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.