Guardian article

[Holly Goodhead]

I'm not sure that they are obliged to keep 'ALL' exhibits indefinitely? Key exhibits maybe, but I doubt all. If this were the case they would quickly run out of room.

My interpretation of above is ALL exhibits exhibited at trial.  Does exhibited at trial mean physically at court or discussed at court or both?  I would say both. 

In JB's case the exhibits in terms of quantity and size are fairly small.  In any event the logistics are part and parcel of operating a justice system.

[Holly Goodhead]

I wonder, is the keeping and/or disposing of exhibits pertinent only to the Jeremy Bamber case? It occurs to me that if every piece of information, from every case, was kept indefinitely, a storage facility the size of a village would be necessary. I also question EP's refusal to release what they allegedly still have. Surely, by now, a court order could have been procured and sheriffs sent in to retrieve them.

No it is pertinent to all cases. 

I think there's a difference between destruction of exhibits and non-disclosure of documents. 

JB/CT seem confused about material that may have been collected and seen by the defence but left out of trial in which case my understanding of this is that it's redundant so to speak.  Eg JB/CT claim evidence has surfaced that RB's blood groups matched that found in the silencer and SC's.  This might be new info to JB/CT but according to Roger Wilkes JB's defence was made aware of this fact pre trial but chose not to use it instead relying on the NB/June intimate mix of blood.  Therefore JB can't at some stage post trial decide he wants to use at appeal when it was available to defence pre trial. 

[Caroline]

Thanks.  I've copied the relevant section:

General Guidance: After Production In Court

Once an exhibit is produced in court, or treated as being produced in accordance with section 5B(5) Magistrates Courts Act 1980 (Archbold 10-16), the court has a responsibility to preserve or retain it. Normally the court entrusts the exhibits to the prosecution, usually the police.

The court can impose restrictions on the prosecution. Where it imposes no restrictions, it is for the prosecution to deal with the exhibits in whatever way appears best for the purposes of justice. If the prosecution has doubts as to how to deal with an exhibit it may, but is not obliged to, apply to the court for directions (R v Stipendiary Magistrates at Lambeth and Another, ex p McComb 1983) All ER 321).

I think the key words are:... it is for the prosecution to deal with the exhibits in whatever way appears best for the purposes of justice.

Once convicted the appellant has the legal right to challenge the conviction through the appeals process at any stage of his/her sentence.  He/she could be deprived of the opportunity for doing so if the prosecution was able to destroy trial exhibits.  But we know from JB's case where trial exhibits have been destroyed the appeal court judges will find in favour of the appellant which obviously isn't best for the purposes of justice. 

If JB's case is referred back to CoA it will almost certainly be on the back of the blood/silencer evidence given this underpins his conviction.  2 additional grounds of appeal could be fingerprints on casings and the blood stained bible all of which have been destroyed.  The defence could argue SC's fingerprints were on the casings and June's blood stained the pages of the bible.  Unless the blood/silencer evidence is upheld it would seem the CoA would have to rule in JB's favour over casings and bible given since they have been destroyed.

The blood stained bible was handed back to relatives according to CAL. There is a document (I think posted by David) that suggests the bible was about to be destroyed but nothing to confirm it. There is a reference in CAL's book that states it was given back to relatives.

[Holly Goodhead]

The blood stained bible was handed back to relatives according to CAL. There is a document (I think posted by David) that suggests the bible was about to be destroyed but nothing to confirm it. There is a reference in CAL's book that states it was given back to relatives.

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

[Holly Goodhead]

Back to OP and claims of 2 silencers, according to Mark Webster, biologist who acted for the defence at JB's 2002 appeal, his twitter account states this was investigated by COLP as part of its investigation:

https://twitter.com/ForSciCon/status/1043854166895063043

https://twitter.com/ForSciCon/status/1043855396362948608

[Caroline]

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

Apparently not. I did also read that Bamber had the oppotunity to stop the destruction of certain exhibits but declined. Not sure how true this is but is worth persuing.

[Holly Goodhead]

It seems to me Glynis Howard dealt with this here too:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=169.msg1778#msg1778

CAL states DS Jones circumvented internal processes and sytems by entering the silencer into the wrong property book to avoid the silencer coming under the sort of scrutiny it might have done had it been entered into the correct property book. 

My understanding is that it was initially given the exhibit number SBJ/1.  SBJ being DS Jones' initials: Stanley Brian Jones.  It was then given the exhibit number DB/1 being David Boutflour's initials as the actual finder of the silencer.  Finally it was given the exhibit number DRB/1 the R reflecting David Boutflour's middle name to distinguish between him from police photographer DC David Bird who shared the same initials for first name and surname. 

I always refer to it as silencer as its shorter than typing sound moderator but the names are interchangeable and mean the same thing.  Sound moderator is perhaps the correct technical name.  Even the judges use both.  The fact two different names are used when referring to the silencer does not support the idea there were two or more. 

[Holly Goodhead]

Apparently not. I did also read that Bamber had the oppotunity to stop the destruction of certain exhibits but declined. Not sure how true this is but is worth persuing.

JB did send me a list of destroyed exhibits from some official doc but I can't now recall whether or not the bible was on it. 

The CoA doc states exhibits were destroyed without ref to JB or his legal reps:

165. In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives. It might have been necessary for this court to examine the circumstances in which this had happened. The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciating that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits. However, during argument it was agreed that the court could protect the appellant's position by making assumptions in his favour and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resolve precisely how this came about.

[Caroline]

JB did send me a list of destroyed exhibits from some official doc but I can't now recall whether or not the bible was on it. 

The CoA doc states exhibits were destroyed without ref to JB or his legal reps:

165. In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives. It might have been necessary for this court to examine the circumstances in which this had happened. The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciating that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits. However, during argument it was agreed that the court could protect the appellant's position by making assumptions in his favour and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resolve precisely how this came about.

Sorry, my mistake - it was more to do with having EP investigated re: the destruction of material. The CCRC were 'apparently' willing to investigate why exhibits had been destroyed (at their expense) but Jeremy declined the offer.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,514.0.html
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,514.0.html

[Nicholas]

Were some of the items Bamber handed out to AA exhibits at one time?

[Holly Goodhead]

Sorry, my mistake - it was more to do with having EP investigated re: the destruction of material. The CCRC were 'apparently' willing to investigate why exhibits had been destroyed (at their expense) but Jeremy declined the offer.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,514.0.html
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,514.0.html

I don't know anything about this.  If it is so was it JB's decision alone or was he advised by lawyers/MT QC to take this approach?

[Holly Goodhead]

Were some of the items Bamber handed out to AA exhibits at one time?

AA has said in the past she received JB's wetsuit which I understand was examined by EP although I haven't seen any formal docs to this effect.  I don't believe AA received anything which was included in trial.

[Nicholas]

AA has said in the past she received JB's wetsuit which I understand was examined by EP although I haven't seen any formal docs to this effect.  I don't believe AA received anything which was included in trial.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358271.html#msg358271

Wouldn't all items seized by police have been exhibits?

[Myster]

So that's how they made Freddie Fox's syrup of figs.   Shame about that missing Cartier though... Have you looked at the bottom of your freezer, AA?

[Holly Goodhead]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3851.msg358271.html#msg358271

Wouldn't all items seized by police have been exhibits?

I guess only if they were deemed relevant to the investigation.  In any event clear rules surround exhibits exhibited at trial which isn't the case for items not not exhibited at trial.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/exhibits