So..What Was Judge Knowles Verdict This Week?😌

[barrier]

Robby, I truly think Julian Knowles is having a laugh to himself.

Read between the lines.

He said:

 “This does not leave the claimant without a remedy. Much work has already been done and he has the makings of a fresh submission to the CCRC including an unqualified report from Mr Boyce [a ballistics expert] in support of his case that there was a second moderator recovered from the farm. That provides him with the necessary basis for arguing that his convictions are unsafe.”



“Much work has already been done and he has the makings of a fresh submission to the CCRC including an unqualified report from Mr Boyce [a ballistics expert] in support of his case that there was a second moderator recovered from the farm.”[b[/b]


“....UNQUALIFIED report from Mr Boyce...”

Julian is taking the pee

He knows Jeremy Bamber ain’t going anywhere, ever 

I read that as if you can find this second moderator then you may have a basis.

[Robittybob1]

I read that as if you can find this second moderator then you may have a basis.

Well, the gun leaning against the window has a sound moderator on it IMO.  If there is one attached to the gun in the photo and the other in a box in the gun cabinet that adds up to two doesn't it.

[jelgoon]

I think Knowles is humouring him about a new submission to the CCRC ie leave us in the Admin Court alone and go and annoy the CCRC - we have no interest now or in the future. It really is telling that Bamber hasn’t even been able to get permission to apply(the preliminary filter stage) in his last two JRs. He is generally very poorly represented

[Caroline]

Well, the gun leaning against the window has a sound moderator on it IMO.  If there is one attached to the gun in the photo and the other in a box in the gun cabinet that adds up to two doesn't it.

It doesn't.

[Robittybob1]

It doesn't.

I'll need to have another look at it.  Do you have a link to a high-resolution photo of it?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4091;image

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Robittybob1]

The end of that gun is wider at the bit obscured by the window frame.  To me, that is because there is a silencer attached to it.
So there is without a doubt a second sound moderator.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Robby, I truly think Julian Knowles is having a laugh to himself.

Read between the lines.

He said:

 “This does not leave the claimant without a remedy. Much work has already been done and he has the makings of a fresh submission to the CCRC including an unqualified report from Mr Boyce [a ballistics expert] in support of his case that there was a second moderator recovered from the farm. That provides him with the necessary basis for arguing that his convictions are unsafe.”



“Much work has already been done and he has the makings of a fresh submission to the CCRC including an unqualified report from Mr Boyce [a ballistics expert] in support of his case that there was a second moderator recovered from the farm.”[b[/b]


“....UNQUALIFIED report from Mr Boyce...”



Julian Knowles also said:


“'I am not on the material I have seen readily able to accept the premise that the existence of a second sound moderator is capable of affecting the safety of the claimant's convictions in any meaningful way”

So, he’s effectively saying — “Doesn’t matter if another 1000 moderators were found at WHF — the one found that had been attached to the murder weapon and which contained Sheila’s blood is the only one the court is interested in. If the other 1000 moderators have no blood inside, that reinforces the obvious: Sheila was shot with the moderator which contained her blood. IF the other moderator which you’re only ‘sure’ exists but you don’t know for certain that it does, but if this fitted the murder weapon (despite Nevill Bamber only buying one moderator when purchasing that rifle), and it ALSO contained Sheila’s blood, that would simply prove the murderer used two moderators to shoot Sheila. Maybe, for some unknown reason, the murderer changed the moderator when loading the second bullet to kill Sheila? Seems unlikely the murderer would hide one moderator and not the other, unless they deliberately planted an identical moderator which they never used in the shootings to try and bamboozle the police.”

Whichever way you look at it, and if another moderator does indeed exist, Jeremy Bamber is digging an even bigger hole for himself....



Julian Knowles is definitely taking the pee

He knows Jeremy Bamber ain’t going anywhere, ever 

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I'll need to have another look at it.  Do you have a link to a high-resolution photo of it?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4091;image

That rifle does not have a moderator on it

You can see it doesn’t by comparing the size/shape with this photo of it on Sheila

They’re identical

The moderator isn’t wider than the main barrel — you must have seen photos of it?

And with all due respect, don’t you think all these points were all pored over 35 years ago? By experts?

There’s absolutely nothing whatsoever that Jeremy Bamber has to suggest he is innocent, nothing. He’s just trying it on and he won’t stop until he pops his clogs in prison.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[barrier]

The end of that gun is wider at the bit obscured by the window frame.  To me, that is because there is a silencer attached to it.
So there is without a doubt a second sound moderator.

