence etc. have all been duped and that evidence isn't withheld and further that the allegations that court orders have been issued and ignored is a myth.
Strangely, the same people believe that JB attempted to sell pornographic pictures of Sheila despite the only evidence being the word of a discredited and proven liar of a hack, Michael Fielder.
The word of Ann Eaton alone is also considered proof that Jeremy counted the contents of his father's wallet intending to collect it the next day apparently. This accusation is seemingly just plucked from the ether by AE after taking her murdered uncle's wallet and then claiming that JB knew how much was in the wallet that she had dishonestly removed.
It is obvious that some are here to divert rather than engage in honest debate.
-
He was initially arrested on 8th August and question about the murders and the Osea burglary on 13th August he appeared in court charged with the burglary - so spent around 5 days in police custody. He was bailed from court on 13th. He was rearrested on 29th and charged with murder, he was remanded until his trial the following year and has been inside every since.
Caroline that's too soon. He was arrested at Moreshead Mansions on Sunday 8th September and taken back to Chelmsford for questioning.
-
Caroline that's too soon. He was arrested at Moreshead Mansions on Sunday 8th September and taken back to Chelmsford for questioning.
That is what I thinking. The September police interviews had him admitting to the caravan break in. Julie had already told the police about it.
-
That is what I thinking. The September police interviews had him admitting to the caravan break in. Julie had already told the police about it.
Yes they held the funerals in between.
-
There is an abundance of evidence regarding withheld evidence and the ignored court orders, notsure. Rather than engage in debate about this issue some posters choose to divert and pretend that evidence isn't withheld or that the court orders are a myth.
Below is the 2002 order referred to in the letter you posted.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_AMpl4jeqWkQUpDT2pSQ1lZV2M/view
It has been claimed that this was merely a "list of things" required by the court despite being quite clear that it is an order.
It is also apparent that a number of the items in this order are still being sought. The order has clearly only been partially complied with.
Some would like us to believe that numerous legal professionals, Andrew Hunter MP., respected and intelligent campaigners such as Peter Tatchell, Eric Allison and many more credible and intelligent sources all of whom have had access to evidence, correspondence etc. have all been duped and that evidence isn't withheld and further that the allegations that court orders have been issued and ignored is a myth.
Strangely, the same people believe that JB attempted to sell pornographic pictures of Sheila despite the only evidence being the word of a discredited and proven liar of a hack, Michael Fielder.
The word of Ann Eaton alone is also considered proof that Jeremy counted the contents of his father's wallet intending to collect it the next day apparently. This accusation is seemingly just plucked from the ether by AE after taking her murdered uncle's wallet and then claiming that JB knew how much was in the wallet that she had dishonestly removed.
It is obvious that some are here to divert rather than engage in honest debate.
Gringo thank for your posts on this thread. You are spot on that certain posters are constantly trying to divert away from undeniably shocking ways this case has been handled by the authorities.
-
A typical example of someone constantly trying to divert the topic of the thread
I suspect, now, as lending added weight to the innocent side by adding 'something' mysterious and secret -there was a suggestion, at one moment, that Jeremy's biological surname was really Windsor, although a loyal employee had been coerced into allowing his name to be put on the birth certificate!!!! ergo, SB had been tailing him (and his family by adoption) sinc
Absolutely barking !!!
-
Forgive me, but it's really of no moment -one way or the other- what is proven to you........OR me! As far as the police are concerned, the case HAS been proven. End of story.
NOW, let's have a look at this S(pecial)n B(ranch) thing. It's been bandied about this forum, certainly since I joined, I suspect, now, as lending added weight to the innocent side by adding 'something' mysterious and secret -there was a suggestion, at one moment, that Jeremy's biological surname was really Windsor, although a loyal employee had been coerced into allowing his name to be put on the birth certificate!!!! ergo, SB had been tailing him (and his family by adoption) since his birth!!!!!
When we reevaluate what SB means, it seems highly likely that each member probably spends their working day doing the every day duties that every day police persons do. When something comes up which requires their specialist skills, they reform to become SB. Caroline raises an excellent point. It CAN'T be possible -or it wasn't until the storing of information became digital- to hold on to reams of typewritten information. It's not unreasonable to believe that every so often it was necessary to have a mass clear out of ALL stored information. I find it unbelievable in the extreme to accept that "A" member of SB was employed JUST to destroy information pertaining to the Bamber case.
Very, very far from over Jane J. Sorry
-
Caroline that's too soon. He was arrested at Moreshead Mansions on Sunday 8th September and taken back to Chelmsford for questioning.
Opps, I meant 8th September ;D ;D ;D
-
There is an abundance of evidence regarding withheld evidence and the ignored court orders, notsure. Rather than engage in debate about this issue some posters choose to divert and pretend that evidence isn't withheld or that the court orders are a myth.
Below is the 2002 order referred to in the letter you posted.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_AMpl4jeqWkQUpDT2pSQ1lZV2M/view
It has been claimed that this was merely a "list of things" required by the court despite being quite clear that it is an order.
It is also apparent that a number of the items in this order are still being sought. The order has clearly only been partially complied with.
Some would like us to believe that numerous legal professionals, Andrew Hunter MP., respected and intelligent campaigners such as Peter Tatchell, Eric Allison and many more credible and intelligent sources all of whom have had access to evidence, correspondence etc. have all been duped and that evidence isn't withheld and further that the allegations that court orders have been issued and ignored is a myth.
Strangely, the same people believe that JB attempted to sell pornographic pictures of Sheila despite the only evidence being the word of a discredited and proven liar of a hack, Michael Fielder.
The word of Ann Eaton alone is also considered proof that Jeremy counted the contents of his father's wallet intending to collect it the next day apparently. This accusation is seemingly just plucked from the ether by AE after taking her murdered uncle's wallet and then claiming that JB knew how much was in the wallet that she had dishonestly removed.
