UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: Holly Goodhead on April 18, 2018, 02:05:39 PM
-
https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/documents/uploaded-documents/Doughty_Street_Chambers_-_Advising_on_potential_criminal_appeals_(June_2....pdf
-
Is this for David's "fresh evidence breakthrough?"
-
Is this for David's "fresh evidence breakthrough?"
No. The purpose of this thread is to show David is wrong with his interpretation of what constitutes fresh evidence.
David's so-called breakthrough has been referred to on the forums as 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. IMO there's nothing remotely forensic or evidential about it and it would struggle to break through a paper bag.
I will not reduce myself to David's level in betraying a confidence but of course it's always there as ammo in the stockpile if needed. I will say most of David's theories involve Dr Vanezis acting incompetently and/or negligently and/or perverting the course of justice. These theories include:
- David's forensic evidence breakthrough
- A recently (in relation to date of trial) emerged image of SC's foot containing what David considers are bloodstains which Dr Vanezis overlooked
- Images of victims sustaining defence wounds which Dr Vanezis overlooked
There's of course no evidence for this. Even if the images are authentic it is likely lay people are simply misinterpreting dried bloodstains. Dr Vanezis didn't view the victims at soc but saw soc images and obviously saw victims in person during autopsies. Prof Knight for the defence viewed soc images and autopsy images. Neither disagreed other than over the burn marks to NB's back. Therefore if David is correct Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight must be wrong. Both men have/had long careers with unblemished records and spent years studying and training. It really gets silly.
David will probably be thinking what makes me right about the QC's being wrong. Difference is pathologists are experts in a specific field based on scientific principles. QC's are simply advocates attempting to sell a narrative to 12 jurors about subject matters that, in the main, they've received little or no formal education/training in. Yes QC's hopefully understand the law. But they are not experts in pathology or ballistics or blood serology or DNA etc, etc. A QC needs to tease out what's relevant, sew together the strands to form a coherent narrative and pictures for jurors. IMO the scope for something going wrong is significant especially if the experts are sub-standard eg the generalists at FSS.
-
No. The purpose of this thread is to show David is wrong with his interpretation of what constitutes fresh evidence.
David's so-called breakthrough has been referred to on the forums as 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. IMO there's nothing remotely forensic or evidential about it and it would struggle to break through a paper bag.
I will not reduce myself to David's level in betraying a confidence but of course it's always there as ammo in the stockpile if needed. I will say most of David's theories involve Dr Vanezis acting incompetently and/or negligently and/or perverting the course of justice. These theories include:
- David's forensic evidence breakthrough
- A recently (in relation to date of trial) emerged image of SC's foot containing what David considers are bloodstains which Dr Vanezis overlooked
- Images of victims sustaining defence wounds which Dr Vanezis overlooked
There's of course no evidence for this. Even if the images are authentic it is likely lay people are simply misinterpreting dried bloodstains. Dr Vanezis didn't view the victims at soc but saw soc images and obviously saw victims in person during autopsies. Prof Knight for the defence viewed soc images and autopsy images. Neither disagreed other than over the burn marks to NB's back. Therefore if David is correct Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight must be wrong. Both men have/had long careers with unblemished records and spent years studying and training. It really gets silly.
David will probably be thinking what makes me right about the QC's being wrong. Difference is pathologists are experts in a specific field based on scientific principles. QC's are simply advocates attempting to sell a narrative to 12 jurors about subject matters that, in the main, they've received little or no formal education/training in. Yes QC's hopefully understand the law. But they are not experts in pathology or ballistics or blood serology or DNA etc, etc. A QC needs to tease out what's relevant, sew together the strands to form a coherent narrative and pictures for jurors. IMO the scope for something going wrong is significant especially if the experts are sub-standard eg the generalists at FSS.
Is he worth your confidences?
-
David I see a poster on IA by the name of Pussy Catty Galore has responded to your last post:
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2684
Anyway I digress. David re your interpretations of 'Fresh Evidence' the above link from Doughty Chambers re Criticism of Trial Lawyers:
What the grounds must show
- Errors, mistakes, omissions, even negligence alone will not be enough to succeed.
- The failings must go directly to issue
- Need to show how it affected:
- the proper presentation of defence case
- the ability to undermine the prosecution case
Seems to me there's plenty of scope to undermine "the cleverest of the clever" and your QC crush "secure a result like no others".
If criticism of trial lawyers (and appeal) wasn't a possibility it would make a mockery of the process/system.
-
David I see a poster on IA by the name of Pussy Catty Galore has responded to your last post:
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2684
Anyway I digress. David re your interpretations of 'Fresh Evidence' the above link from Doughty Chambers re Criticism of Trial Lawyers:
What the grounds must show
- Errors, mistakes, omissions, even negligence alone will not be enough to succeed.
- The failings must go directly to issue
- Need to show how it affected:
- the proper presentation of defence case
- the ability to undermine the prosecution case
Seems to me there's plenty of scope to undermine "the cleverest of the clever" and your QC crush "secure a result like no others".
If criticism of trial lawyers (and appeal) wasn't a possibility it would make a mockery of the process/system.
I think you posted this the other day re the IA forum. Why does it appear so important to you that David responds to you? He's a moron Holly! He showed his true colours not long after joining the blue forum. He was abusive to me then turned on Caroline and JaneJ.
He made a plank of himself regarding his "forensic evidence breakthrough" and that little nugget doesn't appear to have been missed by anyone.
-
No. The purpose of this thread is to show David is wrong with his interpretation of what constitutes fresh evidence.
David's so-called breakthrough has been referred to on the forums as 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. IMO there's nothing remotely forensic or evidential about it and it would struggle to break through a paper bag.
I will not reduce myself to David's level in betraying a confidence but of course it's always there as ammo in the stockpile if needed. I will say most of David's theories involve Dr Vanezis acting incompetently and/or negligently and/or perverting the course of justice. These theories include:
- David's forensic evidence breakthrough
- A recently (in relation to date of trial) emerged image of SC's foot containing what David considers are bloodstains which Dr Vanezis overlooked
- Images of victims sustaining defence wounds which Dr Vanezis overlooked
There's of course no evidence for this. Even if the images are authentic it is likely lay people are simply misinterpreting dried bloodstains. Dr Vanezis didn't view the victims at soc but saw soc images and obviously saw victims in person during autopsies. Prof Knight for the defence viewed soc images and autopsy images. Neither disagreed other than over the burn marks to NB's back. Therefore if David is correct Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight must be wrong. Both men have/had long careers with unblemished records and spent years studying and training. It really gets silly.
David will probably be thinking what makes me right about the QC's being wrong. Difference is pathologists are experts in a specific field based on scientific principles. QC's are simply advocates attempting to sell a narrative to 12 jurors about subject matters that, in the main, they've received little or no formal education/training in. Yes QC's hopefully understand the law. But they are not experts in pathology or ballistics or blood serology or DNA etc, etc. A QC needs to tease out what's relevant, sew together the strands to form a coherent narrative and pictures for jurors. IMO the scope for something going wrong is significant especially if the experts are sub-standard eg the generalists at FSS.
David aside, I think this is a strong post albeit the fact that it was Bamber who instructed his legal teams, and his legal teams advanced his arguememts in court.
I don't know how you can conclude as you do, that the fault lies with his said legal teams.
They are mere mortals like you and I Holly; Bamber needed a miracle.
-
I think you posted this the other day re the IA forum. Why does it appear so important to you that David responds to you? He's a moron Holly! He showed his true colours not long after joining the blue forum. He was abusive to me then turned on Caroline and JaneJ.
He made a plank of himself regarding his "forensic evidence breakthrough" and that little nugget doesn't appear to have been missed by anyone.
I get perverse pleasure out of teasing him 8(8-))
-
No. The purpose of this thread is to show David is wrong with his interpretation of what constitutes fresh evidence.
David's so-called breakthrough has been referred to on the forums as 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. IMO there's nothing remotely forensic or evidential about it and it would struggle to break through a paper bag.
I will not reduce myself to David's level in betraying a confidence but of course it's always there as ammo in the stockpile if needed. I will say most of David's theories involve Dr Vanezis acting incompetently and/or negligently and/or perverting the course of justice. These theories include:
- David's forensic evidence breakthrough
- A recently (in relation to date of trial) emerged image of SC's foot containing what David considers are bloodstains which Dr Vanezis overlooked
- Images of victims sustaining defence wounds which Dr Vanezis overlooked
There's of course no evidence for this. Even if the images are authentic it is likely lay people are simply misinterpreting dried bloodstains. Dr Vanezis didn't view the victims at soc but saw soc images and obviously saw victims in person during autopsies. Prof Knight for the defence viewed soc images and autopsy images. Neither disagreed other than over the burn marks to NB's back. Therefore if David is correct Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight must be wrong. Both men have/had long careers with unblemished records and spent years studying and training. It really gets silly.
David will probably be thinking what makes me right about the QC's being wrong. Difference is pathologists are experts in a specific field based on scientific principles. QC's are simply advocates attempting to sell a narrative to 12 jurors about subject matters that, in the main, they've received little or no formal education/training in. Yes QC's hopefully understand the law. But they are not experts in pathology or ballistics or blood serology or DNA etc, etc. A QC needs to tease out what's relevant, sew together the strands to form a coherent narrative and pictures for jurors. IMO the scope for something going wrong is significant especially if the experts are sub-standard eg the generalists at FSS.
An excellent post Holly. It is an uphill struggle to bring any new evidence before any Appeal Court. Such evidence if found has to be of such a standard that it is basically unchallengeable.
-
Is he worth your confidences?
I didn't reveal anything important. The fact he has revealed what he has shows I made the right decision.
-
I get perverse pleasure out of teasing him 8(8-))
Fair play
-
David I see a poster on IA by the name of Pussy Catty Galore has responded to your last post:
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2684
Anyway I digress. David re your interpretations of 'Fresh Evidence' the above link from Doughty Chambers re Criticism of Trial Lawyers:
What the grounds must show
- Errors, mistakes, omissions, even negligence alone will not be enough to succeed.
- The failings must go directly to issue
- Need to show how it affected:
- the proper presentation of defence case
- the ability to undermine the prosecution case
Seems to me there's plenty of scope to undermine "the cleverest of the clever" and your QC crush "secure a result like no others".
If criticism of trial lawyers (and appeal) wasn't a possibility it would make a mockery of the process/system.
Oh gee no one is ever going to guess who that poster is.... *%6^ &%^^ %77*
-
David aside, I think this is a strong post albeit the fact that it was Bamber who instructed his legal teams, and his legal teams advanced his arguememts in court.
I don't know how you can conclude as you do, that the fault lies with his said legal teams.
They are mere mortals like you and I Holly; Bamber needed a miracle.
