The Paper Trail: possession of exhibits by EP and transfer to FSS

[Holly Goodhead]

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/SYP000029210001.pdf

Pages 3 and 4 provide an example of HOLAB 3 form. 

I am certain I haven't seen this form in connection with the WHF case.  Maybe they are held under pii.

[Holly Goodhead]

http://collection.europarchive.org/tna/20080205132101/homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fcdps73.pdf

The conclusions on pages 57 and ... of the pdf are interesting

 &%+((£

[anglolawyer]

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/SYP000029210001.pdf

Pages 3 and 4 provide an example of HOLAB 3 form. 

I am certain I haven't seen this form in connection with the WHF case.  Maybe they are held under pii.

Well done.   You dug up the form.   You can see it's not a witness statement.   The form and a statement perform two different functions.   The HOLAB3 is likely to wind up being exhibited to a witness statement in the event that a chain of custody issue arises.   I don't think I'm doing a good job of explaining this.   It's probably one of those things that are simpler than you think.   Those can be hard to grasp.

[anglolawyer]

http://collection.europarchive.org/tna/20080205132101/homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fcdps73.pdf

The conclusions on pages 57 and ... of the pdf are interesting

 &%+((£

They are?  In what way?   And how does that report relate to the thread?

[Holly Goodhead]

Well done.   You dug up the form.   You can see it's not a witness statement.   The form and a statement perform two different functions.   The HOLAB3 is likely to wind up being exhibited to a witness statement in the event that a chain of custody issue arises.   I don't think I'm doing a good job of explaining this.   It's probably one of those things that are simpler than you think.   Those can be hard to grasp.

I have never thought the HOLAB 3 form and a witness statement (WS) are one and the same.

Witness statement

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/standard-directions/general/witness-statements

HOLAB 3

DS Davidson's explanation:

"HOLAB3s right.  This is an Essex Police form the HOLAB3 which is a Home Office laboratory form is a form which is filled out in duplicate or triplicate, which  is our submission, which is a way of our submission, going to the laboratory.  It is a list of exhibits and a brief background of the incident,  with a request in plain English what we want the lab to do for us.  And that is the purpose of that form and that goes to the lab with any submissions.  One of the copies is endorsed and sent back as a receipt".

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?PHPSESSID=uhec4gte7g1fk1ls1v20acq6b5&action=dlattach;topic=178.0;attach=445

It is clear from the example I have provided they perform very different functions:

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/SYP000029210001.pdf

Pages 3 and 4 provide an example of HOLAB 3 form. 

I think the function of a HOLAB 3 is more  than 'chain of custody'?  I see it as a means of a police force communicating to a Home Office laboratory a set of objectives by way of tests/results/evidence? 

I am still uncertain why EP have a WS from Dr Vanezis, albeit unsigned, dated 26th November listing biological samples and bullets/fragments some of which are missing? 

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=204.0;attach=704

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=204.0;attach=706

I assume Dr V was responsible for removing and handing over to EP victims' nightwear?  What happened to SC's earrings, necklace and watch? 

[Holly Goodhead]

They are?  In what way?   And how does that report relate to the thread?

I haven't read the doc word for word but it appears it has been produced by various parties to assess the quality of work between the police and Home Office forensic science services. 

Page 18 of the doc states:

"One sample force, in contrast with the general pattern, did have well developed QA
arrangements, with clear responsibilities for senior SOCOs to re-visit scenes -
reviewing scene work, the appearance of the SOCO and any submissions/Home
Office Laboratory Submission (HOLAB) form. This is linked to annual career
assessments and annual pay awards. Senior SOCOs in turn have to undertake
practical scene assessments as part of their regular performance review. Where
shortcomings are found workshops are arranged to deal with them, with the ultimate
sanction of dismissal".

To my mind this implies many shortcomings were identified?  You will note the ref to HOLAB. 

There's also a flowchart on page 6 which refers to a "submission form" which I am assuming is the HOLAB form?

[Holly Goodhead]

It seems to me these HOLAB 3 forms are very important docs. 

If the silencer was taken into EP's possession on 13th August then it stands to reason serological analysis of the blood would be carried out on it asap ie 13th/14th August so lets see the HOLAB forms? 

 

[Holly Goodhead]

I've just noticed a reference to a HOLAB 5 here:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1026.msg29566#msg29566

So the HOLAB 3 is the submission form and HOLAB 5 a general examination form.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1026.msg29566#msg29566

Part of the examination is dated 13th Aug and another part 25th Sept.  There's no mention of blood inside the silencer?  It looks like a J Stevenson has written at the bottom of page one "bogus and fraudulent"  &%+((£

[Myster]

I've just noticed a reference to a HOLAB 5 here:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1026.msg29566#msg29566

So the HOLAB 3 is the submission form and HOLAB 5 a general examination form.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1026.msg29566#msg29566

Part of the examination is dated 13th Aug and another part 25th Sept.  There's no mention of blood inside the silencer?  It looks like a J Stevenson has written at the bottom of page one "bogus and fraudulent"  &%+((£

ha-ha... the prodigal daughter returns. 

