Who should lead JB's defence at his third appeal hearing?

[Holly Goodhead]

Holly I have just searched for Martin-Sperry at the COA in the BAILII website.

BAILII only show a fraction of the appeal cases he has been involved with but of the 10 results I got. Seven of them were dismissed and only two were successful. The other COA case only came up in the search results because Martin-Sperry was the prosecutor as the appellants trial and that appeal was successful!

So it seems a kind smile and skiing qualifications are not the positive attributes they seem to be. 

How about this guy Stuart Martin? http://www.zenithchambers.co.uk/barristers/stuart-martin/family


No experience in criminal law it seems but so what if we don't bother looking? Not quite sure about his smile but he likes rugby, running and swimming. What do you think?

Based on the 1 strike and you're out policy I have already ruled out DMS:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8956.msg444981#msg444981

[APRIL]

..................Consider this: Albany prison, on the Isle of Wight holds some 560 prisoners – virtually all sex-offenders, many convicted of historical offences. Around half of the population of Albany is in denial. This means they are not addressing their offending behaviour and not participating in treatment programmes. Because of their plea of innocence, they will never become eligible for parole.....................
 





 

I find the above interesting as a double edged sword. A guilty prisoner who maintains innocence is unlikely to "own up" because "admitting offending behaviour" is an admission of guilt which will have some consequences on their release, OR could possibly rule out release. Maintaining innocence and trying to prove it may give them elevated status in prisons, ie that of an innocent person behind bars maybe felt to be a safer position than a guilty person who's been released?

[Holly Goodhead]

This was long before GDS was exposed and shorty after his high profile successes in the Van-Hoogstraten and Goldfinger case. People like GDS know how to present themselves. Without hindsight how can't really blame people for seeking his services.

JB has a very long history pre and post prison of involving himself with those who come to do him much harm.  You say GDS knows how to present himself but the fact is David he's not qualified to represent JB at CoA so pretty futlie really.  In terms of presenting himself he has spent much of his adult life behind bars and is currently about a third of a way through a 14 year sentence. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Di_Stefano_(fraudster)

Comparing web profiles? LOL

I was referring to academic quals. ie DMS Cambs and MT Sussex.  Although I don't necessarily think academic quals alone are an indication of ability to practice law.  MT QC would probably struggle to get anywhere today with a degree from Sussex especially if he didn't obtain a first.  I was impressed with how DMS emphasised building relationships with experts that sort of thing.  He's also described as the top ten sexiest criminal defence barristers:

http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=https://uk.linkedin.com/in/david-martin-sperry-10779b47&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwj65MHx6rnaAhUcOsAKHfR8BoEQFggLMAA&usg=AOvVaw0ekmgyJ4f_TQjePUqulydY

Whoever represents JB at the appellate court in the future will be instructed to do so via JBs solicitor acting on instructions from JB. So long as that barrister that is instructed agrees to take the case.

Furthermore JB has no money. Like in 2002 legal aid will only get him a Junior Barrister that has recently taken the silk (Like MT was in 2002) So if a now highly experienced QC already familiar with the case is prepared to go pro bono. JB would be mad to refuse and thus end up with someone inexperienced unseasoned like in 2002. With legal aid even more restrained than ever, I dread to think.

So unless you are prepared to fork out the money. Looking at fancy "web profiles" is merely window shopping.

You are not party to any proposals I might have put to JB. 

Barristers operate on the cab-rank rule.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cab-rank_rule

If your posts are not emotionally driven then you wont be stubbornly going round in circles despite shown evidence to the contrary. On a subject that untimatley acheive nothing whatsoever to advance the case.

It does not achieve anything. Unless you are compiling a case for inffective assistance at council at trial. To criticize-in-hindsight wont change anything. Unless you are building a time machine.

Your definition of me being stubborn is that you are unable to persuade me to buy into your theories many of which either in part or full originate and/or are shared by MT QC and have already failed miserably. 

