Author Topic: PII-protected materials and Essex Police  (Read 423 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LuminousWanderer

PII-protected materials and Essex Police
« on: April 03, 2018, 07:57:59 PM »
I wish to kindly request some assistance with a matter pertinent to Jeremy Bamber on which, I must confess, I am finding it difficult to obtain clarity of information.  I don't expect anybody to do any running around for me - I do have research skills of my own - but seeing as people here are familiar with the case, I'm hoping you can provide some quick answers, and I'm happy to rely on what you say. 

In essence, what I am trying to establish is whether the whole PII controversy is a genuine cause or just a smokescreen for Bamber.  However, I would greatly appreciate it if replies could be confined to answering the questions below rather than waxing lyrical about what you think of Bamber and his PII claims. My interest is in clarifying and then evaluating the official position rather than in what people think about the situation.

Also, apologies if what follows repeats a previous thread, but I have been unable to find answers to these questions in web-based discussions about the PII issue.

My questions:

1. Is it true that Essex Police are in possession of materials relevant to their investigation of Jeremy Bamber that they would normally be obligated to release to him but refuse to do so the basis of Public Interest Immunity?

2. If this is true, then what is the exact official reason given by Essex Police for asserting Public Interest Immunity in respect of these materials?

3. What is the nature of these materials in broad terms?  A general categorisation and sub-categorisation is fine for present purposes.  For instance, an answer could be: 'Police video tapes of crime scene'; 'Notes by Essex Police constables at crime scene'; 'Notebooks of Essex CID', or could be more general, such as 'Videos', 'Notebooks', 'Court preparation files and pleadings'.

4. Is it true that Essex Police are under court order to release the protected materials and are defying the court order?

5. If this is true, then what is the reason given by Essex Police for defying the court order, and what action has or is being taken by Jeremy Bamber, or the court under its own initiative, to enforce the order?

Thank you in advance to anybody here who can answer these points. 

Offline Caroline

Re: PII-protected materials and Essex Police
« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2018, 08:50:30 PM »
I wish to kindly request some assistance with a matter pertinent to Jeremy Bamber on which, I must confess, I am finding it difficult to obtain clarity of information.  I don't expect anybody to do any running around for me - I do have research skills of my own - but seeing as people here are familiar with the case, I'm hoping you can provide some quick answers, and I'm happy to rely on what you say. 

In essence, what I am trying to establish is whether the whole PII controversy is a genuine cause or just a smokescreen for Bamber.  However, I would greatly appreciate it if replies could be confined to answering the questions below rather than waxing lyrical about what you think of Bamber and his PII claims. My interest is in clarifying and then evaluating the official position rather than in what people think about the situation.

Also, apologies if what follows repeats a previous thread, but I have been unable to find answers to these questions in web-based discussions about the PII issue.

My questions:

1. Is it true that Essex Police are in possession of materials relevant to their investigation of Jeremy Bamber that they would normally be obligated to release to him but refuse to do so the basis of Public Interest Immunity?

2. If this is true, then what is the exact official reason given by Essex Police for asserting Public Interest Immunity in respect of these materials?

3. What is the nature of these materials in broad terms?  A general categorisation and sub-categorisation is fine for present purposes.  For instance, an answer could be: 'Police video tapes of crime scene'; 'Notes by Essex Police constables at crime scene'; 'Notebooks of Essex CID', or could be more general, such as 'Videos', 'Notebooks', 'Court preparation files and pleadings'.

4. Is it true that Essex Police are under court order to release the protected materials and are defying the court order?

5. If this is true, then what is the reason given by Essex Police for defying the court order, and what action has or is being taken by Jeremy Bamber, or the court under its own initiative, to enforce the order?

Thank you in advance to anybody here who can answer these points.

My questions:

1. Is it true that Essex Police are in possession of materials relevant to their investigation of Jeremy Bamber that they would normally be obligated to release to him but refuse to do so the basis of Public Interest Immunity?

