Author Topic: Who should lead JB's defence at his third appeal hearing?  (Read 3701 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6050
  • Total likes: 109
  • Bamber Campaign For Freedom, How Can I Help?!
Re: Who should lead JB's defence at his third appeal hearing?
« Reply #30 on: February 04, 2018, 10:18:39 PM »
Apparently Taff (with his head full of golf balls) spent a few minutes looking at Sheila, the gun and the bible, before he decided that it was all done and dusted and he'd better shoot(!) off sharpish or he'd never catch his mates up on the green. He didn't realise that the bible was lying on Sheila's arm, and the angle of the first shot was impossible for Sheila to inflict to herself. He also didn't notice that Sheila had been pulled down (check her hair and the angle of her head) after the first shot.

I think the raid team moved SC to enter the box room although I accept I have near squat to back this up.

Dr Vanezis didn't raise any issues with angle of shot. 
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline adam

Re: Who should lead JB's defence at his third appeal hearing?
« Reply #31 on: February 07, 2018, 10:43:56 AM »
Bamber would be the only convicted murderer to get a third appeal. 

There was a 10 year gap between the last COA & CCRC applications. As already submitted evidence can't be re submitted, it may be a 15 year gap before any (unlikely) new CCRC submission. So 2027. The CCRC may reject the submission as they did in 2012.

Bamber will be well into his 60's in 2027. But won't give up.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2018, 11:47:54 AM by adam »

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6050
  • Total likes: 109
  • Bamber Campaign For Freedom, How Can I Help?!
Re: Who should lead JB's defence at his third appeal hearing?
« Reply #32 on: February 09, 2018, 12:18:37 PM »
Bamber would be the only convicted murderer to get a third appeal. 

There was a 10 year gap between the last COA & CCRC applications. As already submitted evidence can't be re submitted, it may be a 15 year gap before any (unlikely) new CCRC submission. So 2027. The CCRC may reject the submission as they did in 2012.

Bamber will be well into his 60's in 2027. But won't give up.

I guess someone has to be first with a third appeal so why not Jeremy Bamber?  The case has many unique features to it and this may well end up being one of them.

With the advent of the Internet the world has moved on and speeded up and it's now possible to communicate with anyone anywhere.  Anyway if new evidence is very strong potentially it could by-pass CCRC and wing its way straight to DPP. 

I see JB is hoping his lawyers have enough.  I'm amazed he has the sort of confidence in these people he seems to have given their past performances. 

http://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/jeremys-33rd-birthday-in-prison-as.html?m=1

« Last Edit: February 09, 2018, 11:14:55 PM by John »
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline adam

Re: Who should lead JB's defence at his third appeal hearing?
« Reply #33 on: February 10, 2018, 07:09:37 PM »
https://youtu.be/9V0YmVzrFNU

I see the CT are hard at work.

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6050
  • Total likes: 109
  • Bamber Campaign For Freedom, How Can I Help?!
Re: Who should lead JB's defence at his third appeal hearing?
« Reply #34 on: February 23, 2018, 12:51:21 PM »
As far as know, Jeremy refers to MTQC as "My Lawyer" and as far as I know the COA don't like wasting time having another QC going over all the paperwork and prefer someone already familiar with the case.

The only reason MTQC stopped working for JB is because he refused to work with GDS. He seems to have been brought back into picture with GDS now gone.

As for DMS his last involvement was recommending JB go to the COA on the basis that the defence were deprived of evidence that could result in them arguing a third party committing the crime.

David can you offer up any reason(s) why MT QC was so grossly incompetent and negligent at JB's 2002 appeal hearing?  Your explanation that "the CT don't like another QC going all over the paperwork and prefer someone already familiar with the case" when it's clear he didn't have a baldy clue would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious. 