During JB's police interviews he was represented by a local solicitor by the name of Bruce Bowler if I've remembered the name correctly. According to the various case related books when JB hooked up with Anji Greaves she decided he needed a high profile lawyer and turned to David Napley's firm: Kingsley Napley who you might recall represented several high profile clients during the 70's and 80's eg Jeremy Thorpe, Kevin Maxwell and Nick Leeson. Solicitor Paul Terzeon handled JB's case. JB wanted George Carmen QC to represent him at trial but apparently he didn't take on cases funded by legal aid so he ended up with Geoffrey Rivlin. Again according to the various books JB wanted Rivlin to argue the silencer was fabricated evidence but Rivlin thought it too far fetched and instead of repudiating the blood/silencer evidence he choreographed it into the defence strategy.
-
An excellent post Holly. It is an uphill struggle to bring any new evidence before any Appeal Court. Such evidence if found has to be of such a standard that it is basically unchallengeable.
Thanks. Yes totally agree and it's clear to see why the 2002 appeal ended up going nowhere.
-
Oh gee no one is ever going to guess who that poster is.... *%6^ &%^^ %77*
Ah, so you do get the obvious when you see it.
Are you going to respond to post #4?
-
During JB's police interviews he was represented by a local solicitor by the name of Bruce Bowler if I've remembered the name correctly. According to the various case related books when JB hooked up with Anji Greaves she decided he needed a high profile lawyer and turned to David Napley's firm: Kingsley Napley who you might recall represented several high profile clients during the 70's and 80's eg Jeremy Thorpe, Kevin Maxwell and Nick Leeson. Solicitor Paul Terzeon handled JB's case. JB wanted George Carmen QC to represent him at trial but apparently he didn't take on cases funded by legal aid so he ended up with Geoffrey Rivlin. Again according to the various books JB wanted Rivlin to argue the silencer was fabricated evidence but Rivlin thought it too far fetched and instead of repudiating the blood/silencer evidence he choreographed it into the defence strategy.
The fact that he wanted to argue fabrication at that stage just rings alarm bells. He knew it was fabricated because he knows he didn't use a silencer.
-
The fact that he wanted to argue fabrication at that stage just rings alarm bells. He knew it was fabricated because he knows he didn't use a silencer.
Could be. Or could be he handled the rifle circa 9.30pm 6th Aug sans silencer and 7.30am 7th Aug it was found upon SC's body sans silencer.
-
During JB's police interviews he was represented by a local solicitor by the name of Bruce Bowler if I've remembered the name correctly. According to the various case related books when JB hooked up with Anji Greaves she decided he needed a high profile lawyer and turned to David Napley's firm: Kingsley Napley who you might recall represented several high profile clients during the 70's and 80's eg Jeremy Thorpe, Kevin Maxwell and Nick Leeson. Solicitor Paul Terzeon handled JB's case. JB wanted George Carmen QC to represent him at trial but apparently he didn't take on cases funded by legal aid so he ended up with Geoffrey Rivlin. Again according to the various books JB wanted Rivlin to argue the silencer was fabricated evidence but Rivlin thought it too far fetched and instead of repudiating the blood/silencer evidence he choreographed it into the defence strategy.
The fact that he wanted to argue fabrication at that stage just rings alarm bells. He knew it was fabricated because he knows he didn't use a silencer.
I agree Caroline and this may have rung alarms bells with his defence team also?
Jeremy Bamber could have disagreed and stood his ground and insisted his defence team advance this argument but instead he and his supporters insist on blaming others. They are in denial.
"When JB hooked up with Anji Greeves she decided he needed a high profile lawyer"
"She decided" This again is typical behaviour of someone who is unable to take responsibility for their actions.
Just because it says it was Anji Greeves who decided, doesn't make it a fact. Anji Greeves was groomed by Bamber. She did his bidding.
People like Bamber mix up lies with truths and use unwitting victims to further their cause.
-
Could be. Or could be he handled the rifle circa 9.30pm 6th Aug sans silencer and 7.30am 7th Aug it was found upon SC's body sans silencer.
It was Bambers decision Re the sound moderator.
Why do you think he decided to not claim at his murder trial it was fabricated?
-
Denial http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/denial.htm
Repression http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/repression.htm
Going slightly off topic but I think it's relevant to this thread;
I came across a letter written by Simon Hall to me on 19th Feb 2014, (4 days before he was found dead). He never finished or sent the letter but it was found amongst his belongings.
Simon Hall wrote;
"This all seems so surreal at times and I'm struggling to get my head around the fact I am guilty. It's becoming clearer to me how deep in denial I was and also how far into the back of my mind I kept all of this.
"I've been reading more and more about denial and repression. How the mind will lock things away if they're too harrowing or too painful and how this happens because the personality wants to protect its own self image. You know all this though don't you?
Why did he write "you know all this though don't you?"
He claimed he'd been reading "more and more about denial and repression," but claims "you know all this though?"
I look forward to your reply on this Holly.
-
Are you going to respond to post #4?
"The main faults said to have been committed by defence lawyers, who have
not prepared cases adequately or presented cases fully in court, are failures
to use relevant, admissible and significant evidence which would have
supported defence cases, or to obtain such evidence in the first place. Since
such evidence was always available to the defence, it is generally not regarded
as ‘fresh evidence’ for the purposes of appeals. The Court of Appeal (Criminal
Division) CACD will only admit fresh evidence if it satisfies the criteria
set down in s. 23(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. This section requires
the Court ‘in considering whether to receive any evidence, to have regard
in particular to … whether the evidence would have been admissible in the
proceedings from which the appeal lies … and whether there is a reasonable
explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence in those proceedings.’
The main explanations for not adducing evidence that defence lawyers
could have obtained and/or used in earlier court proceedings is that they
were negligent, incompetent, indifferent or made poor judgments about
how to conduct their clients’ cases. Such allegations are frequently made
by those who believe themselves to have been wrongly convicted, but they
are very hard to substantiate. There appears to be an assumption that defence
lawyers are competent and do in practice carry out their work diligently, and
that decisions not to obtain or use evidence which might support defence
cases are made for carefully considered tactical reasons. If the alleged negligence
of trial lawyers becomes an issue in appeals, the lawyers concerned
may be called to give evidence, and will use this opportunity to defend
themselves."
Could be. Or could be he handled the rifle circa 9.30pm 6th Aug sans silencer and 7.30am 7th Aug it was found upon SC's body sans silencer.
The fact Jeremy naively put faith in Rivlins defence strategy speaks volumes IMO.
-
"The main faults said to have been committed by defence lawyers, who have
not prepared cases adequately or presented cases fully in court, are failures
to use relevant, admissible and significant evidence which would have
supported defence cases, or to obtain such evidence in the first place. Since
such evidence was always available to the defence, it is generally not regarded
as ‘fresh evidence’ for the purposes of appeals. The Court of Appeal (Criminal
Division) CACD will only admit fresh evidence if it satisfies the criteria
set down in s. 23(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. This section requires
the Court ‘in considering whether to receive any evidence, to have regard
in particular to … whether the evidence would have been admissible in the
proceedings from which the appeal lies … and whether there is a reasonable
explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence in those proceedings.’
The main explanations for not adducing evidence that defence lawyers
could have obtained and/or used in earlier court proceedings is that they
were negligent, incompetent, indifferent or made poor judgments about
how to conduct their clients’ cases. Such allegations are frequently made
by those who believe themselves to have been wrongly convicted, but they
are very hard to substantiate. There appears to be an assumption that defence
lawyers are competent and do in practice carry out their work diligently, and
that decisions not to obtain or use evidence which might support defence
cases are made for carefully considered tactical reasons. If the alleged negligence
of trial lawyers becomes an issue in appeals, the lawyers concerned
may be called to give evidence, and will use this opportunity to defend
themselves."
The fact Jeremy naively put faith in Rivlins defence strategy speaks volumes IMO.
For the umpteenth time, these are your psychological projections David.
Jeremy Bamber was far from naive. You only have to look at what he said to police when he was arrested for the caravan burglary. And how he told the prosecution it was for them to prove. Etc etc. Common sense will tell you he was calculated, deceptive and cunning and enjoyed toying with both the police and prosecution.
The fact you cannot see what he starring you in the face is because you are in denial and you are protecting your self image etc etc
It was Bamber who was "negligent, incompetent, indifferent and made poor judgments"
-
Could be. Or could be he handled the rifle circa 9.30pm 6th Aug sans silencer and 7.30am 7th Aug it was found upon SC's body sans silencer.
What about all what he told Julie Mugford?
The alledged telephone call from his father?
The way he attempted to manipulate the police officers at the crime scene? The alledged movement in the window? The alleged conversation his family had had round the dinner table that night?
We know a third party wasn't involved because Bamber ruled this out when he claimed his father had told him his sister had THE gun etc.
There are numerous aspects of this case to factor in when considering what you've written Holly.
-
What about all what he told Julie Mugford?
The alledged telephone call from his father?
The way he attempted to manipulate the police officers at the crime scene? The alledged movement in the window? The alleged conversation his family had had round the dinner table that night?
We know a third party wasn't involved because Bamber ruled this out when he claimed his father had told him his sister had THE gun etc.
There are numerous aspects of this case to factor in when considering what you've written Holly.
You can't rule out third party involvement but such involvement had to have been at the behest of Jeremy Bamber. What we can rule out is involvement by a third party unconnected to Jeremy Bamber.
-
You can't rule out third party involvement but such involvement had to have been at the behest of Jeremy Bamber. What we can rule out is involvement by a third party unconnected to Jeremy Bamber.
Are you referring to someone like Brett Collin's?
And if so, what involvement are you suggesting they had?
-
"The main faults said to have been committed by defence lawyers, who have
not prepared cases adequately or presented cases fully in court, are failures
to use relevant, admissible and significant evidence which would have
supported defence cases, or to obtain such evidence in the first place. Since
such evidence was always available to the defence, it is generally not regarded
as ‘fresh evidence’ for the purposes of appeals. The Court of Appeal (Criminal
Division) CACD will only admit fresh evidence if it satisfies the criteria
set down in s. 23(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. This section requires
the Court ‘in considering whether to receive any evidence, to have regard
in particular to … whether the evidence would have been admissible in the
proceedings from which the appeal lies … and whether there is a reasonable
explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence in those proceedings.’
The main explanations for not adducing evidence that defence lawyers
could have obtained and/or used in earlier court proceedings is that they
were negligent, incompetent, indifferent or made poor judgments about
how to conduct their clients’ cases. Such allegations are frequently made
by those who believe themselves to have been wrongly convicted, but they
are very hard to substantiate. There appears to be an assumption that defence
lawyers are competent and do in practice carry out their work diligently, and
that decisions not to obtain or use evidence which might support defence
cases are made for carefully considered tactical reasons. If the alleged negligence
of trial lawyers becomes an issue in appeals, the lawyers concerned
may be called to give evidence, and will use this opportunity to defend
themselves."
The fact Jeremy naively put faith in Rivlins defence strategy speaks volumes IMO.
Please provide the link.
Only barristers with considerable experience in appeals are in a position to give an opinion about the likely success or not of criticism of trial/appeal lawyers.
