Understanding Criminal Appeals.

[colsville]

How has the existence of that report done a lot of good as far as the truth about the Bamber case is concerned?

I agree the points were weak but that doesn't mean that much stronger points are not going to emerge in the future.

The CoA report is objective in nature, and goes through the entire timeline of events methodically, quoting only the known facts, and referring to them in context. 

This is a report that Jeremy Bamber never wanted anyone to see, because all the 'grounds of appeal'  are forensically examined and explained in detail, and ultimately dismissed.  Those rejected grounds of appeal contain a huge wealth of information, all factually correct, nothing exaggerated.

And it cannot be doctored by Bamber or his supporters in any way.

The 2012 CCRC report would also be useful to the public for the same reasons, but Bamber has refused to publish this, as he knows that it is equally damning and dismissive of his spurious and fictional claims.

Just to remind you, this is what the commission wrote publicly in response to their decision not to refer Bambers case to the Court of Appeal in 2012:

Matters of pure speculation or unsubstantiated allegation constitute neither new evidence nor new argument capable of giving rise to a real possibility that the Court of Appeal will quash a conviction.

Neither can such a real possibility arise from the accumulation of multiple unsubstantiated allegations.

[Holly Goodhead]

The CoA report is objective in nature, and goes through the entire timeline of events methodically, quoting only the known facts, and referring to them in context. 

This is a report that Jeremy Bamber never wanted anyone to see, because all the 'grounds of appeal'  are forensically examined and explained in detail, and ultimately dismissed.  Those rejected grounds of appeal contain a huge wealth of information, all factually correct, nothing exaggerated.

And it cannot be doctored by Bamber or his supporters in any way.

The 2012 CCRC report would also be useful to the public for the same reasons, but Bamber has refused to publish this, as he knows that it is equally damning and dismissive of his spurious and fictional claims.

Just to remind you, this is what the commission wrote publicly in response to their decision not to refer Bambers case to the Court of Appeal in 2012:

Matters of pure speculation or unsubstantiated allegation constitute neither new evidence nor new argument capable of giving rise to a real possibility that the Court of Appeal will quash a conviction.

Neither can such a real possibility arise from the accumulation of multiple unsubstantiated allegations.

In my view the case is about so much more than the low level stuff formerly adjudicated on to date.  It needs to centre on ballistics, fluid mechancics, scene of crime reconstruction and the root causes of Sheila's and June's mental health. 

The best advocates/support for those wrongfully convicted are usually family members.  In Bamber's case he is without such support.  As such the void has been filled by cranks (such as Mike Tesko on the Blue forum) and the seriously misguided campaign team who are utterly useless.  It's inevitable the current submission will be thrown out and I hope then JB will allow me to have a crack of the whip! 

I would also remind you of what appeal judges said about other long running high profile miscarriages of justice before they were eventually overturned:

Stefan Kizsko

"We can find no grounds whatsoever to condemn the jury's verdict of murder as in any way safe or unsatisfactory.  The appeal is dismissed".  Lord Justice Bridge.

Stephen Downing

"The court felt that her evidence was not credible and secure enough to allow an appeal against the conviction".

Sally Clarke

"Despite recognition of the flaws in Meadow's statistical evidence, the convictions were upheld at appeal in October 2000."

Guildford Four

"Both the Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal their convictions immediately".

"The Guildford Four tried to obtain from the Home Secretary a reference to the Court of Appeal under Section 17 of Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (later repeled) but were unsuccessful.

Birmingham 6

"In March 1976 their first application for leave to appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, presided over by Lord Widgery CJ".

"In January 1988 after a six week hearing (at that time the longest criminal hearing ever held), the convictions were ruled to be safe and satisfactory.  The Court of Appeal, presided over by the Lord Chief Justice Lord Lane dismissed the appeals".