When I have time I will add more to the thread here to explain why I think MT QC's representation of JB at his 2002 appeal hearing was pants:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9154.0

[Nicholas]

JB has a very long history pre and post prison of involving himself with those who come to do him much harm.  You say GDS knows how to present himself but the fact is David he's not qualified to represent JB at CoA so pretty futlie really.  In terms of presenting himself he has spent much of his adult life behind bars and is currently about a third of a way through a 14 year sentence. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Di_Stefano_(fraudster)

I was referring to academic quals. ie DMS Cambs and MT Sussex.  Although I don't necessarily think academic quals alone are an indication of ability to practice law.  MT QC would probably struggle to get anywhere today with a degree from Sussex especially if he didn't obtain a first.  I was impressed with how DMS emphasised building relationships with experts that sort of thing.  He's also described as the top ten sexiest criminal defence barristers:

http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=https://uk.linkedin.com/in/david-martin-sperry-10779b47&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwj65MHx6rnaAhUcOsAKHfR8BoEQFggLMAA&usg=AOvVaw0ekmgyJ4f_TQjePUqulydY

You are not party to any proposals I might have put to JB. 

Barristers operate on the cab-rank rule.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cab-rank_rule

You're definition of me being stubborn is that you are unable to persuade me to buy into your theories many of which either in part or full originate and/or are shared by MT QC and have already failed miserably. 

When I have time I will add more to the thread here to explain why I think MT QC's representation of JB at his 2002 appeal hearing was pants:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9154.0

Did Bamber tell you this Holly?


Or is it your assumption?

[Holly Goodhead]

Did Bamber tell you this Holly?


Or is it your assumption?

It's in the link above.  Plus:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2093.msg64380.html#msg64380

[Nicholas]

It's in the link above.  Plus:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2093.msg64380.html#msg64380

On this point, I will agree with David, in that you are naive

I couldn't be bothered to read all of the link you posted but ngb appears to have been referring to cases where a defendant first goes to court.

He's not referring to, as far as I can tell, cases where a defendant is appealing. Or someone, like for example, LM, an alleged repeat offender (I don't believe anything LM has posted btw - they could be anyone and could be saying anything, without supportive evidence I'm not taken in), who gets to know some of the barristers in the system etc. Prisoners speak to other prisoners and read newspapers. They learn a lot through word of mouth and pick up tip bits from their fellow "lags"

Jeremy Bamber has rinsed the criminal justice system IMO and run out of options Holly. He'll be hard pressed to find anyone willing to defend him even if he were ever cunning enough to get given the opportunity. His case is over, he has no where to go. No self respectimg professional barrister will touch him with a barge pole. Imagine the public outcry if Jeremy Bamber were ever to be released on a technicality? I say again, look at the Worboys case. Public outcry won out in the end. The government couldn't ignore the pleas of all his victims and recognised the flaws in the parole boards decision making.

[Holly Goodhead]

On this point, I will agree with David, in that you are naive

I couldn't be bothered to read all of the link you posted but ngb appears to have been referring to cases where a defendant first goes to court.

He's not referring to, as far as I can tell, cases where a defendant is appealing. Or someone, like for example, LM, an alleged repeat offender (I don't believe anything LM has posted btw - they could be anyone and could be saying anything, without supportive evidence I'm not taken in), who gets to know some of the barristers in the system etc.

If you can't be bothered to read what I've posted how can you deduce I'm naive?

My understanding is that in cases such as JB's a solicitor will call up a barrister to act and he/she will be obliged to take the case if he/she is available and it falls within his/her area of expertise referred to as the cab-rank rule. 

[Holly Goodhead]

What is your understanding of the cab-rank rule and how barristers are instructed in criminal cases.   

[Nicholas]

What is your understanding of the cab-rank rule and how barristers are instructed in criminal cases.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8956.msg456580#msg456580

[Holly Goodhead]

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8956.msg456580#msg456580

Thanks but I can't find your understanding of cab-rank rule. 

[Nicholas]

Thanks but I can't find your understanding of cab-rank rule.

These days you can approach a barrister direct

There was a recent murder case heard at the old Bailey where the defendant had to represent themselves. Their solicitor attempted to contact 20 barristers none of whom would take the case.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43643589

[david1819]

You are not party to any proposals I might have put to JB. 

I dread to think.

Barristers operate on the cab-rank rule.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cab-rank_rule

Indeed. Why do you think they have legal clerks? They cannot refuse instructions that don't get to them in the first place. If you thinks its a matter of pick up the phone and away we go, then you are as Stephanie put it naïve.

Your definition of me being stubborn is that you are unable to persuade me to buy into your theories many of which either in part or full originate and/or are shared by MT QC and have already failed miserably. 