Can you explain please his failure to counter claims from the prosecution that JB moved SC when he could easily do so by reference to A/PS Woodcock's WS?  Instead he allowed the prosecution to advance this theory with appeal court judges commenting ..."it represented another formidable string to the prosecution's bow".  In the world of football it would amount to a spectacular own goal! 
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline Myster

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2528
  • Total likes: 84
  • Women judges rule... OK!!!
Re: Who should lead JB's defence at his third appeal hearing?
« Reply #35 on: February 23, 2018, 01:37:17 PM »
They don't like it up 'em, Cpt. Holly!  8((()*/
‘Somebody in this case is lying, and lying their heads off.’ Anthony Arlidge QC, closing speech at the Bamber trial, 22 October 1986

david1819

  • Guest
Re: Who should lead JB's defence at his third appeal hearing?
« Reply #36 on: February 25, 2018, 08:30:15 AM »
David can you offer up any reason(s) why MT QC was so grossly incompetent and negligent at JB's 2002 appeal hearing? 

He wasn't grossly incompetent and negligent at all.

The case was referred by CCRC because of June's DNA found the moderator supporting the mixture theory and that is the avenue MTQC was employed to argue for.

The notion of MTQC being "grossly incompetent and negligent" is just you being catty because he blocked you from e-mailing him.

Your explanation that "the CT don't like another QC going all over the paperwork and prefer someone already familiar with the case"

Errr that's not what I wrote.

as far as I know the COA don't like wasting time having another QC going over all the paperwork and prefer someone already familiar with the case.

That's what I wrote

when it's clear he didn't have a baldy clue would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious. 

Prehaps Holly QC should take the case then?

Ground 1 - June walking around with two bullets in her brains!
Ground 2 - Attachment theory
Ground 3 - Possibility of Lab staff eating chocolate bars before handling the bullets.

I'm sure the Judges will be blown away!  @)(++(*

Can you explain please his failure to counter claims from the prosecution that JB moved SC when he could easily do so by reference to A/PS Woodcock's WS?  Instead he allowed the prosecution to advance this theory with appeal court judges commenting ..."it represented another formidable string to the prosecution's bow".  In the world of football it would amount to a spectacular own goal!

It was countered by the fact it was inadmissible because the prosecution could have brought it up at trial.

519. Having studied with care the statement of Mr Ismail, we concluded that this was expert evidence capable of belief. Indeed if it had been given and if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it. 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. However, we were not satisfied that evidence of this kind was not available at the date of trial if the prosecution had sought to explore these matters and more importantly we thought that Mr Turner was right in his submission that it was very difficult to gauge with sufficient certainty the reaction of a jury to it particularly when we could not judge it against all the related evidence in the trial, which we had not heard.

The Judges wont accept SCs body being moved without the police admitting to such anyway.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2018, 08:41:32 AM by David1819 »

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6050
  • Total likes: 109
  • Bamber Campaign For Freedom, How Can I Help?!
Re: Who should lead JB's defence at his third appeal hearing?
« Reply #37 on: February 25, 2018, 01:18:20 PM »
He wasn't grossly incompetent and negligent at all.

That's your opinion and certainly not one I share.

The case was referred by CCRC because of June's DNA found the moderator supporting the mixture theory and that is the avenue MTQC was employed to argue for.

June's DNA wasn't categorically found in the silencer.  DNA was taken from PB as June's closest surviving blood relative and showed the major component of DNA found in the silencer was statistically 3,500 times more likely to have  originated from June.  However the testing method used LCN DNA works of material invisible to the naked eye and as small as 1000th the size of a grain of sand.  Therefore the major component of DNA found within the silencer could just as easily have originated from jurors contaminating silencer when they handled the various exhibits eg June's nightdress.  All concerned from defence and prosecution agreed the LCN DNA tests were utterly meaningless.  The appeal court judges conceded June's DNA was in the silencer on the basis the police destroyed exhibits against protocol.

The notion of MTQC being "grossly incompetent and negligent" is just you being catty because he blocked you from e-mailing him.

I think you will find I criticised MT QC long before I emailed him during Dec 2016.  I will dig out the posts.  The only reason you rave about him is that he entertained you in his chambers when you dropped off your ahem 'forensic evidence breakthrough' not!  When a QC has spelling mistakes on his/her website it can only spell disaster. 

At one time you disagreed with me about Rivlin until you realised how absurd his whole strategy was with the mixed blood theory.

Errr that's not what I wrote.

That's what I wrote.

