What constitutes 'Fresh Evidence' for an appeal?

[Caroline]

During JB's police interviews he was represented by a local solicitor by the name of Bruce Bowler if I've remembered the name correctly.  According to the various case related books when JB hooked up with Anji Greaves she decided he needed a high profile lawyer and turned to David Napley's firm: Kingsley Napley who you might recall represented several high profile clients during the 70's and 80's eg Jeremy Thorpe, Kevin Maxwell and Nick Leeson.  Solicitor Paul Terzeon handled JB's case.  JB wanted George Carmen QC to represent him at trial but apparently he didn't take on cases funded by legal aid so he ended up with Geoffrey Rivlin.  Again according to the various books JB wanted Rivlin to argue the silencer was fabricated evidence but Rivlin thought it too far fetched and instead of repudiating the blood/silencer evidence he choreographed it into the defence strategy.   

The fact that he wanted to argue fabrication at that stage just rings alarm bells. He knew it was fabricated because he knows he didn't use a silencer.

[Holly Goodhead]

The fact that he wanted to argue fabrication at that stage just rings alarm bells. He knew it was fabricated because he knows he didn't use a silencer.

Could be.  Or could be he handled the rifle circa 9.30pm 6th Aug sans silencer and 7.30am 7th Aug it was found upon SC's body sans silencer. 

[Nicholas]

During JB's police interviews he was represented by a local solicitor by the name of Bruce Bowler if I've remembered the name correctly.  According to the various case related books when JB hooked up with Anji Greaves she decided he needed a high profile lawyer and turned to David Napley's firm: Kingsley Napley who you might recall represented several high profile clients during the 70's and 80's eg Jeremy Thorpe, Kevin Maxwell and Nick Leeson. Solicitor Paul Terzeon handled JB's case.  JB wanted George Carmen QC to represent him at trial but apparently he didn't take on cases funded by legal aid so he ended up with Geoffrey Rivlin.  Again according to the various books JB wanted Rivlin to argue the silencer was fabricated evidence but Rivlin thought it too far fetched and instead of repudiating the blood/silencer evidence he choreographed it into the defence strategy.   

The fact that he wanted to argue fabrication at that stage just rings alarm bells. He knew it was fabricated because he knows he didn't use a silencer.

I agree Caroline and this may have rung alarms bells with his defence team also?

Jeremy Bamber could have disagreed and stood his ground and insisted his defence team advance this argument but instead he and his supporters insist on blaming others. They are in denial.

"When JB hooked up with Anji Greeves she decided he needed a high profile lawyer"

"She decided" This again is typical behaviour of someone who is unable to take responsibility for their actions.

Just because it says it was Anji Greeves who decided, doesn't make it a fact. Anji Greeves was groomed by Bamber. She did his bidding.

People like Bamber mix up lies with truths and use unwitting victims to further their cause.

[Nicholas]

Could be.  Or could be he handled the rifle circa 9.30pm 6th Aug sans silencer and 7.30am 7th Aug it was found upon SC's body sans silencer.

It was Bambers decision Re the sound moderator.

Why do you think he decided to not claim at his murder trial it was fabricated?

[Nicholas]

Denial http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/denial.htm

Repression http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/repression.htm

Going slightly off topic but I think it's relevant to this thread;

I came across a letter written by Simon Hall to me on 19th Feb 2014, (4 days before he was found dead). He never finished or sent the letter but it was found amongst his belongings.

Simon Hall wrote;
"This all seems so surreal at times and I'm struggling to get my head around the fact I am guilty. It's becoming clearer to me how deep in denial I was and also how far into the back of my mind I kept all of this.

"I've been reading more and more about denial and repression. How the mind will lock things away if they're too harrowing or too painful and how this happens because the personality wants to protect its own self image. You know all this though don't you?

Why did he write "you know all this though don't you?"

He claimed he'd been reading "more and more about denial and repression," but claims "you know all this though?"



I look forward to your reply on this Holly.

[david1819]

Are you going to respond to post #4?

