What role, if any, did DC Henderson play?

[Nicholas]

Not according to CAL who said the blood-stained Bible was returned to the family in 2006.  In a documentary DB also referred to a slip of paper with a quote written by June that was contained within it.

Suspect this was around the same time Aunt Agatha received the rifle, wetsuit and Chinese trick box

Was there a reason the bible was handed to the relatives as opposed to being kept by Bamber for a possible future appeal?

“in 2002 the CCRC displayed a willingness to use their powers to examine the full circumstances surrounding the destruction of evidence in 1996. JB instructed Turner QC to decline this offer to investigate.  What reason has JB given for his decision?

Why have the CT claimed,
’The Bible was either returned to Jeremy’s relatives the Boutflour's or destroyed as part of the destruction of exhibits during 1996 despite a court order to preserve them.

When it’s known it was handed to relatives in 2006

This is what is now claimed
[12] A5-08-06 Details that the Bible was not destroyed, but given to the relatives who were ‘unable to locate it for the Appeal of 2002.’ (foot of page) https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/the-bloodied-bible

The relatives didn’t have the bible in 2002 so how did the CT expect them to produce it for 2002 appeal?

And why are the relatives being blamed for this?
“Evidence suggests that the Bible in question was not destroyed back in the 1980’s moreover, it is probable that it is in existence today. Police gave possession of it back to Jeremy’s extended relatives who benefited financially from his conviction.”

[Myster]

Suspect this was around the same time Aunt Agatha received the rifle, wetsuit and Chinese trick box

Holly won’t admit she’s wrong about the bible Myster

There is a list of retained items of evidence which includes a bible somewhere on the forum, but that could be a mistake if it was returned.

[Holly Goodhead]

Holly won’t admit she’s wrong about the bible Myster

I don't believe I am wrong.:

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.

[Nicholas]

I don't believe I am wrong.:

You are

[Holly Goodhead]

As I said Holly

If Myster agrees I will email him a copy.  Will you then accept this as confirmation JB told me a) NB wasn't shot upstairs and b) DC Hammersley wasn't at soc? 

[Holly Goodhead]

You are

What proof exists that DRH/44 is alive and kicking? 

[Nicholas]

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.

In what year did the police give Aunt Agatha Bamber’s wetsuit, rifle and Chinese trick box?

[Nicholas]

If Myster agrees I will email him a copy.  Will you then accept this as confirmation JB told me a) NB wasn't shot upstairs and b) DC Hammersley wasn't at soc?

If you have proof post it on the forum - not interested in hearsay

[Holly Goodhead]

If you have proof post it on the forum - not interested in hearsay

So you don't trust Myster or me and yet you're happy for me to betray a confidence by posting personal correspondence on www?

I'll email it to John or Myster.   Take it or leave it but please don't keep saying you don't believe me when I've spent some time looking for it and offered to send it to John or Myster for verification.

[Nicholas]

So you don't trust Myster or me and yet you're happy for me to betray a confidence by posting personal correspondence on www?

 

You’ve already betrayed Bamber by claiming what you have Holly

[Nicholas]

I'll email it to John or Myster.   Take it or leave it but please don't keep saying you don't believe me when I've spent some time looking for it and offered to send it to John or Myster for verification.

I’m not interested in hearsay only facts Holly

If you have proof post it

[Nicholas]

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.

The wetsuit, rifle, Chinese trick box and whatever else clearly weren’t destroyed Holly therefore there’s no reason to suggest the bible was

Bamber’s surviving relatives have nothing to gain by claiming the bible was returned to them

“in 2002 the CCRC displayed a willingness to use their powers to examine the full circumstances surrounding the destruction of evidence in 1996. JB instructed Turner QC to decline this offer to investigate.

What reason has Bamber given for his decision above Holly?

Why did he instruct Mr M. Turner QC to decline the CCRC’s offer ?

[Holly Goodhead]

The wetsuit, rifle, Chinese trick box and whatever else clearly weren’t destroyed Holly therefore there’s no reason to suggest the bible was

Bamber’s surviving relatives have nothing to gain by claiming the bible was returned to them

What reason has Bamber given for his decision above Holly?

Why did he instruct Mr M. Turner QC to decline the CCRC’s offer ?

The items you mention were not trial exhibits.

[Nicholas]

You’ve already betrayed Bamber by claiming what you have Holly

This is what you claimed

When I emailed JB about my theory that NB was shot on the landing stairs and main stairs (nr the top) the response I got was that NB wasn't shot upstairs.  There's no doubt whatsoever NB was shot upstairs.  My theory covered the casings and I referred to DC Hammersley.  JB said DC Hammersley wasn't at SOC when clearly he was as per his trial testimony.  JB said the officer responsible for collecting the casings was DC Henderson.

[Nicholas]

The items you mention were not trial exhibits.

All items seized by police would have been trial exhibits Holly - used or unused