[Nicholas]

My reading of the CoA case was that Bamber was attempting to produce a "lurking doubt" by showing the police acted in bad faith in withholding or concealing evidence,  for example;

Not disclosing notes from when they had examined his hands ( pointing out that he was there at the time and never asked for them ),   

Not disclosing that the lab had rejected SC's hand swabs because of possible contamination ( the court pointing out that such contamination could have only helped Bamber and deciding that on closer examination, there had been no deliberate attempt to conceal the fact )

Not disclosing details of when he was under surveillance ( his solicitors notes proved that he was aware he was being surveilled at the time )

Etc etc.. As Colsville says, it just seemed to annoy the judges as each of the points were weak to ridiculous on their own and not much stronger when taken together. Remember too that the DNA evidence on which the referral was made was described as "useless" by Bambers own expert.

 The law wasn't changed and there remains no filter on CCRC referrals although "lurking doubt" cases have been considered bad law ever since.

There has been a law change somewhere along the line

[Nicholas]

I would also remind you of what appeal judges said about other long running high profile miscarriages of justice before they were eventually overturned:

Stephen Downing

"The court felt that her evidence was not credible and secure enough to allow an appeal against the conviction".

Stephen Downing confessed multiple times to having murdered Wendy Sewell

Downings campaign is yet another example of innocence fraud

The evidence when taken in its entirety points to Stephen Downing and only Downing as having been responsible for having committed the murder

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/263.html

[Common sense]

In my view the case is about so much more than the low level stuff formerly adjudicated on to date.  It needs to centre on ballistics, fluid mechancics, scene of crime reconstruction and the root causes of Sheila's and June's mental health. 

The best advocates/support for those wrongfully convicted are usually family members.  In Bamber's case he is without such support.  As such the void has been filled by cranks (such as Mike Tesko on the Blue forum) and the seriously misguided campaign team who are utterly useless.  It's inevitable the current submission will be thrown out and I hope then JB will allow me to have a crack of the whip! 

I see Mike is now claiming that the ghost of Sheila has made a youtube video solving the crime once and for all.. I expect Yvonne is desperately scrolling for it as I type!

JB could certainly use a decent brain running his team if he is ever to be taken seriously by the courts or the more discerning public. Go for it Holly!

[Myster]

... just like Calamity Jane whipcracking away on the Deadwood Stage careering towards Tombstone Gulch.

[colsville]

In my view the case is about so much more than the low level stuff formerly adjudicated on to date.  It needs to centre on ballistics, fluid mechancics, scene of crime reconstruction and the root causes of Sheila's and June's mental health. 

The best advocates/support for those wrongfully convicted are usually family members.  In Bamber's case he is without such support.  As such the void has been filled by cranks (such as Mike Tesko on the Blue forum) and the seriously misguided campaign team who are utterly useless.  It's inevitable the current submission will be thrown out and I hope then JB will allow me to have a crack of the whip! 

I would also remind you of what appeal judges said about other long running high profile miscarriages of justice before they were eventually overturned:

Stefan Kizsko

"We can find no grounds whatsoever to condemn the jury's verdict of murder as in any way safe or unsatisfactory.  The appeal is dismissed".  Lord Justice Bridge.

Stephen Downing

"The court felt that her evidence was not credible and secure enough to allow an appeal against the conviction".

Sally Clarke

"Despite recognition of the flaws in Meadow's statistical evidence, the convictions were upheld at appeal in October 2000."

Guildford Four

"Both the Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal their convictions immediately".

"The Guildford Four tried to obtain from the Home Secretary a reference to the Court of Appeal under Section 17 of Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (later repeled) but were unsuccessful.

Birmingham 6

"In March 1976 their first application for leave to appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, presided over by Lord Widgery CJ".

"In January 1988 after a six week hearing (at that time the longest criminal hearing ever held), the convictions were ruled to be safe and satisfactory.  The Court of Appeal, presided over by the Lord Chief Justice Lord Lane dismissed the appeals".

Don't know what you mean by 'low level stuff'.

When you say 'fluid mechanics' don't you really mean 'muddying the waters'?

Just because some people have had their convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal, doesn't mean that Jeremy Bamber should have his quashed too.  The cases that you quote are  a hundred percent irrelevant to Jeremy Bamber's case. Quoting unconnected cases to make Bamber look more innocent isn't going to help set him free.