It is obvious that some are here to divert rather than engage in honest debate.
Yes, and you're a prime example of your last sentence. I have asked you several questions in line with the topic being debated and you have failed to answer because you know nothing exists to support an argument that Jeremy wanted those items or that he was interested in them being tested for DNA purposes. Also, the above post you responded to is from the CT and they are asking for stuff that doesn't even exist - logs from West and Bonnet showing that Nevill Bamber called the police? Please! The police can't provide something that exists only in the CT's mind and in the mind of the local conspiracy theorists - how silly!
-
There is an abundance of evidence regarding withheld evidence and the ignored court orders, notsure. Rather than engage in debate about this issue some posters choose to divert and pretend that evidence isn't withheld or that the court orders are a myth.
Below is the 2002 order referred to in the letter you posted.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_AMpl4jeqWkQUpDT2pSQ1lZV2M/view
It has been claimed that this was merely a "list of things" required by the court despite being quite clear that it is an order.
It is also apparent that a number of the items in this order are still being sought. The order has clearly only been partially complied with.
Some would like us to believe that numerous legal professionals, Andrew Hunter MP., respected and intelligent campaigners such as Peter Tatchell, Eric Allison and many more credible and intelligent sources all of whom have had access to evidence, correspondence etc. have all been duped and that evidence isn't withheld and further that the allegations that court orders have been issued and ignored is a myth.
Strangely, the same people believe that JB attempted to sell pornographic pictures of Sheila despite the only evidence being the word of a discredited and proven liar of a hack, Michael Fielder.
The word of Ann Eaton alone is also considered proof that Jeremy counted the contents of his father's wallet intending to collect it the next day apparently. This accusation is seemingly just plucked from the ether by AE after taking her murdered uncle's wallet and then claiming that JB knew how much was in the wallet that she had dishonestly removed.
It is obvious that some are here to divert rather than engage in honest debate.
You're court order source is dated 2002. So nothing to do with the disposal of items in 1996.
I assume the courts were given requested documents in 2002. Otherwise the CCRC & COA would not have made their decisions.
As said, 1996 was 10 years after the conviction. So either an appropriate time or police protocol to dispose of several items that were no longer considered to be worth keeping. The last appeal was 7 years ago and the next one was 6 years away. Important items like the silencer were kept & tested.
I suspect Bamber found out years later that items were disposed of in 1996 & has since tried to claim the police were scared DNA testing would benefit him. Although only the police seem to know what was disposed.
-
Opps, I meant 8th September ;D ;D ;D
The main thing is Bamber was arrested and charged the following month.
Poor Lookout, spending the last 31 years believing the police didn't arrest & charge Bamber until a year later. Even guilters would have found that suspicious.
-
Yes, and you're a prime example of your last sentence. I have asked you several questions in line with the topic being debated and you have failed to answer because you know nothing exists to support an argument that Jeremy wanted those items or that he was interested in them being tested for DNA purposes. Also, the above post you responded to is from the CT and they are asking for stuff that doesn't even exist - logs from West and Bonnet showing that Nevill Bamber called the police? Please! The police can't provide something that exists only in the CT's mind and in the mind of the locali conspiracy theorists - how silly!
For me Caroline it's not a question of wether or not jb wanted those items. its more a case of the police destroying stuff when they clearly shouldn't of. For me it smacks of something to hide. They shouldn't of done it. What the ft should be doing is getting his legal team to prosecute for contempt of court. I don't know if he's innocent or guilty but by doing this they may have stopped anyone from finding out the truth either way.
-
A typical example of someone constantly trying to divert the topic of the thread
I suspect, now, as lending added weight to the innocent side by adding 'something' mysterious and secret -there was a suggestion, at one moment, that Jeremy's biological surname was really Windsor, although a loyal employee had been coerced into allowing his name to be put on the birth certificate!!!! ergo, SB had been tailing him (and his family by adoption) sinc
Absolutely barking !!!
I totally agree. I'm only passing on some of the c**p that's been put out there. DON'T shoot the messenger.
-
For me Caroline it's not a question of wether or not jb wanted those items. its more a case of the police destroying stuff when they clearly shouldn't of. For me it smacks of something to hide. They shouldn't of done it. What the ft should be doing is getting his legal team to prosecute for contempt of court. I don't know if he's innocent or guilty but by doing this they may have stopped anyone from finding out the truth either way.
Hi Notsure, seems strange that they didn't destroy the silencer, I would have thought if they were trying to hide something, this piece of evidence (which supporters suggest was fabricated) would have gone as well, I think if they are dealing with a murder that has been unsolved they would keep items for DNA, if, and in Bamber's case the murder was solved and passed the scrutiny of appeals, there probably is a case or time limit for retention? Nice to chat to you again.
-
As said, 1996 was 10 years after the conviction. So either an appropriate time or police protocol to dispose of several items that were no longer considered to be worth keeping.
The last appeal was 7 years ago and the next one was 6 years away. There was no internet campaign & DNA was not established. Bamber's case was a dead duck.
Important items at trial like the silencer were kept & tested. Supporters optimistically claiming contamination when June's DNA was found in it.
I suspect Bamber found out years later that items were disposed of in 1996 & has since optimistically tried to claim the police were scared DNA testing would benefit him. Once again for properganda purposes. Although no one has said what these items could be & only the police seem to know what was disposed.
-
Hi Notsure, seems strange that they didn't destroy the silencer, I would have thought if they were trying to hide something, this piece of evidence (which supporters suggest was fabricated) would have gone as well, I think if they are dealing with a murder that has been unsolved they would keep items for DNA, if, and in Bamber's case the murder was solved and passed the scrutiny of appeals, there probably is a case or time limit for retention? Nice to chat to you again.