As I said the other day it's not the ability to read but to interpret and apply in meaningful ways.
I think I can see many ways in which it could work but I might be completely wrong as I appreciate my opinion is simply a lay persons opinion based on a lay persons interpretation and understanding.
-
It was Bambers decision Re the sound moderator.
Why do you think he decided to not claim at his murder trial it was fabricated?
I think he said enough with his 'that's for you to prove' or whatever the words were. Imagine him blurting out 'the silencer was fabricated' when Rivlin's strategy was completely different.
-
Denial http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/denial.htm
Repression http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/repression.htm
Going slightly off topic but I think it's relevant to this thread;
I came across a letter written by Simon Hall to me on 19th Feb 2014, (4 days before he was found dead). He never finished or sent the letter but it was found amongst his belongings.
Simon Hall wrote;
"This all seems so surreal at times and I'm struggling to get my head around the fact I am guilty. It's becoming clearer to me how deep in denial I was and also how far into the back of my mind I kept all of this.
"I've been reading more and more about denial and repression. How the mind will lock things away if they're too harrowing or too painful and how this happens because the personality wants to protect its own self image. You know all this though don't you?
Why did he write "you know all this though don't you?"
He claimed he'd been reading "more and more about denial and repression," but claims "you know all this though?"
I look forward to your reply on this Holly.
I wasn't privy to you communications so would have no idea.
-
Please provide the link.
Only barristers with considerable experience in appeals are in a position to give an opinion about the likely success or not of criticism of trial/appeal lawyers.
As I said the other day it's not the ability to read but to interpret and apply in meaningful ways.
I think I can see many ways in which it could work but I might be completely wrong as I appreciate my opinion is simply a lay persons opinion based on a lay persons interpretation and understanding.
Sounds like Simon Hall's representative to me, Dr Michael Naughton?
-
I think he said enough with his 'that's for you to prove' or whatever the words were. Imagine him blurting out 'the silencer was fabricated' when Rivlin's strategy was completely different.
Before Rivlen defended Bamber he would have sought his permission to go ahead with his strategy. If Bamber disagreed he would have told Rivlen. It really is that simple Holly.
You appear in denial over these points.
-
I wasn't privy to you communications so would have no idea.
You don't need to have been privy to any communication in order to answer the question.
You weren't privy to Jeremy Bambers communications with his legal teams but you seem to have an awful lot to say on the matter.
In fact you've even gone as far as taking sides (Bambers) and, according to recent forum posts, emailing his old barristers in order to give them a piece of your mind. Which further suggests you are emotionally involved, even if you are denying this to yourself.
-
You don't need to have been privy to any communication in order to answer the question.
You weren't privy to Jeremy Bambers communications with his legal teams but you seem to have an awful lot to say on the matter.
In fact you've even gone as far as taking sides (Bambers) and, according to recent forum posts, emailing his old barristers in order to give them a piece of your mind. Which further suggests you are emotionally involved, even if you are denying this to yourself.
Just a quickie as the BBQ and beer are calling.
Communications between a couple in an intimate relationship no know boundaries ie they could discuss anything and everything.
Communications between a lawyer and client can only cover certain parameters regarding the case.
I emailed MT QC shortly after meeting David who claims he met with MT QC and entered into email correspondence thereafter. If it's true David met and received emails from MT QC then it raise serious questions about client confidentiality and data protection. It's clear David and MT QC share the same views about the bible but both are oblivious to the fact they have no idea whose blood stained the pages as EP/FSS didn't disclose the results and JB's numpty lawyers at trial and defence didn't pursue. The bible has since been destroyed against protocol. This is the main reason I emailed MT QC. I didn't expect to receive a response as I have a good understanding of client confidentiality and data protection act/law. All emails were copied to another barrister.
I also forwarded emails from several experts which indicate the case against JB may well be fatally flawed. A case MT QC obviously presided over at appeal. No doubt much of it was painful reading for him. This was Dec 2016 and further developments are not looking good for the one who can "secure a result like no other".
-
Just a quickie as the BBQ and beer are calling.
Communications between a couple in an intimate relationship no know boundaries ie they could discuss anything and everything.
Communications between a lawyer and client can only cover certain parameters regarding the case.
I emailed MT QC shortly after meeting David who claims he met with MT QC and entered into email correspondence thereafter. If it's true David met and received emails from MT QC then it raise serious questions about client confidentiality and data protection. It's clear David and MT QC share the same views about the bible but both are oblivious to the fact they have no idea whose blood stained the pages as EP/FSS didn't disclose the results and JB's numpty lawyers at trial and defence didn't pursue. The bible has since been destroyed against protocol. This is the main reason I emailed MT QC. I didn't expect to receive a response as I have a good understanding of client confidentiality and data protection act/law. All emails were copied to another barrister.
I also forwarded emails from several experts which indicate the case against JB may well be fatally flawed. A case MT QC obviously presided over at appeal. No doubt much of it was painful reading for him. This was Dec 2016 and further developments are not looking good for the one who can "secure a result like no other".
You are making excuses Holly.
What kind of "intimate relationship" do you think we had following his confession to murder? Are you claiming you did not follow my posts on blue following the confession? Or posts made here?
You stated:
"Yes I feel for all Simon's supporters especially his adoptive family and Stephanie who I am sure all genuinely thought Simon innocent. I know I would feel devastated if proved wrong re JB or he admitted to being responsible.
I did ask myself the same q when I read this thread ie why now? I can only think it might have had something to do with change in status ie to open prison pending release 14/15? It's one hell of a secret to live with and I would imagine the burden was just too great.
Perhaps we should just allow a little more time for confirmation that Simon has been seen by prison mental health professionals and that his admission is deemed safe?
"Why did he start to go off his rocker having been transferred to an open prison with a view to moving on to a bail hostel and then release Feb 2015 I think? He had served some 10 years so why lose the plot when release was on the horizon?
Why did he confess to a burglary on the eve of the murders earlier on in the year? Is this confession linked to the above?
Just out of interest will his confession to the murder of Mrs Albert now change his eligibility for parole and release?
I too was initially surprised by the media seeing it as a non-event but when you think about it SH was found guilty in a court of law. The conviction was a bit controversial as it was the first time, I believe, a defendant was convicted pretty much on fibre evidence alone. In the absence of any other forensic evidence and SH's protests of innocence he was able to generate support for a potential MoJ from a small band of supporters. Yet most ie public and professionals alike believe SH to be where he should be so the fact he has confessed is to most unworthy of comment.
Now if something came to light to prove JB innocent or that his conviction is unsafe that would be a VERY BIG news story no doubt attracting global interest. It's the reverse of SH
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4548.msg186617.html#msg186617
You are deluded to state the following; "Communications between a couple in an intimate relationship no know boundaries ie they could discuss anything and everything" in response to the following post:
Denial http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/denial.htm
Repression http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/repression.htm
Going slightly off topic but I think it's relevant to this thread;
I came across a letter written by Simon Hall to me on 19th Feb 2014, (4 days before he was found dead). He never finished or sent the letter but it was found amongst his belongings.
Simon Hall wrote;
"This all seems so surreal at times and I'm struggling to get my head around the fact I am guilty. It's becoming clearer to me how deep in denial I was and also how far into the back of my mind I kept all of this.
"I've been reading more and more about denial and repression. How the mind will lock things away if they're too harrowing or too painful and how this happens because the personality wants to protect its own self image. You know all this though don't you?
Why did he write "you know all this though don't you?"
He claimed he'd been reading "more and more about denial and repression," but claims "you know all this though?"
I look forward to your reply on this Holly.
And you appear to have a poor memory
Hi Mat. Yes I agree it is a good overview.
I don't for one minute think SH thought late SH guilty pre confession but personally I wouldn't allow myself to become emotionally involved with someone behind bars if I hadn't been emotionally involved with the person pre prison. To my mind it's different where there's an existing relationship and he/she decides to stand by his/her man/woman. Where no such relationship exists I think the chances are it's pretty dysfunctional. How can you get to know someone to the extent you enter into marriage when the person had had his/her liberty removed? I would want to check out the wedding tackle before tying the knot.
Imagine if like this couple you find you're sexually incompatible eg too soft/gentle or too firm/rough you might find upon consummating the marriage you're then filing for divorce:
http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4969900/Doctor-s-indecent-assault-conviction-CONSENSUAL-sex.html&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjO_tvImfDWAhUnCMAKHZZnD20QFggLMAA&usg=AOvVaw27Te53ipyzke4MNSvB3mhv
There seems to be some misunderstanding here. I 100% don't believe SH ever thought Hall guilty before he confessed. What I struggle to understand is why anyone would want to become emotionally involved with a prisoner to the extent they marry behind bars?
The difference being I support JB as I believe he's a victim of a MoJ. I'm not emotionally involved with him in any shape or form.
What % of teenage boys spend time in youth offender institutions for violence?
From what I've read I don't believe SH knew Hall pre-prison. They were acquainted through work. There's knowing someone and there's knowing someone?
How can you genuinely love someone you barely know?
I don't believe you can compare JM's relationship with JB and that of SH's with Hall. It's not a question of whether or not the men are guilty or innocent or what JM/SH believe(d) but the emotional involvement.
JM dated JB for some 18 months and they did all the normal couple stuff. Hall was behind bars so this was not possible. I don't believe letters, phone calls and prison visits are a substitute.
Not only do you appear to have a poor memory you appear full of contradictions and seem to make things up in order to suit your current position. You aren't consistent. Your appear to move the goalposts when it suits you.
"Communications between a lawyer and client can only cover certain parameters regarding the case."
By stating what you have if adds further weight to my opinion that your behaviour is irrational.
You are deluded if that is how you perceive a murder trial. A psychological assessment was carried out on Bamber on behalf of his defence team. I'd call that fairly intimate wouldn't you.
Practically no part of Bambers life would have been out of bounds. Remember his defence team would have had copies of the intimate case files.
I'd say charges of mass murder of his family (including two sleeping little boys) was a big deal, wouldn't you?
Maybe the "fatal flaws" to which you refer are you own?
I've no idea what you are talking about with regards David and Michael Turner QC but we've come to learn, as you yourself have pointed out, that David is not to be trusted.
Why are you referring to "client confidentiality?" And who are you suggesting has broken this?
You appear to be making sweeping assertions you really know nothing about, but you do not appear concerned by this and carry on regardless.
You stated the following:
I get perverse pleasure out of teasing him 8(8-))
Seems more than "perverse pleasure" to me.
Didn't you recently offer to pay for future forensic testing?
When shown you're wrong you either go into denial or ignore it. Or you become abusive and/or you use emoticons and gifs to goad.
I recognise this in your posts Holly
Incidentally, why would you "feel devastated" if you came to learn you were wrong regarding Bamber? Sounds very much to me like you've become emotionally involved, as has been pointed out to you numerous times before.
Btw can you post a link to where Michael Turner QC has claimed he "passionately believes Jeremy Bamber is innocent." Ta
-
Please provide the link.