Yes, I believe that they do still hold some documents, but a few years ago, Jeremy told me has almost all of the withheld material. I thik that all they have now are photo's of the twins and Sheila's medical records.

2. If this is true, then what is the exact official reason given by Essex Police for asserting Public Interest Immunity in respect of these materials?

I don't believe they have commented

3. What is the nature of these materials in broad terms?  A general categorisation and sub-categorisation is fine for present purposes.  For instance, an answer could be: 'Police video tapes of crime scene'; 'Notes by Essex Police constables at crime scene'; 'Notebooks of Essex CID', or could be more general, such as 'Videos', 'Notebooks', 'Court preparation files and pleadings'.

It is claimed that the PII material is extensive, however, Jeremy himself told me he was in possession of almost everything.

4. Is it true that Essex Police are under court order to release the protected materials and are defying the court order?

True? It's claimed but there is no evidence of it.

5. If this is true, then what is the reason given by Essex Police for defying the court order, and what action has or is being taken by Jeremy Bamber, or the court under its own initiative, to enforce the order?

No reason given  -they would have to comply with a court order so this is unlikely.

Offline LuminousWanderer

Re: PII-protected materials and Essex Police
« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2018, 09:00:23 PM »
My questions:

1. Is it true that Essex Police are in possession of materials relevant to their investigation of Jeremy Bamber that they would normally be obligated to release to him but refuse to do so the basis of Public Interest Immunity?

Yes, I believe that they do still hold some documents, but a few years ago, Jeremy told me has almost all of the withheld material. I thik that all they have now are photo's of the twins and Sheila's medical records.

2. If this is true, then what is the exact official reason given by Essex Police for asserting Public Interest Immunity in respect of these materials?

I don't believe they have commented

3. What is the nature of these materials in broad terms?  A general categorisation and sub-categorisation is fine for present purposes.  For instance, an answer could be: 'Police video tapes of crime scene'; 'Notes by Essex Police constables at crime scene'; 'Notebooks of Essex CID', or could be more general, such as 'Videos', 'Notebooks', 'Court preparation files and pleadings'.

It is claimed that the PII material is extensive, however, Jeremy himself told me he was in possession of almost everything.

4. Is it true that Essex Police are under court order to release the protected materials and are defying the court order?

True? It's claimed but there is no evidence of it.

5. If this is true, then what is the reason given by Essex Police for defying the court order, and what action has or is being taken by Jeremy Bamber, or the court under its own initiative, to enforce the order?

No reason given  -they would have to comply with a court order so this is unlikely.

Thank you very much indeed, Caroline.  I have added a 'Like'.

I have definitely - and I am 100% about this - seen it stated somewhere that there is a court order and Essex Police are ignoring it.  Hopefully somebody else here can back me up on that information.  Which is not to say that there really is a court order of course.  That just illustrates the problem for people like me looking at this case afresh - there is so much contradictory and confusing information, and frankly, false information.

Offline Caroline

Re: PII-protected materials and Essex Police
« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2018, 09:05:13 PM »
Thank you very much indeed, Caroline.  I have added a 'Like'.

I have definitely - and I am 100% about this - seen it stated somewhere that there is a court order and Essex Police are ignoring it.  Hopefully somebody else here can back me up on that information.  Which is not to say that there  really is a court order of course.  That just illustrates the problem for people like me looking at this case afresh - there is so much contradictory and confusing information, and frankly, false information.

Yes, you are right, the CT and and Jeremy himself has written about the court order but if a court order were in place, they would have to disclose. I believe the evidence for such a CO was a document asking for information to be made available for either one f the appeals or for submissions to the CCRC - I don't remember which. My guess is that the documents were made available and that said document is just now used to bolster the notion that there is a mountain of evidence being withheld and EP won't play ball.

Thanks for the like - I shall reciprocate  8(0(*

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: PII-protected materials and Essex Police
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2018, 09:09:34 PM »
I hope I'm not waxing lyrical...