James Stevenson was involved with the McKenzie Report concerning validity of the silencer evidence.

Another long read for you... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=276.0

[Holly Goodhead]

ha-ha... the prodigal daughter returns. 

James Stevenson was involved with the McKenzie Report concerning validity of the silencer evidence.

Another long read for you... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=276.0

You've been spying!

Thanks for the link.  I didn't associate the name with the report which I read briefly ages ago and found it unprofessional and lacking credibility.

[Myster]

You've been spying!

Thanks for the link.  I didn't associate the name with the report which I read briefly ages ago and found it unprofessional and lacking credibility.

There are some formidable debaters across the pond, but Clive of Britannia will sort 'em out (including you).

(notice that I omitted the 'mass-' prefix... we're a respectable forum these days).

[anglolawyer]

There are some formidable debaters across the pond, but Clive of Britannia will sort 'em out (including you).

(notice that I omitted the 'mass-' prefix... we're a respectable forum these days).

There are indeed.   Charlie Wilkes is a heavyweight and someone I know personally and admire greatly.   He is a valued and trusted friend of Amanda Knox and her family and has been a powerful advocate for them.   I've learned a heck of a lot there from good people who set out to influence the outcome of the cases they support.   

[Myster]

There are indeed.   Charlie Wilkes is a heavyweight and someone I know personally and admire greatly.   He is a valued and trusted friend of Amanda Knox and her family and has been a powerful advocate for them.   I've learned a heck of a lot there from good people who set out to influence the outcome of the cases they support.

The IA forum looks like an interesting one to lurk and follow.  I shall miss Holly, now that she's found a new playground... but not a lot.

BTW, the blue forum that Holly often refers to and where most of the case-related documents and photos on here came from is not the Official Support site, but this one...

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?PHPSESSID=a1f3de27e9d188cd5a69c85d35b382ba&/topic,3185.0.html

However, you have to join to see any of these.

[Holly Goodhead]

The IA forum looks like an interesting one to lurk and follow.  I shall miss Holly, now that she's found a new playground... but not a lot.

BTW, the blue forum that Holly often refers to and where most of the case-related documents and photos on here came from is not the Official Support site, but this one...

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?PHPSESSID=a1f3de27e9d188cd5a69c85d35b382ba&/topic,3185.0.html

However, you have to join to see any of these.

Awww I haven't found a new playground just on a little secondment.  It's interesting to exchange ideas with others who appear to have a general interest in these sort of cases as opposed to those who have fixed ideas about JB's case. It's obviously a US forum so this gives it a different dimension too.

[scipio_usmc]

During the COLP inquiry DS Davidson was asked what paperwork accompanies exhibits being transferred from Essex Police to Forensic Science Service (FSS) Huntingdon.  He makes reference to police form CID6 and HOLAB3.

It appears the CID6 is a police form and used by SoC officers to list exhibits relevant to the SoC which are subsequently taken into possession by EP.  The HOLAB3 form is a Home Office Laboratory form and used when EP submit exhibits to FSS for testing.  The form is completed in duplicate or triplicate (what determines which?) and details:

- exhibit
- given a number which in part is based on the CID6 form
- brief background to exhibit
- request what tests EP require FSS to carry out

One copy is signed by FSS and returned to EP (third copy when triplicate?)

I don't recall ever seeing these forms?  All I've seen are what appear to be standard witness statements listing exhibits.  One example being:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=204.0;attach=704

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=204.0;attach=706

The above are various exhibits removed from the victims on 7th and 8th Aug by the pathologist and handed to EP during these two days. 

1. Based on the above I would have thought this required a CID6 form completing?

2. When the exhibits were transferred from EP to FSS what happened to the HOLAB3 form?

3. Why was the above dated 26th November and refers to a statement (pathology report) dated 30th September.  This appears to be the form used to take witness statements and is left unsigned. 

4. What would be the purpose of 3 if forms CID6 and HOLAB3 were completed as per the process set out by DS Davidson?

I've also noticed what appears to be a witness statement by Malcolm Fletcher listing various exhibits again left unsigned.  I don't see the purpose of these witness statements when according to DS Davidson the process is CID6 and HOLAB3.

Wow I am sounding super bureaucratic 

CID6 forms were optional forms that could be used as desired and when desired.  They were used in different ways in different investigations which is why they are called ad hoc.  That means the rules are made up as one goes along.

Since multiple items were being collected from WHF they decided to list the items on CID6 forms and assigning them exhibit references as they went along.

There was no need to use a CID6 form at all let alone when they went at other times to collect other items and typically didn't use them on occasions where they collected only a handful of items. 

3 HOLAB forms (all filled out the same) had to accompany an item to the lab. That is the only document that indicates something was taken to the lab. Naturally you can deduce something was taken to the lab when the lab actually examines it because they will create an examination record but the HOLAB forms are the proof of when it got there. 1 copy had to go back to the police who sent it so this was their receipt.  If the lab were to say they never got it and don't have it that is the courier's proof it was delivered so the courier and police can't get blamed and the lab will have liability and have to look harder.