"The main faults said to have been committed by defence lawyers, who have
not prepared cases adequately or presented cases fully in court, are failures
to use relevant, admissible and significant evidence which would have
supported defence cases, or to obtain such evidence in the first place. Since
such evidence was always available to the defence, it is generally not regarded
as ‘fresh evidence’ for the purposes of appeals. The Court of Appeal (Criminal
Division) CACD will only admit fresh evidence if it satisfies the criteria
set down in s. 23(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. This section requires
the Court ‘in considering whether to receive any evidence, to have regard
in particular to … whether the evidence would have been admissible in the
proceedings from which the appeal lies … and whether there is a reasonable
explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence in those proceedings.’
The main explanations for not adducing evidence that defence lawyers
could have obtained and/or used in earlier court proceedings is that they
were negligent, incompetent, indifferent or made poor judgments about
how to conduct their clients’ cases. Such allegations are frequently made
by those who believe themselves to have been wrongly convicted, but they
are very hard to substantiate. There appears to be an assumption that defence
lawyers are competent and do in practice carry out their work diligently, and
that decisions not to obtain or use evidence which might support defence
cases are made for carefully considered tactical reasons. If the alleged negligence
of trial lawyers becomes an issue in appeals, the lawyers concerned
may be called to give evidence, and will use this opportunity to defend
themselves."

Could be.  Or could be he handled the rifle circa 9.30pm 6th Aug sans silencer and 7.30am 7th Aug it was found upon SC's body sans silencer. 

The fact Jeremy naively put faith in Rivlins defence strategy speaks volumes IMO.

[Nicholas]

"The main faults said to have been committed by defence lawyers, who have
not prepared cases adequately or presented cases fully in court, are failures
to use relevant, admissible and significant evidence which would have
supported defence cases, or to obtain such evidence in the first place. Since
such evidence was always available to the defence, it is generally not regarded
as ‘fresh evidence’ for the purposes of appeals. The Court of Appeal (Criminal
Division) CACD will only admit fresh evidence if it satisfies the criteria
set down in s. 23(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. This section requires
the Court ‘in considering whether to receive any evidence, to have regard
in particular to … whether the evidence would have been admissible in the
proceedings from which the appeal lies … and whether there is a reasonable
explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence in those proceedings.’
The main explanations for not adducing evidence that defence lawyers
could have obtained and/or used in earlier court proceedings is that they
were negligent, incompetent, indifferent or made poor judgments about
how to conduct their clients’ cases. Such allegations are frequently made
by those who believe themselves to have been wrongly convicted, but they
are very hard to substantiate. There appears to be an assumption that defence
lawyers are competent and do in practice carry out their work diligently, and
that decisions not to obtain or use evidence which might support defence
cases are made for carefully considered tactical reasons. If the alleged negligence
of trial lawyers becomes an issue in appeals, the lawyers concerned
may be called to give evidence, and will use this opportunity to defend
themselves."

The fact Jeremy naively put faith in Rivlins defence strategy speaks volumes IMO.

For the umpteenth time, these are your psychological projections David.

Jeremy Bamber was far from naive. You only have to look at what he said to police when he was arrested for the caravan burglary. And how he told the prosecution it was for them to prove. Etc etc. Common sense will tell you he was calculated, deceptive and cunning and enjoyed toying with both the police and prosecution.

The fact you cannot see what he starring you in the face is because you are in denial and you are protecting your self image etc etc

It was Bamber who was "negligent, incompetent, indifferent and made poor judgments"

[Nicholas]

Could be.  Or could be he handled the rifle circa 9.30pm 6th Aug sans silencer and 7.30am 7th Aug it was found upon SC's body sans silencer.

What about all what he told Julie Mugford?

The alledged telephone call from his father?

The way he attempted to manipulate the police officers at the crime scene? The alledged movement in the window? The alleged conversation his family had had round the dinner table that night?

We know a third party wasn't involved because Bamber ruled this out when he claimed his father had told him his sister had THE gun etc.

There are numerous aspects of this case to factor in when considering what you've written Holly.

[Angelo222]

What about all what he told Julie Mugford?

The alledged telephone call from his father?

The way he attempted to manipulate the police officers at the crime scene? The alledged movement in the window? The alleged conversation his family had had round the dinner table that night?

We know a third party wasn't involved because Bamber ruled this out when he claimed his father had told him his sister had THE gun etc.

There are numerous aspects of this case to factor in when considering what you've written Holly.