According to author Carol Ann Lee (CAL) JB told her he had received all the material held under pii but this doesn't seem to be the case according to JB's blogs, website and his campaign team.

I was under the impression the info held under pii relates to JM's immunity against prosecution. 

We know the police destroyed trial exhibits against protocol so the idea they would squirrel away documents which could assist the defence and harm the prosecution doesn't ring true for me.  As far as I can see the stationery used isn't numbered so potentially it could be destroyed with no questions asked. 

There's evidence all JB's circle who testified against him used recreational drugs.  And there's some evidence, albeit tenuous, that EP played this card.  If anything is held under pii it might relate to this.

It appears WHF was also growing opium poppies supposedly for the pharma ind but research shows this didn't take off in UK until early noughties.

The drug thing might be something or nothing.  I will endeavour to find the threads for you. 

Offline Caroline

Re: PII-protected materials and Essex Police
« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2018, 09:26:31 PM »
I hope I'm not waxing lyrical...

According to author Carol Ann Lee (CAL) JB told her he had received all the material held under pii but this doesn't seem to be the case according to JB's blogs, website and his campaign team.

I was under the impression the info held under pii relates to JM's immunity against prosecution. 

We know the police destroyed trial exhibits against protocol so the idea they would squirrel away documents which could assist the defence and harm the prosecution doesn't ring true for me.  As far as I can see the stationery used isn't numbered so potentially it could be destroyed with no questions asked. 

There's evidence all JB's circle who testified against him used recreational drugs.  And there's some evidence, albeit tenuous, that EP played this card.  If anything is held under pii it might relate to this.

It appears WHF was also growing opium poppies supposedly for the pharma ind but research shows this didn't take off in UK until early noughties.

The drug thing might be something or nothing.  I will endeavour to find the threads for you.

He told me the same thing.

Offline LuminousWanderer

Re: PII-protected materials and Essex Police
« Reply #6 on: April 03, 2018, 09:33:11 PM »
I hope I'm not waxing lyrical...

According to author Carol Ann Lee (CAL) JB told her he had received all the material held under pii but this doesn't seem to be the case according to JB's blogs, website and his campaign team.

I was under the impression the info held under pii relates to JM's immunity against prosecution. 

We know the police destroyed trial exhibits against protocol so the idea they would squirrel away documents which could assist the defence and harm the prosecution doesn't ring true for me.  As far as I can see the stationery used isn't numbered so potentially it could be destroyed with no questions asked. 

There's evidence all JB's circle who testified against him used recreational drugs.  And there's some evidence, albeit tenuous, that EP played this card.  If anything is held under pii it might relate to this.

It appears WHF was also growing opium poppies supposedly for the pharma ind but research shows this didn't take off in UK until early noughties.

The drug thing might be something or nothing.  I will endeavour to find the threads for you.

Yes, I don't mind further speculation on this thread, please don't misunderstand - that wasn't intended to be rude, it's just that I wanted to have absolute clarity on the official position, and I'm satisfied now.

I'd assumed that if there are hidden or protected materials, it would mostly be administrative and legal 'mulch', things like pre-trial preparation documents, draft pleadings, maybe police notebooks, maybe logs and records of comings-and-goings from the Farm, etc.  All of it important stuff, but not earth-shattering.

In addition, I would happily speculate that Essex Police will be holding records of surveillance of different kinds carried out on Bamber and also Mugford and that these will never be released because they are protected - and I agree that PII should apply in respect of those.  There is a bona fide public interest in concealing police intelligence sources and methods.

I also take the view that it is defensible for the police to, in effect, use legal threats against individuals in order to make them testify against criminals.  I don't have kids, but if I had two sons and they were shot in their beds in the middle of the night, I'd expect the police to be using blackmail, threats and bullying to get the information needed to convict the person who had done it.  If Bamber's associates were threatened with drug-related convictions should they not co-operate, then GOOD.  It doesn't mean their evidence was wrong. 