Only barristers with considerable experience in appeals are in a position to give an opinion about the likely success or not of criticism of trial/appeal lawyers.
As I said the other day it's not the ability to read but to interpret and apply in meaningful ways.
I think I can see many ways in which it could work but I might be completely wrong as I appreciate my opinion is simply a lay persons opinion based on a lay persons interpretation and understanding.
David don't forget the link please.
-
Please provide the link.
Only barristers with considerable experience in appeals are in a position to give an opinion about the likely success or not of criticism of trial/appeal lawyers.
As I said the other day it's not the ability to read but to interpret and apply in meaningful ways.
I think I can see many ways in which it could work but I might be completely wrong as I appreciate my opinion is simply a lay persons opinion based on a lay persons interpretation and understanding.
Its from a book about the CCRC. I cant give a link nor can I attach a copy as it is too large. It has various authors, but that section I pasted is by "Dr Andrew Green" Who teaches law at the university of Sheffield.
Here is quote taken from an appeal that took place in 2008
"The Court has in the past accepted that section 23 may apply to expert evidence, and we would not wish to circumscribe the operation of a statutory rule enacted to protect defendants against the risk of wrongful conviction. But it seems unlikely that the section was framed with expert evidence prominently in mind. The requirement in subsection (2)(a) that the evidence should appear to be capable of belief applies more aptly to factual evidence than to expert opinion, which may or may not be acceptable or persuasive but which is unlikely to be thought to be incapable of belief in any ordinary sense. The giving of a reasonable explanation for failure to adduce the evidence before the jury again applies more aptly to factual evidence of which a party was unaware, or could not adduce, than to expert evidence, since if one expert is unavailable to testify at a trial a party would ordinarily be expect to call another unless circumstances prevented this. Expert witnesses, although inevitably varying in standing and experience, are interchangeable in a way in which factual witnesses are not. It would clearly subvert the trial possess if a defendant, convicted at trial, were to be generally free to mount on appeal an expert case which, if sound, could and should have been advanced before the jury. If it is said that the only expert witness in an established field whose opinion supports a certain defence was unavailable to testify at the trial, that may be thought (save in unusual circumstances) to reflect on the acceptability of that opinion."
The power to receive fresh evidence is discretionary, so it depends in part who the judges are and probably what mood they are in that day.
-
Just a quickie as the BBQ and beer are calling.
Communications between a couple in an intimate relationship no know boundaries ie they could discuss anything and everything.
Communications between a lawyer and client can only cover certain parameters regarding the case.
I emailed MT QC shortly after meeting David who claims he met with MT QC and entered into email correspondence thereafter. If it's true David met and received emails from MT QC then it raise serious questions about client confidentiality and data protection.
Considering that his client wrote to me asking me to visit him and even included in the letter "Say Jeremy told you to go" and the Bar code allows discussion with other parties so long as he "is satisfied that it is in the lay client's best interests"
Nothing wrong what so ever.
It's clear David and MT QC share the same views about the bible but both are oblivious to the fact they have no idea whose blood stained the pages as EP/FSS didn't disclose the results and JB's numpty lawyers at trial and defence didn't pursue. The bible has since been destroyed against protocol. This is the main reason I emailed MT QC. I didn't expect to receive a response as I have a good understanding of client confidentiality and data protection act/law. All emails were copied to another barrister.
I also forwarded emails from several experts which indicate the case against JB may well be fatally flawed. A case MT QC obviously presided over at appeal. No doubt much of it was painful reading for him. This was Dec 2016 and further developments are not looking good for the one who can "secure a result like no other".
Work has been carried out, things are moving forward. What do you think all the fundraising was for that started in October of 2016? No point making condemnatory statements claiming those involved are "oblivious" when you are not even acquainted with the most recent developments yourself.
Your uncooperative attitude and scornful grumblings are totally uncalled for. Not long ago the blue forum was taken over by guiltards with just Mike using magic spirit pogs to try and solve the case. Wile you were stuck here buried under Scipio's relentless wrath without much hope in sight.
What do you have to complain about? Nothing!
-
Its from a book about the CCRC. I cant give a link nor can I attach a copy as it is too large. It has various authors, but that section I pasted is by "Dr Andrew Green" Who teaches law at the university of Sheffield.
Here is quote taken from an appeal that took place in 2008
"The Court has in the past accepted that section 23 may apply to expert evidence, and we would not wish to circumscribe the operation of a statutory rule enacted to protect defendants against the risk of wrongful conviction. But it seems unlikely that the section was framed with expert evidence prominently in mind. The requirement in subsection (2)(a) that the evidence should appear to be capable of belief applies more aptly to factual evidence than to expert opinion, which may or may not be acceptable or persuasive but which is unlikely to be thought to be incapable of belief in any ordinary sense. The giving of a reasonable explanation for failure to adduce the evidence before the jury again applies more aptly to factual evidence of which a party was unaware, or could not adduce, than to expert evidence, since if one expert is unavailable to testify at a trial a party would ordinarily be expect to call another unless circumstances prevented this. Expert witnesses, although inevitably varying in standing and experience, are interchangeable in a way in which factual witnesses are not. It would clearly subvert the trial possess if a defendant, convicted at trial, were to be generally free to mount on appeal an expert case which, if sound, could and should have been advanced before the jury. If it is said that the only expert witness in an established field whose opinion supports a certain defence was unavailable to testify at the trial, that may be thought (save in unusual circumstances) to reflect on the acceptability of that opinion."
The power to receive fresh evidence is discretionary, so it depends in part who the judges are and probably what mood they are in that day.
I can - it's edited by Michael Naughton! "The Criminal Cases Review Commision - Hope for the innocent"
The very same Michael Naughton who represented Simon Hall around the time he confessed in 2013
Dr Michael Naughton told how he received a letter last week from Hall's wife Stephanie telling him her husband had admitted the murder and asking him to close the case down. There was no letter btw
"We are not shocked - we are alive to the possibility that a lot of people who say they are innocent are not.
"We are looking for needles in haystacks in our project.
"It is quite sad in terms of the waste of resources and the distress to (Mrs Albert's) family members when it turns out like this."
And the "thousands of hours" Bristol law students have spent on the Hall case, said Dr Naughton, could easily have been spent on "somebody else's case".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-23630287
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nS8WDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=The+main+explanations+for+not+adducing+evidence+that+defence+lawyers+could+have+obtained+and/or+used+in+earlier+court+proceedings+is+that+they+were+negligent,+incompetent,+indifferent+or+made+poor+judgments+about+how+to+conduct+their+clients’+cases.+Such+allegations+are+frequently+made+by+those+who+believe+themselves+to+have+been+wrongly+convicted,+but+they+are+very+hard+to+substantiate.+There+appears+to+be+an+assumption+that+defence&source=bl&ots=zexUImZfzs&sig=V84R4qtY-8n03JE7mXm-0JT2Ccg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi3y9PH58raAhWNxaYKHbIXDRgQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=The%20main%20explanations%20for%20not%20adducing%20evidence%20that%20defence%20lawyers%20could%20have%20obtained%20and%2For%20used%20in%20earlier%20court%20proceedings%20is%20that%20they%20were%20negligent%2C%20incompetent%2C%20indifferent%20or%20made%20poor%20judgments%20about%20how%20to%20conduct%20their%20clients’%20cases.%20Such%20allegations%20are%20frequently%20made%20by%20those%20who%20believe%20themselves%20to%20have%20been%20wrongly%20convicted%2C%20but%20they%20are%20very%20hard%20to%20substantiate.%20There%20appears%20to%20be%20an%20assumption%20that%20defence&f=false
Michael Naughton Simon Hall case https://insidetime.org/the-criminal-cases-review-commission-hope-for-the-innocent/
Andrew Green https://innocent.org.uk/about/
http://www.thejusticegap.com/2016/04/investigative-competence-ccrc-innocence-projects/
I have emails from Andrew Green somewhere
28th Septempber 2010
"I hope you appreciate that Michael Naughton from the Bristol Innocence Project will be speaking at the meeting, and that it is an open, public meeting, with a large number of people present. Details available at http://www.unitedagainstinjustice.org.uk/MOJ%2010%20day/2010flyer.html
I don't want to take sides in any dispute that doesn't concern me directly, but you do seem to have alienated a lot of people who would otherwise be willing to give support to Simon, simply because they want to see an innocent person exonerated. I don't want trouble at our meeting any more than you do, so we'll do all we can to avoid it.
Andrew
INNOCENT
challenging miscarriages of justice since 1993
"Alienation The act of cutting off or interfering with an individual's relationships with others http://outofthefog.website/top-100-trait-blog/2015/10/21/alienation
United Against Injustice - Billy Middleton, Kevin Craigie to name but a few
https://insidetime.org/its-yesterday-once-more/ (read the comments under each article)
https://insidetime.org/heaven-from-hell/
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=367.0
-
Its from a book about the CCRC. I cant give a link nor can I attach a copy as it is too large. It has various authors, but that section I pasted is by "Dr Andrew Green" Who teaches law at the university of Sheffield.
Here is quote taken from an appeal that took place in 2008
"The Court has in the past accepted that section 23 may apply to expert evidence, and we would not wish to circumscribe the operation of a statutory rule enacted to protect defendants against the risk of wrongful conviction. But it seems unlikely that the section was framed with expert evidence prominently in mind. The requirement in subsection (2)(a) that the evidence should appear to be capable of belief applies more aptly to factual evidence than to expert opinion, which may or may not be acceptable or persuasive but which is unlikely to be thought to be incapable of belief in any ordinary sense. The giving of a reasonable explanation for failure to adduce the evidence before the jury again applies more aptly to factual evidence of which a party was unaware, or could not adduce, than to expert evidence, since if one expert is unavailable to testify at a trial a party would ordinarily be expect to call another unless circumstances prevented this. Expert witnesses, although inevitably varying in standing and experience, are interchangeable in a way in which factual witnesses are not. It would clearly subvert the trial possess if a defendant, convicted at trial, were to be generally free to mount on appeal an expert case which, if sound, could and should have been advanced before the jury. If it is said that the only expert witness in an established field whose opinion supports a certain defence was unavailable to testify at the trial, that may be thought (save in unusual circumstances) to reflect on the acceptability of that opinion."
The power to receive fresh evidence is discretionary, so it depends in part who the judges are and probably what mood they are in that day.
"What NJEC plans to do
We would assess cases for their eligibility. This depends on two matters:
- That the person seeking our help (the applicant) has been convicted through use of the joint enterprise law (see above) rather than a similar law such as conspiracy or any other law. The words 'joint enterprise' or 'common purpose' should appear in the trial summing up, applied specifically to the applicant as a defendant.
- That the person claims to be innocent of the crime of which she or he is convicted, under the law as it stands at the time of the conviction.
This means that we would be prepared to help people who may be guilty of a less serious offence than the offence of which they were convicted (such as theft rather than murder).
