The 2012 extension to the CCRC application deadline. Why ?

[adam]

The Official Site has refrained from including a chapter on what was submitted in the 2012 CCRC application. Unlike the 2002 COA, there are no other points of reference.

It is certain that the results from the Arizona tests were included. This has been discussed before on here. It is not really evidence as Neville's burn marks could have been acquired at any time.

The scratches on the mantle piece were probably included. As experts have been speaking about it since the 2002 appeal.

Neville's alleged call to the police was not included.

The CCRC gave Jeremy's lawyers extensions to submission deadlines. With the case always in the media, it would be assumed that this was due to there being so much evidence they had to get together. However it could be because there was not enough evidence. This is backed up by the fact that the submission did not get passed to the COA.

Accusations against Julie, the police and relatives cannot be included in a CCRC application. It is not evidence. Just accusations.

The 2002 appeal had a lot of points. None of these points can be included in the 2012 CCRC application. As they have already been discussed before and rejected. 

To find new points of evidence highlighting innocence will be hard for a case that has already been so comprehensively investigated over 30 years.

So it seems likely the delay could be because there was not enough evidence, rather than too much.

It will be good if information can be supplied on what was in the CCRC application and why there was a delay.

[Holly Goodhead]

I think the outcome of an appeal hearing is a public document unlike a CCRC application?  Hence we have:

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

Perhaps the OS don't have a copy of the CCRC decision?  I guess only JB and his lawyers receive a copy.

I believe all the points you have suggested above were included, plus photos of SC's wounds were analysed in an attempt to determine whether or not the silencer was attached and timings in terms of blood flow and consistency.   

I understand further testing was required to advance the case but I think JB run out of time and funds.  Plus he changed legal reps half-way through.  If you read the link below you will see that JB's application followed the normal process other than he was given extra time due to the complexity of the case. 

I don't believe its necessary to demonstrate innocence just that the conviction is unsafe?  It is not necessary to demonstrate innocence at trial so why would the threshold be higher at appeal?  As no one other than the jury know how they arrived at a verdict it is not even necessary to pull apart the prosecution's case?  Eg we have no idea what weight the jury gave to the individual aspects of the prosecutions case.  Or whether there were aspects they may have rejected entirely.

CoA

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/appeals_to_the_court_of_appeal/#a07

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.

The court can call persons who were not called at trial but may be able to give relevant evidence to the Court of Appeal such as jurors or lawyers.

The court has power to compel the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses. These powers extend to hearings of applications for leave to appeal as well as the appeal itself, (section 23 Criminal Appeal Act 1968, as amended by section 47 and schedule 8 paragraph 10 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008).

CCRC

https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/about/criminal-cases-review/policies-and-procedures/ccrc-q-and-a.pdf

What is “new evidence or legal argument”?
If we are going to be able to refer your case for an appeal we will
usually need to find some important new evidence or legal argument. Usually this means something that was not covered at your trial or your appeal. For example it may be new evidence not known about at the
time, or something that has changed since your trial, like the appearance of a new witness or a new development in science. We can’t usually look again at things that were known about by the jury, the judge or the magistrates, even if you believe that they made the wrong decision in your case. We need to identify something new that wasn’t raised back then, and that the judges at your appeal didn’t know either, that makes your case look significantly different now. In some cases it might be a new legal argument, rather than new evidence, that means we can refer a case. New legal argument is usually some significant new point of law that has not been made before, such as a complaint that the judge’s summing-up was faulty, or that the prosecution applied the law incorrectly.

[Holly Goodhead]

 When I first got interested in the case I was stunned when I read Dr F's WS re June's depression.  As far as I am concerned this is where the answers to the WHF case lie.  Since the WHF tragedy/JB's trial much more is now known about:

- Maternal depression
- Adverse effects of above on developing brains
- Propensity towards violence, aggression and suicide
- Neuroscience
- Attachment/Disorganised attachment
- Empathy
- Psychopathy

If I was appointed as JB's chief strategist  I would change direction based on the above.  It might also help to win the propaganda war 

To my mind what has been presented to CoA and CCRC to date compared with the above is analogous to a horse drawn cart and a modern motor car. 