They had to hang on to this as their " proof " of his conviction,it's all they had. What else ?
-
They had to hang on to this as their " proof " of his conviction,it's all they had. What else ?
Lookout I was going to say the very same thing to justice who I am pleased to see posting again :)
-
For me Caroline it's not a question of wether or not jb wanted those items. its more a case of the police destroying stuff when they clearly shouldn't of. For me it smacks of something to hide. They shouldn't of done it. What the ft should be doing is getting his legal team to prosecute for contempt of court. I don't know if he's innocent or guilty but by doing this they may have stopped anyone from finding out the truth either way.
OK, how do you know they acted illegally? Are you willing to always accept what the CT say? They are asking for logs that prove Nevill called the police and there is no evidence that he did. I don't get this at all.
-
Lookout I was going to say the very same thing to justice who I am pleased to see posting again :)
Great minds you see,Susan. ;D
-
Hi Notsure, seems strange that they didn't destroy the silencer, I would have thought if they were trying to hide something, this piece of evidence (which supporters suggest was fabricated) would have gone as well, I think if they are dealing with a murder that has been unsolved they would keep items for DNA, if, and in Bamber's case the murder was solved and passed the scrutiny of appeals, there probably is a case or time limit for retention? Nice to chat to you again.
I agree Justice and they certainly would have made sure no one knew SB were involved if there was ssomething sinister. Funy how Jeremy never thought about DNA until after the items were destroyed!
-
They had to hang on to this as their " proof " of his conviction,it's all they had. What else ?
They didn't need proof that he'd been convicted - he was convicted!
-
They didn't need proof that he'd been convicted - he was convicted!
For " murdering " 5 people ?? Of course they'd need proof !! And not just hearsay or a hate campaign.
-
For " murdering " 5 people ?? Of course they'd need proof !! And not just hearsay or a hate campaign.
He was already convicted in 1996! ::)
-
He was already convicted in 1996! ::)
So he was convicted for the " give a dog a bad name " syndrome-----------3 strikes and it's prison.Whether you've committed the crime or not,it's on your record as being an " offender " ??
-
OK, how do you know they acted illegally? Are you willing to always accept what the CT say? They are asking for logs that prove Nevill called the police and there is no evidence that he did. I don't get this at all.
Caroline, I cannot be certain they acted illegally but my money goes on the campaiin team being truthful l. I just cannot see how they could be taken seriously by solicitors etc if what they did and said was untruthful and to b honest I would rather believe who they say than some of the bull posted on here. ( not that I think you post bull lol)
it seems they back up there infoall the time ie holmes references are available, .
It all the handwritten statements and pocketbooks from the original investigation where I believe the truth lies or at least a lot of it. And if that turns out to prove his guilt then so be it.
They did ask for disclosureof all DNA evidence in 1994 which went o on to be destroyed despite the order for it to be disclosed. Now in my eyes that answers our questions. It shouldn't have been destroyed but it was. Now what is the system that allows this to happen. They are asking for them to tell them what happened aren't they.
All pre trial evidence and the first investigation information is what will tell us the truth. Isn't that what we all want.
So in a nutshell I believe the CT because they are under if they lie and on that basis I can't see how anyone can argue for what they are asking for .
-
It seems that there are a few on here who are just denying reality. The idea seems to have taken hold that it is somehow routine to destroy evidence after 10 years. This is stated without any supporting evidence and much to contradict this ridiculous evidence free assumption.
Three examples which make a mockery of this claim and there are many more.
The Birmingham 6, Guildford 4 and Maguire 7 all had their convictions overturned after 16, 16 and 15 years respectively. The evidence was not routinely destroyed after 10 years with the connivance of Special Branch. I can find no example of this happening. The Maguire 7, as a matter of fact had all completed their sentences and had already been released before their conviction was overturned and still the evidence hadn't been destroyed.
Interestingly enough there is a common thread between these overturned convictions and the allegations made by JB and his representatives.
All of the above convictions were overturned when it became clear that police had fabricated evidence and tampered with and edited statements(sound familiar). This editing and tampering with statements was discovered with the advent of a technique known as ESDA testing.
In a nutshell ESDA (electrostatic document analysis) examines pen indentations on succeeding pages to establish whether they have been written at one sitting or added to and edited later.
In all of the cases ESDA testing on documents proved that police had lied and fabricated throughout.
JB's defence team have been asking for the original documents since 1994, when they went to court to obtain, amongst other items, all original handwritten statements, police notebooks and the original handwritten logs in order to carry out ESDA testing.
Caroline misrepresents these requests by claiming that JB's team are asking for the log of Neville's call which according to her doesn't exist and therefore the request is "silly".
What are being requested are the original handwritten logs. Whether you believe a call from Neville exists or not is immaterial to this request. The original handwritten call logs exist whether or not Neville called police.
The excuse given by EP was that the original logs "couldn't be located". One does not need to be a cynic to treat this excuse from EP as self serving and obstructive. Quite why they would be so obstructive about this we can only guess, but it is apparent that EP do not want ESDA testing to take place.
Without being able to locate the 1994 order myself, it is referred to by so many interested parties that it is preposterous to deny it's existence.
Even if you really believe that the CT have forged EP notes referring to the order including, helpfully, the date of the court order referring to an allegedly mythical court case (I know it's too idiotic to even take seriously but this is what some claim to believe) you still have more obstacles to overcome.
We also are required to believe that any number of legal professionals, respected campaigners and journalists such as Eric Allison, Peter Tatchell, Andrew Hunter et al have all been either duped or are lying.
Peter Tatchell, in his letter posted earlier by notsure, actually gives the dates of the ignored court orders and refers specifically to requests for DNA exhibits for testing which EP refused hence the 1994 judicial review and court order to disclose. Here we are left with the choice of taking the words of informed, intelligent professionals with reputations for honesty, who have had access to all documents and correspondence on the one hand or Adam, Caroline and Jane on the other.