You can't rule out third party involvement but such involvement had to have been at the behest of Jeremy Bamber.  What we can rule out is involvement by a third party unconnected to Jeremy Bamber.

[Nicholas]

You can't rule out third party involvement but such involvement had to have been at the behest of Jeremy Bamber.  What we can rule out is involvement by a third party unconnected to Jeremy Bamber.

Are you referring to someone like Brett Collin's?

And if so, what involvement are you suggesting they had?

[Holly Goodhead]

"The main faults said to have been committed by defence lawyers, who have
not prepared cases adequately or presented cases fully in court, are failures
to use relevant, admissible and significant evidence which would have
supported defence cases, or to obtain such evidence in the first place. Since
such evidence was always available to the defence, it is generally not regarded
as ‘fresh evidence’ for the purposes of appeals. The Court of Appeal (Criminal
Division) CACD will only admit fresh evidence if it satisfies the criteria
set down in s. 23(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. This section requires
the Court ‘in considering whether to receive any evidence, to have regard
in particular to … whether the evidence would have been admissible in the
proceedings from which the appeal lies … and whether there is a reasonable
explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence in those proceedings.’
The main explanations for not adducing evidence that defence lawyers
could have obtained and/or used in earlier court proceedings is that they
were negligent, incompetent, indifferent or made poor judgments about
how to conduct their clients’ cases. Such allegations are frequently made
by those who believe themselves to have been wrongly convicted, but they
are very hard to substantiate. There appears to be an assumption that defence
lawyers are competent and do in practice carry out their work diligently, and
that decisions not to obtain or use evidence which might support defence
cases are made for carefully considered tactical reasons. If the alleged negligence
of trial lawyers becomes an issue in appeals, the lawyers concerned
may be called to give evidence, and will use this opportunity to defend
themselves."

The fact Jeremy naively put faith in Rivlins defence strategy speaks volumes IMO.

Please provide the link.

Only barristers with considerable experience in appeals are in a position to give an opinion about the likely success or not of criticism of trial/appeal lawyers.

As I said the other day it's not the ability to read but to interpret and apply in meaningful ways.

I think I can see many ways in which it could work but I might be completely wrong as I appreciate my opinion is simply a lay persons opinion based on a lay persons interpretation and understanding.   

[Holly Goodhead]

It was Bambers decision Re the sound moderator.

Why do you think he decided to not claim at his murder trial it was fabricated?

I think he said enough with his 'that's for you to prove' or whatever the words were.  Imagine him blurting out 'the silencer was fabricated' when Rivlin's strategy was completely different.

[Holly Goodhead]

Denial http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/denial.htm

Repression http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/repression.htm

Going slightly off topic but I think it's relevant to this thread;

I came across a letter written by Simon Hall to me on 19th Feb 2014, (4 days before he was found dead). He never finished or sent the letter but it was found amongst his belongings.

Simon Hall wrote;
"This all seems so surreal at times and I'm struggling to get my head around the fact I am guilty. It's becoming clearer to me how deep in denial I was and also how far into the back of my mind I kept all of this.

"I've been reading more and more about denial and repression. How the mind will lock things away if they're too harrowing or too painful and how this happens because the personality wants to protect its own self image. You know all this though don't you?

Why did he write "you know all this though don't you?"

He claimed he'd been reading "more and more about denial and repression," but claims "you know all this though?"



I look forward to your reply on this Holly.

I wasn't privy to you communications so would have no idea.

[Nicholas]

Please provide the link.

Only barristers with considerable experience in appeals are in a position to give an opinion about the likely success or not of criticism of trial/appeal lawyers.

As I said the other day it's not the ability to read but to interpret and apply in meaningful ways.

I think I can see many ways in which it could work but I might be completely wrong as I appreciate my opinion is simply a lay persons opinion based on a lay persons interpretation and understanding.   

Sounds like Simon Hall's representative to me, Dr Michael Naughton?

[Nicholas]

I think he said enough with his 'that's for you to prove' or whatever the words were.  Imagine him blurting out 'the silencer was fabricated' when Rivlin's strategy was completely different.

Before Rivlen defended Bamber he would have sought his permission to go ahead with his strategy. If Bamber disagreed he would have told Rivlen. It really is that simple Holly.

You appear in denial over these points.