There are far more cases that are rejected by the the appeals process, and that is the group that Jeremy Bamber is in.  Pure speculation and unsubstantiated allegations do not count as evidence.  If they did, then Bamber would have been released decades ago.

It's proven that Sheila didn't kill herself.  It's proven that somebody moved her body into her final resting position after she died (probably to make suicide look more convincing).  The blood staining on Sheila's nightdress prove that she didn't move around after the first non fatal shot.

It's proven that Jeremy Bamber knew that his family were being slaughtered before he phoned the police, he told the police it was Sheila doing the shooting.  But because we know Sheila was murdered and her body set up, how did Jeremy Bamber know his family was being shot if he wasn't involved?  That phone call condemns him.  And actually, the lawyer in the video also said as much. 

Those very simple facts, that Jeremy Bamber never talks about and therefore never tries to deny or disprove, means that Bamber will never be released.

Bamber can nibble around the edges as much as he wants.  But you cannot change those great big undeniable facts.

[Holly Goodhead]

Don't know what you mean by 'low level stuff'.

Basically anything that can't be assessed scientifically.

When you say 'fluid mechanics' don't you really mean 'muddying the waters'?

No I mean fluid mechanics or what is commonly referred to today as computational fluid dynamics.

Just because some people have had their convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal, doesn't mean that Jeremy Bamber should have his quashed too.  The cases that you quote are  a hundred percent irrelevant to Jeremy Bamber's case. Quoting unconnected cases to make Bamber look more innocent isn't going to help set him free.

There are far more cases that are rejected by the the appeals process, and that is the group that Jeremy Bamber is in.  Pure speculation and unsubstantiated allegations do not count as evidence.  If they did, then Bamber would have been released decades ago.

Of course the cases quoted are completely different to JB's.  The point is most high profile and long running miscarriages of justice go back and forth to the appeal court before they're eventually overturned.

I agree most of what JB has presented to date in an attempt to overturn his conviction is pathetically weak but that does not mean very strong evidence is not going to present in the future.

It's proven that Sheila didn't kill herself.  It's proven that somebody moved her body into her final resting position after she died (probably to make suicide look more convincing).  The blood staining on Sheila's nightdress prove that she didn't move around after the first non fatal shot.

It isn't proven that Sheila didn't kill herself.  The pathologist has always maintained he was unable to conclude whether Sheila committed suicide or was murdered.  The trial verdict was a majority 10:2 based on guilty beyond reasonable doubt. 

It's proven that Jeremy Bamber knew that his family were being slaughtered before he phoned the police, he told the police it was Sheila doing the shooting.  But because we know Sheila was murdered and her body set up, how did Jeremy Bamber know his family was being shot if he wasn't involved?  That phone call condemns him.  And actually, the lawyer in the video also said as much. 


Those very simple facts, that Jeremy Bamber never talks about and therefore never tries to deny or disprove, means that Bamber will never be released.

Bamber can nibble around the edges as much as he wants.  But you cannot change those great big undeniable facts.

JB said he received a phone call from his father saying Sheila had the gun and was going crazy.  I agree it rules out any third party but it does not prove whether Sheila committed suicide or was murdered.

[colsville]

Basically anything that can't be assessed scientifically.

It isn't proven that Sheila didn't kill herself.  The pathologist has always maintained he was unable to conclude whether Sheila committed suicide or was murdered.  The trial verdict was a majority 10:2 based on guilty beyond reasonable doubt. 

You need to do more research on this case, I am surprised that you haven't familiarised yourself yet with the new evidence presented to the CoA in 2002.
 
This 'new' evidence wasn't considered in 1985/86, so was never presented to the court.
 
To read the evidence, go here...
 
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
 
And scroll down to paragraph 514, under the heading 'Prosecution application to call fresh evidence'
 
There are two main pieces of evidence, taken from the photographs, one from the positioning of the nightdress, and one from blood pattern analysis.
 
Those two pieces of evidence show that Sheila's head was propped up against the bedroom cabinet after the 2nd fatal shot. 
 