Essex Police, so some would have us believe are simply, "keeping a dignified silence" rather than denying the existence of court orders and withheld evidence. I would say that you couldn't make this shit up but self evidently you can because this is the kind of drivel that that has been posted as a substitute for actual reasoned debate.
Despite the efforts of some to disrupt the debate about withheld evidence and defiance of court orders it is perfectly clear that EP are guilty of all of the above. Read Peter Tatchell's letter where he lists the specific dates and courts so it is clear when and where the orders were made. Also listed is the evidence still required from EP.
Denying the truth of these claims in the face of such overwhelming evidence reveals an agenda other than truth seeking.
-
Hi Notsure, seems strange that they didn't destroy the silencer, I would have thought if they were trying to hide something, this piece of evidence (which supporters suggest was fabricated) would have gone as well, I think if they are dealing with a murder that has been unsolved they would keep items for DNA, if, and in Bamber's case the murder was solved and passed the scrutiny of appeals, there probably is a case or time limit for retention? Nice to chat to you again.
This should partially clarify the issue your bring up. What's strange now is the fact the silencer never appeared in the Museum! :-\
-
This should partially clarify the issue your bring up. What's strange now is the fact the silencer never appeared in the Museum! :-\
Thats better David, debate the case not the poster, so what your saying the silencer is not in the museum?
-
It seems that there are a few on here who are just denying reality. The idea seems to have taken hold that it is somehow routine to destroy evidence after 10 years. This is stated without any supporting evidence and much to contradict this ridiculous evidence free assumption.
Three examples which make a mockery of this claim and there are many more.
The Birmingham 6, Guildford 4 and Maguire 7 all had their convictions overturned after 16, 16 and 15 years respectively. The evidence was not routinely destroyed after 10 years with the connivance of Special Branch. I can find no example of this happening. The Maguire 7, as a matter of fact had all completed their sentences and had already been released before their conviction was overturned and still the evidence hadn't been destroyed.
Interestingly enough there is a common thread between these overturned convictions and the allegations made by JB and his representatives.
All of the above convictions were overturned when it became clear that police had fabricated evidence and tampered with and edited statements(sound familiar). This editing and tampering with statements was discovered with the advent of a technique known as ESDA testing.
In a nutshell ESDA (electrostatic document analysis) examines pen indentations on succeeding pages to establish whether they have been written at one sitting or added to and edited later.
In all of the cases ESDA testing on documents proved that police had lied and fabricated throughout.
JB's defence team have been asking for the original documents since 1994, when they went to court to obtain, amongst other items, all original handwritten statements, police notebooks and the original handwritten logs in order to carry out ESDA testing.
Caroline misrepresents these requests by claiming that JB's team are asking for the log of Neville's call which according to her doesn't exist and therefore the request is "silly".
What are being requested are the original handwritten logs. Whether you believe a call from Neville exists or not is immaterial to this request. The original handwritten call logs exist whether or not Neville called police.
The excuse given by EP was that the original logs "couldn't be located". One does not need to be a cynic to treat this excuse from EP as self serving and obstructive. Quite why they would be so obstructive about this we can only guess, but it is apparent that EP do not want ESDA testing to take place.
Without being able to locate the 1994 order myself, it is referred to by so many interested parties that it is preposterous to deny it's existence.
Even if you really believe that the CT have forged EP notes referring to the order including, helpfully, the date of the court order referring to an allegedly mythical court case (I know it's too idiotic to even take seriously but this is what some claim to believe) you still have more obstacles to overcome.
We also are required to believe that any number of legal professionals, respected campaigners and journalists such as Eric Allison, Peter Tatchell, Andrew Hunter et al have all been either duped or are lying.
Peter Tatchell, in his letter posted earlier by notsure, actually gives the dates of the ignored court orders and refers specifically to requests for DNA exhibits for testing which EP refused hence the 1994 judicial review and court order to disclose. Here we are left with the choice of taking the words of informed, intelligent professionals with reputations for honesty, who have had access to all documents and correspondence on the one hand or Adam, Caroline and Jane on the other.
Essex Police, so some would have us believe are simply, "keeping a dignified silence" rather than denying the existence of court orders and withheld evidence. I would say that you couldn't make this shit up but self evidently you can because this is the kind of drivel that that has been posted as a substitute for actual reasoned debate.
Despite the efforts of some to disrupt the debate about withheld evidence and defiance of court orders it is perfectly clear that EP are guilty of all of the above. Read Peter Tatchell's letter where he lists the specific dates and courts so it is clear when and where the orders were made. Also listed is the evidence still required from EP.
Denying the truth of these claims in the face of such overwhelming evidence reveals an agenda other than truth seeking.
Brilliant post.
-
Thats better David, debate the case not the poster, so what your saying the silencer is not in the museum?
Yes. Silencer and Rifle is not in the Museum. Nor is there any record of them being there on display. Contrary to the intentions of the SP document I uploaded.
-
Brilliant post.
Yes Gringo writes long Scipio esq posts.
Scipio did at least provide sources. The only source Gringo has supplied was a 2002 court order. After I asked for the court orders prior to the alledged 1996 items disposals !
-
Yes. Silencer and Rifle is not in the Museum. Nor is there any record of them being there on display. Contrary to the intentions of the SP document I uploaded.
Could it not be that they decided not to put these items on display because of Bambers appeals?
-
Hi Notsure, seems strange that they didn't destroy the silencer, I would have thought if they were trying to hide something, this piece of evidence (which supporters suggest was fabricated) would have gone as well, I think if they are dealing with a murder that has been unsolved they would keep items for DNA, if, and in Bamber's case the murder was solved and passed the scrutiny of appeals, there probably is a case or time limit for retention? Nice to chat to you again.
hi justice glad to c u back.