I can tell you, speaking as someone who has what might be euphemistically called 'applied experience' in the law, that in the old days, when you were brought in for questioning/sussing, the coppers would rough you up and pull you by the hair until you confessed.  I had long hair in those days - and I suffered.  That's the way it is, and if people get roughed up a bit, so what?  It doesn't make Bamber innocent, and it also doesn't affect his rights or the safety of the conviction.

Another important point to note, which is of relevance to this, is that Julie Mugford - as I understand it (and again, I'd welcome correction on this point if I'm the victim of false information) - did NOT benefit from any formal immunity in the county of Essex; instead she was cautioned for her offences and she was no doubt warned, and other charges were dropped.  Personally I see nothing at all amiss with that: convicting a murderer is far more important than minor offences.  Never mind cheque fraud.  Not that I'm defending the former Miss Mugford, but I think she has paid for her wrong-doing: she lost her reputation and her professional livelihood in her native country, and she had to emigrate and start again.  That's enough.  She's now made something of herself and it's in the past.

Of course, if Essex Police have in fact covered-up Mugford's complicity in a murder plot, that would be scandalous, but how would that help Jeremy Bamber, and more important, why would Bamber make such a show of pursuing Essex Police for materials that prove his guilt conclusively?

My assessment of the PII issue is that it's all smoke.  However, again, that does not affect my neutrality.  There are problems with this case and Bamber could be innocent - but he and his supporters should not be putting out false information and wasting people's time.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2018, 09:39:31 PM by LuminousWanderer »


Offline Caroline

Re: PII-protected materials and Essex Police
« Reply #8 on: April 03, 2018, 09:47:16 PM »
Yes, I don't mind further speculation on this thread, please don't misunderstand - that wasn't intended to be rude, it's just that I wanted to have absolute clarity on the official position, and I'm satisfied now.

I'd assumed that if there are hidden or protected materials, it would mostly be administrative and legal 'mulch', things like pre-trial preparation documents, draft pleadings, maybe police notebooks, maybe logs and records of comings-and-goings from the Farm, etc.  All of it important stuff, but not earth-shattering.

In addition, I would happily speculate that Essex Police will be holding records of surveillance of different kinds carried out on Bamber and also Mugford and that these will never be released because they are protected - and I agree that PII should apply in respect of those.  There is a bona fide public interest in concealing police intelligence sources and methods.

I also take the view that it is defensible for the police to, in effect, use legal threats against individuals in order to make them testify against criminals.  I don't have kids, but if I had two sons and they were shot in their beds in the middle of the night, I'd expect the police to be using blackmail, threats and bullying to get the information needed to convict the person who had done it.  If Bamber's associates were threatened with drug-related convictions should they not co-operate, then GOOD.  It doesn't mean their evidence was wrong. 

I can tell you, speaking as someone who has what might be euphemistically called 'applied experience' in the law, that in the old days, when you were brought in for questioning/sussing, the coppers would rough you up and pull you by the hair until you confessed.  I had long hair in those days - and I suffered.  That's the way it is, and if people get roughed up a bit, so what?  It doesn't make Bamber innocent, and it also doesn't affect his rights or the safety of the conviction.

Another important point to note, which is of relevance to this, is that Julie Mugford - as I understand it (and again, I'd welcome correction on this point if I'm the victim of false information) - did NOT benefit from any formal immunity in the county of Essex; instead she was cautioned for her offences and she was no doubt warned, and other charges were dropped.  Personally I see nothing at all amiss with that: convicting a murderer is far more important than minor offences.  Never mind cheque fraud.  Not that I'm defending the former Miss Mugford, but I think she has paid for her wrong-doing: she lost her reputation and her professional livelihood in her native country, and she had to emigrate and start again.  That's enough.  She's now made something of herself and it's in the past.