I stand corrected.  Lol I misread COA for CT!  In any event I don't think it makes any difference which QC is instructed so long as he/she is competent.  The appeal was over 15 years ago.   

Prehaps Holly QC should take the case then?

Ground 1 - June walking around with two bullets in her brains!
Ground 2 - Attachment theory
Ground 3 - Possibility of Lab staff eating chocolate bars before handling the bullets.

I'm sure the Judges will be blown away!

Now you're just being silly.  The difference between you and me is that I'm happy to moot ideas eg June walking around the bed with the 2 gsw's to her head and to then be shown the errors of my thinking and drop them.  You on the other hand are never wrong. 

It's extremely unlikely JB's conviction will be quashed unless the blood/silencer is undermined even if JM retracted her testimony.  I believe I am able to do this and in total have 9 other compelling points.  I've not seen a single thing you've produced, which you've made available, that stands up to scrutiny.  The funniest being the idea the relatives somehow removed menstrual blood from SC's soaking underwear and planted it in the silencer.  The appeal court judges would so roar at that it might well cause the Thames flood defence to burst!

Joe Karam was successful assisting David Bain and there's no reason I can't do the same for JB.  It's not necessary to be legally qualified to assist.  In fact bringing skills acquired elsewhere can be of benefit.  Joe Karam was a competitive sportsman playing for NZ's All Blacks and these traits are also important: will to win, belief, persistence, discipline, etc. 
 
It was countered by the fact it was inadmissible because the prosecution could have brought it up at trial.

519. Having studied with care the statement of Mr Ismail, we concluded that this was expert evidence capable of belief. Indeed if it had been given and if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it. 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. However, we were not satisfied that evidence of this kind was not available at the date of trial if the prosecution had sought to explore these matters and more importantly we thought that Mr Turner was right in his submission that it was very difficult to gauge with sufficient certainty the reaction of a jury to it particularly when we could not judge it against all the related evidence in the trial, which we had not heard.

The Judges wont accept SCs body being moved without the police admitting to such anyway.
Yes that's what I said but there was no need for it to get off the starting block.  Just produce A/PS Woodcock's WS where he states SC's head was propped up against the bedside cabinet.  You can't afford for these sort of oversights in a case like this. 

When I have time I will go through the appeal point by point stating why IMO it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2018, 01:23:29 PM by Holly Goodhead »
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6050
  • Total likes: 109
  • Bamber Campaign For Freedom, How Can I Help?!
Re: Who should lead JB's defence at his third appeal hearing?
« Reply #38 on: February 25, 2018, 01:28:10 PM »
David btw how's your book on the case going?  I'll look out for it in the comedy section of Waterstones as it won't be making true crime! 
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline adam

Re: Who should lead JB's defence at his third appeal hearing?
« Reply #39 on: February 25, 2018, 04:22:08 PM »
David btw how's your book on the case going?  I'll look out for it in the comedy section of Waterstones as it won't be making true crime!

A book ?

He is a busy boy. Posting on the forum on Friday & Saturday nights, discovering 'forensic evidence breakthrough's' & attending meetings with Jeremy's legal advisors.

Not the typical activities men in their 20's get up to. But at least he will have received his 'Jeremy Bamber is innocent' T shirt.

Will the book be called 'Gish gash images' or 'Forensic Evidence Breakthrough in 3D' ?


Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6050
  • Total likes: 109
  • Bamber Campaign For Freedom, How Can I Help?!
Re: Who should lead JB's defence at his third appeal hearing?
« Reply #40 on: February 25, 2018, 09:41:35 PM »
MT QC said the highlight of his legal career was representing Michael Hickey at appeal.  And yet he has misspelt Michael's surname on his website.  This is simply not good enough for a QC and IMO epitomises the standard of his work ie lack of care and attention to detail.  Apparently he's dyslexic.  This being the case why not arrange for someone to check your work?   

On his website he likes to big himself up quoting others who rave about his abilities.  What's this all about?  No other profession carries on like this apart from maybe the odd banker who lay claim to carrying out God's work!  Just get on with the job and let the results speak for themselves!

