Guardian article

[Nicholas]

I was referring to trial exhibits.

Yes and seems your ‘understanding’ is wrong

My understanding is that all exhibits have been destroyed apart from rifle and silencer which can be found in EP's museum.

My reply to you was clear http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10186.msg573710#msg573710

Still waiting to hear what ‘rifle’ Aunt Agatha is meant to have received and what year?

[Holly Goodhead]

Yes and seems your ‘understanding’ is wrong

My reply to you was clear http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10186.msg573710#msg573710

Still waiting to hear what ‘rifle’ Aunt Agatha is meant to have received and what year?

What evidence exists showing trial exhibits have been retained other than the rifle and silencer which I understand are in the EP museum? 

I don't believe the items returned to AA were exhibited at trial. 

[Nicholas]

What evidence exists showing trial exhibits have been retained other than the rifle and silencer which I understand are in the EP museum? 

I don't believe the items returned to AA were exhibited at trial.

Was the bible an exhibit ?

If it was seized by police, listed in disclosure docs - it would have been a trial exhibit Holly

If you don’t know the answer please say so instead of - ‘i don’t believe’ 

Maybe you don’t believe but as has been showed numerous times over the years on the forum, more often than not what you post is wrong

And when your posts have been showed to be wrong you don’t appear to correct them or state you have something wrong, why?

For example, re the vets WS you stated,

I've never looked for it.

Yet you’ve posted on the topic of Crispy and made false claims

Crispy was offered to the wider family but no one wanted him so sadly he was put down  . Bruce was found a home outside the family.

The above it a lie

[Caroline]

Was the bible an exhibit ?

If it was seized by police, listed in disclosure docs - it would have been a trial exhibit Holly

If you don’t know the answer please say so instead of - ‘i don’t believe’ 

Maybe you don’t believe but as has been showed numerous times over the years on the forum, more often than not what you post is wrong

And when your posts have been showed to be wrong you don’t appear to correct them or state you have something wrong, why?

For example, re the vets WS you stated,

Yet you’ve posted on the topic of Crispy and made false claims

The bible was a trial exhibit. Defence complaints about the bible were that they didn't get to see the pictures, however, the actual bible was an exhibit so they had the op to examine it and didn't.

[Nicholas]

The bible was a trial exhibit. Defence complaints about the bible were that they didn't get to see the pictures, however, the actual bible was an exhibit so they had the op to examine it and didn't.

Bamber’s choice

[Holly Goodhead]

Was the bible an exhibit ?

If it was seized by police, listed in disclosure docs - it would have been a trial exhibit Holly

If you don’t know the answer please say so instead of - ‘i don’t believe’ 

Maybe you don’t believe but as has been showed numerous times over the years on the forum, more often than not what you post is wrong

And when your posts have been showed to be wrong you don’t appear to correct them or state you have something wrong, why?

Nicholas please refrain from making comments of a personal nature. 

People are free to express themselves how they wish so long as it doesn't break forum rules.

The blood stained bible depicted in soc images was referred to at trial as DRH/44 from memory.

June had a number of bibles that weren't mentioned at trial but may have been looked at by EP so maybe it was one of these handed back to the relatives.

[Nicholas]

June had a number of bibles that weren't mentioned at trial but may have been looked at by EP so maybe it was one of these handed back to the relatives.

We weren’t discussing a ‘number of bibles’ though were we?

My understanding is that all exhibits have been destroyed apart from rifle and silencer which can be found in EP's museum.

And ‘all exhibits’ weren’t ‘destroyed’

[Caroline]

Bamber’s choice

Not sure but it wasn't until after it was reported that the bible was destroyed that he seems keen to include it as an issue.

[Nicholas]

Not sure but it wasn't until after it was reported that the bible was destroyed that he seems keen to include it as an issue.

Ngb1066 may have the answer to this, it may have been an intellectual property issue or what belongs to who argument

Was there a reason the bible was handed to the relatives as opposed to being kept by Bamber for a possible future appeal?

“in 2002 the CCRC displayed a willingness to use their powers to examine the full circumstances surrounding the destruction of evidence in 1996. JB instructed Turner QC to decline this offer to investigate.  What reason has JB given for his decision?

Why did Bamber appear to allow the bible go to the relatives in 2006

[Holly Goodhead]

We weren’t discussing a ‘number of bibles’ though were we?