We are going to have to agree to disagree on this subject. Xx
-
Brilliant post.
Yes some very interesting points and very well said
-
hi justice glad to c u back.
We are going to have to agree to disagree on this subject. Xx
Ha Ha, thanks notsure
-
Yes Gringo writes long Scipio esq posts.
Scipio did at least provide sources. The only source Gringo has supplied was a 2002 court order. After I asked for the court orders prior to the alledged 1996 items disposals !
you never supply sources adam and if you do they are usually from books which clearly can't be relied upon.
-
you never supply sources adam and if you do they are usually from books which clearly can't be relied upon.
Well quite often books supply their sources in the footnotes but I agree they're not the be all and end all.
-
you never supply sources adam and if you do they are usually from books which clearly can't be relied upon.
My recent 'Effects of Haloperodol' thread has 6 sources. None from books.
Most of my sources are from Youtube or internet articles. I have only one book on the case.
-
It seems that there are a few on here who are just denying reality. The idea seems to have taken hold that it is somehow routine to destroy evidence after 10 years. This is stated without any supporting evidence and much to contradict this ridiculous evidence free assumption.
Three examples which make a mockery of this claim and there are many more.
The Birmingham 6, Guildford 4 and Maguire 7 all had their convictions overturned after 16, 16 and 15 years respectively. The evidence was not routinely destroyed after 10 years with the connivance of Special Branch. I can find no example of this happening. The Maguire 7, as a matter of fact had all completed their sentences and had already been released before their conviction was overturned and still the evidence hadn't been destroyed.
Interestingly enough there is a common thread between these overturned convictions and the allegations made by JB and his representatives.
All of the above convictions were overturned when it became clear that police had fabricated evidence and tampered with and edited statements(sound familiar). This editing and tampering with statements was discovered with the advent of a technique known as ESDA testing.
In a nutshell ESDA (electrostatic document analysis) examines pen indentations on succeeding pages to establish whether they have been written at one sitting or added to and edited later.
In all of the cases ESDA testing on documents proved that police had lied and fabricated throughout.
JB's defence team have been asking for the original documents since 1994, when they went to court to obtain, amongst other items, all original handwritten statements, police notebooks and the original handwritten logs in order to carry out ESDA testing.
Caroline misrepresents these requests by claiming that JB's team are asking for the log of Neville's call which according to her doesn't exist and therefore the request is "silly".
What are being requested are the original handwritten logs. Whether you believe a call from Neville exists or not is immaterial to this request. The original handwritten call logs exist whether or not Neville called police.
The excuse given by EP was that the original logs "couldn't be located". One does not need to be a cynic to treat this excuse from EP as self serving and obstructive. Quite why they would be so obstructive about this we can only guess, but it is apparent that EP do not want ESDA testing to take place.
Without being able to locate the 1994 order myself, it is referred to by so many interested parties that it is preposterous to deny it's existence.
Even if you really believe that the CT have forged EP notes referring to the order including, helpfully, the date of the court order referring to an allegedly mythical court case (I know it's too idiotic to even take seriously but this is what some claim to believe) you still have more obstacles to overcome.
We also are required to believe that any number of legal professionals, respected campaigners and journalists such as Eric Allison, Peter Tatchell, Andrew Hunter et al have all been either duped or are lying.
Peter Tatchell, in his letter posted earlier by notsure, actually gives the dates of the ignored court orders and refers specifically to requests for DNA exhibits for testing which EP refused hence the 1994 judicial review and court order to disclose. Here we are left with the choice of taking the words of informed, intelligent professionals with reputations for honesty, who have had access to all documents and correspondence on the one hand or Adam, Caroline and Jane on the other.
Essex Police, so some would have us believe are simply, "keeping a dignified silence" rather than denying the existence of court orders and withheld evidence. I would say that you couldn't make this shit up but self evidently you can because this is the kind of drivel that that has been posted as a substitute for actual reasoned debate.
Despite the efforts of some to disrupt the debate about withheld evidence and defiance of court orders it is perfectly clear that EP are guilty of all of the above. Read Peter Tatchell's letter where he lists the specific dates and courts so it is clear when and where the orders were made. Also listed is the evidence still required from EP.
Denying the truth of these claims in the face of such overwhelming evidence reveals an agenda other than truth seeking.
Really? Where have to got that from?
-
Why would the original logs be different to photocopies ?
-
Why would the original logs be different to photocopies ?
Esda testing can be carried out on the original copies. This was explained.
-
Really? Where have to got that from?
According to the CT the CCRC wrote to EP requesting the original logs and the defence were informed on the 3 February 2012 that the original logs could not be located. Do you dispute this?
-
According to the CT the CCRC wrote to EP requesting the original logs and the defence were informed on the 3 February 2012 that the original logs could not be located. Do you dispute this?
As far as I can remember, EP did supply a message log on request but Jeremy is disputing that it was the original and claims it was a forged copy. The log was tested and found to be unaltered, however, as I said Jeremy is claiming that it's not the original log.
-
Esda testing can be carried out on the original copies. This was explained.
A bit unfair to have Esda testing. Of course original police logs will be edited.
-
As far as I can remember, EP did supply a message log on request but Jeremy is disputing that it was the original and claims it was a forged copy. The log was tested and found to be unaltered, however, as I said Jeremy is claiming that it's not the original log.
The CCRC are also claiming that it isn't the original log. They have stated that EP have said that the original document cannot be located.
-
A bit unfair to have Esda testing. Of course original police logs will be edited.
Tell it to those whose convictions were overturned due to ESDA testing.
Why is it obvious that original police logs will be edited? You do understand that tampering with evidence is a criminal offence.
Interesting that you find it acceptable for police to edit logs.