We will consider cases where the law may have been applied unjustly, such as those in which prosecution evidence appears to be clearly inadequate.
But we would not be able to help people who are guilty of a serious crime according to the law, however unfair we may think the law is: for example, people who play a minor part in a crime but know that the crime is going to take place.
We would next assess whether we can offer assistance with the applicant's case. We may either work on the case ourselves, or we may refer it to another organisation if we think that organisation could do more to help than we can. We may continue to work on a case together with another organisation, such as a university student innocence project.
We would keep all applicants informed about the progress of their case and we would seek their approval, suggestions and permission before undertaking any important work or referring their case to another organisation. By 'applicants' we mean applicants and their families or other supporters acting with the consent of the applicants.
How quickly we can work and respond to applications depends on how many applications we receive and how many competent people we can find to join our team. We cannot make any promises about how quickly we will respond, and if we cannot handle cases for practical reasons, we will tell people honestly what the problem is.
All applications, supporting material and any fresh material we obtain will be treated as confidential, unless we have obtained permission from applicants to share the material or use it for agreed publicity purposes. But it should be noted that none of the casework team are qualified lawyers and none of our communications are legally privileged.
This is a free service. We will not ask applicants, their families or their supporters for money to support the work we do. If we find additional sources of help, such as experts and lawyers, we will aim to find these at no cost to applicants. We believe that innocent victims of miscarriages of justice should not have to pay to put right the mistakes of the criminal justice system. In our experience, casework takes a lot of time but does not need much money. We hope to obtain some help from sympathetic organisations.
Who we are
Andrew Green
Andrew has 20 years' experience of analysing miscarriage of justice cases, many of them involving joint enterprise. He works mainly with INNOCENT on appeals and applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, with some successes. He is Chairperson of United Against Injustice and Deputy Director of the University of Sheffield School of Law Innocence Project. His PhD was awarded for a thesis on the construction of wrongful convictions. He is the author of Power Resistance Knowledge: the Epistemology of Policing.
Ange Drozdowski
Ange has been involved with United Against Injustice for over 8 years, and has been part of the planning and running of the National UAI days on the last five occasions, including chairing the meeting in Birmingham in 2011. She is an active member of Innocent and Yorkshire and Humberside against Injustice and will consult with members privately if they are nervous of speaking in a group. Ange is a qualified plumber and plumbing instructor and taught a practical plumbing course in HMP Ranby for two and a half years.
Ashleigh Towers
Ashleigh campaigns on behalf of her brother Jordan Towers, who was wrongly convicted under Joint Enterprise for murder. For the past 5 years she has worked hard to progress Jordan's case. She is part of team that has secured a Judicial Review in the near future for Jordan, which hopefully will lead to an appeal against his conviction. Ashleigh has experience in working closely with solicitors, advising them and attending meetings. She has experience with CCRC applications and extensive knowledge of Joint Enterprise and Human Rights law. Ashleigh lobbied the Government on the yourGov website in relation to Joint Enterprise which played a crucial part in Lord Ouseley raising the subject with Parliament, and which played a significant role in the Parliamentary Justice Committee's decision to inquire into the Joint Enterprise doctrine. Ashleigh also has experience in advising others on various subjects in relation to the law where a miscarriage of justice has occurred and will give any case she works on as much hard work and dedication as she has given her brother's and others alike.
Audra McKenna
Currently campaigning on behalf of her son Wesley Porter wrongly convicted under joint enterprise for murder. Audra has experience liaising with solicitors and communicating with appropriate contacts for advice and information on various specialist aspects of a given case. What she doesn't know herself, she seeks to find out, and is never afraid to draw on the knowledge of others in the team. The compassion and commitment she shows in her 9-5 job is evident in the work she does for others suffering injustice. Founder member of AIM (Against Injustice Merseyside) and represents it at United Against Injustice (UAI).
Billy Middleton
Billy founded the Wrongly Accused Person organisation in 2009 following his own experience with the justice system. He has been reviewing cases ever since and where appropriate helping people highlight their plights to in a way capable of changing public opinion with some success. Many are Joint Enterprise case. He has assisted with appeals and applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission liaising with solicitors, expert witnesses and the Media.
Sandra Lean
Sandra Lean has 9 years experience of investigating and researching wrongful convictions. She works with individuals and families, as well as professionals in the legal and voluntary sectors, assisting with appeals and applications to the S/CCRC. A PhD candidate, funded by the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research (SCCJR) at Stirling University, she is about to submit a thesis on the gap between public perceptions of the CJS and its actual operations. She has a specialist paralegal qualification in criminal law and is the author of No Smoke; The Shocking Truth about British Justice. Sandra is a trustee of the charity organisation Wrongly Accused Person.
Each member of the team will take on a case load that she or he thinks is practical. Casework will be discussed regularly with other team members, who will support and learn from each other. If a case is taken on by a member who appears to be less experienced than others, that case will be reviewed to the same standard as any other case through these sharing and consultation arrangements.
Research
We intend to use the information contained in the cases for research purposes, to be carried out by members of the casework team. From the outset the team will include scholars (see above) who have a track record of qualitative research into miscarriage of justice cases, and who, like the rest of the team, have personal experience of involvement in joint enterprise cases that have led to the conviction of innocent people.
We will only use cases for research purposes with the clear permission of those whose cases they are. We will only identify the persons concerned if they wish us to do so.
We will use the information from the cases to discover how the use of the joint enterprise law by police, prosecutors and judges leads to the conviction of innocent people. We will aim to explain how the law has been developed with the result that it now has these effects, exposing the root cause of the problems we find in the cases.
We hope to attract funding for our research, which may be carried out by individuals who are members of our casework team and in conjunction with an established university department.
Our research results will be made freely available for everyone to use. We hope that they will be used to change how the general public view joint enterprise prosecutions, through media coverage that is more sympathetic to the victims' point of view.
We hope that judges and prosecutors will become more aware of how easily injustice can occur in joint enterprise prosecutions, and take steps to prevent injustices. As a result, the police will have to work harder and better to find out who really is guilty.
We hope that when politicians change the law, they will be better informed about the dangers of the present law, and make better law as a consequence. http://www.mojuk.org.uk/WMAI/jointenterprisemark2.
I have strong doubts regarding Dr Andrew Green's judgement http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=89.msg766#msg766
and I concur with what John states here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=89.msg863#msg863
"To members of INNOCENT
This is a reminder that our next meeting will be on Wednesday, 7 March, starting at 7.00 pm, in the usual venue the Royal Oak pub in Union Street, Oldham OL1 1EN.
Members of INNOCENT have noticed that another meeting has been arranged in Manchester on the same date and at the same time by Gloria Morrison and Janet Cunliffe, who are members of JENGBA (Joint Enterprise Not Guilty By Association). This is the first of a series of meetings arranged to coincide with ours. JENGBA has contacted members of INNOCENT and urged them to attend their meetings rather than ours.
We have asked Gloria and Janet to change the date of their meetings so that INNOCENT members can attend meetings of both organisations if they wish, and do not feel forced into choosing one organisation over another. But they have flatly refused to change their meetings to different dates.
We have been saddened by the discovery that this is a deliberately hostile act. We would like to ignore this childish behaviour and we hope that all INNOCENT members will do so. JENGBA has an excellent record of publicising the terrible and frightening way in which the joint enterprise law is being used to convict innocent people, and we would not wish to prevent members of INNOCENT whose cases involve the use of joint enterprise law from participating in JENGBA's activities. The aims of INNOCENT and the aims of JENGBA are completely compatible.
But although JENGBA offers to help people with their cases, in practice it does not help anyone, and we know of no cases which it has helped to progress in any way. INNOCENT, on the other hand, has a 19 year record of helping with cases, some of which have progressed to successful appeals and the release of innocent prisoners.
Members of INNOCENT know that our meetings are of key importance for our casework. In meetings we exchange information, are brought up to date on cases, clarify the details of what has happened in them, and give support to families. It is essential that members attend meetings if they possibly can. We cannot guarantee to continue supporting cases if the families or supporters concerned stop attending our meetings.
We look forward to seeing you all on 7 March and on subsequent regular meetings of INNOCENT.
Andrew Green
Secretary
INNOCENT / <innocent@uk2.net>
challenging miscarriages of justice since 1993
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=8119.0
-
Considering that his client wrote to me asking me to visit him and even included in the letter "Say Jeremy told you to go" and the Bar code allows discussion with other parties so long as he "is satisfied that it is in the lay client's best interests"
Nothing wrong what so ever.
Work has been carried out, things are moving forward. What do you think all the fundraising was for that started in October of 2016? No point making condemnatory statements claiming those involved are "oblivious" when you are not even acquainted with the most recent developments yourself.
Your uncooperative attitude and scornful grumblings are totally uncalled for. Not long ago the blue forum was taken over by guiltards with just Mike using magic spirit pogs to try and solve the case. Wile you were stuck here buried under Scipio's relentless wrath without much hope in sight.
What do you have to complain about? Nothing!
You are being groomed by Jeremy Bamber David! https://neuroinstincts.com/grooming-embarking-on-a-romantic-relationship-with-a-psychopath/
"Grooming is the art of covertly holding influence 24/7, 365 days a year over another person’s thoughts and emotions. It’s the art of making people pay complete, total, and focused attention on meeting YOUR needs in some Machiavellian, devious, egocentric way.
http://flyingmonkeysdenied.com/2016/05/25/narcissists-and-sociopaths-groom-victims-to-enable-abuse/
-
Its from a book about the CCRC. I cant give a link nor can I attach a copy as it is too large. It has various authors, but that section I pasted is by "Dr Andrew Green" Who teaches law at the university of Sheffield.
Here is quote taken from an appeal that took place in 2008
"The Court has in the past accepted that section 23 may apply to expert evidence, and we would not wish to circumscribe the operation of a statutory rule enacted to protect defendants against the risk of wrongful conviction. But it seems unlikely that the section was framed with expert evidence prominently in mind. The requirement in subsection (2)(a) that the evidence should appear to be capable of belief applies more aptly to factual evidence than to expert opinion, which may or may not be acceptable or persuasive but which is unlikely to be thought to be incapable of belief in any ordinary sense. The giving of a reasonable explanation for failure to adduce the evidence before the jury again applies more aptly to factual evidence of which a party was unaware, or could not adduce, than to expert evidence, since if one expert is unavailable to testify at a trial a party would ordinarily be expect to call another unless circumstances prevented this. Expert witnesses, although inevitably varying in standing and experience, are interchangeable in a way in which factual witnesses are not. It would clearly subvert the trial possess if a defendant, convicted at trial, were to be generally free to mount on appeal an expert case which, if sound, could and should have been advanced before the jury. If it is said that the only expert witness in an established field whose opinion supports a certain defence was unavailable to testify at the trial, that may be thought (save in unusual circumstances) to reflect on the acceptability of that opinion."
The power to receive fresh evidence is discretionary, so it depends in part who the judges are and probably what mood they are in that .day.