And ‘all exhibits’ weren’t ‘destroyed’

What exhibits exist other than the rifle/silencer?

[Holly Goodhead]

The bible was a trial exhibit. Defence complaints about the bible were that they didn't get to see the pictures, however, the actual bible was an exhibit so they had the op to examine it and didn't.

It was referred to at trial by way of soc images but was it physically presented?

[Holly Goodhead]

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=165.0;attach=221

I think the above was as far as it went with the bible at trial.

[Holly Goodhead]

Ngb1066 may have the answer to this, it may have been an intellectual property issue or what belongs to who argument

Was there a reason the bible was handed to the relatives as opposed to being kept by Bamber for a possible future appeal?

Intellectual property?

What evidence exists showing DRH/44 was returned to the relatives?

[Nicholas]

Ngb1066 may have the answer to this, it may have been an intellectual property issue or what belongs to who argument

Was there a reason the bible was handed to the relatives as opposed to being kept by Bamber for a possible future appeal?

“in 2002 the CCRC displayed a willingness to use their powers to examine the full circumstances surrounding the destruction of evidence in 1996. JB instructed Turner QC to decline this offer to investigate.  What reason has JB given for his decision?

Why did Bamber appear to allow the bible go to the relatives in 2006

The Jeremy Bamber official website also offers the following in relation to the Bible and the blood stains thereon...


At Jeremy’s trial in 1986 no evidence was called relating to the Bible that was discovered next to Sheila. After Jeremy’s legal team reviewed the note that was protruding from between the pages it could also be seen that a piece of crocheted material was between or underneath one of its pages. Essex Police concealed the existence of this note
Mr Terzeon was Jeremy’s Solicitor in 1986, he requested to see photographs of the Bible next to Sheila. On a visit to Witham Police station he had requested to see the master bundle of photographs of the crime scene but no pictures of the Bible were given for him to view and he was told there were none.   It is odd then, that years later these pictures were eventually released by Essex police.


 

In 2005 research began into the photographs.  No mention was made in the incident property register of this note or the cloth in the photographs. Essex Police should have carried out forensic analysis on these articles. DI Cook’s finger print tests on items found at WHF makes no mention of the Bible or the other items being fingerprinted.  As Jeremy was accused of staging the crime scene, surely a vital piece of evidence might have been found on these articles? Mysteriously this document has surfaced which tells us the articles were in fact fingerprinted but whose prints were  on the bible?  There is no possibility that they were Jeremy's because the prosecution would have used this at trial.  The Bible was either returned to Jeremy’s relatives the Boutflour's or destroyed as part of the destruction of exhibits during 1996 despite a court order to preserve them.
There were a number of bloody fingerprints on certain pages of the Bible as you can see in the pictures, so who did these belong to?
The paper protruding from the bible shows the words ‘Love one another’. These words come from the passage John Chapter 13. We know that according to Dr Ferguson (Sheila’s Psychiatrist) Sheila’s mental illness was often influenced by conflicts of good and evil and ideas of the devil being in people as well as her being obsessed about God and religion.

The above post was made by John in 2013 ergo the CT were claiming in 2013 as per.... ^ ^ ^

Why have the CT claimed,

’The Bible was either returned to Jeremy’s relatives the Boutflour's or destroyed as part of the destruction of exhibits during 1996 despite a court order to preserve them.

When it’s known it was handed to relatives in 2006

This is what is now claimed by the OS
[12] A5-08-06 Details that the Bible was not destroyed, but given to the relatives who were ‘unable to locate it for the Appeal of 2002.’ (foot of page) https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/the-bloodied-bible

The relatives didn’t have the bible in 2002 so how did the CT expect them to produce it for 2002 appeal?

And why are the relatives being blamed for this?

The OS states,

“Evidence suggests that the Bible in question was not destroyed back in the 1980’s moreover, it is probable that it is in existence today. Police gave possession of it back to Jeremy’s extended relatives who benefited financially from his conviction.”

Has Bamber told the CT to publish these words or are they the words of a CT member?

There should be documentation related to the relatives receiving the bible and it’s highly likely Bamber has copies

[Nicholas]

There should be documentation related to the relatives receiving the bible and it’s highly likely Bamber has copies

and I suspect Bamber would have been aware of this at the time

This letter https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=229.0 refers to the ‘destruction of exhibits’ and Bamber writing to ?Mike T that’s he’s got the originals - with a smiley face