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

[anglolawyer]

I would be more than happy to look at the paper trail connected with the silencer (and blood samples since I don't see the two being mutually exclusive  ) but I think it will be a pointless exercise since we know for certain we only have a fraction of the available documents.

I have previously posted an excerpt from CAL's book relating to this:

CAL's book P232:

"Jones made no note of the silencer in Witham's miscellaneous property register, assuming that it would 'go into the Scenes of Crime system and [be] recorded in that fashion'.  DI Cook regarded the omission as useful 'because it totally minimised the handling of the silencer by others, which would have occurred in the registering of it in property books'."

This begs the question as to whether the staff at FSS were aware of its history. 

I'm not sure we can hold JB responsible for the lack of documents?  He does not have access to the internet and is therefore reliant on others to upload them.  I daresay the other cases you are thinking about above are not without family support?  JB is without any family support and is therefore beholden to others whose judgement he has to rely upon.  Not an enviable position to find oneself in!
 

Well, if you haven't seen it already, check out the allegations document (provenance unknown) I just posted.

Family or no family, Bamber is in a position to release far more material than is available.   Where is his cross examination transcript for example?   We know that exists from the CA judgment.   Surely, he would want that out there if innocent.

[Holly Goodhead]

Sorry, I know how to do that but took a short cut this time.

You are fretting about nothing IMO.   Alternatively, you are speculating, in the absence of vast quantities of case documentation, that a receipt does not exist when no issue AFAIK arises on whatever was collected from PV.   I am quite sure any such transportation of exhibits will have been accompanied by a record of some kind.   A case like this one would soon descend into utter chaos otherwise.

Have you seen the attachment before?   I have no idea where I got it but it's been on my computer for a while.   It may be interesting to focus on it as it's in the neighbourhood of for area of interest but is also concerned with something rather important - the moderator(s)

ETA I posted it twice.   Apologies.   It should only be one attachment.

You have previously stated:

"1 people are sloppy (as a fanatic when it comes to file management, I would impose a summary and painful death penalty for any departure from approved procedures) so gaps and incongruities aren't always evidence of a dark conspiracy at work"

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6674.msg279170#msg279170

I would appreciate it if you don't take shortcuts with quoting as it limits the audit trail with regard to date/time    Otherwise I might have to banish you to the naughty step 

Now I'm not only confused but I'm fretting  *&*%£  Its a moot point just an observation nothing more or less.  And I think we are agreed some sort of receipt probably exists somewhere. 

I think I may have seen the attachment before but I'm not impressed with colleagues effectively investigating colleagues.  They are not impartial.  We see it all the time eg Stephen Lawrence.  I've seen it so many time in the financial services industry:  Compliance, internal audit or corporate governance flag up some warning.  Then operations shut down any inquiries.  Months or years later the issue is flagged up again this time by external sources: external audit, risk or compliance consultants or the regulator.  Next thing millions are paid out in customer redress and regulatory fines or worse still the bank would go bust without a taxpayer bail out. 

When dealing with claims of very serious wrongdoing whether it be the judicial system, financial services industry, journalism (phone hacking) historic cases of child sex abuse (especially church) false accounting (Tescos) emissions rigging (VW) its not easy imo to bring it out into the open for several reasons.  Usually because it involves various stakeholders with conflicting interests and powerful groups vs the powerless/vulnerable.

   

[Holly Goodhead]

Well, if you haven't seen it already, check out the allegations document (provenance unknown) I just posted.

Family or no family, Bamber is in a position to release far more material than is available.   Where is his cross examination transcript for example?   We know that exists from the CA judgment.   Surely, he would want that out there if innocent.

I don't believe a full transcript is available for his cross examination. 

As I said he does not have internet access so what medium are you suggesting he should use?

[anglolawyer]

I don't believe a full transcript is available for his cross examination. 

No transcript has survived as to the appellant's evidence in chief, although it seems clear from the summing up that it was entirely consistent with that which he had told the police. A transcript of his cross-examination is available. In cross-examination the appellant said Sheila Caffell had frequent delusions and had spoken to him of suicide. CA judgment para. 137

Now you are confused, fretting and mistaken.

As I said he does not have internet access so what medium are you suggesting he should use?

Word of mouth.   He can simply tell his solicitors to make case papers available online.

[anglolawyer]

You have previously stated:

"1 people are sloppy (as a fanatic when it comes to file management, I would impose a summary and painful death penalty for any departure from approved procedures) so gaps and incongruities aren't always evidence of a dark conspiracy at work"

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6674.msg279170#msg279170

I would appreciate it if you don't take shortcuts with quoting as it limits the audit trail with regard to date/time    Otherwise I might have to banish you to the naughty step 

I was not being sloppy.   'Efficient' is what I would call it.