How many heart surgeons boast about number of lives saved? Etc, etc

This is the whole thing about lawyers and judges they are unaccountable in many respects and difficult to measure in terms of success or not.  Everyone else is measurable.   
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6050
  • Total likes: 109
  • Bamber Campaign For Freedom, How Can I Help?!
Re: Who should lead JB's defence at his third appeal hearing?
« Reply #41 on: February 25, 2018, 10:17:36 PM »
David I fail to see how you can see MT QC anything other than incompetent and negligent. 

A/PS Woodcock's WS:

"I was aware Sheila Bamber was lying flat on her back with her head slightly raised as it was against a bedside locker".

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=166.0;attach=251

Soc images of SC - viewer discretion advised:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Sheila+Caffell+images&client=safari&hl=en-gb&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5xLbBiMLZAhWqCcAKHXUDCvoQsAQICw#mhpiv=18&spf=1519596086840

SC's head is clearly flat on the floor and to the left of NB's bedside cabinet. 

The prosecution at appeal attempted to advance the following which MT QC could have easily defended against on the basis of A/PS Woodcock's WS.  In fact it should have featured as an appeal point in JB's favour! 

Prosecution application to call fresh evidence 514. It remains for us to give reasons why we refused an application to call fresh evidence made by the prosecution. Of course, in the light of our conclusions as to the merit of the appeal, this now becomes academic but it is right that we should indicate the nature of the application and our reasons for rejecting it albeit that they can now be given relatively briefly.

515. Mr Temple sought the court's leave to call Mr Martyn Ismail, a Senior Scientific Officer and Major Crime Service Manager with the Forensic Science Service to give evidence as to conclusions that could be drawn from a study of the distribution of blood staining associated with the body of Sheila Caffell, as depicted in the photographs. That application was opposed by Mr Turner. It was conceded that following the decision of this court in the case of Hanratty to which reference has already been made the court does have power to admit fresh evidence in support of a conviction where that evidence has become available since trial (see paragraphs 101 and 102 of the judgment in Hanratty).

516. Mr Turner's first objection was that this was not evidence that could not have been called by the prosecution at trial. He submitted that evidence of blood staining interpretation was available in the 1980s and the fact that the prosecution had not sought to look at this dimension of the case at that time should not mean that they can now introduce the evidence to support their case, if it was viewed by the court as unsafe to rely on the convictions in other respects. Mr Temple contended that whilst the study of and drawing inferences from blood staining patterns may have been available in the 1980s, it was in its relative infancy and with the passage of time since that era, the skills have become more developed so that in consequence greater reliance can be placed on such evidence. He relied in this regard on a statement from Mr Ismail which accepts that there have been references to the interpretation of blood patterns going back to the story of Cain & Abel in the Bible and that the first scientific work was published in 1939 but contends that in the United Kingdom, the first practical courses on the subject were not run until 1988. He concludes:

"In 1985 forensic scientists in this country would have been trained to interpret blood patters at scenes and on objects such as clothing and weapons. However, in my opinion, scientists today are more aware of the potential of blood distribution and practitioners are more confident in its use due (to) greater support and background knowledge."

517. Mr Turner's further ground for opposing the admission of this evidence was that it was not a matter that could be fully considered without placing it against many other aspects of the evidence called at trial, such as the pathologist's evidence and the evidence as to how the crime scene may have been altered between the moment when the farmhouse was entered and the taking of the photographs. He argued that unlike a distinct piece of evidence such as the DNA evidence in Hanratty, it was wholly impossible for the court to gauge the impact that this evidence might have had on the jury without the court being in a position to hear all these other aspects of the evidence that were before the jury. He pointed to a number of specific areas in which he argued that the evidence of Mr Ismail was capable of attack by reference to other evidence in the case. The most clear cut of which was that Mr Ismail had referred to a bloodstain on the upper right thigh of Sheila Caffell's nightdress that was clearly caused by a bloody hand print. He said that he understood that Dr Vanezis, the pathologist, had given evidence that there was no blood on the palm side of Sheila Caffell's hands. Therefore, he concluded, this staining must have been deposited by another individual. However, whilst Mr Ismail rightly recorded the evidence of Dr Vanezis, Mr Turner was able to point to a note made by Dr Vanezis at the time of the post-mortem examination that read:

"bloodstained palm prints on nightdress matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from R hand. "

518. To decide whether we considered that the interests of justice required that we heard Mr Ismail's evidence, we first had regard to the evidence that it was said that he could give. 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. Therefore he concluded that an additional force would have been necessary. It could not have come from Sheila Caffell since the second shot would have been instantly fatal and thus she must have been moved by someone else, for example with her legs being pulled. He also considered that the weight and the friction between her skin and her nightdress was likely to have been less than the weight and friction between the nightdress and the carpet. Therefore, he would expect movement of the body within the nightdress rather than the body and clothing sliding together across the carpet. He pointed out that the photographs demonstrated this effect at the back of the nightdress with the nightdress staying rucked up in its original position. However the front of the nightdress had not demonstrated this effect. Accordingly Mr Ismail concluded that the nightdress had been pulled down after Sheila Caffell slid into her final position. Since on the evidence, she was dead by this stage, Mr Ismail concluded that some one else had arranged her nightdress.

519. Having studied with care the statement of Mr Ismail, we concluded that this was expert evidence capable of belief. Indeed if it had been given and if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it. 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. However, we were not satisfied that evidence of this kind was not available at the date of trial if the prosecution had sought to explore these matters and more importantly we thought that Mr Turner was right in his submission that it was very difficult to gauge with sufficient certainty the reaction of a jury to it particularly when we could not judge it against all the related evidence in the trial, which we had not heard.

520. Our conclusion was that we should not therefore admit the evidence and we have had no regard to it in reaching our conclusion. It can, however, be said about it that if it had been called at trial, it may well have represented yet another formidable string to the prosecution's bow in a case where even without any regard to that evidence, it has to be said that the prosecution were able to put forward a very strong case pointing to guilt.

Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6050
  • Total likes: 109
  • Bamber Campaign For Freedom, How Can I Help?!
Re: Who should lead JB's defence at his third appeal hearing?
« Reply #42 on: February 25, 2018, 10:33:36 PM »
David you state:

The Judges wont accept SCs body being moved without the police admitting to such anyway.

Effectively A/PS Woodcock's WS is firm evidence either EP or Dr Craig moved SC from the time she was first observed by A/PS Woodcock at approx 7.30am and soc images taken by DC Bird at approx 10.30am.

JB could not have 'staged' SC, rifle and bible since he was outside with EP.  This should have formed an appeal point which was capable of withstanding scrutiny.  Instead MT QC attempted to form an appeal point around the raid team disturbing the kitchen which there's little or no evidence of.  And the above the prosecution attempted to use against JB.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2018, 10:37:41 PM by Holly Goodhead »
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6050
  • Total likes: 109
  • Bamber Campaign For Freedom, How Can I Help?!
Re: Who should lead JB's defence at his third appeal hearing?
« Reply #43 on: February 26, 2018, 11:44:47 AM »
MT QC attempted to advance the idea the raid team disturbed soc in kitchen: table moved, crockery and sugar bowl knocked over and upturned chairs and stools.  There's little evidence for this other than hearsay evidence from DI Cook (as evidenced in appeal point below).  The raid team deny moving anything other than a couple of stools in their path.  What does this prove anyway?  All these items were lightweight meaning they were easily moved if knocked into.  My guess (and it is a guess) is that NB fleeing from the perp knocked into the table causing the items on top to topple and also knocking over the stools.  Based on the reconstruction upstairs NB was fleeing the perp so he was likely to be the person stumbling into furniture with the perp following in his path.  NB then fell awkwardly onto the chair he was found knocking the other in the process.  Dr Vanezis didn't attribute any marks to NB or SC from knocking into items.  And JM didn't mention seeing any marks on JB's body.  The stools I could probably lift with a couple of fingers.  The kitchen table looks on par with a picnic table.  As I said I think NB tumbled onto the chair he was found knocking the other in the process.