Going round in circles with the silencer reminds me of Einsteins definition of insanity of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

If it's capable of getting to CoA then it will be for the judges to decide whether it makes JB's conviction unsafe.  I think the prosecution will struggle to counter it  .

There will still be some protesting that JB is as guilty as hell but that is life and our legal system I am afraid.

[adam]

Going to the CCRC with general medical information about psychopathy and depression is not evidence on the crime.

For every claim from an expert that Sheila was capable of going into such a murderous rage, there will be counter claims saying the opposite.

The last thing I read was that Bamber had found new medical records on Sheila. I assume this will support his suggestion  that Sheila's mental state means she could commit the crime. Although it is not evidence she did or did not commit the crime. Again there will be counter evidence from experts.

Most of the forensic evidence is against Bamber. It shows Sheila did not commit the crime therefore immediately implicates him. There is no circumstantial evidence which supports him.

The relatives and COA were critical of the CCRC for referring the case in 2002. It must have been a weak claim. I suspect the time extension given by the CCRC in 2012 was because the campaign team knew they had another weak case. And were praying they could dream up something at the last minute to bulk it up. Which didn't happen.

The extension was also reported in the media. This actually creates good publicity as people will assume the delay is because the campaign team has too much information to meet the original deadline. The official line being that 'it was a complex case'.

Even if they had a mountain of evidence, they should have been able to meet the deadline as it was ten years in the making. The new claims by Bamber after 2002 had been made years before the 2012 CCRC deadline. 

[Holly Goodhead]

Going to the CCRC with general medical information about psychopathy and depression is not evidence on the crime.

For every claim from an expert that Sheila was capable of going into such a murderous rage, there will be counter claims saying the opposite.

The last thing I read was that Bamber had found new medical records on Sheila. I assume this will support his suggestion  that Sheila's mental state means she could commit the crime. Although it is not evidence she did or did not commit the crime. Again there will be counter evidence from experts.

Most of the forensic evidence is against Bamber. It shows Sheila did not commit the crime therefore immediately implicates him. There is no circumstantial evidence which supports him.

The relatives and COA were critical of the CCRC for referring the case in 2002. It must have been a weak claim. I suspect the time extension given by the CCRC in 2012 was because the campaign team knew they had another weak case. And were praying they could dream up something at the last minute to bulk it up. Which didn't happen.

The extension was also reported in the media. This actually creates good publicity as people will assume the delay is because the campaign team has too much information to meet the original deadline. The official line being that 'it was a complex case'.

Even if they had a mountain of evidence, they should have been able to meet the deadline as it was ten years in the making. The new claims by Bamber after 2002 had been made years before the 2012 CCRC deadline.

Firstly it is not general medical information it is highly specific and relevant to the WHF tragedy.  And more importantly it is underpinned by decades of research and scientific evidence.  Secondly as pointed out in my previous post it not necessary to take apart any part of the prosecutions case.  The key is NEW EVIDENCE ie evidence that had the jury known about at trial may have caused them to return a different verdict. 

Challenge me please.  Find me some evidence produced by a suitably qualified person eg psychologist, psychiatrist, neuroscientist etc showing that maternal depression, as suffered by June, did not cause SC to develop an attachment disorder resulting in lifelong consequences as evidenced by SC's psychiatry reports and general life history.  Along with a propensity towards violence, aggression, suicide, lack of empathy and ultimately psychopathy.  There is also the question of Dr F's trial testimony and competence and ethics in treating June and SC.

There is little point in mulling over failed appeals/CCRC applications.  That is history.  The case now needs to move forward in a new direction based on the new scientific evidence.