Yes there is doubt no one can prove it existence.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I think Knowles is humouring him about a new submission to the CCRC ie leave us in the Admin Court alone and go and annoy the CCRC - we have no interest now or in the future. It really is telling that Bamber hasn’t even been able to get permission to apply(the preliminary filter stage) in his last two JRs. He is generally very poorly represented

Absolutely agree, Jelgoon.

Quality Jordan Solicitors (who can’t even spell the word “particularly” on their bio) have sent a barrister to court without any ammunition. They haven’t said the know for fact there’s a second moderator — they said they “think” there could be one. Which would make no difference anyway.

The prosecution took convicted Bamber’s latest boring attempt so ludicrously weak and inane, that they sent a junior barrister with scant experience to represent them. That alone speaks volumes...and must also dent JB’s ego. 

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I read that as if you can find this second moderator then you may have a basis.

That’s how it sounds, but it’s Julian Knowles sending the evil Bamber on another wild goose chase. He knows JB hasn’t a hope in hell.

Before adding that Julian said:


“ 'I am not on the material I have seen readily able to accept the premise that the existence of a second sound moderator is capable of affecting the safety of the claimant's convictions in any meaningful way”


In which case, if JB tries yet again to trowel through 4M papers and apply to the CCRC AGAIN, and somehow manages to prove there’s another moderator, which no-one’s ever heard of, it won’t make any difference.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Yes there is doubt no one can prove it existence.

There’s certainly no moderator on the end of that gun by the window. That’s clear to see.

If there was a moderator on it, that’s even more proof Sheila couldn’t have shot herself.

But why would/could the police remove the rifle from Sheila’s body with it having no moderator on, then go and find one from somewhere, screw it on the murder weapon, then place it by the wall/window? For what reason?

All these insane grasping lies/distortions stem from Jeremy Bamber’s twisted head. All of them.

He’s a typical psychopath who will lie, lie, lie about everything. Some of his lies and behaviour are identical to John Canaan’s and Christian Buireck (?) who all share the same determined litigious traits, lie the same way, distort, try to plant seeds, have no remorse — and have giant egos.

[Robittybob1]

That rifle does not have a moderator on it

You can see it doesn’t by comparing the size/shape with this photo of it on Sheila

They’re identical

The moderator isn’t wider than the main barrel — you must have seen photos of it?

And with all due respect, don’t you think all these points were all pored over 35 years ago? By experts?

There’s absolutely nothing whatsoever that Jeremy Bamber has to suggest he is innocent, nothing. He’s just trying it on and he won’t stop until he pops his clogs in prison.

I think you are so wrong when you say "The moderator isn’t wider than the main barrel"   
Look at this animation as an example https://www.blaser.de/en/products/silencer/silencer-moderator/

You said: "And with all due respect, don’t you think all these points were all pored over 35 years ago? By experts?"

Yes they were with the intention of hiding the truth IMO.


You say: "You can see it doesn’t by comparing the size/shape with this photo of it on Sheila

They’re identical "   IMO they are different guns different length barrels.

But get this point straight the silencer is always wider than the standard barrel.  It has to be as there are baffles in it.

[Myster]

I think you are so wrong when you say "The moderator isn’t wider than the main barrel"   
Look at this animation as an example https://www.blaser.de/en/products/silencer/silencer-moderator/

You said: "And with all due respect, don’t you think all these points were all pored over 35 years ago? By experts?"

Yes they were with the intention of hiding the truth IMO.


You say: "You can see it doesn’t by comparing the size/shape with this photo of it on Sheila

They’re identical "   IMO they are different guns different length barrels.

But get this point straight the silencer is always wider than the standard barrel.  It has to be as there are baffles in it.

The Blaser moderator you linked to is NOT a Parker-Hale, and it also has a larger diameter - 42.9mm (4.29cm) compared to 22mm (2.2cm) for the PH, i.e. nearly twice as wide.  Neither was a Blaser, nor any other make of moderator found as evidence.
In the last attachment,  using a piece of paper measure the lengths of both barrels on screen to compare and you'll find they're pretty much the same.  Both have no fitted moderator and the scaling of the rifle on the right is as near as damn it to the one in the CS photo on the left.




Parker-Hale Moderator attached to an Anschutz 525...

[Nicholas]

Quality Jordan Solicitors (who can’t even spell the word “particularly” on their bio)

Latest from Mark Newby

Posted on June 5, 2020

‘The High Court has today declined to grant an order requiring the Director of Prosecution to make disclosure but in doing so significantly left the door open for Jeremy Bamber to now pursue his application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission . Jeremy's Solicitor , Mark Newby has made this statement :

‘Today the High Court declined a request by the those representing Jeremy Bamber to order disclosure which would have answered a very material aspect of this case namely prima facie conclusions reached by an eminent Ballistics Expert that there may have been two Silencers examined in this investigation . The issue could have been answered by disclosing just 27 documents out of an overall case file running to several million pages.