My copy button doesn't seem to be working so I'll have to logout and login and see if that works to enable me to copy the relevant section of appeal hearing.  Then perhaps you could explain why MT QC attempted to advance this, which was dismissed out of hand by appeal court judges, and yet completely overlooked firm evidence showing EP or Dr Craig moved SC in the bedroom and in doing so the rifle and bible too.   
« Last Edit: February 26, 2018, 11:47:10 AM by Holly Goodhead »
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6050
  • Total likes: 109
  • Bamber Campaign For Freedom, How Can I Help?!
Re: Who should lead JB's defence at his third appeal hearing?
« Reply #44 on: February 26, 2018, 12:14:38 PM »
Here we go David.  I've put a question for you at the bottom.

Ground 2 – disturbance of the crime scene 233. The appellant contends that officers of the Tactical Firearms Group ("TFG") upon entering the premises themselves knocked over chairs, stools, and a sugar bowl but falsely contended at trial that such disturbance preceded their entry. This is relevant to the suggestion that there was a violent struggle between Mr Bamber and his killer before he was killed and the prosecution contention that Sheila Caffell would have been incapable of overpowering her father. Further if there was no violent struggle, the absence of any indication of such on Sheila Caffell was not of significance.

234. Additionally the appellant contends that the Crown failed to disclose a police action record, Action 94 in which DI Cook was asked to examine for sugar the bag in which the body of Sheila Caffell had been transported from the farm to the mortuary. He reported back to DCI Wright in the following terms:

"There was no sugar on the floor it was all confined to an area under the table and if it was, officers would have been walking in the same

Sugar was later found because the table was moved and sugar swept around. No sugar in body bag"

235. The complaint of non disclosure in relation to Action 94 is that whilst, as was the practice in 1986, no general disclosure took place in relation to any action or message, this particular action was clearly of importance to the defence and thus the prosecution were under a positive duty to bring it to the attention of the defence and failed so to do.

236. The assertion in the first part of this ground namely that officers knocked over chairs, stools and a sugar bowl is based in part upon Action 94 but also upon three other documents. Firstly the report of the Essex Review in which the reviewing officer, Detective Chief Superintendent Dickinson, wrote:

"The kitchen was in some disorder. A number of chairs had been knocked to the ground, the table had been pushed forward causing some items of crockery to fall to the floor, including a sugar basin and two stools had been knocked over. It is now believed the stools were possibly knocked over by members of the TFG whilst making their way through the kitchen"

237. The Review does not disclose the source of such belief and accordingly affords no evidential support for the appellant's contention.

238. We have looked at a number of statements taken recently by the prosecution to check that they do not reveal any possible source of this hearsay. In a statement dated 9 May 2000, DI Cook stated that any information he had relating to the subject was "sort of hearsay as far as I was concerned". He said he could not categorically recall any of the officers saying that they knocked the chairs over or the stools or whatever they are, "but certainly I can't recall specifically saying the sugar. I cannot recall who the third party was who may have told me. I don't believe it was the firearms team". We have been supplied with statements from every member of the firearms team all of whom positively assert that save for moving two stools they moved nothing and disturbed nothing upon entering the kitchen.

239. We have considered with great care the statements of PC Collins and PC Delgado who must have been the two officers who entered first at about 7.30 a.m. on the 7 August. PC Collins in a statement of the same date describes forcing an entry into the house and seeing the body of a male person positioned over an upturned chair, which balanced against a cupboard. Having described that person and concluding that he was dead he said:

"On looking around the kitchen I saw upturned chairs and stools and broken crockery on the floor, and on the floor on the far side of the room there were small spots of what appeared to be blood. It appeared that a violent struggle had taken place within this room".

PC Delgado made a similar statement. 240. Mr Turner draws our attention to the fact that on the 19 September 1985 all the police officers who attended at the scene were summoned to attend at Witham Police Station for a round the table conference with Investigating Officers. On the following day, 20 September 1985, PC Delgado made a further statement in which he said:

"in the kitchen by the doorway to the hall were two stools which were laying down on the floor blocking a covering position into the hall, these stools were moved to near the kitchen table. In the hallway the door to the cellar was forced open to allow access, it appeared the door was stuck with old paint and had not been opened for some time. PC Collins attempted to go down the cellar stairs, which gave way beneath him. A window in the dining room was unlocked and opened to allow an escape route if needed, this window was later shut and secured. The door to the bedroom opposite the children's room was locked and this was forced to allow access".

