Author Topic: JB's next CCRC submission/CoA hearing...  (Read 1134 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: JB's next CCRC submission/CoA hearing...
« Reply #30 on: January 09, 2018, 02:22:33 PM »
Why are the bloodstains on the bible unknown? 

Were the stains tested?  Did they reveal June's blood groupings?

Were the results withheld from the defence on the basis they revealed June's blood groupings which counters the story told by JM re MM placing a bible on SC's chest?

Why were the defence at trial and 2002 appeal hearing so inept?

Why were the judges at 2002 appeal hearing so biased?

Why was the bible destroyed?

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

Re: JB's next CCRC submission/CoA hearing...
« Reply #31 on: January 09, 2018, 02:34:47 PM »
With regard to the destroyed bible the CoA took a dim view of the fact that all exhibits had been destroyed:

165. In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives. It might have been necessary for this court to examine the circumstances in which this had happened. The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciating that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits. However, during argument it was agreed that the court could protect the appellant's position by making assumptions in his favour and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resolve precisely how this came about.

Instead of MT pursuing the open pages of the bible in an attempt to show they represented SC's state of mind with themes of 'blood guilt' would it not have been better to pursue the June theory and say ok it can't be proved but I'll take you up on your offer of making an assumption in JB's favour due to the fact the exhibit was destroyed?  This would surely then call into question the reliability of JM's testimony of MM placing the bible on SC's chest?
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 John

Re: JB's next CCRC submission/CoA hearing...
« Reply #32 on: January 09, 2018, 06:16:50 PM »
There's no limit to the number of times an appellant can appeal.  If the application meets the criteria it will be passed to CoA.  If the evidence is strong the conviction will be quashed.

That's the point Holly, there is nothing of any consequence. Appeal Courts don't make decisions based on hypotheses and wishful thinking.  The evidence clearly shows that Jeremy Bamber had the means, the motive and the opportunity to carry out that dreadful crime against his adoptive family. Nothing that has been revealed since has changed that fact.

We know that the crimescene in the master bedroom was manipulated in order to make it appear to be a murder suicide. As it stands, only one person knows the Bible's relevance to that crimescene and that person is Jeremy Bamber.  Blood stains and fingerprints could have been added after the killings for all anyone knows. The Bible issue is yet another blind alley.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2018, 06:32:42 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Caroline

Re: JB's next CCRC submission/CoA hearing...
« Reply #33 on: January 09, 2018, 07:13:40 PM »
Is there any expert evidence confirming the stains represent a handprint?

I don't need an expert to tell me something I can see for myself.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: JB's next CCRC submission/CoA hearing...
« Reply #34 on: January 09, 2018, 07:23:14 PM »
That's the point Holly, there is nothing of any consequence. Appeal Courts don't make decisions based on hypotheses and wishful thinking.  The evidence clearly shows that Jeremy Bamber had the means, the motive and the opportunity to carry out that dreadful crime against his adoptive family. Nothing that has been revealed since has changed that fact.

We know that the crimescene in the master bedroom was manipulated in order to make it appear to be a murder suicide. As it stands, only one person knows the Bible's relevance to that crimescene and that person is Jeremy Bamber.  Blood stains and fingerprints could have been added after the killings for all anyone knows. The Bible issue is yet another blind alley.

Except in this case they have done by assuming the bloodstains on the bible originate from SC.  If the bloodstains on the bible were tested and found to originate from SC where's the evidence?  Where are the bloodstain test results?  Such test results would be damning against JB.  So why withhold them?
« Last Edit: January 09, 2018, 07:28:08 PM by Holly Goodhead »
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

Re: JB's next CCRC submission/CoA hearing...
« Reply #35 on: January 09, 2018, 07:26:33 PM »
I don't need an expert to tell me something I can see for myself.

Are you able to confirm whether the handprint you see originates from SC or June? 

I ask the same question of David who also sees a handprint?  SC or June?

No point asking me as I don't see anything of significance in the bloodstains. 
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: JB's next CCRC submission/CoA hearing...
« Reply #36 on: January 09, 2018, 08:44:44 PM »
Are you able to confirm whether the handprint you see originates from SC or June? 

I ask the same question of David who also sees a handprint?  SC or June?

No point asking me as I don't see anything of significance in the bloodstains.