National Training Conference on Investigating Miscarriages of Justice 2018
"Mark Newby, solicitor advocate, possibly the UK's foremost criminal appeal lawyer and a long term active supporter of innocence projects MJRCs, will talk about his recent successes and the technicalities of putting together an appeal case. Andrew Green, is the Director of the Miscarriages of Justice Review Centre at the University of Sheffield. Andrew also runs INNOCENT and has a long history of working with the families and victims of Miscarriages of Justice.
http://events.manchester.ac.uk/event/event:v7f-jdftuiyz-ea4yoz/national-training-conference-on-investigating-miscarriages-of-justice-2018
-
"What NJEC plans to do
We would assess cases for their eligibility. This depends on two matters:
- That the person seeking our help (the applicant) has been convicted through use of the joint enterprise law (see above) rather than a similar law such as conspiracy or any other law. The words 'joint enterprise' or 'common purpose' should appear in the trial summing up, applied specifically to the applicant as a defendant.
- That the person claims to be innocent of the crime of which she or he is convicted, under the law as it stands at the time of the conviction.
This means that we would be prepared to help people who may be guilty of a less serious offence than the offence of which they were convicted (such as theft rather than murder).
We will consider cases where the law may have been applied unjustly, such as those in which prosecution evidence appears to be clearly inadequate.
But we would not be able to help people who are guilty of a serious crime according to the law, however unfair we may think the law is: for example, people who play a minor part in a crime but know that the crime is going to take place.
We would next assess whether we can offer assistance with the applicant's case. We may either work on the case ourselves, or we may refer it to another organisation if we think that organisation could do more to help than we can. We may continue to work on a case together with another organisation, such as a university student innocence project.
We would keep all applicants informed about the progress of their case and we would seek their approval, suggestions and permission before undertaking any important work or referring their case to another organisation. By 'applicants' we mean applicants and their families or other supporters acting with the consent of the applicants.
How quickly we can work and respond to applications depends on how many applications we receive and how many competent people we can find to join our team. We cannot make any promises about how quickly we will respond, and if we cannot handle cases for practical reasons, we will tell people honestly what the problem is.
All applications, supporting material and any fresh material we obtain will be treated as confidential, unless we have obtained permission from applicants to share the material or use it for agreed publicity purposes. But it should be noted that none of the casework team are qualified lawyers and none of our communications are legally privileged.
This is a free service. We will not ask applicants, their families or their supporters for money to support the work we do. If we find additional sources of help, such as experts and lawyers, we will aim to find these at no cost to applicants. We believe that innocent victims of miscarriages of justice should not have to pay to put right the mistakes of the criminal justice system. In our experience, casework takes a lot of time but does not need much money. We hope to obtain some help from sympathetic organisations.
Who we are
Andrew Green
Andrew has 20 years' experience of analysing miscarriage of justice cases, many of them involving joint enterprise. He works mainly with INNOCENT on appeals and applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, with some successes. He is Chairperson of United Against Injustice and Deputy Director of the University of Sheffield School of Law Innocence Project. His PhD was awarded for a thesis on the construction of wrongful convictions. He is the author of Power Resistance Knowledge: the Epistemology of Policing.
Ange Drozdowski
Ange has been involved with United Against Injustice for over 8 years, and has been part of the planning and running of the National UAI days on the last five occasions, including chairing the meeting in Birmingham in 2011. She is an active member of Innocent and Yorkshire and Humberside against Injustice and will consult with members privately if they are nervous of speaking in a group. Ange is a qualified plumber and plumbing instructor and taught a practical plumbing course in HMP Ranby for two and a half years.
Ashleigh Towers
Ashleigh campaigns on behalf of her brother Jordan Towers, who was wrongly convicted under Joint Enterprise for murder. For the past 5 years she has worked hard to progress Jordan's case. She is part of team that has secured a Judicial Review in the near future for Jordan, which hopefully will lead to an appeal against his conviction. Ashleigh has experience in working closely with solicitors, advising them and attending meetings. She has experience with CCRC applications and extensive knowledge of Joint Enterprise and Human Rights law. Ashleigh lobbied the Government on the yourGov website in relation to Joint Enterprise which played a crucial part in Lord Ouseley raising the subject with Parliament, and which played a significant role in the Parliamentary Justice Committee's decision to inquire into the Joint Enterprise doctrine. Ashleigh also has experience in advising others on various subjects in relation to the law where a miscarriage of justice has occurred and will give any case she works on as much hard work and dedication as she has given her brother's and others alike.
Audra McKenna
Currently campaigning on behalf of her son Wesley Porter wrongly convicted under joint enterprise for murder. Audra has experience liaising with solicitors and communicating with appropriate contacts for advice and information on various specialist aspects of a given case. What she doesn't know herself, she seeks to find out, and is never afraid to draw on the knowledge of others in the team. The compassion and commitment she shows in her 9-5 job is evident in the work she does for others suffering injustice. Founder member of AIM (Against Injustice Merseyside) and represents it at United Against Injustice (UAI).
Billy Middleton
Billy founded the Wrongly Accused Person organisation in 2009 following his own experience with the justice system. He has been reviewing cases ever since and where appropriate helping people highlight their plights to in a way capable of changing public opinion with some success. Many are Joint Enterprise case. He has assisted with appeals and applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission liaising with solicitors, expert witnesses and the Media.
Sandra Lean
Sandra Lean has 9 years experience of investigating and researching wrongful convictions. She works with individuals and families, as well as professionals in the legal and voluntary sectors, assisting with appeals and applications to the S/CCRC. A PhD candidate, funded by the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research (SCCJR) at Stirling University, she is about to submit a thesis on the gap between public perceptions of the CJS and its actual operations. She has a specialist paralegal qualification in criminal law and is the author of No Smoke; The Shocking Truth about British Justice. Sandra is a trustee of the charity organisation Wrongly Accused Person.
Each member of the team will take on a case load that she or he thinks is practical. Casework will be discussed regularly with other team members, who will support and learn from each other. If a case is taken on by a member who appears to be less experienced than others, that case will be reviewed to the same standard as any other case through these sharing and consultation arrangements.
Research
We intend to use the information contained in the cases for research purposes, to be carried out by members of the casework team. From the outset the team will include scholars (see above) who have a track record of qualitative research into miscarriage of justice cases, and who, like the rest of the team, have personal experience of involvement in joint enterprise cases that have led to the conviction of innocent people.
We will only use cases for research purposes with the clear permission of those whose cases they are. We will only identify the persons concerned if they wish us to do so.
We will use the information from the cases to discover how the use of the joint enterprise law by police, prosecutors and judges leads to the conviction of innocent people. We will aim to explain how the law has been developed with the result that it now has these effects, exposing the root cause of the problems we find in the cases.
We hope to attract funding for our research, which may be carried out by individuals who are members of our casework team and in conjunction with an established university department.
Our research results will be made freely available for everyone to use. We hope that they will be used to change how the general public view joint enterprise prosecutions, through media coverage that is more sympathetic to the victims' point of view.
We hope that judges and prosecutors will become more aware of how easily injustice can occur in joint enterprise prosecutions, and take steps to prevent injustices. As a result, the police will have to work harder and better to find out who really is guilty.
We hope that when politicians change the law, they will be better informed about the dangers of the present law, and make better law as a consequence. http://www.mojuk.org.uk/WMAI/jointenterprisemark2.
I have strong doubts regarding Dr Andrew Green's judgement http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=89.msg766#msg766
and I concur with what John states here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=89.msg863#msg863
"To members of INNOCENT
This is a reminder that our next meeting will be on Wednesday, 7 March, starting at 7.00 pm, in the usual venue the Royal Oak pub in Union Street, Oldham OL1 1EN.
Members of INNOCENT have noticed that another meeting has been arranged in Manchester on the same date and at the same time by Gloria Morrison and Janet Cunliffe, who are members of JENGBA (Joint Enterprise Not Guilty By Association). This is the first of a series of meetings arranged to coincide with ours. JENGBA has contacted members of INNOCENT and urged them to attend their meetings rather than ours.
We have asked Gloria and Janet to change the date of their meetings so that INNOCENT members can attend meetings of both organisations if they wish, and do not feel forced into choosing one organisation over another. But they have flatly refused to change their meetings to different dates.
We have been saddened by the discovery that this is a deliberately hostile act. We would like to ignore this childish behaviour and we hope that all INNOCENT members will do so. JENGBA has an excellent record of publicising the terrible and frightening way in which the joint enterprise law is being used to convict innocent people, and we would not wish to prevent members of INNOCENT whose cases involve the use of joint enterprise law from participating in JENGBA's activities. The aims of INNOCENT and the aims of JENGBA are completely compatible.
But although JENGBA offers to help people with their cases, in practice it does not help anyone, and we know of no cases which it has helped to progress in any way. INNOCENT, on the other hand, has a 19 year record of helping with cases, some of which have progressed to successful appeals and the release of innocent prisoners.
Members of INNOCENT know that our meetings are of key importance for our casework. In meetings we exchange information, are brought up to date on cases, clarify the details of what has happened in them, and give support to families. It is essential that members attend meetings if they possibly can. We cannot guarantee to continue supporting cases if the families or supporters concerned stop attending our meetings.
We look forward to seeing you all on 7 March and on subsequent regular meetings of INNOCENT.
Andrew Green
Secretary
INNOCENT / <innocent@uk2.net>
challenging miscarriages of justice since 1993
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=8119.0
I forgot to add Trudi Benjamin http://www.unitedagainstinjustice.com
and Michelle Bates https://mobile.twitter.com/uainjustice/status/721660711789834241
to the contributors of United Against Injustice, no doubt carrying on from where people like Billy Middleton and co left off.
-
Considering that his client wrote to me asking me to visit him and even included in the letter "Say Jeremy told you to go" and the Bar code allows discussion with other parties so long as he "is satisfied that it is in the lay client's best interests"
Nothing wrong what so ever.
You received a letter from JB and posted it up on Blue. JB asked you to send your so-called forensic evidence breakthrough (feb) to his lawyers.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7566.msg397617.html#msg397617
When we met you claimed you dropped your feb off at MT QC's chambers and by chance you met him outside on a cigarette break. According to you the pair of you struck up a conversation which then extended to exchanging emails until MT QC stopped responding.
Your claims of a chance meeting with MT QC sound remarkably reminiscent of PH claiming he had a chance meeting with the late Ed Lawson QC.
Work has been carried out, things are moving forward. What do you think all the fundraising was for that started in October of 2016? No point making condemnatory statements claiming those involved are "oblivious" when you are not even acquainted with the most recent developments yourself.
Your uncooperative attitude and scornful grumblings are totally uncalled for. Not long ago the blue forum was taken over by guiltards with just Mike using magic spirit pogs to try and solve the case. Wile you were stuck here buried under Scipio's relentless wrath without much hope in sight.
What do you have to complain about? Nothing!