She was however, found completely horizontal on the floor, with the gun placed on her body.
 
Given that she was dead and therefore immobile after the second fatal shot, she would have been unable to move herself into that horizontal position.
 
But the rucking up of her nightdress, backed up by blood pattern analysis, show that her dead body was moved away from the bedside cabinet, so that she was then completely horizontal on the floor.
 
It was probably done by grabbing her feet or ankles and pulling her body a foot or two away from the bedside cabinet, so that her head lay completely flat on the ground.
 
Jeremy Bamber probably did it because he felt it re-enforced the suicide scenario. 
 
The three judges concluded the following:
 
That evidence in itself could have led to a conclusion of guilt quite apart from the many other matters relied upon by the prosecution at trial.
 
Michael Turner QC, the bloke representing Bamber at the Court of Appeal, declined to apply for his own expert witness to counter this evidence, therefore confirming that Jeremy Bamber's own defence also found the evidence compelling.  Don't forget, all this is funded by legal aid, so funding wasn't a problem.
 
This 'new' evidence shows that Sheila was murdered rather than committed suicide.  It also fits perfectly with all the other evidence that collectively make it implausible that she committed the crime.
 
Once it is known through evidence that Sheila was murdered, it then means that Jeremy Bamber lied about his sister going berserk with the gun in his phone call to Chelmsford police.

It therefore becomes evident that the phone call was a clumsy attempt to provide himself with an alibi. What it actually does, is to provide direct evidence that Jeremy new what was going on in the house that night.

Once you consider the evidence, only two plausible scenarios remain.  One, that Jeremy Bamber killed his family.  Two, that Jeremy Bamber hired an assassin to kill his family.

They are the only two possible scenarios.

This isn't about whether Sheila did it, or Jeremy did it. Legally it is, because Jeremy Bamber personally insists on these two scenarios, which is one of his many downfalls.

In reality though, this is about whether Jeremy Bamber carried out the murders himself, or did he hire an assassin?

Given Jeremy's refusal to entertain the assassin scenario, together with his 36 year long obsession with blaming Sheila, as well as the absence of any evidence to the contrary, Jeremy Bamber is the killer.

It's a slam dunk.

[Nicholas]

You need to do more research on this case, I am surprised that you haven't familiarised yourself yet with the new evidence presented to the CoA in 2002.
 
This 'new' evidence wasn't considered in 1985/86, so was never presented to the court.
 
To read the evidence, go here...
 
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
 
And scroll down to paragraph 514, under the heading 'Prosecution application to call fresh evidence'
 
There are two main pieces of evidence, taken from the photographs, one from the positioning of the nightdress, and one from blood pattern analysis.
 
Those two pieces of evidence show that Sheila's head was propped up against the bedroom cabinet after the 2nd fatal shot. 
 
She was however, found completely horizontal on the floor, with the gun placed on her body.
 
Given that she was dead and therefore immobile after the second fatal shot, she would have been unable to move herself into that horizontal position.
 
But the rucking up of her nightdress, backed up by blood pattern analysis, show that her dead body was moved away from the bedside cabinet, so that she was then completely horizontal on the floor.
 
It was probably done by grabbing her feet or ankles and pulling her body a foot or two away from the bedside cabinet, so that her head lay completely flat on the ground.
 
Jeremy Bamber probably did it because he felt it re-enforced the suicide scenario. 
 
The three judges concluded the following:
 
That evidence in itself could have led to a conclusion of guilt quite apart from the many other matters relied upon by the prosecution at trial.
 
Michael Turner QC, the bloke representing Bamber at the Court of Appeal, declined to apply for his own expert witness to counter this evidence, therefore confirming that Jeremy Bamber's own defence also found the evidence compelling.  Don't forget, all this is funded by legal aid, so funding wasn't a problem.
 
This 'new' evidence shows that Sheila was murdered rather than committed suicide.  It also fits perfectly with all the other evidence that collectively make it implausible that she committed the crime.
 
Once it is known through evidence that Sheila was murdered, it then means that Jeremy Bamber lied about his sister going berserk with the gun in his phone call to Chelmsford police.