Having not been at the murder scene - no but I'm not interested in anything David repeats.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2018, 11:23:48 PM by John »

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: JB's next CCRC submission/CoA hearing...
« Reply #37 on: January 10, 2018, 01:38:53 PM »
Having not been at the murder scene - no but I'm not interested in anything David repeats.

Well it seems to me if you're right about a bloodstained handprint (palm) it can only mean 1 of 2 things:

- it originates from June
- it originates from SC but she must have washed prior to being found as all concerned said her hands were free of bloodstains including Dr Vanezis
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

Re: JB's next CCRC submission/CoA hearing...
« Reply #38 on: January 10, 2018, 01:44:29 PM »
I can't see a hand/palm print but imo any bloodstains originate from June.
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: JB's next CCRC submission/CoA hearing...
« Reply #39 on: January 10, 2018, 06:58:10 PM »
Well it seems to me if you're right about a bloodstained handprint (palm) it can only mean 1 of 2 things:

- it originates from June
- it originates from SC but she must have washed prior to being found as all concerned said her hands were free of bloodstains including Dr Vanezis


He seems to have rethought that issue when talking to CAL.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: JB's next CCRC submission/CoA hearing...
« Reply #40 on: January 11, 2018, 09:47:26 AM »
He seems to have rethought that issue when talking to CAL.

Remind me please. 

I gave a friend my copy of CAL and threw out the others. Waiting for the 'Final Analysis' by Prudence Winnalot.
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: JB's next CCRC submission/CoA hearing...
« Reply #41 on: January 11, 2018, 11:37:09 AM »
Remind me please. 

I gave a friend my copy of CAL and threw out the others. Waiting for the 'Final Analysis' by Prudence Winnalot.

He intimated that he may have seen her hands after washing and that he now thinks the stain on the nightdress is from finger marks.

Offline adam

Re: JB's next CCRC submission/CoA hearing...
« Reply #42 on: January 12, 2018, 11:06:38 AM »
I agree, the last CCRC referral and subsequent appeal consumed a lot of resources, I cannot see that happening again unless something significant is found.

There won't be any progress for Bamber in 2018. What will be interesting is what David does now.

He believes Bamber is guilty & was a hardcore guilter in 2015.

He changed stance in 2016 & didn't let the forum know. Then started quoting 5 year old posts from other posters who had been open about their stance changes. Together with goading me and SteveUK, knowing we are not moderators & as guilters not fiercely protected by the moderators.

When I exposed his stance change in 2017, he said he changed stance after realising it was possible for the relatives to fabricate the silencer. Which me and every other guilter has known since day one.  David & every other guilter also knows there is no evidence the relatives did this.

Should David continue to support Bamber even though everyone knows that he believes Bamber is guilty.  Or is a humiliating stance change now the only option ?

Offline steve_trousers

Re: JB's next CCRC submission/CoA hearing...
« Reply #43 on: January 13, 2018, 06:59:56 AM »
JB has long since exhausted every possible avenue open to him. Blood on the bible or any of the above won't be enough, 33 years later now and we're still waiting. Short of a perjury admission I can't see him proving his innocence in a court.

The best course of action is a full confession now, for some hope of seeing the light of day a la Harry Roberts in 20 years time.


Offline Myster

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2521
  • Total likes: 83
  • POTO at the RAH... BRILLIANT!
Re: JB's next CCRC submission/CoA hearing...
« Reply #44 on: January 13, 2018, 09:55:39 AM »
I don't need an expert to tell me something I can see for myself.
Well it seems to me if you're right about a bloodstained handprint (palm) it can only mean 1 of 2 things:

- it originates from June
- it originates from SC but she must have washed prior to being found as all concerned said her hands were free of bloodstains including Dr Vanezis

I can't see a hand/palm print but imo any bloodstains originate from June.

I think the print belongs to June as she was attempting to get out of bed and placed her bloodied right hand on the opened pages as she forced herself up after being shot and feeling at her neck wounds. Then after all the shooting was over JB placed it on Sheila to give the impression she was reading it prior to "committing suicide".  QED

According to CAL the bible was handed back to the relatives in 2002 or 2006?, or so I've read.
‘Somebody in this case is lying, and lying their heads off.’ Anthony Arlidge QC, closing speech at the Bamber trial, 22 October 1986