What was submitted to the DPP ?

[Adam]

The police gave the DPP their evidence in late September 1985. This was quickly accepted and the police were allowed to charge Bamber & have a long,  expensive trial.

Roch said there is a document on the forum which says the police did not have to give the DPP much evidence.  Unfortunately this document was not supplied upon request.  But surely for such a serious case the police needed to supply a lot of evidence to the DPP to be successful. 

If only half of the published evidence was presented to the DPP, that is still a lot of convincing forgery created in only two months. If all of the published evidence was submitted to the DPP, there must have been a 24/7 special team within & outside of EP creating the false evidence.

Over the two month period I suspect most of the current published evidence had been gathered prior to the DPP submission. Not through unprecedented forgery, but routine investigation. As my last thread showed, Bamber didn't dispute nearly all of it & still doesn't.

The year long period between being charged & the trial, both the prosecution & defence are allowed to continue investigating. Both may find new evidence. It was suggested last week that this was the period when the police working with external organisations & individuals created most of their 200+ pieces of forged evidence. However there has never been any proof of forgery.

It would be good to know more about what was submitted to the DPP.

[Roch]

The police gave the DPP their evidence in late September 1985. This was quickly accepted and the police were allowed to charge Bamber & have a long,  expensive trial.

Roch said there is a document on the forum which says the police did not have to give the DPP much evidence.  Unfortunately this document was not supplied upon request.  But surely for such a serious case the police needed to supply a lot of evidence to the DPP to be successful. 

If only half of the published evidence was presented to the DPP, that is still a lot of convincing forgery in only two months. If all of the published evidence was submitted to the DPP, there must have been a 24/7 special team within & outside of EP creating the false evidence.

Over the two month period I suspect most of the current published evidence had been gathered prior to the DPP submission. Not through unprecedented forgery, but routine investigation. As my last thread showed, Bamber didn't dispute nearly all of it & still doesn't.

The year long period between being charged & the trial, both the prosecution & defence are allowed to continue investigating. Both may find new evidence. It was suggested last week that this was the period when the police & external organisations & individuals created most of their 200+ pieces of forged evidence. However there has never been any proof of forgery.

It would be good to know more about what was submitted to the DPP.

How can I provide a link if I don't know where it is?  Hartley might know.

[Adam]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.dppireland.ie/about_us/the-role-of-the-dpp/&ved=0ahUKEwj_sqrqnu_UAhVpOpoKHeW-AB0QFgghMAI&usg=AFQjCNH05SzwvPUMS9f9DGDMePJoPENT-w

This link is good. I suspect it will confirm a lot of evidence needs to be supplied to the DPP, prior to a charge & thousands/millions of pounds being spent on a trial.

I will read it later.

Hopefully in the mean time Roch will provide the document that showed the police didn't have to supply much evidence to the DPP.

[Caroline]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.dppireland.ie/about_us/the-role-of-the-dpp/&ved=0ahUKEwj_sqrqnu_UAhVpOpoKHeW-AB0QFgghMAI&usg=AFQjCNH05SzwvPUMS9f9DGDMePJoPENT-w

This link is good. I suspect it will confirm a lot of evidence needs to be supplied to the DPP, prior to a charge & thousands/millions of pounds being spent on a trial.

I will read it later.

Hopefully in the mean time Roch will provide the document that showed the police didn't have to supply much evidence to the DPP.

I thought it was the CPS who decided whether or not to take a case to trial. The case has to be pretty solid and have a chance of being prosecuted, otherwise what's the point?

[Adam]

Everyone has to agree it is a fact that the evidence in this case shows Bamber is guilty. Why ? Well he's been convicted and kept in jail for 32 years.

It's not feasible to say all the evidence is wrong as there are over 200 pieces. After 32 years one or two pieces may be open to interppretation, but not over 200. Bamber & the CT agree with this & 90% of the evidence against him has not been disputed.

Bringing up new unproven counter evidence such as Nevill's call to the police, two bodies in the kitchen, or saying evidence exists which can't be disclosed keeps supporters chins up & is good for properganda purposes.

However Bamber could only be classed as innocent if it is proven all the evidence which as a fact shows Bamber is guilty, was created by forgery & fabrication.

This is why knowing how much information was submitted to the DPP would be interesting. To create anything from 50 - 200+ pieces of forged  incriminating evidence in 6 weeks will mean hundreds of people working 24/7. However just one or two pieces will be less of a big job.

[Jan]

The cps did not start until 1986.

Also the police were not under obligation to release everything. And the defence can't ask for something if they don't know it exists .

[Caroline]

The cps did not start until 1986.

Also the police were not under obligation to release everything. And the defence can't ask for something if they don't know it exists .

They knew the bible existed,, they knew West made a statement because he read from it in court. Why didn't the defence ask them to be shown to the jury as they did with Bonnett's statement? The prosecution aren't gong to present things that help the defence and vice versa, that's how the court system works. It's the same for everyone.

[Jan]

They knew the bible existed,, they knew West made a statement because he read from it in court. Why didn't the defence ask them to be shown to the jury as they did with Bonnett's statement? The prosecution aren't gong to present things that help the defence and vice versa, that's how the court system works. It's the same for everyone.

I agree and I have been vocal about several mistakes I think the defence made . I am not sure why they did not query a lot of things .

[Caroline]

I agree and I have been vocal about several mistakes I think the defence made . I am not sure why they did not query a lot of things .

They just simply weren't very good - to be honest, I don't think they had much faith in their case.

[lookout]

Eddie Gilfoyle's back in court this week to clear his name.
Police destroyed and hid evidence in his case.

[Jan]

They just simply weren't very good - to be honest, I don't think they had much faith in their case.

When you attend the bar then you have to defend to the best of your ability whatever your feelings are so I am not sure that is any excuse.


I think one of the most confusing pieces of evidence was the blood evidence on the silencer and even subsequent reports about DNA etc , plus the history of where it had been and how it was handled . I don't think the judge understood it let alone the jury and imo in today's courts it would have been dismissed as inadmissible evidence . And yet it was probably the main thing that got him convicted .

[Caroline]

When you attend the bar then you have to defend to the best of your ability whatever your feelings are so I am not sure that is any excuse.


I think one of the most confusing pieces of evidence was the blood evidence on the silencer and even subsequent reports about DNA etc , plus the history of where it had been and how it was handled . I don't think the judge understood it let alone the jury and imo in today's courts it would have been dismissed as inadmissible evidence . And yet it was probably the main thing that got him convicted .

You're supposed to do any job to the best of your ability and human nature predicts that if you're hearts not in it - it's going to show.

[Jan]

You're supposed to do any job to the best of your ability and human nature predicts that if you're hearts not in it - it's going to show.

Or perhaps their hands were tied but he bungling mess left by the police .

[nugnug]

Eddie Gilfoyle's back in court this week to clear his name.
Police destroyed and hid evidence in his case.

keep usposted about that lookout/

[lookout]

keep usposted about that lookout/

Will do nugs.