Trial Evidence of PC Myall and DI Cook (SOC), October, 1986

[mike tesko]

Trial Evidence of PC Myall, and DI Cook (SOC), Chelmsford CC, October, 1986

[mike tesko]

Mike, why did PC Myall not start writing notes till 10am despite the fact that he arrived at 3.45am?
Was this usual?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Carry2:- police guidelines recommend that a police officer makes up his notes in his pocketbook, as soon as is practical to do so (in general), whilst the details are fresh in his / her memory. It may well be that it took PC Myall half an hour or so, to get back to the police station, from whf after leaving there at 9:30am - but there is another way of looking at it, since, if he had made his notes up at 9:30am, whilst still at the scene, he might have recorded details about a group of men who went into whf at 9 O'clock, and did not come back out until 9:22am. My suggestion being, that by 10 am, PC Myall would know not to make any mention of these other persons at the scene, and thereby make no mention or reference to what duties they performed there, during that 22 minute period...

I agree with you, that considering that PC Myall was at the scene from as earl;y as 345am, that same morning, that it was an awful long time to wait to start writing up his notes (i.e. 10am)...

In 1985, it was known that some police officers had possession of more than one pocketbook which they were not supposed to have, and that one of these books was always rested until it was decided what should be recorded inside them, should the matter in question come to court, and they could take along that pocketbook and read evidence from it, on the pretense that it was written up at the material time, even when it was not written up until days or even weeks later...

From information I received, arising out of a police inquiry back in 1989 / 90, it turns out that police officers in South Yorkshire, were known to have several different pocketbooks, at the same time, and depending upon which case they attended court to give evidence at, depended upon which pocketbook they took along to make reference to...

I am not saying that this is what happened in this particular case, I only mention it to demonstrate that the pocketbook system is and can be open to abuse...

[Janet (Formerly known as Takeshi)]

Now I am confused. I thought the photographs which show that Sheila's hand was moved and the one which shows the rifle lent against the window were new evidence which form part of the current referral to the CCRC. BUT they were infact available at the original trial.

Not only that but DI Cook in his testimony is questioned about said photographs and admits that it was in fact him who moved Sheila's hand and him who removed the rifle from her body and placed it against the window.

Have I missed something here? 

[Kaldin]

Now I am confused. I thought the photographs which show that Sheila's hand was moved and the one which shows the rifle lent against the window were new evidence which form part of the current referral to the CCRC. BUT they were infact available at the original trial.

Not only that but DI Cook in his testimony is questioned about said photographs and admits that it was in fact him who moved Sheila's hand and him who removed the rifle from her body and placed it against the window.

Have I missed something here? 

I've seen several claims that certain things were not brought up at the trial ...

[Janet (Formerly known as Takeshi)]

So I have not misread the situation then?

[Kaldin]

So I have not misread the situation then?

Well I've seen several things mentioned in recent years as being "new" evidence, and the impression is that the gun at the window is "new" and also the moving of the hand.

The papers published photos of the gun and presented it as "new".

Likewise, Malcolm Bonnet's log was presented as "new" evidence but it's my belief that it wasn't new since the appeal judges referred to it at the 2002 appeal.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

It's the old story of "New Photos!!!" which were never new and aimed and trying to pull the wool over the casual observers eyes.

All this 'fresh' evidence makes people think JB's discovered something that was never known (and of course, in his favour) - then it turns out to be BS.

It's not ALL of that nature of course, but a lot of it is.

"they jury never saw this, or that", "secret photos", "changed documents"

The more outlandish the claims, the worse it gets for JB.
Pseudo science, inventive interpretations, improbable implications and more.

I really do think there are some good points to the JB defence, but they were virtually all made at trial.