If the case is referred to COA JB will be in a position to add further points  not strong enough in themselves to get to COA eg the prosecutions case SC could not have loaded and fired the rifle without damaging her fingernails/polish.

[jelgoon]

Firstly it is not general medical information it is highly specific and relevant to the WHF tragedy.  And more importantly it is underpinned by decades of research and scientific evidence.  Secondly as pointed out in my previous post it not necessary to take apart any part of the prosecutions case.  The key is NEW EVIDENCE ie evidence that had the jury known about at trial may have caused them to return a different verdict. 

Challenge me please.  Find me some evidence produced by a suitably qualified person eg psychologist, psychiatrist, neuroscientist etc showing that maternal depression, as suffered by June, did not cause SC to develop an attachment disorder resulting in lifelong consequences as evidenced by SC's psychiatry reports and general life history.  Along with a propensity towards violence, aggression, suicide, lack of empathy and ultimately psychopathy.  There is also the question of Dr F's trial testimony and competence and ethics in treating June and SC.

There is little point in mulling over failed appeals/CCRC applications.  That is history.  The case now needs to move forward in a new direction based on the new scientific evidence.

If the case is referred to COA JB will be in a position to add further points  not strong enough in themselves to get to COA eg the prosecutions case SC could not have loaded and fired the rifle without damaging her fingernails/polish.

Move forward? The CCRC made it clear last time that the case was closed as far as they were concerned and they werent prepared to examine it further. I think they'll follow their statement through and give extremely short shrift to any further application  Most lawyers know that Bamber has virtually no chance of a referral by the CCRC  which would only leave him with yet another Judicial Review in due course. And we know what the High Court thinks of his case - the Lord Chief Justice last time around threw it out in under an hour. I think youll find Bamber willl be sitting in his prison cell surrounded by files when he's 80 years old.

[Holly Goodhead]

Move forward? The CCRC made it clear last time that the case was closed as far as they were concerned and they werent prepared to examine it further. I think they'll follow their statement through and give extremely short shrift to any further application  Most lawyers know that Bamber has virtually no chance of a referral by the CCRC  which would only leave him with yet another Judicial Review in due course. And we know what the High Court thinks of his case - the Lord Chief Justice last time around threw it out in under an hour. I think youll find Bamber willl be sitting in his prison cell surrounded by files when he's 80 years old.

Yes absolutely.  The CCRC treat each application based on its own merit.  Of course the CCRC were not prepared to re-examine the previous  application further.  However, the new evidence as outlined in my post above meets the CCRC's and COA's criteria.  It is radically different from previous applications and very strong evidence showing JB's conviction is unsafe.  There are no limits to the number of times a defendant can submit an application.  The CCRC refer to it as a re-application:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/about/criminal-cases-review/policies-and-procedures/ccrc-q-and-a.pdf

Page 4:

"If an application is not your first application for a particular offence, we
call it a re-application. If all of the points that you make in your re-
application have already been considered, whether in an earlier
application to us, or at trial or on appeal, we will write to you to explain
why we cannot accept the re-application and that decision will be
final".

Are you able to identify the lawyers you refer to as "Most lawyers know that Bamber has virtually no chance of a referral by the CCRC..."  As far as I am aware most lawyers know little or nothing about JB's case?  Why would they unless they have been specifically instructed on the case?  All the lawyers I know would need to spend hundreds of hours examining the case material and meeting with JB to offer an opinion and I doubt there are many who have the time and/or interest to do so on a pro bono basis? Furthermore unless lawyers are formally instructed they will not have access to all the relevant material and of course the defendant ie JB.   

If the CCRC adopted the attitude you seem to be suggesting many of the high profiles miscarriage of justices we have witnessed over recent years would never have been overturned:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3394.msg129016#msg129016

As you will see multiple failed appeals are a common feature of long running, high profile miscarriages of justices and I don't see JB's case as being any different in this regard? 

I agree there's unlikely to be the need for another judicial review.