-
The CCRC are also claiming that it isn't the original log. They have stated that EP have said that the original document cannot be located.
Of course it can also be inferred from this that EP are also claiming that it isn't the original log.
-
Message log of what ? Nevill's call to the police ?
-
Message log of what ? Nevill's call to the police ?
The original call logs. Regardless of your belief of Neville's call, logs were kept. The original is required for ESDA testing. Original call logs exist whether Neville called or not. Why is this difficult for you to understand? It really isn't complicated.
-
He's a police stooge / troll.
His roll is to constantly, relentlessly troll the forum, for the purpose of tying-up defence based posters in endless rounds of bile.
Am I right Adam... or is this just another daft conspiracy theory? ;)
-
The original call logs. Regardless of your belief of Neville's call, logs were kept. The original is required for ESDA testing. Original call logs exist whether Neville called or not. Why is this difficult for you to understand? It really isn't complicated.
It's not difficult to understand. I just asked what original document the CT are claiming they have not got.
If EP are saying they have not got it, it should be accepted. Not sure how Esda testing would help.
The CT already seem conifident that Nevill called the 5th furthest away police station. The exact same one Bamber called. Unless that's more properganda.
-
It's not difficult to understand. I just asked what original document the CT are claiming they have not got.
If EP are saying they have not got it, it should be accepted. Not sure how Esda testing would help.
The CT already seem conifident that Nevill called the 5th furthest away police station. The exact same one Bamber called. Unless that's more properganda.
I have made clear what documents are requested.
If you are unaware what ESDA testing would establish then I suggest that you research the matter yourself. Numerous convictions have been overturned since the advent of ESDA testing and there is an abundance of articles regarding this.
-
He's a police stooge / troll.
His roll is to constantly, relentlessly troll the forum, for the purpose of tying-up defence based posters in endless rounds of bile.
Am I right Adam... or is this just another daft conspiracy theory? ;)
I know, Roch. There are unfortunately a few on here whose purpose is to divert.
-
From memory I thought ESDA testing had been done on the original West and Bonnett logs and they were found not to be contiguous.
-
I have made clear what documents are requested.
If you are unaware what ESDA testing would establish then I suggest that you research the matter yourself. Numerous convictions have been overturned since the advent of ESDA testing and there is an abundance of articles regarding this.
Really. I'll investigate ESDA's overturned convictions.
-
I know, Roch. There are unfortunately a few on here whose purpose is to divert.
They are on BOTH sides!
-
The CCRC are also claiming that it isn't the original log. They have stated that EP have said that the original document cannot be located.
Is there an official record of this?
-
They are on BOTH sides!
The thing is though Caroline, Adam never takes the defence line on anything in any way in any situation. He would seriously try and argue that Palestine is trying to take over Israel, by way of forced settlements and apartheid.
-
The thing is though Caroline, Adam never takes the defence line on anything in any way in any situation. He would seriously try and argue that Palestine is trying to take over Israel, by way of forced settlements and apartheid.
I know nothing about Palestine.
Shouldn't you be finalising you're scenario of how Sheila 'definately committed the massacre'.
All you've said today is Nevill and June were shot after they couldn't restrain Sheila (although June was in bed), and you can't explain the phone calls. My questions on this were not answered.
This is slightly more than Mike's Sheila scenario who just said 'by shooting them'.
David is busy working on his 5th scenario attempt, with diagrams and everything. But I've put my faith in you're future scenario as David's had enough chances.
-
The thing is though Caroline, Adam never takes the defence line on anything in any way in any situation. He would seriously try and argue that Palestine is trying to take over Israel, by way of forced settlements and apartheid.
Maybe but that is also true of some innocent supporters. Personally, if something is odd, it's odd. I am interested in what gringo has to say about the logs but am suspicious of anything that comes from the CT. I have some information on the logs and would be happy to engage in serious debate but it always turns personal and to be honest, I've had enough it. I always try to post evidence when I claim something - many don't but I'm sick to death of posting evidence, only to have the denial crew ignore what is staring them in the face or causing so much fuss in order to distract. We could have some interesting debates here and it's a shame it always descends.
-
Maybe but that is also true of some innocent supporters. Personally, if something is odd, it's odd. I am interested in what gringo has to say about the logs but am suspicious of anything that comes from the CT. I have some information on the logs and would be happy to engage in serious debate but it always turns personal and to be honest, I've had enough it. I always try to post evidence when I claim something - many don't but I'm sick to death of posting evidence, only to have the denial crew ignore what is staring them in the face or causing so much fuss in order to distract. We could have some interesting debates here and it's a shame it always descends.
The logs are never going to establish anything significant. One can imagine what they like due to the ambiguous nature of the logs. But at the end of the day all they establish is the following.
Jeremy - West 3.23am
West - Bonnet 3.26am
West - Saxby(Witham) 3.30am
West - Jeremy 3.33am
Bonnet - Witham 3.35am
CA7 - Bonnet - 3.48am
Notes
West puts JB on hold - 3.25am
West takes JB off hold - 3.33am
Jeremy calls the police. Police dispatch a car to WHF.
-
Esda testing can be carried out on the original copies. This was explained.
I bet it was never carried out though. I wondered about ESDA testing myself a few days ago.
A tedious job but it would finally prove if all logs,etc are as authentic as we're led to believe.
-
I bet it was never carried out though. I wondered about ESDA testing myself a few days ago.
I'm sure you did Lookout.
Both logs are comprehensively filled out. So I'm not sure what editing could be done afterwards.
Supporters claim the logs already show Nevill also called the 5th furthest away police station. So any editing done by the police wasn't very effective.
-
I'm sure you did Lookout.
Both logs are comprehensively filled out. So I'm not sure what editing could be done afterwards.