It therefore becomes evident that the phone call was a clumsy attempt to provide himself with an alibi. What it actually does, is to provide direct evidence that Jeremy new what was going on in the house that night.

Once you consider the evidence, only two plausible scenarios remain.  One, that Jeremy Bamber killed his family.  Two, that Jeremy Bamber hired an assassin to kill his family.

They are the only two possible scenarios.

This isn't about whether Sheila did it, or Jeremy did it. Legally it is, because Jeremy Bamber personally insists on these two scenarios, which is one of his many downfalls.

In reality though, this is about whether Jeremy Bamber carried out the murders himself, or did he hire an assassin?

Given Jeremy's refusal to entertain the assassin scenario, together with his 36 year long obsession with blaming Sheila, as well as the absence of any evidence to the contrary, Jeremy Bamber is the killer.

It's a slam dunk.

It is

Then there’s the coercive control by Bamber of Julie Mugford - which prevented her from going to the police sooner - presented at a committal hearing in October 1985 (See the Evening Times article dated 28th October 1986 headed, ‘Ruthless son who could not wait to inherit fortune’) as him having a ‘powerful influence’ over her although coercive controlling behaviour wasn’t a crime then like it is now

[Holly Goodhead]

You need to do more research on this case, I am surprised that you haven't familiarised yourself yet with the new evidence presented to the CoA in 2002.
 
This 'new' evidence wasn't considered in 1985/86, so was never presented to the court.
 
To read the evidence, go here...
 
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
 
And scroll down to paragraph 514, under the heading 'Prosecution application to call fresh evidence'
 
There are two main pieces of evidence, taken from the photographs, one from the positioning of the nightdress, and one from blood pattern analysis.
 
Those two pieces of evidence show that Sheila's head was propped up against the bedroom cabinet after the 2nd fatal shot. 
 
She was however, found completely horizontal on the floor, with the gun placed on her body.
 
Given that she was dead and therefore immobile after the second fatal shot, she would have been unable to move herself into that horizontal position.
 
But the rucking up of her nightdress, backed up by blood pattern analysis, show that her dead body was moved away from the bedside cabinet, so that she was then completely horizontal on the floor.
 
It was probably done by grabbing her feet or ankles and pulling her body a foot or two away from the bedside cabinet, so that her head lay completely flat on the ground.
 
Jeremy Bamber probably did it because he felt it re-enforced the suicide scenario. 
 
The three judges concluded the following:
 
That evidence in itself could have led to a conclusion of guilt quite apart from the many other matters relied upon by the prosecution at trial.
 
Michael Turner QC, the bloke representing Bamber at the Court of Appeal, declined to apply for his own expert witness to counter this evidence, therefore confirming that Jeremy Bamber's own defence also found the evidence compelling.  Don't forget, all this is funded by legal aid, so funding wasn't a problem.
 
This 'new' evidence shows that Sheila was murdered rather than committed suicide.  It also fits perfectly with all the other evidence that collectively make it implausible that she committed the crime.
 
Once it is known through evidence that Sheila was murdered, it then means that Jeremy Bamber lied about his sister going berserk with the gun in his phone call to Chelmsford police.

It therefore becomes evident that the phone call was a clumsy attempt to provide himself with an alibi. What it actually does, is to provide direct evidence that Jeremy new what was going on in the house that night.

Once you consider the evidence, only two plausible scenarios remain.  One, that Jeremy Bamber killed his family.  Two, that Jeremy Bamber hired an assassin to kill his family.

They are the only two possible scenarios.

This isn't about whether Sheila did it, or Jeremy did it. Legally it is, because Jeremy Bamber personally insists on these two scenarios, which is one of his many downfalls.

In reality though, this is about whether Jeremy Bamber carried out the murders himself, or did he hire an assassin?

Given Jeremy's refusal to entertain the assassin scenario, together with his 36 year long obsession with blaming Sheila, as well as the absence of any evidence to the contrary, Jeremy Bamber is the killer.

It's a slam dunk.