[scipio_usmc]

Firstly it is not general medical information it is highly specific and relevant to the WHF tragedy.  And more importantly it is underpinned by decades of research and scientific evidence.  Secondly as pointed out in my previous post it not necessary to take apart any part of the prosecutions case.  The key is NEW EVIDENCE ie evidence that had the jury known about at trial may have caused them to return a different verdict. 

Challenge me please.  Find me some evidence produced by a suitably qualified person eg psychologist, psychiatrist, neuroscientist etc showing that maternal depression, as suffered by June, did not cause SC to develop an attachment disorder resulting in lifelong consequences as evidenced by SC's psychiatry reports and general life history.  Along with a propensity towards violence, aggression, suicide, lack of empathy and ultimately psychopathy.  There is also the question of Dr F's trial testimony and competence and ethics in treating June and SC.

There is little point in mulling over failed appeals/CCRC applications.  That is history.  The case now needs to move forward in a new direction based on the new scientific evidence.

If the case is referred to COA JB will be in a position to add further points  not strong enough in themselves to get to COA eg the prosecutions case SC could not have loaded and fired the rifle without damaging her fingernails/polish.

Once again you are grossly mistaking the sciencitific evidence and the law on this issue.

There is no new science out there that says all adoptees are in general a serious threat to miccit suicide let alone murder suicide. Even if there were some new gneralized science that that there was some minor elevated risk of adoptees to commit suicide that still would not warrant a new trial. Teh jury alread heard specific testimony regarding her contemplating suicide- not some theoreticla mumbo jumbo that she had an elevated risk of considering it because she was adopted but that she actually contemplated suicide but that she ddidn't act on the impulse and after treatment she stopped thinking about it.

There is no way a court would feel that the jury would have acted differently hearing about some generalized claim adoptees are at an elevated risk of suicide.  You are delusional in thinking that could have any legal ramification at all. 

[Holly Goodhead]

Once again you are grossly mistaking the sciencitific evidence and the law on this issue.

There is no new science out there that says all adoptees are in general a serious threat to miccit suicide let alone murder suicide. Even if there were some new gneralized science that that there was some minor elevated risk of adoptees to commit suicide that still would not warrant a new trial. Teh jury alread heard specific testimony regarding her contemplating suicide- not some theoreticla mumbo jumbo that she had an elevated risk of considering it because she was adopted but that she actually contemplated suicide but that she ddidn't act on the impulse and after treatment she stopped thinking about it.

There is no way a court would feel that the jury would have acted differently hearing about some generalized claim adoptees are at an elevated risk of suicide.  You are delusional in thinking that could have any legal ramification at all.

Erm can you show me please where I have referred to "adoptees" in my post above or indeed anywhere in the entire thread?  Or even made reference to adoption other than in my tagline? 

[scipio_usmc]

Erm can you show me please where I have referred to "adoptees" in my post above or indeed anywhere in the entire thread?  Or even made reference to adoption other than in my tagline?

Ok I was being general this fares no better than the adoption stuff you raised:

"When I first got interested in the case I was stunned when I read Dr F's WS re June's depression.  As far as I am concerned this is where the answers to the WHF case lie.  Since the WHF tragedy/JB's trial much more is now known about:

- Maternal depression
- Adverse effects of above on developing brains
- Propensity towards violence, aggression and suicide
- Neuroscience
- Attachment/Disorganised attachment
- Empathy
- Psychopathy"

The bolded part says eveyrthing.  You don't care about the evidence proving Sheila can't have done it and that Jeremy did. You decided that Sheila did it because of your quack medical theories and don't give a hang about the evidence that matters to the law and thus to appeal courts. 

The only new evidence that will ever be considered is factual evidence. Scientific advances that allow new analysis of the evidence used to convict Jeremy is it so far as what new scientific evidence can be posited.  It doesn't matter if someone had a state of mind that could enable them to kill or not if the physical evidence proves they can't have done it.

