What was withheld??

[harry]

Stan,
Years ago lying to a suspect was not an offence that would be prosecuted,and I cannot remember a case where it was.It was done frequently,and commented upon in court.
Lying under oath was a punishable offence,but most law enforcement officers were too savvy to get caught.

[sdreid]

Thanks Harry. Here even when a policeman doesn't want to outright lie he will ask something like, "What would you say if I told you that your fingerprint was found on the ax handle?" Of course, they have no fingerprints but the suspect doesn't know that and if he's guilty it might jolt him into saying something incriminating.

[sdreid]

I don't know if that sort of thing is OK in the UK.

[Sister Hyde]

I don't know if that sort of thing is OK in the UK.

what was ok in the uk? when? mister reid.

[sdreid]

Misleading a suspect without outright lying as to what you have on them.

[Sister Hyde]

Misleading a suspect without outright lying as to what you have on then.

I heard it was still allowed in the US. here it's not allowed (at least in france and also in the netherlands and sweden sine these are the countries I know as well as my own pocket.) I think it can be deceitfull in some cases

[sdreid]

Here they can outright lie.

[Wickerman]

If Kelly's heart was truly missing, that might be something along the line. If so, was that the only example?

I think Bond's summary, which listed his observations AT Millers Court, and BEFORE the 6 hour long autopsy was conducted, has led to an enormous amount of conjecture.
Reports subsequent to the autopsy suggested, on the one hand nothing was missing, yet on the other that something was missing.

I tend to believe the former, because in my opinion the statement "nothing was missing" will relate to the predominant question of the time, the extraction of vital organs. Whereas, bits of muscle, flesh and facial tissues may well have been missing, afterall much of the loose tissue was carried to the autopsy in buckets.
Any less important missing items may well have been hyperboled by the press to intentionally mislead their readers into think "it means organs!", to sell more newspapers.

[sdreid]

It is open to some interpretation, not doubt, but "the heart absent" seems direct enough to me. The question is whether the organ was still at the scene or taken away.

At any rate, the finding does seem to have been held back. The first I heard about it was sometime around 1988. When I bought Rumbelow's book in 1976, I didn't see it in there and it was pretty much the definitive book on the case at the time.

[sdreid]

If it wasn't held back then a lot of early researchers apparently dropped the ball.

[sdreid]

The first I heard about it was sometime around 1988.

I think it was in the Ustinov TV program.

[sdreid]

Kosminski's first name was withheld also.

[curious4]

Certain circumstances

Did it ever come to light what the "certain circumstances" were that caused the Home Office to offer a free pardon to an accomplice not actually involved in the murders?

Regards,
c4

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
How about the suggestion that the police formed an opinion that the Millers court murder was committed in daylight , making it more obvious that the killer may have had difficulty in reaching his den, or being inconspicuous once there, without someone having knowledge, or suspicions.
I Have always held that opinion.
Regards Richard.

[glyn]

Did it ever come to light what the "certain circumstances" were that caused the Home Office to offer a free pardon to an accomplice not actually involved in the murders?

Regards,
c4

Desperation most likely.
Wouldnt an accessory before the fact or after the fact be regarded as equally guilty in the eyes of the law?How could any such accomplice be given a free pardon or amnesty anyway?