Supporters claim the logs already show Nevill also called the 5th furthest away police station. So any editing done by the police wasn't very effective.
I certainly did ! At the beginning of the week while looking through other police files online.
This is far MORE than just editing.
-
At least we know ( although no sources have been supplied) that it is just one document Bamber wants. The original police log.
As mentioned, the logs were filled in correctly & even supports Nevill calling the 5th furthest away police station, according to Bamber. Not sure why the police would edit a document to hinder them.
Anyway, 31 years later, the police are saying they can't locate this document.
-
I know nothing about Palestine.
Shouldn't you be finalising you're scenario of how Sheila 'definately committed the massacre'.
All you've said today is Nevill and June were shot after they couldn't restrain Sheila (although June was in bed), and you can't explain the phone calls. My questions on this were not answered.
This is slightly more than Mike's Sheila scenario who just said 'by shooting them'.
David is busy working on his 5th scenario attempt, with diagrams and everything. But I've put my faith in you're future scenario as David's had enough chances.
I think people get my drift Adam. When it comes down to it you are relentlessly trolling the forum. I think you're more than aware that Sheila was the killer - but you don't care. You're not going to let a small fact like that get in the way of the job you've come to love on this site.
-
I think people get my drift Adam. When it comes down to it you are relentlessly trolling the forum. I think you're more than aware that Sheila was the killer - but you don't care. You're not going to let a small fact like that get in the way of the job you've come to love on this site.
Very well put Roch. I'm afraid diplomacy isn't my strongest point but you've saved me a fate worse than death. ;D
-
I think people get my drift Adam. When it comes down to it you are relentlessly trolling the forum. I think you're more than aware that Sheila was the killer - but you don't care. You're not going to let a small fact like that get in the way of the job you've come to love on this site.
I'm not sure my posts & threads show that I'm 'more than aware Sheila was the killer'.
That will change once you provide you're scenario which matches the crime scene. Sheila 'definately committed the massacre' so it won't be hard.
Just saying 'Sheila shot everyone' and 'you can't explain the phone calls' will mean people get the wrong drift.
-
He's a police stooge / troll.
His roll is to constantly, relentlessly troll the forum, for the purpose of tying-up defence based posters in endless rounds of bile.
Am I right Adam... or is this just another daft conspiracy theory? ;)
Hi Roch
Adam is a little gossip running to the Red forum with bits of news how sad is that and most of the time is news is not correct :))
-
I'm not sure my posts & threads show that I'm 'more than aware Sheila was the killer'.
That will change once you provide you're scenario which matches the crime scene. Sheila 'definately committed the massacre' so it won't be hard.
Just saying 'Sheila shot everyone' and 'you can't explain the phone calls' will mean people get the wrong drift.
I'm really not arsed Adam. And like I say - where is the reason in attempting to fit together what really took place in the farmhouse - with a false record of phone calls? The two wouldn't necessarily fit together - as they say.. it's not brain surgery!
You need to work backwards from the true record of phone calls to enable you to try and piece together what really happened in the farmhouse. Must try harder Adam!
Hi Roch
Adam is a little gossip running to the Red forum with bits of news how sad is that and most of the time is news is not correct :))
Yeah I've noticed.
-
I'm really not arsed Adam. And like I say - where is the reason in attempting to fit together what really took place in the farmhouse - with a false record of phone calls? The two wouldn't necessarily fit together - as they say.. it's not brain surgery!
You need to work backwards from the true record of phone calls to enable you to try and piece together what really happened in the farmhouse. Must try harder Adam!
Yeah I've noticed.
I have done that using Jeremy's own account and his account works out the least. At times he argues he rang the police at 03:26, at others 03:36 depending on the point he is making. There is only one truth and changing from one to the other certainly adds no credibility to his story.
-
I'm really not arsed Adam. And like I say - where is the reason in attempting to fit together what really took place in the farmhouse - with a false record of phone calls? The two wouldn't necessarily fit together - as they say.. it's not brain surgery!
You need to work backwards from the true record of phone calls to enable you to try and piece together what really happened in the farmhouse. Must try harder Adam!
Yeah I've noticed.
False record of phone calls. Bamber is the one saying the phone calls happened.
There is no harm in saying Nevill did not call the 5th furthest away police station. It won't make Bamber guilty.
A lot of other supporters don't believe Nevill called EP. You, Lookout & Mike being the exceptions.
Excluding Nevill's call to EP will make you're scenario a bit easier.
-
The logs are never going to establish anything significant. One can imagine what they like due to the ambiguous nature of the logs. But at the end of the day all they establish is the following.
Jeremy - West 3.23am
West - Bonnet 3.26am
West - Saxby(Witham) 3.30am
West - Jeremy 3.33am
Bonnet - Witham 3.35am
CA7 - Bonnet - 3.48am
Notes
West puts JB on hold - 3.25am
West takes JB off hold - 3.33am
Jeremy calls the police. Police dispatch a car to WHF.
I think you probably underestimate just what can be discovered through ESDA,David.
http://www.unask.com/website/printing/IndeterminacyLecture/ESDA.htm
It is long, but an interesting and informative read. Whilst it mostly refers to interview notes and how ESDA testing establishes where edits and fabrications have occurred through indentations from pages above it's relevance is apparent.