In the meantime the speculation you engage in doesn't in any way establish she would have been likely to kill herself or anyone else. The best and only thing a lawyer can do to try to help Jeremy is to try to attack the physical evidence that proves Sheila can't have done it.  But there is no new science available that casts doubt on the assessments the jury relied on so Jeremy is going to rot in jail till he died.  There is no question he is guilty.  You just don't want to face that because you are intereste din advancing your quack theories and using his case as a platform to do so.   

[Holly Goodhead]

Ok I was being general this fares no better than the adoption stuff you raised:

"When I first got interested in the case I was stunned when I read Dr F's WS re June's depression.  As far as I am concerned this is where the answers to the WHF case lie.  Since the WHF tragedy/JB's trial much more is now known about:

- Maternal depression
- Adverse effects of above on developing brains
- Propensity towards violence, aggression and suicide
- Neuroscience
- Attachment/Disorganised attachment
- Empathy
- Psychopathy"

The bolded part says eveyrthing.  You don't care about the evidence proving Sheila can't have done it and that Jeremy did. You decided that Sheila did it because of your quack medical theories and don't give a hang about the evidence that matters to the law and thus to appeal courts. 

The only new evidence that will ever be considered is factual evidence. Scientific advances that allow new analysis of the evidence used to convict Jeremy is it so far as what new scientific evidence can be posited.  It doesn't matter if someone had a state of mind that could enable them to kill or not if the physical evidence proves they can't have done it.

In the meantime the speculation you engage in doesn't in any way establish she would have been likely to kill herself or anyone else. The best and only thing a lawyer can do to try to help Jeremy is to try to attack the physical evidence that proves Sheila can't have done it.  But there is no new science available that casts doubt on the assessments the jury relied on so Jeremy is going to rot in jail till he died.  There is no question he is guilty.  You just don't want to face that because you are intereste din advancing your quack theories and using his case as a platform to do so.

Attachment is an emotional bond between an infant or toddler and primary caregiver, a strong bond being vital for the child’s normal behavioural and social development.

We know that June did not form a secure attachment with SC, and vice-versa, due to her severe depression caused by adopting SC which required in-patient psychiatric care and electro-convulsive treatment.  During June's admission for psychiatric treatment I understand SC was placed with foster parents. 

SC's history of care-givers:

Birth July 1957 - July/August 1957 = Birth mother
July/August 1957 - October 1957 = various caregivers at a children's home in Box, Wilts
October 1957 - ? 1959 = June Bamber until she was admitted to St Andrews hospital, Northants for severe depression caused by her decision to adopt SC.
? 1959 - ? = Foster carers while June was receiving in-patient psychiatric treatment and electro-convulsive treatment
?  = Returned to June Bamber

Not only did SC suffer a number of abrupt changes but the care June provided leading up to her psychiatric treatment caused by her decision to adopt SC is likely to have caused an attachment disorder possibly a disorganised attachment.  A disorganised attachment is considered the most dysfunctional of the attachment styles.

JB is frequently labelled a psychopath despite undertaking numerous assessments as part of his cat A prisoner regime all showing him as 'normal'. No psychopathy or any other personality disorder has been identified.  The tv psychologists that have commented over the years have also labelled JB a psychopath with narcissistic immunity despite never having met with him and/or researching the backgrounds of the victims.

There is now overwhelming evidence backed up by decades of research and scientific evidence showing SC had a propensity towards psychopathy, violence, aggression and suicide due to an attachment disorder created by numerous abrupt changes in caregivers and maternal depression. 

You are under the illusion that your posts prove SC was incapable of carrying out the murders/suicide.  They don't.  The case against JB has always been weak that is why he wasn't charged for several weeks and allowed to travel abroad; why it was a majority verdict of 10 - 2; why the case has been before the appeal courts twice and why the CCRC referred to the CoA. 