241. On 30 September PC Collins made a second statement in which he said:

"I moved two kitchen stools which were laying down near to the hallway entrance. I moved these stools about 2 or 3 feet but left them in a similar position as they were found. I moved them to enable me to carry on my search of the house as safe as possible. In the hallway a cellar door was forced open, the door appeared to have not been open for a long time. I opened a window in the dining room which I first had to unlock by moving a small catch to allow an escape route for an officer I had left to cover the stairway from the doorway of the dining room. To my knowledge nothing else was moved or disturbed".

242. We take the statements of PC Collins and PC Delgado as clear statements that apart from moving two stools they moved no other furniture. The statements from some 10 other TFG officers indicate that there was no other movement of furniture and certainly no spillage of sugar attributable to any officer. On the other hand the crime scene was disturbed in the sense that the door to the cellar was forced, the cellar stairs gave way, the dining room window was unlocked and opened and a bedroom door was forced.

243. The second document advanced by the appellant in support of the proposition that furniture was moved and sugar was spilled by the officers is the City of London Police Review of 1991 which makes reference to a statement taken from DI Cook in which he stated:

"I later learned that the chairs and brown sugar had been knocked over by the firearms unit when they rushed about the house looking for Sheila".

This again is necessarily hearsay evidence or hearsay upon hearsay. 244. A statement was made to the same inquiry by Ann Eaton in these terms:

"I think it was then I asked if Sheila had sugar on her feet, this was based upon my observation of sugar grains being all over the floor of the kitchen but I later found out that it had been knocked over the floor by a police officer. When it was I was not told, but it was apparently done when they were clearing the house up. If that was the case they must have really knocked it over as it was all over the kitchen".

245. This statement is also based upon hearsay and is at odds with the sworn evidence given at trial. It cannot possibly be right because there is clear photographic evidence of the sugar bowl and the sugar on the floor on the morning of 7 August with Mr Bamber's body still in place when no clearing up of the house had then taken place.

246. Finally it is said that Detective Superintendent Ainsley's interim report of 23 September 1985 and his final report of 7 November 1985 both contain the following paragraph:

"Whilst it is fair to say that the Tactical Firearms Group when searching the premises take the utmost care not to disturb the scene, there is of necessity a certain amount of disturbance and as will be seen from their statements, this was no exception"

247. It seems to us that there is nothing in this passage, which is inconsistent with the "disturbance" identified by PC Collins and PC Delgado in their second statements (namely forcing doors and opening windows). It may well be significant that the round table meeting of the TFG officers and others took place on 19 September. PC Delgado made his statement the following day and the interim report was written three days after that.

248. Application was made pursuant to s.23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 by Mr Turner inviting the Court to call Mr Cook so that he might cross-examine him. We refused that application. Mr. Cook arrived at the farmhouse at 9.20 a.m., one hour and fifty minutes after the entry by the TFG officers. He had gone there accompanied by a photographer and he had arranged for the photographer to photograph the scene beginning with the kitchen at approximately 10.00 a.m. It necessarily follows that any attempt at giving evidence about disturbance of the scene could not result from his own observations since it is not suggested that he observed any disturbance as it took place. The nearest Mr Turner came to suggesting a basis for Mr Cook to give evidence about these matters was that the photographs did not realistically or accurately depict the state of the kitchen. We do not accept that proposition. The photographs are of excellent quality and accurately depict the scene of the crime. DI Cook could not give any admissible additional evidence supporting the appellant's proposition that the TFG knocked over chairs, stools and a sugar bowl.

249. We have considered the potential impact that Action 94 might have had on the jury. We think it is wholly unrealistic to suggest that the jury might have been persuaded by it that there had not been a violent struggle in the kitchen. Even if one discounts the evidence of the overturned stools and chairs and the broken sugar bowl, there was sufficient other evidence to suggest a violent struggle. Mr Bamber's body lay across an overturned chair that can have had nothing to do with the actions of the TFG, the light fitting was broken, there were the injuries apart from the shot wounds to Mr Bamber, there was the piece broken off the rifle stock, there were score marks under the mantelpiece where it had been struck by the sound moderator attached to the rifle, and there was Mr Bamber's watch lying damaged under a rug on the other side of the room.