From the above article the following is of particular interest:
From the point of view of ESDA analysis, which, it will be remembered, depends entirely on impressions indenting through from a top copy on to sheets placed beneath it, there is one crucial item to be added. The entire success of ESDA in the analysis of interview notes derives from one simple human preference: the fact that people do not like to write on a hard surface. Particularly the hard and not utterly flat surface of the tables found in interview rooms, which have normally seen a good deal of wear and tear. Some form of pad makes a much more satisfactory basis for writing, and, since the pre-printed interview forms come in loose stacks rather than bound pads, the obvious thing to do is to make a squared pile of these sheets and write on them from one to the other, down through a stack. The end result is that while the note-taker was transcribing the interview he or she was also, unknowingly, leaving an invisible duplicate of the written text of each page on the page beneath. From the point of view of this invisible record, then, the following scribal habits are of vital importance. The usual practice is that when the interview begins, the note-taker will take a first page and place it on a stack of continuation sheets. Each page is then filled in using the rest as a pad to support the writing page. When the interview is finished, the normal pattern is for the topping and tailing to be done with all of the sheets in a pile, so that, like the text, the headings, page numbers, and signatures will indent through from one page to the next, though the text writing represents one consecutive writing sequence, and the addition of the details another. Last of all the end time is entered on the first page, often, but not always, while it is resting on a stack of continuation sheets.
Whilst this passage is about interview notes( also required for ESDA testing), the "human preference that the writer refers to, of people not liking to write on a hard surface, is equally valid for the message logs. I am sure that everyone can work out what ESDA testing on original logs and statements could reveal.
Having recently read much more about ESDA generally, but also specifically to cases where ESDA provided the breakthrough in overturning the conviction, I was amazed at just how many cases it has been crucial in overturning the verdict and so will anyone else if they delve a little.
Roch recently started a thread about police corruption where he posted the recollections of a former police officer. The sheer scale of police corruption is clear for all to see the more you read about specific cases where ESDA testing has exposed the criminality of the police and the recollections posted by Roch seem apposite.
-
I think you probably underestimate just what can be discovered through ESDA,David.
http://www.unask.com/website/printing/IndeterminacyLecture/ESDA.htm
It is long, but an interesting and informative read. Whilst it mostly refers to interview notes and how ESDA testing establishes where edits and fabrications have occurred through indentations from pages above it's relevance is apparent.
From the above article the following is of particular interest:
From the point of view of ESDA analysis, which, it will be remembered, depends entirely on impressions indenting through from a top copy on to sheets placed beneath it, there is one crucial item to be added. The entire success of ESDA in the analysis of interview notes derives from one simple human preference: the fact that people do not like to write on a hard surface. Particularly the hard and not utterly flat surface of the tables found in interview rooms, which have normally seen a good deal of wear and tear. Some form of pad makes a much more satisfactory basis for writing, and, since the pre-printed interview forms come in loose stacks rather than bound pads, the obvious thing to do is to make a squared pile of these sheets and write on them from one to the other, down through a stack. The end result is that while the note-taker was transcribing the interview he or she was also, unknowingly, leaving an invisible duplicate of the written text of each page on the page beneath. From the point of view of this invisible record, then, the following scribal habits are of vital importance. The usual practice is that when the interview begins, the note-taker will take a first page and place it on a stack of continuation sheets. Each page is then filled in using the rest as a pad to support the writing page. When the interview is finished, the normal pattern is for the topping and tailing to be done with all of the sheets in a pile, so that, like the text, the headings, page numbers, and signatures will indent through from one page to the next, though the text writing represents one consecutive writing sequence, and the addition of the details another. Last of all the end time is entered on the first page, often, but not always, while it is resting on a stack of continuation sheets.
Whilst this passage is about interview notes( also required for ESDA testing), the "human preference that the writer refers to, of people not liking to write on a hard surface, is equally valid for the message logs. I am sure that everyone can work out what ESDA testing on original logs and statements could reveal.
Having recently read much more about ESDA generally, but also specifically to cases where ESDA provided the breakthrough in overturning the conviction, I was amazed at just how many cases it has been crucial in overturning the verdict and so will anyone else if they delve a little.
Roch recently started a thread about police corruption where he posted the recollections of a former police officer. The sheer scale of police corruption is clear for all to see the more you read about specific cases where ESDA testing has exposed the criminality of the police and the recollections posted by Roch seem apposite.
The logs will never prove anything. The only hand written evidence that could prove something is this.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8006.msg379424.html#msg379424 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8006.msg379424.html#msg379424)
-
David have you seen the new " Timeline of Evidence " video ?
-
The logs will never prove anything. The only hand written evidence that could prove something is this.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8006.msg379424.html#msg379424 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8006.msg379424.html#msg379424)
I'm sure it is possible to coerce someone in a delusional state to write a suicide note. That would be my explanation if the writing is proven to be Sheila's.
-
The logs will never prove anything. The only hand written evidence that could prove something is this.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8006.msg379424.html#msg379424 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8006.msg379424.html#msg379424)
What leads you to believe that "the logs will never prove anything"?
Did you read and understand the link about ESDA testing?
ESDA testing is responsible for the breakthrough evidence in literally dozens of convictions. Do you actually understand the significance and how it works? If you do then I am genuinely curious as to how you have come to your conclusion that the logs can never prove anything. Explain.
-
I'm sure it is possible to coerce someone in a delusional state to write a suicide note. That would be my explanation if the writing is proven to be Sheila's.
Bamber wouldn't have the time to try to get Sheila to write a suicide note. If he did, it would have been short & to the point. Apparently the notes are long, hard to read & understand.
Bamber just wanted Sheila out of bed. He believed putting a bible next to her & saying Sheila was 'a nutter' and there had been fostering conversations was enough.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8262.0.html
Sheila writing a suicide note means she pre planned the massacre. Only Roch has ever suggested this. The suugestion received no support in the thread above.
However after the massacre Sheila didn't have time to write a suicide note.
There would be blood all over the suicide note if written post massacre. The bible had blood all over it. Reading the bible was the last thing Sheil did, as it was next to her.
-
I'm sure it is possible to coerce someone in a delusional state to write a suicide note. That would be my explanation if the writing is proven to be Sheila's.
That's almost on the same level of absurdity as your idea that Jeremy took Sheila's false nails to make those marks on Nevills arm.