Of course, if Essex Police have in fact covered-up Mugford's complicity in a murder plot, that would be scandalous, but how would that help Jeremy Bamber, and more important, why would Bamber make such a show of pursuing Essex Police for materials that prove his guilt conclusively?

My assessment of the PII issue is that it's all smoke.  However, again, that does not affect my neutrality.  There are problems with this case and Bamber could be innocent - but he and his supporters should not be putting out false information and wasting people's time.

I think 'most' supporters pass on information with the best of intentions and believe what they are posting is true. I learned a long time ago that you need to check EVERY unsourced post because much of it is simply an interpretation of the facts.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: PII-protected materials and Essex Police
« Reply #9 on: April 03, 2018, 10:10:52 PM »
Non-disclosure has been making the headlines recently for all the wrong reasons and I think JB and his 'supporters' are wanting to jump on the bandwagon. 

A poster on Blue has said about soc negs cut from strips but my understanding is that the negs in question were simply duff.  Although I accept there needs to be a full audit trail.

I think the CT have recently claimed the report by Det Sup James Kenneally hasn't been disclosed:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9223.msg449459#msg449459

Offline LuminousWanderer

Re: PII-protected materials and Essex Police
« Reply #10 on: April 03, 2018, 10:32:56 PM »
Non-disclosure has been making the headlines recently for all the wrong reasons

Yes, I ought to add to my post above that I do absolutely deplore the non-disclosure of material evidence and I think these recent cases we have been seeing are disgraceful, but I'm satisfied now that there is no such issue here for Bamber.  There is the fact, which you rightly highlight, that evidence was destroyed, and that was disgraceful and wrong, but that's a fait accompli: nothing can remediate it.

Offline LuminousWanderer

Re: PII-protected materials and Essex Police
« Reply #11 on: April 03, 2018, 10:50:24 PM »
I think 'most' supporters pass on information with the best of intentions and believe what they are posting is true. I learned a long time ago that you need to check EVERY unsourced post because much of it is simply an interpretation of the facts.

It's called lying.  And some people do baldly make up facts that they know are not true.  I include in that people on both sides of this.  It makes me very angry because I don't believe there should be dogmas, loyalties or agendas.  The issue here is whether Bamber's conviction is legally-safe, nothing more or less than that.

Offline Caroline

Re: PII-protected materials and Essex Police
« Reply #12 on: April 03, 2018, 11:00:07 PM »
It's called lying.  And some people do baldly make up facts that they know are not true.  I include in that people on both sides of this.  It makes me very angry because I don't believe there should be dogmas, loyalties or agendas.  The issue here is whether Bamber's conviction is legally-safe, nothing more or less than that.

Oh I agree and I agree that 'some' people do lie. Problem is, when you have been on the forum a while, like elsewhere in life, you develop relationships with other posters, some favourable, others not and the latter can often end up in shrear dislike and you just end up with one in a one upmanship battle of wills. It becomes less about Bamber and more about the online relationship of the posters. I wish people could debate without being personal or just down right nuts - I don't think that will happen though.

Offline LuminousWanderer

Re: PII-protected materials and Essex Police
« Reply #13 on: April 03, 2018, 11:55:47 PM »
I think, as a matter of principle, I support this tweet from Jeremy Bamber's campaign.  If, as indicated above, there is more evidence to be disclosed, there it should be disclosed.

https://twitter.com/jbcampaignltd/status/981217127989473280

Offline Caroline

Re: PII-protected materials and Essex Police
« Reply #14 on: April 04, 2018, 12:22:18 AM »
I think, as a matter of principle, I support this tweet from Jeremy Bamber's campaign.  If, as indicated above, there is more evidence to be disclosed, there it should be disclosed.

https://twitter.com/jbcampaignltd/status/981217127989473280

I signed that petition ages ago BUT it is easy to keep claiming that evidence is withheld, even if it isn't and EP can't hand over what they don't have.