Author Topic: Analysis of CoA Hearing 2002  (Read 1135 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?!
Analysis of CoA Hearing 2002
« on: February 13, 2018, 09:25:05 PM »
The hearing was set out over 522 points as follows:

POINTS          ASPECT OF CASE                      %

1- 174                Background                           33.33%

175 - 213           Handswabs Processing             7.47%

214 - 232           Handswabs Tests                     3.63%  (Total handswabs 11.1%)

233 - 260           Disturbance Kitchen by EP        5.36%

261 - 288           Windows                                 5.36%

289 - 330           Timing tel call - JM                   8.04%

331 - 366           Credibility of JM                       6.89%  (Total JM 14.55%)

367 - 377           Letter from CC                         2.10%

378 - 391           WS of CC                                 2.68%

392 - 404           Photo "I hate this place"           2.49%

405 - 421           Bible                                       3.25%

422 - 427           Inheritance                              1.14%

428                    Porsche                                   0.19%

429 - 443           Tel Kitchen                               2.87%

444 - 451           Scars on hands                         1.53%

452 - 475           Blood inside silencer                  4.59%

476 - 508           DNA                                         6.32% (Total silencer 10.91%)

509 - 511           Police misconduct                      0.57%

512 - 520           Conclusion by judges incl call
                         for fresh evidence by prosc re
                         SC moved in bedroom               1.72%

521 - 522           General Observation by judges  0.38%

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: Analysis of CoA Hearing 2002
« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2018, 09:46:00 PM »
To my mind the above breakdown shows how hopeless this appeal was from the off. 

It is all over the place with the kitchen sink thrown at it and there's nothing evidence based.

The case was referred to the CoA by CCRC on the back of the silencer/blood/DNA and yet this ended up taking 3rd place in terms of points covered to JM's testimony and the handswabs.

Many of the points are just unnecessary waffle imo eg the proposed purchase of a Porsche. 

The judges' conclusion and observation amounted to just over 2% and this included some fresh evidence the prosecution wanted to advance.  Basically the judges said 'do one'!
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 Angelo222

Re: Analysis of CoA Hearing 2002
« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2018, 12:05:19 PM »
To my mind the above breakdown shows how hopeless this appeal was from the off. 

It is all over the place with the kitchen sink thrown at it and there's nothing evidence based.

The case was referred to the CoA by CCRC on the back of the silencer/blood/DNA and yet this ended up taking 3rd place in terms of points covered to JM's testimony and the handswabs.

Many of the points are just unnecessary waffle imo eg the proposed purchase of a Porsche. 

The judges' conclusion and observation amounted to just over 2% and this included some fresh evidence the prosecution wanted to advance.  Basically the judges said 'do one'!

This just goes to show how futile any appeal is in this case imo.  I have seen nothing revealed since the last appeal which has changed that situation so I find the possibility of any further hearing extremely remote.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6050
  • Total likes: 109
  • Bamber Campaign For Freedom, How Can I Help?!
Re: Analysis of CoA Hearing 2002
« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2018, 02:34:51 PM »
This just goes to show how futile any appeal is in this case imo.  I have seen nothing revealed since the last appeal which has changed that situation so I find the possibility of any further hearing extremely remote.

No doubt in my mind there will be a third successful appeal which will be evidenced based:

1. Forensic tests to undermine silencer and blood evidence
2. Forensic tests to undermine Fletcher's trial testimony re SC's hands (black discolouration) and nightdress ("relatively clean") and above to demonstrate drawback isn't "virtually certain".  No reason SC's nightdress would not be "relatively clean".
3. Forensic tests to undermine Elliot's trial testimony re levels of lead on SC's hands
4. Non-disclosure of bloodstains on bible
5. Reconstruction showing NB was shot coming upstairs and not within the bedroom
6. June's mental illness circa 1959 showing the potential for SC to develop a disorganised attachment resulting in a propensity towards aggression, suicide and filicide which contradicts Dr Ferguson's trial testimony and provides a 'motive' for the murders/suicide

Two further points could include:

7. Continuing with tests carried out by Peter Sutherest over the scratches on the Aga
8. Disturbance of soc in main bedroom ie SC and bible

The above are all evidence based unlike the 2002 appeal.  6 - 8 quality points that cut to the chase and will be impossible to argue against instead of 16 points that could easily be argued away and amounted to little more than a lot of hot air and waffle.
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: Analysis of CoA Hearing 2002
« Reply #4 on: February 15, 2018, 08:40:29 AM »
This is how the COA will look at all cases - background, evidence, conclusion.

The COA spent 12 days on this case. Similar to the author of 'Crimes, hearts & Coronets' & Bob Woffinden, they just became more convinced of Bamber's guilt.