Now I'm not only confused but I'm fretting  *&*%£  Its a moot point just an observation nothing more or less.  And I think we are agreed some sort of receipt probably exists somewhere. 

I think I may have seen the attachment before but I'm not impressed with colleagues effectively investigating colleagues.  They are not impartial.  We see it all the time eg Stephen Lawrence.  I've seen it so many time in the financial services industry:  Compliance, internal audit or corporate governance flag up some warning.  Then operations shut down any inquiries.  Months or years later the issue is flagged up again this time by external sources: external audit, risk or compliance consultants or the regulator.  Next thing millions are paid out in customer redress and regulatory fines or worse still the bank would go bust without a taxpayer bail out. 

When dealing with claims of very serious wrongdoing whether it be the judicial system, financial services industry, journalism (phone hacking) historic cases of child sex abuse (especially church) false accounting (Tescos) emissions rigging (VW) its not easy imo to bring it out into the open for several reasons.  Usually because it involves various stakeholders with conflicting interests and powerful groups vs the powerless/vulnerable.

I don't read the allegations document as 'colleagues investigating colleagues'.   Unfortunately, it doesn't record who wrote it but paragraph 5 suggests this is a document prepared by his solicitors:

It has only now, twenty years later, come  to  his  Defence  team’s  notice  the  true  facts  of what took place on 7th August 1985, and some of that has been down to COLP findings that were previously edited from their enquiry in 1991now being revealed.

[Holly Goodhead]

I was not being sloppy.   'Efficient' is what I would call it.

Efficient for you maybe but not for me.

I don't read the allegations document as 'colleagues investigating colleagues'.   Unfortunately, it doesn't record who wrote it but paragraph 5 suggests this is a document prepared by his solicitors:

It has only now, twenty years later, come  to  his  Defence  team’s  notice  the  true  facts  of what took place on 7th August 1985, and some of that has been down to COLP findings that were previously edited from their enquiry in 1991now being revealed.

Apologies I was being dismissive without reading it properly.  In fact I just caught sight of COLP!

[Holly Goodhead]

No transcript has survived as to the appellant's evidence in chief, although it seems clear from the summing up that it was entirely consistent with that which he had told the police. A transcript of his cross-examination is available. In cross-examination the appellant said Sheila Caffell had frequent delusions and had spoken to him of suicide. CA judgment para. 137

Now you are confused, fretting and mistaken.
Word of mouth.   He can simply tell his solicitors to make case papers available online.

Sort of mistaken.  I meant to say no transcript has survived re his full court testimony.

Why would his solicitors make available case papers online for the likes of us to pore over?  Word of mouth?!!!!!

I firmly believe JB's case is going absolutely nowhere without new forensic evidence.  Even if JB had a whole army of highly able legal people poring over all available case notes incl those held under pii I still wouldn't hold out much hope.  If there's anything held under pii that assists JB and is harmful to the prosecution then why place whatever it is under pii?  Why not just destroy it?

[anglolawyer]

snip
Why would his solicitors make available case papers online for the likes of us to pore over?  Word of mouth?!!!!!

Because he told them to do so.   Look, he has a fan base of dedicated supporters with a slick looking web-site.  They claim to be in touch with him.   One weapon in his armoury is public support.   If innocent, he should be using it.   Making the case files available is one way of stimulating discussion of and interest in his case.   If you would like an example of what's possible, see this:

http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/TranscriptIndex.htm

which relates to the Scott Peterson case (California)

I firmly believe JB's case is going absolutely nowhere without new forensic evidence.  Even if JB had a whole army of highly able legal people poring over all available case notes incl those held under pii I still wouldn't hold out much hope.  If there's anything held under pii that assists JB and is harmful to the prosecution then why place whatever it is under pii?  Why not just destroy it?

You may be right about the case going nowhere.   I firmly believe, however, that there are new points to be discovered in all these cases, both forensic and circumstantial, and that, if innocent, it would serve him well to allow people to dig for them.   A hundred, or a thousand, pairs of hours is better than one.   Crowd-sourcing case-analysis has its points.

PII is not necessarily being used to suppress info that might be helpful to Bamber.   There is of course no way of knowing.   However, it should tell you something about the integrity of the system that the suppressed material is not destroyed when, as you say, it could be.