I don't care how much money has been thrown at it or who's involved I maintain:
- There's nothing remotely forensic about it
- It contains nothing of evidential value
- It wouldn't break through a paper bag
I said as much when we met face to face. After our meeting you emailed me further info and I can't recall exactly what I said without checking back, which I can't be bothered to do, but I said something to appease you just to keep you quiet.
You even told me you had tracked down Geoffrey Rivlin at his home address and asked my opinion as to whether you should drop off your feb to him at his home address. I advised against. It was at this point I was glad our meeting was at a busy public place.
So now I'm not just "catty", "nasty" and "horrible" towards MT QC but I also have "an uncooperative attitude" towards you/feb and my "scornful grumblings" are totally uncalled for.
David in case it has escaped your attention Blue and Red are debating forums. The fact we both share the same view that JB is innocent is about where the similarities end. I don't share your views on your feb and most other aspects of the case. In fact I don't share the views held by many 'supporters' incl posters on Blue, CT, Andrew Hunter, Eric Allison and MT QC. I don't even share the same views as JB. No doubt they don't share my views. Who cares? The only people capable of changing JB's fate are 3 appeal court judges. Maybe they will be blown away by your feb so why worry yourself what I think?
-
You received a letter from JB and posted it up on Blue. JB asked you to send your so-called forensic evidence breakthrough (feb) to his lawyers.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7566.msg397617.html#msg397617
When we met you claimed you dropped your feb off at MT QC's chambers and by chance you met him outside on a cigarette break. According to you the pair of you struck up a conversation which then extended to exchanging emails until MT QC stopped responding.
Your claims of a chance meeting with MT QC sound remarkably reminiscent of PH claiming he had a chance meeting with the late Ed Lawson QC.
I don't care how much money has been thrown at it or who's involved I maintain:
- There's nothing remotely forensic about it
- It contains nothing of evidential value
- It wouldn't break through a paper bag
I said as much when we met face to face. After our meeting you emailed me further info and I can't recall exactly what I said without checking back, which I can't be bothered to do, but I said something to appease you just to keep you quiet.
You even told me you had tracked down Geoffrey Rivlin at his home address and asked my opinion as to whether you should drop off your feb to him at his home address. I advised against. It was at this point I was glad our meeting was at a busy public place.
So now I'm not just "catty", "nasty" and "horrible" towards MT QC but I also have "an uncooperative attitude" towards you/feb and my "scornful grumblings" are totally uncalled for.
David in case it has escaped your attention Blue and Red are debating forums. The fact we both share the same view that JB is innocent is about where the similarities end. I don't share your views on your feb and most other aspects of the case. In fact I don't share the views held by many 'supporters' incl posters on Blue, CT, Andrew Hunter, Eric Allison and MT QC. I don't even share the same views as JB. No doubt they don't share my views. Who cares? The only people capable of changing JB's fate are 3 appeal court judges. Maybe they will be blown away by your feb so why worry yourself what I think?
Did Jezza tell you that he told David to drop his "feb" off to his lawyers?
And why was David going to drop his "Feb" off to GR QC?
Do you think Andrew Hunter is behind this or Bamber? Or is this all of David's making?
David reminds me of a young Mike Tesco; "handing the sealed envelope over... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8088.msg457554#msg457554
What a plank!
David really should have listened to his Dad and gone to the papers when he had a chance to make himself some pocket money; as he claimed when he first joined blue.
Apparently he's not happy because this morning someone on blue removed a cartoon he'd done of Essex police.
-
Did Jezza tell you that he told David to drop his "feb" off to his lawyers?
And why was David going to drop his "Feb" off to GR QC?
Do you think Andrew Hunter is behind this or Bamber? Or is this all of David's making?
David reminds me of a young Mike Tesco; "handing the sealed envelope over... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8088.msg457554#msg457554
I've never discussed David's so called feb with JB.
The letter David posted on Blue from JB makes clear JB asked David to send his feb to MT QC. There are no original docs involved so David could just send it via the post or even email it. No need for a fanfare and grandstanding. Why even mention it in the first place if you don't want it placed under the microscope? The whole thing is a nonsense and sideshow.
-
Its from a book about the CCRC. I cant give a link nor can I attach a copy as it is too large. It has various authors, but that section I pasted is by "Dr Andrew Green" Who teaches law at the university of Sheffield.
Here is quote taken from an appeal that took place in 2008
"The Court has in the past accepted that section 23 may apply to expert evidence, and we would not wish to circumscribe the operation of a statutory rule enacted to protect defendants against the risk of wrongful conviction. But it seems unlikely that the section was framed with expert evidence prominently in mind. The requirement in subsection (2)(a) that the evidence should appear to be capable of belief applies more aptly to factual evidence than to expert opinion, which may or may not be acceptable or persuasive but which is unlikely to be thought to be incapable of belief in any ordinary sense. The giving of a reasonable explanation for failure to adduce the evidence before the jury again applies more aptly to factual evidence of which a party was unaware, or could not adduce, than to expert evidence, since if one expert is unavailable to testify at a trial a party would ordinarily be expect to call another unless circumstances prevented this. Expert witnesses, although inevitably varying in standing and experience, are interchangeable in a way in which factual witnesses are not. It would clearly subvert the trial possess if a defendant, convicted at trial, were to be generally free to mount on appeal an expert case which, if sound, could and should have been advanced before the jury. If it is said that the only expert witness in an established field whose opinion supports a certain defence was unavailable to testify at the trial, that may be thought (save in unusual circumstances) to reflect on the acceptability of that opinion."
The power to receive fresh evidence is discretionary, so it depends in part who the judges are and probably what mood they are in that day.
Thanks.
Personally I think those best placed to determine what constitutes 'fresh evidence' and whether criticism of trial/appeal lawyers could feature are practitioners with decades of experience in the appeal courts.
Academics are usually big on theory and short on practice.
The idea the likes of us could do any more than guess is fanciful IMO.
-
Considering that his client wrote to me asking me to visit him and even included in the letter "Say Jeremy told you to go" and the Bar code allows discussion with other parties so long as he "is satisfied that it is in the lay client's best interests"
Nothing wrong what so ever.
Work has been carried out, things are moving forward. What do you think all the fundraising was for that started in October of 2016? No point making condemnatory statements claiming those involved are "oblivious" when you are not even acquainted with the most recent developments yourself.
Your uncooperative attitude and scornful grumblings are totally uncalled for. Not long ago the blue forum was taken over by guiltards with just Mike using magic spirit pogs to try and solve the case. Wile you were stuck here buried under Scipio's relentless wrath without much hope in sight.
What do you have to complain about? Nothing!
It's all hot air David. Bamber will never receive another review of his case let alone a referral to the court of appeal but if it makes you happy thinking it then dream on.
-
You received a letter from JB and posted it up on Blue. JB asked you to send your so-called forensic evidence breakthrough (feb) to his lawyers.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7566.msg397617.html#msg397617
When we met you claimed you dropped your feb off at MT QC's chambers and by chance you met him outside on a cigarette break. According to you the pair of you struck up a conversation which then extended to exchanging emails until MT QC stopped responding.
Your claims of a chance meeting with MT QC sound remarkably reminiscent of PH claiming he had a chance meeting with the late Ed Lawson QC.
I don't care how much money has been thrown at it or who's involved I maintain:
- There's nothing remotely forensic about it
- It contains nothing of evidential value
- It wouldn't break through a paper bag
I said as much when we met face to face. After our meeting you emailed me further info and I can't recall exactly what I said without checking back, which I can't be bothered to do, but I said something to appease you just to keep you quiet.
You even told me you had tracked down Geoffrey Rivlin at his home address and asked my opinion as to whether you should drop off your feb to him at his home address. I advised against. It was at this point I was glad our meeting was at a busy public place.
So now I'm not just "catty", "nasty" and "horrible" towards MT QC but I also have "an uncooperative attitude" towards you/feb and my "scornful grumblings" are totally uncalled for.
David in case it has escaped your attention Blue and Red are debating forums. The fact we both share the same view that JB is innocent is about where the similarities end. I don't share your views on your feb and most other aspects of the case. In fact I don't share the views held by many 'supporters' incl posters on Blue, CT, Andrew Hunter, Eric Allison and MT QC. I don't even share the same views as JB. No doubt they don't share my views. Who cares? The only people capable of changing JB's fate are 3 appeal court judges. Maybe they will be blown away by your feb so why worry yourself what I think?
I told you it was about the palm print didn't I? The fact that Jeremy Bamber was the FIRST to suggest it was/is a palm print makes the (so called) FEB utterly redundant. It's not a break-though - it's not even a peekaboo!
-
I told you it was about the palm print didn't I? The fact that Jeremy Bamber was the FIRST to suggest it was/is a palm print makes the (so called) FEB utterly redundant. It's not a break-though - it's not even a peekaboo!
Well you didn't tell me personally but you did post to this effect when David announced his so-called FEB. You identified what you thought was a palm print back in 2013. I'm not even sure I can see a palm print. To my eyes it just looks like a splodge. To my mind it's akin to looking at clouds and different people come up with different ideas about what they can see ie visual perception.
When/where did JB first say he thought it was a palm print? What if anything are you alluding to?
I go on the surrounding evidence and to my mind it all points to June not SC:
June
- June was religious to the point the CoA described her interest as obsessive
- June attended weekly bible classes and the evidence suggests she had a good understanding of the contents of the bible
- The bible belonged to June and was kept in/on her bedside cabinet
- A fingerprint examination of the bible revealed the only identifiable prints belonging to June
- June sustained a gsw to her right arm (carrying arm if right handed)
- Pathologist said June's hands were bloodstained
- Bible was found in an area where June had been post gsw's evidenced by her blood trail on carpet and socks
SC
- No evidence SC was particularly religious and/or made a habit of reading/referring to bible. If she was why not take her own bible to WHF?
- None of SC's fingerprints identified on bible
- According to EP and pathologist SC's palms were uncontaminated with blood
-----------
All bloodstained exhibits were collected, documented and sent to FSS for testing. The bible was given the exhibit number DRH/44 however no one seems to know whose blood stained the pages. The bible has since been destroyed against protocol.
The bible featured in JM's testimony whereby she stated MM placed on SC's chest.
If nothing else IMO it shows how negligent the trial and appeal lawyers were in not chasing down the blood stain test results.
I think all the evidence points to June reaching for her bible in her hour of need and walking around the bed with it dropping it as she started losing consciousness.
-
Well you didn't tell me personally but you did post to this effect when David announced his so-called FEB. You identified what you thought was a palm print back in 2013. I'm not even sure I can see a palm print. To my eyes it just looks like a splodge. To my mind it's akin to looking at clouds and different people come up with different ideas about what they can see ie visual perception.
When/where did JB first say he thought it was a palm print? What if anything are you alluding to?