The COA is very damning. My 60+ pieces of evidence has 20 sources, the COA being the main one.

Offline adam

Re: Analysis of CoA Hearing 2002
« Reply #5 on: February 15, 2018, 08:49:29 AM »
Not sure what more can be done as a forum guilter, than supply a huge list of sourced forensic evidence.

This can only be topped by supplying CCTV footage of Bamber entering & exiting WHF on the massacre night.

Bamber & the CT have disputed about 2% of the evidence. Most isn't mentioned by the OS, who focus on the silencer, Julie & Nevill's call to Chelmsford police.

Nugs, Lookout & Mike ignore the list while David disputes 3 or 4 pieces with his own source snippets taken from other documents.

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6050
  • Total likes: 109
  • Bamber Campaign For Freedom, How Can I Help?!
Re: Analysis of CoA Hearing 2002
« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2018, 12:59:49 PM »
This is how the COA will look at all cases - background, evidence, conclusion.

The COA spent 12 days on this case. Similar to the author of 'Crimes, hearts & Coronets' & Bob Woffinden, they just became more convinced of Bamber's guilt.

The COA is very damning. My 60+ pieces of evidence has 20 sources, the COA being the main one.

As I said in a recent post appeal court judges are not looking at ways to quash convictions rather they are looking at ways to uphold convictions and maintaining the status quo.  At appeal you need hard hitting points that are impossible to argue against.  MT QC produced a lot of hot air and waffle.

Afaik Bob Woffinden doesn't have a background in policing, law or forensics so I'm not sure why his views are seen to be any more important than posters on forums? 

The JB CoA hearing 2002 and the resulting doc will prove a huge embarrassment to the judicial system of this country. 

Most of the so-called evidence can be pulled apart and those aspects left standing can be severely criticised because they were not dealt with properly eg if you want to assert the defendant shut a window shut from outside locking it securely in the process the jury should be taken to the site to see whether or not this was possible. 
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: Analysis of CoA Hearing 2002
« Reply #7 on: February 15, 2018, 01:14:49 PM »
Not sure what more can be done as a forum guilter, than supply a huge list of sourced forensic evidence.

This can only be topped by supplying CCTV footage of Bamber entering & exiting WHF on the massacre night.

Bamber & the CT have disputed about 2% of the evidence. Most isn't mentioned by the OS, who focus on the silencer, Julie & Nevill's call to Chelmsford police.

Nugs, Lookout & Mike ignore the list while David disputes 3 or 4 pieces with his own source snippets taken from other documents.

Reference to a "huge list of sourced forensic evidence" is only going to help a "forum guilter" and/or the prosecution if it is capable of withstanding 21st century forensics which I don't believe it is capable of doing.

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: Analysis of CoA Hearing 2002
« Reply #8 on: February 16, 2018, 09:08:58 AM »
As I said in a recent post appeal court judges are not looking at ways to quash convictions rather they are looking at ways to uphold convictions and maintaining the status quo.  At appeal you need hard hitting points that are impossible to argue against.  MT QC produced a lot of hot air and waffle.

Afaik Bob Woffinden doesn't have a background in policing, law or forensics so I'm not sure why his views are seen to be any more important than posters on forums? 

The JB CoA hearing 2002 and the resulting doc will prove a huge embarrassment to the judicial system of this country. 

Most of the so-called evidence can be pulled apart and those aspects left standing can be severely criticised because they were not dealt with properly eg if you want to assert the defendant shut a window shut from outside locking it securely in the process the jury should be taken to the site to see whether or not this was possible.

Don't believe a COA are looking at how to quash or uphold a conviction.

Their role is to look at new evidence submitted. Then decide if it could have resulted in the jury coming to a different verdict,  if they had been given it at the time.

The COA can't look at evidence which the jury were shown. Then undermine the juries decision by overturning the verdict. There would be no point in having a jury.




Offline adam

Re: Analysis of CoA Hearing 2002
« Reply #9 on: February 16, 2018, 09:14:42 AM »
Reference to a "huge list of sourced forensic evidence" is only going to help a "forum guilter" and/or the prosecution if it is capable of withstanding 21st century forensics which I don't believe it is capable of doing.

So all of it would be shown to be wrong using todays technology ? It must have been very basic in 1985. They can't even detect gun shot residue on a nightdress.

Even David said this month, he agrees with the list but 'it doesn't make Jeremy guilty'. Not sure who else committed the massacre if it wasn't Sheila. Jeff Blake ?

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6050
  • Total likes: 109
  • Bamber Campaign For Freedom, How Can I Help?!
Re: Analysis of CoA Hearing 2002
« Reply #10 on: February 16, 2018, 11:16:39 AM »
Don't believe a COA are looking at how to quash or uphold a conviction.