I refer you to A/PS Woodcock's wit stat:

"I was aware that Sheila BAMBER was lying flat with her head slightly raised as it was against a bedside locker".

https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=166.0

You might be aware that A/PS Woodcock was a member of the TFU and one of the first officers to enter the farmhouse around 7.30 am.  PC Bird took soc images of SC around 10.30 am.  In the intervening period many who observed SC eg CSI Harris and police surgeon Dr Craig all refer to one bullet wound because the higher wound was hidden due to her position.  It wasn't Bamber that moved SC it was Essex police. 

A/PS Woodcock's statement confirms the findings of Dr Ismail at the 2002 appeal:

From the blood staining he concluded that following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet.

[colsville]

Nice try Holly, but no cigar.

In the CoA it states:

From the blood staining he concluded that following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet. For her then to slide to be found in the position depicted in the photographs would have required the downward force to be greater than the friction of her body against the floor. In his opinion this simply was not possible as there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force.

That is totally consistent with what Woodcock stated in his witness statement.  Woodcock also said that he saw two gunshot wounds, so her neck wasn't at an angle such that he couldn't see the wounds.
 
What the above quote  implies that her head was still touching the bedside table after Bamber moved her body.  There is no mention of the head being pulled away from the bedside table, as this would have required more than just 'downward force'.  Another word for 'downward force' being gravity.

The fact that Woodcock describes the head as being slightly raised just means that he makes a great eyewitness.

Based on the blood staining in the photographs, and the position of Sheilas body in the photographs, Mr Ismail only considers 'downward force' as the force that could have moved the body as described.  Therefore the body had the appearance of initially being moved only by gravity (downward force), until you realise that her head isn't heavy enough to make that happen. 

So use your imagination and visualise a head propped up against a bedside table that then slides down into the nightdress.  Assume that the force of gravity could achieve this. Where would the head finish up?  In a slightly raised position?  Yes I agree, in a slightly raised position.  Well observed Mr Woodcock.

And that is what Jeremy Bamber did.

Thinking about it, Jeremy Bamber wouldn't have wanted to move the body too much, as the more you fiddle around, the more likely you are to leave evidence.

So it looks like Jeremy Bamber only moved the body about 6 inches or so. 

[Holly Goodhead]

Nice try Holly, but no cigar.

In the CoA it states:

From the blood staining he concluded that following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet. For her then to slide to be found in the position depicted in the photographs would have required the downward force to be greater than the friction of her body against the floor. In his opinion this simply was not possible as there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force.

That is totally consistent with what Woodcock stated in his witness statement.  Woodcock also said that he saw two gunshot wounds, so her neck wasn't at an angle such that he couldn't see the wounds.
 
What the above quote  implies that her head was still touching the bedside table after Bamber moved her body.  There is no mention of the head being pulled away from the bedside table, as this would have required more than just 'downward force'.  Another word for 'downward force' being gravity.

The fact that Woodcock describes the head as being slightly raised just means that he makes a great eyewitness.

Based on the blood staining in the photographs, and the position of Sheilas body in the photographs, Mr Ismail only considers 'downward force' as the force that could have moved the body as described.  Therefore the body had the appearance of initially being moved only by gravity (downward force), until you realise that her head isn't heavy enough to make that happen. 

So use your imagination and visualise a head propped up against a bedside table that then slides down into the nightdress.  Assume that the force of gravity could achieve this. Where would the head finish up?  In a slightly raised position?  Yes I agree, in a slightly raised position.  Well observed Mr Woodcock.

And that is what Jeremy Bamber did.

Thinking about it, Jeremy Bamber wouldn't have wanted to move the body too much, as the more you fiddle around, the more likely you are to leave evidence.

So it looks like Jeremy Bamber only moved the body about 6 inches or so.

You're conflating different issues.  The issue is whether soc images of Sheila fit with with Dr Ismail's evidence of Sheila's head "propped against a bedside cabinet".  They don't.  As you said in a previous post "She was however found completely horizontal on the floor".  Except you're wrong Sheila wasn't found completely horizontal on the floor as the soc images depict.  After the second immediately fatal shot Sheila's head fell back and was slightly raised against the bedside cabinet.  Hence A/PS Woodcock's statement "I was aware that Sheila Bamber was lying flat with her head slightly raised against a bedside locker".   