My definition of you being stubborn is as follows "dogged determination not to change one's attitude or position on something, especially in spite of good arguments or reasons to do so"

Here are some examples were I was unable to persuade you of something even though I put irrefutable evidence right in-front of you.

Once on IA you expressed the view that a picture of Sheila's feet taken at autopsy were not Sheila's and the picture was bogus. I then showed you two very clear photos of the feet at both the crime scene and the autopsy room photo in question. I also included markers showing the spots and toenail damage was identical in both photos. So being shown conclusively that the feet were indeed the same and already privy to the fact AH obtained the photo from the CCRC. You still refused to accept the authenticity of the photo. Arguing something along the lines of that I knew nothing about the "female anatomy"

Then there's the time when you argued that shell casings could not bounce off a wall or hard surface like my images depicted. I then spent a rather lengthy amount time looking for footage that would demonstrate a .22 shell casing doing just that. Having then shown you the footage clear as day, what happens?  That was not good enough. Incredibly you then asked if I had anything to further support the video (that proved my point beyond any reasonable debate). Arguing that the shell casings were actually bullets!

Have you got anything further to support this vid?  Commentary/ text?  How do we know its casings and not bullets ricocheting back towards the shooter?  If live bullets I can only assume the shooter had a death wish. 

In fact yes I did. What I converted into a slow-mo gif was taken from a video of a girl getting a hot casing down her bra from it bouncing off the wall.

https://youtu.be/bfNC1c-9aZI?t=30s

But I cut that bit out believing it was irrelevant. With hindsight I underestimated the stubbornness I was up against. No need to bring up the debate we had about the gunshot wounds to Junes head again but thats another example.

So yes, you are stubborn and very much so. Its not my persuation skills that are the problem. You wonder why you don't always get a reply from me and that's because I simply don't see the point in doing so. Most of the time all it accomplishes is me feeling frustrated and you looking stupid. Not that you are stupid its more a case of stubbornness disabling your judgment and common sense.

I did say here one strike and you're out meaning DMS has also fluffed it when he too intended on pursuing the mixed blood theory:

Again I have already explained to you that neither MTQC or DMS or anyone else can deviate from the original defence strategy at an appeal unless they have FRESH EVIDENCE that can impetrate a FRESH ARGUMENT. They had no such thing to enable them to argue for something else. All they could do was get Webster to advance betting testing and DNA to argue the possibility of a mixture was not remote and the Jury was mislead.

Rivlin had all the available evidence to construct such a defence. He had the documents showing that the relatives took bloodstained clothing from the crime scene. He had Haywards statement saying the blood in the SM could be Robert Boutflours. Rivlin could have stood in-front of jury and argue that this was a case of malicious contamination by the extended family against his client motivated by money, Whether it was true or not it could have been done. But since Rivlin didn't chose that path. Such a change of strategy cannot be done without compelling fresh evidence that shows a malicious contamination.

This "one strike and you're out" folly means you are writing them off for abiding by the legal principles and decree of their own profession which they have no option but to follow.

The only person that does not yet have a "strike" in this respect is Giovanni DeStefano lol. I rest my case.

[Samson]

David, I have not entirely followed the thread, but you seem to be supporting the idea that an innocent man must stay dutifully caged because his previous lawyers did not bring the best interpretation of the evidence to previous hearings. This is nonsense. This straitjacket does not exist with a talented barrister, and the idea it could brings the whole system into diabolical disrepute.

I have lost count of the number  of times I have posted Lord Kerr from the privy council in Lundy.

39. In the Board’s view, Dr McGinn’s evidence should be admitted. The process by
which admission of new evidence should be determined was stated in Lundy v R
[2013] UKPC 28, [2014] 2 NZLR 273, at para 120:
“… the proper basis on which admission of fresh evidence should
be decided is by the application of a sequential series of tests. If
the evidence is not credible, it should not be admitted. If it is
credible, the question then arises whether it is fresh in the sense
that it is evidence which could not have been obtained for the trial
with reasonable diligence. If the evidence is both credible and
fresh, it should generally be admitted unless the court is satisfied
at that stage that, if admitted, it would have no effect on the safety
of the conviction. If the evidence is credible but not fresh, the court
should assess its strength and its potential impact on the safety of
the conviction. If it considers that there is a risk of a miscarriage
of justice if the evidence is excluded, it should be admitted,
notwithstanding that the evidence is not fresh.”