Their role is to look at new evidence submitted. Then decide if it could have resulted in the jury coming to a different verdict,  if they had been given it at the time.

The COA can't look at evidence which the jury were shown. Then undermine the juries decision by overturning the verdict. There would be no point in having a jury.

Yes I agree and there was nothing in the '89/'02 appeals capable of overturning JB's conviction but there's also evidence the judges were biased towards the prosecution eg pinning the blame for the mirror staining on the bible on JB when it was clear no one knew whose blood stained the pages.  And blaming JB for moving SC when the evidence points to EP.  And writing off Mark Webster's suggestions that further tests needed to be carried out to establish whether drawback was possible.  Instead the judges came up with their own theories of how blood behaves in silencers when they were not qualified to make such theories.
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: Analysis of CoA Hearing 2002
« Reply #11 on: February 16, 2018, 11:27:48 AM »
So all of it would be shown to be wrong using todays technology ? It must have been very basic in 1985. They can't even detect gun shot residue on a nightdress.

Even David said this month, he agrees with the list but 'it doesn't make Jeremy guilty'. Not sure who else committed the massacre if it wasn't Sheila. Jeff Blake ?
Yes it was basic in 1985 and all concerned were out of their depth with such a soc.

DC Hammersley swabbed SC at PM for GSR.  I would have thought time to do it was at SOC.  In any event whether GSR presented or not it could be argued both ways so really irrelevant.  According to lab it was sent in with unrelated firearm so returned to EP due to potential for contamination.

Aspects of the case like June's bike at JB's are not evidence of anything.

SC's nightdress "relatively clean" why would it be otherwise if SC was perp?

SC's feet clean or even "spotless" why would it be otherwise if SC was perp?

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

david1819

  • Guest
Re: Analysis of CoA Hearing 2002
« Reply #12 on: February 16, 2018, 04:44:19 PM »
No doubt in my mind there will be a third successful appeal which will be evidenced based:

1. Forensic tests to undermine silencer and blood evidence
2. Forensic tests to undermine Fletcher's trial testimony re SC's hands (black discolouration) and nightdress ("relatively clean") and above to demonstrate drawback isn't "virtually certain".  No reason SC's nightdress would not be "relatively clean".
3. Forensic tests to undermine Elliot's trial testimony re levels of lead on SC's hands

4. Non-disclosure of bloodstains on bible
5. Reconstruction showing NB was shot coming upstairs and not within the bedroom
6. June's mental illness circa 1959 showing the potential for SC to develop a disorganised attachment resulting in a propensity towards aggression, suicide and filicide which contradicts Dr Ferguson's trial testimony and provides a 'motive' for the murders/suicide

Two further points could include:

7. Continuing with tests carried out by Peter Sutherest over the scratches on the Aga
8. Disturbance of soc in main bedroom ie SC and bible

The above are all evidence based unlike the 2002 appeal.  6 - 8 quality points that cut to the chase and will be impossible to argue against instead of 16 points that could easily be argued away and amounted to little more than a lot of hot air and waffle.

Points 2 and 3 won't be admissible. They would be rejected for the same reasons Dr Lloyds evidence was.

220. In a number of cases this court has made clear that it will not readily admit expert evidence as fresh evidence where the necessary expertise was available at the time of trial (see e.g. Lomas, 53 Cr. App. R. 256 & Jones (Steven) [1997] 1 Cr. App. R. 56). To do otherwise would permit an appellant to shop around for an expert after conviction and upon finding one favourable to his case mount an appeal based on the views of that expert. To allow that would subvert the trial process and generally speaking the time for advancing expert evidence is before the jury and not after conviction.

221. Mr Temple for the prosecution opposed the application. He submitted that it was clear that the appellant had sought expert advice before trial from Major Meads, a firearms expert, who in turn had consulted Mr Edwards, a chemist. There was, he submitted, nothing new about the scientific knowledge that gave rise to this evidence. With that view we agree.

232. We concluded in such circumstances that there was no valid reason why this evidence could not have been put before the jury by seeking to call an appropriate expert unless it was the case that Dr Lloyd's views were not ones shared by others and, even more importantly, that even if the evidence had been given at trial, it could not have altered the outcome of the trial. Accordingly we declined to admit this fresh evidence and any other evidence consequent upon it and this aspect of ground 1 fails as a result.



If Major mead had reasons to believe the silencer was never used. As Jim Shelly claims. Then point 1 would also not be admissible.

An appeal hearing is based on question of law not facts.