250. DI Cook's comments on the Action 94 are unsatisfactory in themselves. The words "There was no sugar on the floor it was all confined to an area under the table and if it was, officers would have been walking in the same. Sugar was later found because the table was moved and sugar swept around" are in themselves potentially contradictory depending upon how they are read. It should not be forgotten that DI Cook was one of the officers who had supported the murder/suicide conclusion and that at the date of Action 94, different officers had taken over responsibility for the inquiry and concluded that the original investigation had missed significant evidence. In such circumstances DI Cook had every motive to seek to support his original view by reading into matters that had been reported to him more than was the reality of the situation.

251. We find that there is nothing in the hearsay comments recorded in the Action 94 that even if they could have been introduced into evidence could realistically have been thought to lead to a conclusion other than that there had been a violent struggle in the kitchen.

252. Looking at the Ainsley Reports, we consider that the comment "there is of necessity a certain amount of disturbance" was entirely in accord with the evidence of the TFG officers. A sledgehammer was taken to a door, a window opened, a door unlocked, a chair moved, stools moved, a cellar door forced, a window unlocked and the door opposite the children's room forced. We reject the submission that Ainsley's reports in any way support the appellant's submission that the firearms officers "knocked over the chairs, stools, and a sugar bowl".

253. As to the Essex Police Report, we can find no evidential support for the hearsay suggestion that "It is now believed the stools were possibly knocked over by members of the TFG". By the time of that inquiry, there must have been a number of officers who had every motive to down play the failure to spot important factors in the early stage of the inquiry and the situation was such that just such a proposition might very well be floated. However there is nothing to cause us to believe that it originated from anyone who could give first hand information about the matter.

254. As already explained Ann Eaton's recollection years after the event of what she had been told cannot be factually right whether or not she correctly recalled that which she was told.

255. We find there to be no substance whatsoever in this ground of appeal. The firearms officers have been consistent throughout. Mr Turner indicated that he would not wish to cross-examine them in the event of the Crown successfully applying to call them.

256. The issue of the absence of sugar on Sheila's feet was of minimal significance in the trial. In the summing up all the references to Sheila Caffell's feet were to the absence of blood rather than sugar. In the prosecution case summary it was said:

"The only blood to be found on the body was that of Sheila Caffell nor was there any debris or blood on the soles of her feet" and in their closing speech: "Compare Sheila to June. June is covered in blood, blood on her feet".

257. The defence faced the task of explaining the absence of blood on Sheila's feet with the implausible suggestion that she may have worn socks or washed her feet before committing suicide. In the circumstances the absence of sugar on Sheila's feet added nothing to the prosecution case.

258. As the Judge said at p.84 F in the passage to which we have already referred:

"there were no blood marks on the soles of her feet. Well, you may think that is a matter of considerable importance, because if she had been involved in the fighting with her father as well as killing her mother, surely it is inconceivable that her feet would have been clean"

259. There is simply no evidence available to contradict the evidence of the firearms officers that save for moving one chair and two stools there was no disturbance of furniture and the sugar bowl was not disturbed by them. Their recent statements indicate a search effected slowly and carefully with the minimum of noise and carried out in relative silence with officers believing that Sheila Caffell may still be alive with a gun in her hand. They were trained to create as little disturbance as possible and not to move or touch anything unless it be for reasons of safety or self-preservation. The situation in which they found themselves with the possibility of an armed person somewhere in the premises meant it was both necessary and sensible to go into the farm house with the minimum of noise and disturbance until they were satisfied that an armed person would not suddenly emerge and confront them.

260. We are sure that none of the matters placed before us could possibly have resulted in the jury reaching a different conclusion on any material aspect of the case. This ground of appeal fails there being no evidence to support it.


Question for David:

As evidenced above the appeal point is largely relying on hearsay evidence from DI Cook.  Whereas A/PS Woodcock's WS is direct evidence.  Why did MT QC overlook this? 

You can't afford to be sentimental on the basis he invited you into his chambers for coffee. 



Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92