[david1819]

David, I have not entirely followed the thread, but you seem to be supporting the idea that an innocent man must stay dutifully caged because his previous lawyers did not bring the best interpretation of the evidence to previous hearings.

No not at all. I am simply explaining the reasons why the lawyers in question have worked in the way they have done.

The work we are talking about here took place in 1993 and 2002. The quote from Lord Kerr was not until 2013. So such precedent was not in existence.

Over the last 30 years the lawyers have actually shown the jury would have come to a different verdict. Its the Judges that wont uphold thier end of the deal.

The Jury were deadlocked. They then asked the Judge to go over haywards evidence on what was the chances of the blood being a mixture of Nevills and Junes. The Judge remineded them that it was a match Sheila's blood and the possibility of the blood in the silencer being a mixture of Nevills and June's was a remote one. On hearing this they convicted 10-2.

Justice Drake at trial 1986

"The sound moderator is clearly of very great importance, and the evidence relating to the sound moderator could, on its own, lead you to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty."

Lord Lane C.J in the Court of Appeal 1989

"The question of the silencer, quite apart from where it was found and how it got there in the cupboard, loomed very large first in the view of the Judge, certainly in the view of this Court and plainly in the view of the jury, because when they came back to ask a question it was a question directed to this very point".

"We need to hear blood expert's evidence regarding the blood in the silencer, (a) a perfect match of Sheila's blood, (b) what was the chance of the blood group being June and Ralph's mixing together"

"That of course was fatal, the jury accepted it"

And so, had the jury heard Websters testimony from 2002 that the possibility was good and not remote. Had the jury been shown the ballistic evidence produced in 2011 showing no silencer was on the weapon when Sheila was shot. You cannot reasonably argue that the verdict would be the same. To my mind the lawyers have done there job its the Judges that have moved the goal post.

Had Lord Lane C.J ruling at the 1989 appeal been a binding factor in the second appeal the conviction would have been ruled unsafe. The Judges in 2002 made clear it was not binding.

[Nicholas]

No not at all. I am simply explaining the reasons why the lawyers in question have worked in the way they have done.

The work we are talking about here took place in 1993 and 2002. The quote from Lord Kerr was not until 2013. So such precedent was not in existence.

Over the last 30 years the lawyers have actually shown the jury would have come to a different verdict. Its the Judges that wont uphold thier end of the deal.

The Jury were deadlocked. They then asked the Judge to go over haywards evidence on what was the chances of the blood being a mixture of Nevills and Junes. The Judge remineded them that it was a match Sheila's blood and the possibility of the blood in the silencer being a mixture of Nevills and June's was a remote one. On hearing this they convicted 10-2.

Justice Drake at trial 1986

"The sound moderator is clearly of very great importance, and the evidence relating to the sound moderator could, on its own, lead you to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty."

Lord Lane C.J in the Court of Appeal 1989

"The question of the silencer, quite apart from where it was found and how it got there in the cupboard, loomed very large first in the view of the Judge, certainly in the view of this Court and plainly in the view of the jury, because when they came back to ask a question it was a question directed to this very point".

"We need to hear blood expert's evidence regarding the blood in the silencer, (a) a perfect match of Sheila's blood, (b) what was the chance of the blood group being June and Ralph's mixing together"

"That of course was fatal, the jury accepted it"

And so, had the jury heard Websters testimony from 2002 that the possibility was good and not remote. Had the jury been shown the ballistic evidence produced in 2011 showing no silencer was on the weapon when Sheila was shot. You cannot reasonably argue that the verdict would be the same. To my mind the lawyers have done there job its the Judges that have moved the goal post.

Had Lord Lane C.J ruling at the 1989 appeal been a binding factor in the second appeal the conviction would have been ruled unsafe. The Judges in 2002 made clear it was not binding.

If you can David, apply your logic to Bamber; he was after all responsible for instructing his defence team. They worked for him, not the other way round.

What did Bamber know at his trial that his defence team didn't? Cast your mind back to when he was initially arrested for the caravan park robbery. Be mindful of what he told the police during his interview.

Why didn't Bamber tell his defence team his surviving family members had a grudge against him during his trial for MURDER and that they were attempting to fit him up?

For some reason you keep missing the bigger picture, you seem to hold on to what you think you know and dismiss all other vital evidence. Why David?