Speaks volumes doesn’t it?
Am not convinced the ‘police officer’ mentioned below ‘destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives’ - One of Bamber’s previous representatives was a fraudster
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.
Why didn’t Bamber take up the CCRC’s offer ?
Maybe you should ask Bamber, Mark Newby or his CT to provide copies of the paperwork related to all exhibits
These questions have still yet to be answered http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,514.msg9287.html#msg9287
“Mike, please could you clarify when JB or his legal team were advised that evidence, in particular blood samples, were going to be or had been destroyed, as happened in 1996.
Likewise, 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?
“It appears JB rejected a golden opportunity to (possibly) have the EP discredited by the CCRC.
The CCRC would have borne the costs as well - not to be sneezed at.
Had EP been proved to be disingenuous on this matter, the Commission may have allowed 'generous discretion' in viewing related grounds for Appeal.
The silence on this leads to other conspiracy theories - that JB wanted blood samples destroyed fearing DNA developments since 1985... etc.
So I think the matter should be addressed.
Is it because a paper trail would lead back to Bamber having given his permission to have certain items destroyed?
What’s the full story behind the trial exhibits being handed back to relatives and Aunt Agatha in 2006?
Am not interested in AA’s previous comments on this
But am interested in why a fuss appears to have been made when Mike Tesko published the paperwork - what did Bamber supporters appear to want to keep hidden and why ?