It remains our view that this would have been the most expedient and resource sensitive way to address this important issue , however the High Court has concluded that the high water mark imposed in the case of Nunn R (Nunn) v Chief Constable of Suffolk [2015] AC 225 has not in this case been crossed . Indeed The Honourable Mr Justice Knowles who decided the case considered that this case was so uniquely complex that the Court could simply not itself do justice to a determination one way or the other of whether Jeremy Bamber could establish in the end whether he had the required evidence to demonstrate to the Court that he and his expert are correct and that accordingly the material would make a decisive difference .

Counsel for Jeremy Bamber said that the existence of a second moderator would potentially undermine the safety of the convictions. Whilst the prosecution also relied on other evidence, the question of whether Ms Caffell could have shot herself with the moderator affixed to the rifle inevitably became a prominent one.   He said there were questions surrounding the correctness of the attribution of the blood to Ms Caffell, and the attribution of the paint to a struggle with Nevill Bamber. Jeremy Bamber had advanced a detailed assessment of why this would make a material difference to the safety of the conviction.

The essence was that Jeremy Bamber was very sure that the conclusion with the 27 documents seen would have supported his case, however we could not say for certainty without seeing the documents and this remained the problem.

The argument was strongly contested by the Crown, but, the real thrust of the argument was that it was only the CCRC who could consider this uniquely complex case.

His Lordship significantly summarised the position as it stands as this:
“55.     I have carefully considered the arguments of the parties and have read and considered all of the material that has been lodged.   I have carefully considered the decision of Saini J and for the reasons that he gave, with which I agree, and for the following reasons, I have concluded that permission should be refused.   This does not leave the Claimant without a remedy.   Much work has already been done and he has the makings of a fresh submission to the CCRC including an unqualified report from Mr Boyce in support of his case that there was a second moderator recovered from the farm.  That provides him with the necessary basis for arguing that his convictions are unsafe.”

Whilst the decision is disappointing, we agree with his Lordships assessment that  Jeremy Bamber certainly does have the makings of a fresh submission to the CCRC. Indeed there is material which still simply cannot be put into the public domain and a significant amount of further material which will now be added to the application to now be put to the Commission which we consider will require a thorough investigation by the Commission .

The net consequence of what is about to be delivered in the months ahead is to afford the commission an opportunity to be able to look at key areas of this uniquely complex case again,  but with the benefit of fresh material which we submit raises the required possibility that the Court would not now uphold the conviction if the case was referred .

As part of the run into this case there was criticism that Jeremy Bamber was advancing a narrative of misconduct by Essex Police which was unsubstantiated , yet it was revealed just 24 hours before the hearing , following concerns that had been raised by Jeremy Bamber ,  that a former senior investigating officer in the case Michael Ainsley had not only taken sensitive material from the investigation home ,  but he had passed documents to the author of the Book , Carol Ann Lee , which led to the ITV Drama and then taken it upon himself to destroy evidence .

This is a deeply concerning chain of events, which is subject to an ongoing investigation. 

Accordingly despite the overall outcome to this review , it is our view that the Jeremy Bamber’s case has moved forward as result of these proceedings and the team look forward to the now pivotal next step of being able to start to  engage with the commission over this case in the months ahead .

The Onus is now on the Commission once it is seized of the case as His Lordship noted:

“57.     If ever there was a case where the CCRC should be approached to make a decision on what is said to be new evidence, it is this one.  This is a massively complex case which has been investigated and re-investigated by more than one police force over some 35 years.   The body of material is vast.  After so many years, and so much litigation, the CCRC is the body undoubtedly best placed to consider the Claimant’s arguments. This case is so complicated, and has so many overlapping layers, that judicial review is a hopelessly blunt tool with which to address and determine the Claimant’s arguments. Even deciding what disclosure has, or has not, been made is fraught with difficulty Even if the Claimant were right on his primary case, the Court is hardly in a position to say whether the CPS’s determination that it would not mean the convictions are unsafe, is one which was not reasonably open to it.  It simply does not have the material or understanding of all the detail of the case to be able to make that determination.”

Jeremy Bamber is represented by Mark Newby of QualitySolicitors Jordans – https://www.qualitysolicitors.com/jordans/our-people/mark-newby

His Counsel are:

Joe Stone QC https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/barristers/joe-stone-qc  http://kbgchambers.co.uk/members-Exeter-Plymouth-Truro

Matt Stanbury https://gcnchambers.co.uk/barrister/matthew-stanbury/

https://www.qualitysolicitors.com/jordans/news/2020/06/jeremy-bamber-high-court-in-declining-disclosure-leaves-door-firmly-open-to-ccrc