Could I ask you Holly why you believe for a moment that Jeremy Bamber might be a miscarriage of justice when he has failed to bring anything to the table which could support his case?
Yes Matthew firstly I believe the evidence that convicted JB ie the silencer was fabricated. At trial Geoffrey Rivlin QC should have presented to the jury the very realistic possibility that this evidence, which formed the central plank of the prosecutions case, was contaminated either accidentally or deliberately. It was then for the jury to reject or accept this in light of all the other evidence heard. He failed to do this. Instead he confused and misled the jury by concocting some bizarre story/theory about SC using the silencer and returning it to the gun cupboard before committing suicide and that the blood sample was an intimate mix of June and NB's. No one in their right mind would buy into this.
As I am sure you know the trial was in 1986 and by 1989 Geoffrey Rivlin was a full-time judge. Perhaps after the WHF trial he accepted that his advocacy skills were not his major strength and fearful of letting down further clients he opted to become a judge.
Without wishing to mince my words Geoffrey Rivlin QC simply lacked the balls to take on Robert Boutflour in the witness box. Instead he was wishy washy with 'did you drip blood into the silencer' to which he replied 'No'. This had no impact on the jury whatsoever as evidenced by their deliberations/queries to the judge asking about the intimate mix of blood (June and NB's) and SC's blood being a "perfect match" to that found in the silencer. Nothing about contamination as Geoffrey Rivlin failed to take the bull by the horns. A sad day for British justice.
JB is now in the very unenviable position of trying to override fabricated evidence. It is too late in the day to claim contamination as this should have presented at trial and would not now be considered 'new' evidence.
Secondly much more is now known about the effects of maternal depression on infants (June suffered severe depression in 1959 as a result of adopting Sheila). This can lead to neglect of the child and a failure to form an 'attachment' with the primary care giver. Sheila was already at risk as a result of being adopted and it is now widely accepted that a psychology exists peculiar to adoptees especially those brought up in 'closed' adoptions. (Which could perhaps explain some of my idiosyncrasies
) Suicide is far more common amongst adoptees than their non-adopted peers. None of the psychiatrists at trial made reference to any of this.
Maternal depressionhttp://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/working_papers/wp8/The science of neglecthttp://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers/working_papers/wp12/Attachmenthttp://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/attachmentLong-term outcome in adoptionhttp://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/03_01_12.PDFExploring links between past adoption practices and suicidehttp://www-public.jcu.edu.au/news/archive/JCUPRD_045179