[Holly Goodhead]

Because he told them to do so.   Look, he has a fan base of dedicated supporters with a slick looking web-site.  They claim to be in touch with him.   One weapon in his armoury is public support.   If innocent, he should be using it.   Making the case files available is one way of stimulating discussion of and interest in his case.   If you would like an example of what's possible, see this:

http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/TranscriptIndex.htm

which relates to the Scott Peterson case (California)

Hmmm possibly but there again they might advise, strongly, against.  Does he have:

- a fan base of dedicated supporters?
- a slick looking website?
- in touch with JB?
- public support?

I question all of the above.

You may be right about the case going nowhere.   I firmly believe, however, that there are new points to be discovered in all these cases, both forensic and circumstantial, and that, if innocent, it would serve him well to allow people to dig for them.   A hundred, or a thousand, pairs of hours is better than one.   Crowd-sourcing case-analysis has its points.

PII is not necessarily being used to suppress info that might be helpful to Bamber.   There is of course no way of knowing.   However, it should tell you something about the integrity of the system that the suppressed material is not destroyed when, as you say, it could be.

I am sure there are new points to be discovered but what are the objectives of those doing the discovering: convince self? convince non judiciary others?  convince others in a position of influence eg media? convince members of the judiciary eg ccrc and coa.  As far as I can see only the latter is of relevance?

The info held under PII might relate to SC's and JB's adoption and birth families.  Check out adoption, secrecy and family law courts.  Are we really to believe that the identity of SC's birth father is unknown?

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed136606

And/or graphic soc photos etc,etc.

On the flip side of coure documents, and other info, may exist incriminating JB and seal his fate?

I remain utterly convinced JB's conviction will be quashed by new forensic evidence based on modern day forensics and technology not poring over a mishmash of out-dated documents.

[anglolawyer]

Hmmm possibly but there again they might advise, strongly, against.  Does he have:

- a fan base of dedicated supporters?
- a slick looking website?
- in touch with JB?
- public support?

I question all of the above.

Isn't that what the blue forum is?   An online gathering of support.   Bamber controls his solicitors, not the other way round.

I am sure there are new points to be discovered but what are the objectives of those doing the discovering: convince self? convince non judiciary others?  convince others in a position of influence eg media? convince members of the judiciary eg ccrc and coa.  As far as I can see only the latter is of relevance?

The info held under PII might relate to SC's and JB's adoption and birth families.  Check out adoption, secrecy and family law courts.  Are we really to believe that the identity of SC's birth father is unknown?

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed136606

And/or graphic soc photos etc,etc.

On the flip side of coure documents, and other info, may exist incriminating JB and seal his fate?

I remain utterly convinced JB's conviction will be quashed by new forensic evidence based on modern day forensics and technology not poring over a mishmash of out-dated documents.

Speaking for myself, I find it an interesting challenge to try to figure these cases out.

The documents may be old, but they're not 'outdated'.   Still, you may be right.  Since the jury was entitled to believe Mugford, it's going to have be something pretty good to spring him.

[Holly Goodhead]

Isn't that what the blue forum is?   An online gathering of support.   Bamber controls his solicitors, not the other way round.

As far as I can see the owner of the Blue forum, Michael Teskowski, is a complete liability and harmful to JB's case.  I understand the Blue forum now has more in the guilty camp than innocent.  Does JB currently have solicitors?  If so I guess they are operating pro bono so I'm not sure what sway he will have over them?

Speaking for myself, I find it an interesting challenge to try to figure these cases out.

Yes I've found it interesting.  But I'm at the stage now where any niggling doubts I had have been resolved to my satisfaction and then it gets pretty boring.

The documents may be old, but they're not 'outdated'.   Still, you may be right.  Since the jury was entitled to believe Mugford, it's going to have be something pretty good to spring him.

I think discrediting the silencer 'evidence' would be a good start.  I don't believe JM's testimony is  insurmountable.

[Holly Goodhead]

DS Davidson from COLP inquiry into claims of police wrongdoing:

"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

Malcolm Fletcher - interview with CAL Page 234:

"He (MF) explains further: 'Historically speaking, the police would submit items, provide us with background information and tell us the sort of evidence they were looking for".

So based on the above it appears we can be fairly certain that the HOLAB3 form performs the following functions:

- Lists exhibits transferred from EP to FSS
- Provides background info re the incident
- Informs FSS of the type of evidence EP are looking for

Example of HOLAB 3 form:

[Holly Goodhead]

Oh my attachments are a bit iffy again   

The HOLAB3 form is on page 3 and 4.

[Holly Goodhead]

Sorted...

[Holly Goodhead]

Still iffy