I'm not going round in circles with you Skip.  Lets just wait and see 

Attachment and psychopathy

http://interpersona.psychopen.eu/article/view/29

Attachment and violence

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/183/3/190.full

Attachment and aggression

http://spi.sagepub.com/content/27/5/552.abstract

Attachment and suicide

There are millions of links based on the above.  I have selected one from each based on the geography to shows its global!

https://www.uic.edu/orgs/convening/suicideattach.htm

http://jeremybamber.org/psychological-reports/

And no I don't have an attachment disorder 

[Myster]

What on earth are you waiting to see?  If it's a successful appeal based on psychological guff then I'm afraid you'll be sadly disappointed.

Furthermore there is absolutely no evidence that Sheila Caffell had psychopathic tendencies... total nonsense!

And BTW, June's depression was just as likely to arise from her inability to have children after the cyst operation than from her adoption of Sheila.  I'm sure both parents were over the moon when they took her on board.

[APRIL]

What on earth are you waiting to see?  If it's a successful appeal based on psychological guff then I'm afraid you'll be sadly disappointed.

Furthermore there is absolutely no evidence that Sheila Caffell had psychopathic tendencies... total nonsense!

And BTW, June's depression was just as likely to arise from her inability to have children after the cyst operation than from her adoption of Sheila.  I'm sure both parents were over the moon when they took her on board.

Myster, I find it odd -though not impossible- that June's depression, caused apparently by her adoption of Sheila, waited such a long time before manifesting itself to the point that she required hospitalization. She would have shown symptoms LONG before diagnosis so how did she manage to cope with her toddler then? My own feeling is that the depression MAY have begun because she was unable to bond with Sheila and went into a grieving process for the biological babies she wasn't able to have. Could this have been what Dr Ferguson meant when he said in a diplomatic way that she was depressed "because of her decision to adopt Sheila"?

[Holly Goodhead]

What on earth are you waiting to see?  If it's a successful appeal based on psychological guff then I'm afraid you'll be sadly disappointed.

Furthermore there is absolutely no evidence that Sheila Caffell had psychopathic tendencies... total nonsense!

And BTW, June's depression was just as likely to arise from her inability to have children after the cyst operation than from her adoption of Sheila.  I'm sure both parents were over the moon when they took her on board.

As I said to Scipio I think we should wait and see 

I understand psychopathy can be explained by an inability to empathise.  The roots of empathy are formed in the attachment relationships with primary caregivers during critical periods of 0 - 3 years.  If those relationships are disrupted and dysfunctional then it stands to reason that a lack of empathy and psychopathy can present?  Most of us do not suffer SC's start to life?

Dr F tells us that June's severe depression was caused by her decision to adopt SC.  In any event whatever the cause sadly it is likely that SC suffered lifelong consequences as a result:

http://developingchild.harvard.edu/index.php/resources/reports_and_working_papers/working_papers/wp8/

http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/working_papers/wp12/ ***

***The definition of neglect is lack of responsiveness from primary caregiver

[Myster]

Myster, I find it odd -though not impossible- that June's depression, caused apparently by her adoption of Sheila, waited such a long time before manifesting itself to the point that she required hospitalization. She would have shown symptoms LONG before diagnosis so how did she manage to cope with her toddler then? My own feeling is that the depression MAY have begun because she was unable to bond with Sheila and went into a grieving process for the biological babies she wasn't able to have. Could this have been what Dr Ferguson meant when he said in a diplomatic way that she was depressed "because of her decision to adopt Sheila"?

We have no idea whether June bonded or how she coped with Sheila as a baby because we weren't there. However it is documented that depression can start as a result of the cessation of hormone production (oestrogen, progesterone, and testosterone) after removal of both ovaries... if that was the case with June's operation. This was Wilkes' view too so he must have researched the subject and perhaps even interviewed medical people involved with the case including Dr Ferguson, otherwise why would he have stated such.

http://www.everydayhealth.com/ovarian-cancer/depression-after-ovarian-cancer-surgery.aspx