This isn't exactly low level stuff that I referred to in an earlier post but it is compared to the new ballistics, computational fluid dynamics and soc reconstruction.

Only those who fabricated evidence and coerced testimony have to be fearful.

[colsville]

You're conflating different issues.  The issue is whether soc images of Sheila fit with with Dr Ismail's evidence of Sheila's head "propped against a bedside cabinet".  They don't.  As you said in a previous post "She was however found completely horizontal on the floor".  Except you're wrong Sheila wasn't found completely horizontal on the floor as the soc images depict.  After the second immediately fatal shot Sheila's head fell back and was slightly raised against the bedside cabinet.  Hence A/PS Woodcock's statement "I was aware that Sheila Bamber was lying flat with her head slightly raised against a bedside locker".   

This isn't exactly low level stuff that I referred to in an earlier post but it is compared to the new ballistics, computational fluid dynamics and soc reconstruction.

Only those who fabricated evidence and coerced testimony have to be fearful.

You're right, I am wrong about the precise position of Sheila Caffells body as she lay dead after being brutally murdered by Jeremy Bamber.  These may be images that you stare at for hours on end, but as for me, I am happy not to analyse them to the Nth degree just so I can win an unwinnable argument online with a perfect stranger.

But hey, if you want to stare at photos of murdered dead people online, go for it, you know where they are.

However,

You say nothing in your response to show the evidence presented by Mr Ismail in the 2002 CoA is wrong.

The scene of crimes photos provide the evidence for Mr Ismail's analysis, so by definition they do fit the evidence, because their content triggered the need for further analysis. 

The evidence in the photos comes from blood staining and the positioning of Sheila's nightdress. 

The blood staining kind of gives the game away, because had Essex police moved the body prior to the photos being taken, then there wouldn't have been the blood staining, as the blood would be dry, and therefore wouldn't have caused the staining in the manner that it did.

There is no reason for this evidence to be wrong.  Michael Turner QC (Bamber's defence) declined the opportunity to have one of his own experts analyse the evidence with a view to refute it.  It wouldn't have cost him a penny, and hearings at the Appeal Court don't come round too often.  This was his big chance to blow this supposed conspiracy out of the water....and what did he do?  Nothing, he went home and pocketed the cash, because there is and was no case to answer.

One of the top lawyers in the country couldn't find away of refuting the evidence.

The evidence is utterly compelling, and hasn't been proven wrong by Jeremy Bambers defence over the last 20 years.

As far as crime scene photos are concerned, we only see what's been illegally leaked, and some of them have been photoshopped.   You can't tell anything from the publicly available images.  The Judges have full access to the photos, and so do defence and prosecution.  And in 2002 both defence and prosecution effectively agreed with Mr Ismail with his analysis, as did the three judges.

[Admin]

You're conflating different issues.  The issue is whether soc images of Sheila fit with with Dr Ismail's evidence of Sheila's head "propped against a bedside cabinet".  They don't.  As you said in a previous post "She was however found completely horizontal on the floor".  Except you're wrong Sheila wasn't found completely horizontal on the floor as the soc images depict.  After the second immediately fatal shot Sheila's head fell back and was slightly raised against the bedside cabinet.  Hence A/PS Woodcock's statement "I was aware that Sheila Bamber was lying flat with her head slightly raised against a bedside locker".   

This isn't exactly low level stuff that I referred to in an earlier post but it is compared to the new ballistics, computational fluid dynamics and soc reconstruction.

Only those who fabricated evidence and coerced testimony have to be fearful.

Only the killer and those first handful of officers who first arrived on the scene know for sure how SC lay. By the time PC Bird had arrived to take his SOC photos she might have been moved several times. Same applies to the rifle photographed lying on top of her.

This in no way infers a cover-up or some attempt to conceal evidence, it is merely a fact of life.