JB was questioned about the bible during his interviews. He was asked whether he had ever handled it and he said he may have done to hit June's small dog Crispy.
JB's trial transcript doesn't appear to have survived so I don't know what if anything he said about it at trial.
I don't recall reading anything from SC's psychiatrist re the bible but I've only read his WS's not TT.
There's no evidence SC or JB handled the bible. It's the only bloodstained exhibit where the bloodstain test results remain unknown. This is one of the many reasons I say the lawyers and judges were incompetent and negligent in that they all assumed, wrongly IMO, the blood originated from SC. The evidence points to June.
Put aside your theories and focus on Bambers. Focus on the people he persuaded to hear his manufactured version of events. Go back to the beginning and look at the times and dates of those people he slowly started to hook in with his lies.
Whether you like it or not Holly, Bamber was responsible for his 2002 appeal. His legal team were working for him. You can make all the excuses you like and blame his legal teams for failing to put forward certain points, same applies with the CCRC.
I recall when the CCRC referred Simon Hall's case back in 2009. There was a disputes between Campbell Malone and Michael Naughton. I was in the middle of it all, wrongly believing Hall was innocent. The dispute came up again at the COA in 2010. It was about the knife evidence, which the CCRC hadn't referred on.
Bottom line Holly, sometimes all is not as it seems. I'm not suggesting you are clueless btw but without Bamber being open, honest and as transparent as he expect all other parties to be, ultimately you are only working with part of the story.
"Private Eye in November 2009, made public that other evidence which could positively prove Simon Hall’s innocence was uncovered by the University of Bristol Innocence Project investigation. This relates to another burglary which occurred on the night of Joan Albert’s murder, just ten minutes away from where she lived.
"Crucially, students uncovered a statement by a witness, who did not give evidence at trial, who identified the murder weapon as similar, if not identical, to the one that had gone missing from the burgled house: it had the same colour handle, length of blade and rivets on the knife handle. Simon Hall, who has evidence that he was out all night with his friends on the night/morning of Joan Albert’s murder could not have committed the burglary and obtain the knife which could have been used to kill her.
"In addition, the schedule of unused material made reference to DNA profile(s) belonging to ‘more than one person’ that were found on the handle of the knife. This DNA evidence has never been disclosed, despite requests from Simon Hall’s original defence solicitor. It is our contention that if it incriminated Simon Hall the DNA profile(s) would have been disclosed and used at trial by the prosecution.
"However, within weeks of the University of Bristol Innocence Project highlighting the existence of this evidence, the Criminal Cases Review Commission announced that it was referring his case back to the Court of Appeal on grounds of the possible unreliability of the fibre evidence.
"But, the Criminal Cases Review Commission did not fully investigate the possible evidential value of the DNA profile(s) and the witness who identified the murder weapon prior to referring Mr Hall’s case.
"This undoubtedly diminished the possible impact that the evidence could have had on the appeal had it been fully explored. As such, although the evidence of the knife and burglary was included as a supplementary ground of appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, it is perhaps not surprising that it did not feature at all in Simon Hall’s appeal.
"The failure to fully investigate the DNA profile(s) and the identification of the murder weapon as stolen from the other burglary highlights the extent to which the criminal justice system is not concerned with innocence or guilt.
"The Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Court of Appeal generally only consider evidence that was not available or adduced at the time of the trial or in previous appeals. Under the existing system the evidence relating to the other burglary will not be able to be used in any subsequent applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission or feature in any future appeals.
"Until such time as the criminal justice system takes claims of innocence seriously and seeks the truth of whether alleged victims of wrongful convictions are innocent or not, it seems that the door is closed on the evidence which could exonerate Simon Hall entirely and potentially even lead to the conviction of the real perpetrator(s) of Joan Albert’s murder."
https://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2010/7432.htmlThe innocent project were wrong.
Michael Naughton was wrong.
The CCRC were wrong.
Tiernan Coyle was wrong.
I was wrong.
Private Eye were wrong
Ray Hollinswoth was wrong.
Many people were wrong.
Simon Hall was guilty. He wasn't involved in the Higham burglary because he was too busy with his mate elsewhere burgling Zenith. What many of us had presumed regarding the knife evidence was wrong. The knife found at the murder scene had not been stolen. It came from the kitchen drawer of Hall's victim.
And as I've said numerous times before, until such time that Michael Naughton and all those others who were conned admit to having been conned and go back and revise their public claims, Jeremy Bambers supporters and many other supporters of many other claims of innocence will be working on the misleading (factually wrong) statements of others.
I ask again what does Jeremy Bamber say about the bible? I'm not interested in hearing from those people he has persuaded to come up with theories relating to it. What did he say when he was facing a murder charge. What did he say during his trial. What did his defence team at trial put forward?