"In jurisprudence, a question of law (also known as a point of law) is a question which must be answered by applying relevant legal principles, by an interpretation of the law. Such a question is distinct from a question of fact, which must be answered by reference to facts and evidence, and inferences arising from those facts."

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6050
  • Total likes: 109
  • Bamber Campaign For Freedom, How Can I Help?!
Re: Analysis of CoA Hearing 2002
« Reply #13 on: February 16, 2018, 09:48:23 PM »
Points 2 and 3 won't be admissible. They would be rejected for the same reasons Dr Lloyds evidence was.

220. In a number of cases this court has made clear that it will not readily admit expert evidence as fresh evidence where the necessary expertise was available at the time of trial (see e.g. Lomas, 53 Cr. App. R. 256 & Jones (Steven) [1997] 1 Cr. App. R. 56). To do otherwise would permit an appellant to shop around for an expert after conviction and upon finding one favourable to his case mount an appeal based on the views of that expert. To allow that would subvert the trial process and generally speaking the time for advancing expert evidence is before the jury and not after conviction.

221. Mr Temple for the prosecution opposed the application. He submitted that it was clear that the appellant had sought expert advice before trial from Major Meads, a firearms expert, who in turn had consulted Mr Edwards, a chemist. There was, he submitted, nothing new about the scientific knowledge that gave rise to this evidence. With that view we agree.

232. We concluded in such circumstances that there was no valid reason why this evidence could not have been put before the jury by seeking to call an appropriate expert unless it was the case that Dr Lloyd's views were not ones shared by others and, even more importantly, that even if the evidence had been given at trial, it could not have altered the outcome of the trial. Accordingly we declined to admit this fresh evidence and any other evidence consequent upon it and this aspect of ground 1 fails as a result.



If Major mead had reasons to believe the silencer was never used. As Jim Shelly claims. Then point 1 would also not be admissible.

An appeal hearing is based on question of law not facts.

"In jurisprudence, a question of law (also known as a point of law) is a question which must be answered by applying relevant legal principles, by an interpretation of the law. Such a question is distinct from a question of fact, which must be answered by reference to facts and evidence, and inferences arising from those facts."

If forensic tests show Elliot and Fletcher were wrong it can only mean they were incompetent, fabricating evidence or both.  Parliament has confirmed:

3.3.1 Following some high profile quality failures in the 1980s the FSS implemented accreditation to quality standards from 1993 onwards, a world first for forensic science.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm

DPP/COA/CCRC will need to confirm JB's case was unaffected by these failures. 

Remember also Fletcher opened up the silencer for John Hayward to analyse the blood within. 

Let's keep it simple the criteria for appeal is basically fresh evidence that had jurors heard at trial may have caused them to reach a different verdict.

From the CPS:

Hearing new evidence
The Court of Appeal may hear new evidence that was not adduced in the original proceedings (section 23(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1968), if:

it appears capable of belief;
it may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
it would have been admissible;
it is an issue which is the subject of the appeal;
there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it.


https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/appeals-court-appeal

I think you're taking Major Mead's comment literally; I think it was a figure of speech.  In any event it comes back to how reliable was FSS in 1980's?  Malcolm Fletcher?  "Small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy"?
   
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 Caroline

Re: Analysis of CoA Hearing 2002
« Reply #14 on: February 16, 2018, 11:06:56 PM »
If forensic tests show Elliot and Fletcher were wrong it can only mean they were incompetent, fabricating evidence or both.  Parliament has confirmed:

3.3.1 Following some high profile quality failures in the 1980s the FSS implemented accreditation to quality standards from 1993 onwards, a world first for forensic science.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm

DPP/COA/CCRC will need to confirm JB's case was unaffected by these failures. 

Remember also Fletcher opened up the silencer for John Hayward to analyse the blood within. 

Let's keep it simple the criteria for appeal is basically fresh evidence that had jurors heard at trial may have caused them to reach a different verdict.

From the CPS:

Hearing new evidence
The Court of Appeal may hear new evidence that was not adduced in the original proceedings (section 23(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1968), if:

it appears capable of belief;
it may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
it would have been admissible;
it is an issue which is the subject of the appeal;
there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it.


https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/appeals-court-appeal

I think you're taking Major Mead's comment literally; I think it was a figure of speech.  In any event it comes back to how reliable was FSS in 1980's?  Malcolm Fletcher?  "Small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy"?
   

But they won't show that their tests were wrong - just (perhaps) different.

It would need to be proven that Bambers case WAS affected by such failures - you're forgetting innocent until proven guilty.

Malcolm Fletcher's experience extended beyond having an air rifle as a small boy. Any court would take a dim view (rightly or wrongly) of questioning and experts credentials in such a manner