I go on the surrounding evidence and to my mind it all points to June not SC:
June
- June was religious to the point the CoA described her interest as obsessive
- June attended weekly bible classes and the evidence suggests she had a good understanding of the contents of the bible
- The bible belonged to June and was kept in/on her bedside cabinet
- A fingerprint examination of the bible revealed the only identifiable prints belonging to June
- June sustained a gsw to her right arm (carrying arm if right handed)
- Pathologist said June's hands were bloodstained
- Bible was found in an area where June had been post gsw's evidenced by her blood trail on carpet and socks
SC
- No evidence SC was particularly religious and/or made a habit of reading/referring to bible. If she was why not take her own bible to WHF?
- None of SC's fingerprints identified on bible
- According to EP and pathologist SC's palms were uncontaminated with blood
-----------
All bloodstained exhibits were collected, documented and sent to FSS for testing. The bible was given the exhibit number DRH/44 however no one seems to know whose blood stained the pages. The bible has since been destroyed against protocol.
The bible featured in JM's testimony whereby she stated MM placed on SC's chest.
If nothing else IMO it shows how negligent the trial and appeal lawyers were in not chasing down the blood stain test results.
I think all the evidence points to June reaching for her bible in her hour of need and walking around the bed with it dropping it as she started losing consciousness.
"In her hour of need" because you perceive June to have been a deeply religious women, you think she would have reached for her bible?
Sounds to me like you've watched far too many movies. How was the bible going to help her?
Flight or flight; faced with her psychopathic son, she reaches for her bible on the bedside cabinet? I don think so. Too far fetched.
-
Not sure why June's bible would be on Nevill's side of the bed.
-
"In her hour of need" because you perceive June to have been a deeply religious women, you think she would have reached for her bible?
Sounds to me like you've watched far too many movies. How was the bible going to help her?
Flight or flight; faced with her psychopathic son, she reaches for her bible on the bedside cabinet? I don think so. Too far fetched.
I'm assuming you have a better explanation Stephanie that ticks all that is known in terms of forensics and pathological evidence? Please explain your scenario of how the bible ended up where it was photographed matching it with the facts.
-
Not sure why June's bible would be on Nevill's side of the bed.
Please provide your scenario of how it arrived where it was photographed matching known facts eg forensics and pathological.
-
David "Catty" is calling...
Please provide your scenario as I've posted above and requested of Adam and Stephanie. Thanks.
-
Please provide your scenario of how it arrived where it was photographed matching known facts eg forensics and pathological.
Bamber put it there.
-
Bamber put it there.
Thanks Adam.
-
Bamber put it there.
For what purpose?
And whose blood stained the pages? Why was it the only blood stained exhibit where the bloodstain results are unknown? How did the bible become blood stained?
-
For what purpose?
And whose blood stained the pages? Why was it the only blood stained exhibit where the bloodstain results are unknown? How did the bible become blood stained?
You've been told this over and over!
To stage the crime scene in order to make it suggest Sheila was a complete and utter raving lunatic who'd had a schizophrenic outburst, murdered her family, laid down read the bible then finished herself off.
The blood was most probably from SC, again as has been pointed out to you numerous times before.
Disordered individuals have a tendency to make out their victims are crazy. Bamber thought he'd get away with "the perfect murder" (as he told JM). He failed, and in the process stitched himself up! 8((()*/
-
You've been told this over and over!
To stage the crime scene in order to make it suggest Sheila was a complete and utter raving lunatic who'd had a schizophrenic outburst, murdered her family, laid down read the bible then finished herself off.
The blood was most probably from SC, again as has been pointed out to you numerous times before.
Can you provide the links where I've been told this over and over?
As requested can you match the forensics and pathological evidence with the bible?
Do you believe like Caroline and David the bloodstains represent a palm print?
-
You've been told this over and over!
To stage the crime scene in order to make it suggest Sheila was a complete and utter raving lunatic who'd had a schizophrenic outburst, murdered her family, laid down read the bible then finished herself off.
The blood was most probably from SC, again as has been pointed out to you numerous times before.
Disordered individuals have a tendency to make out their victims are crazy. Bamber thought he'd get away with "the perfect murder" (as he told JM). He failed, and in the process stitched himself up! 8((()*/
You say the blood was most probably from SC but why wasn't it tested? Or if it was tested why does noone seem to know the results? All other blood stained exhibits were examined and results produced as per Dr Lincoln's letter.
-
Posters are reminded to stay on topic. Thanks.
-
You say the blood was most probably from SC but why wasn't it tested? Or if it was tested why does noone seem to know the results? All other blood stained exhibits were examined and results produced as per Dr Lincoln's letter.
I think you know the answers to your questions but trying to prove your point and not be wrong, is more important to you than holding your hands up and admitting defeat.
Posters are reminded to stay on topic. Thanks.
And this proves my point!
-
I think you know the answers to your questions but trying to prove your point and not be wrong, is more important to you than holding your hands up and admitting defeat.
And this proves my point!
I'm asking you and others to provide scenarios for the bible based on known facts ie forensics and pathology. You say I've been told over and over. I've asked you to link me to the posts.
-
Well you didn't tell me personally but you did post to this effect when David announced his so-called FEB. You identified what you thought was a palm print back in 2013. I'm not even sure I can see a palm print. To my eyes it just looks like a splodge. To my mind it's akin to looking at clouds and different people come up with different ideas about what they can see ie visual perception.
When/where did JB first say he thought it was a palm print? What if anything are you alluding to?
I go on the surrounding evidence and to my mind it all points to June not SC:
June
- June was religious to the point the CoA described her interest as obsessive
- June attended weekly bible classes and the evidence suggests she had a good understanding of the contents of the bible
- The bible belonged to June and was kept in/on her bedside cabinet
- A fingerprint examination of the bible revealed the only identifiable prints belonging to June
- June sustained a gsw to her right arm (carrying arm if right handed)
- Pathologist said June's hands were bloodstained
- Bible was found in an area where June had been post gsw's evidenced by her blood trail on carpet and socks
SC
- No evidence SC was particularly religious and/or made a habit of reading/referring to bible. If she was why not take her own bible to WHF?
- None of SC's fingerprints identified on bible
- According to EP and pathologist SC's palms were uncontaminated with blood
-----------
All bloodstained exhibits were collected, documented and sent to FSS for testing. The bible was given the exhibit number DRH/44 however no one seems to know whose blood stained the pages. The bible has since been destroyed against protocol.
The bible featured in JM's testimony whereby she stated MM placed on SC's chest.
If nothing else IMO it shows how negligent the trial and appeal lawyers were in not chasing down the blood stain test results.
I think all the evidence points to June reaching for her bible in her hour of need and walking around the bed with it dropping it as she started losing consciousness.
I didn't mean I just told you personally, I told everyone - I worked it out. I would have to check when he first mentioned it but it was in response to me telling him that the stain couldn't have come from the floor/carpet because it's on the wrong page. I don't think either Sheila or June picked up the bible, I think Jeremy simply thought it would add something to the staging and it worked.
-
I'm asking you and others to provide scenarios for the bible based on known facts ie forensics and pathology. You say I've been told over and over. I've asked you to link me to the posts.
I have mentioned many times that Jeremy used it for staging purposes. I think that he initially placed it on her body, palm on the bile and fingers on the night dress, it would explain both stains. I think he probably thought it looked too staged or it just didn't fit with the rifle being there also so he discarded it to the floor.
-
I have mentioned many times that Jeremy used it for staging purposes. I think that he initially placed it on her body, palm on the bile and fingers on the night dress, it would explain both stains. I think he probably thought it looked too staged or it just didn't fit with the rifle being there also so he discarded it to the floor.
Julie's WS does say -
'Sheila had lay down on the bed and shot herself under the orders of Mathew who then put a bible on her chest.'
-----------
Julie's WS is correct if the bible was intially put on Sheila's chest.
Bamber then took the bible off Sheila's chest, correctly realising it looked too implausible in that location. He just didn't bother telling Julie he later did this.
Bamber doing this is a simple explanation to explain two pieces of forensic evidence on the bible & nightdress.
-
I have mentioned many times that Jeremy used it for staging purposes. I think that he initially placed it on her body, palm on the bible and fingers on the nightdress, it would explain both stains. I think he probably thought it looked too staged or it just didn't fit with the rifle being there also so he discarded it to the floor.
-
I didn't mean I just told you personally, I told everyone - I worked it out. I would have to check when he first mentioned it but it was in response to me telling him that the stain couldn't have come from the floor/carpet because it's on the wrong page. I don't think either Sheila or June picked up the bible, I think Jeremy simply thought it would add something to the staging and it worked.
It wasn't part of the prosecution case against JB at trial other than JM's claims MM placed on SC's chest. But there was no expert evidence choreographing the bible into soc. If anything the defence seemed to use it against SC with Prof Knight offering up past examples of suicides involving bibles.
-
I have mentioned many times that Jeremy used it for staging purposes. I think that he initially placed it on her body, palm on the bile and fingers on the night dress, it would explain both stains. I think he probably thought it looked too staged or it just didn't fit with the rifle being there also so he discarded it to the floor.
As I've said previously I can't see a palm print or any discernible image.
The expert evidence at trial from Dr Vanezis (and police officers) was that SC's hands were free from bloodstains. Assuming this is correct are you suggesting JB placed SC's hand in blood from her gsw's and then transferred her palm to the bible and fingerprints to her nightdress? If so this would not remove all traces of blood unless he wiped clean her hand?
There's no reliable soc image for SC's found position, rifle and bible.
-
Just thought I guess SC could have put her hand on her 1st gsw but this doesn't account for the fact expert evidence at trial said her hands/fingers were uncontaminated with blood other than blood on her wrist.
-
As I've said previously I can't see a palm print or any discernible image.
That's because you have the visual perception ability of a coconut.
"Visual perception refers to the brain's ability to make sense of what the eyes see. This is not the same as visual acuity which refers to how clearly a person sees (for example “20/20 vision”). A person can have 20/20 vision and still have problems with visual perceptual processing"
Anyway I have made requests in the last few days to admin to have my account here removed. For some reason its still here. Why?
-
Just thought I guess SC could have put her hand on her 1st gsw but this doesn't account for the fact expert evidence at trial said her hands/fingers were uncontaminated with blood other than blood on her wrist.
Although it's not what Venezis stated in his written notes.
-
As I've said previously I can't see a palm print or any discernible image.
The expert evidence at trial from Dr Vanezis (and police officers) was that SC's hands were free from bloodstains. Assuming this is correct are you suggesting JB placed SC's hand in blood from her gsw's and then transferred her palm to the bible and fingerprints to her nightdress? If so this would not remove all traces of blood unless he wiped clean her hand?
There's no reliable soc image for SC's found position, rifle and bible.
What does Jeremy Bamber say about the bible?
-
You received a letter from JB and posted it up on Blue. JB asked you to send your so-called forensic evidence breakthrough (feb) to his lawyers.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7566.msg397617.html#msg397617
When we met you claimed you dropped your feb off at MT QC's chambers and by chance you met him outside on a cigarette break. According to you the pair of you struck up a conversation which then extended to exchanging emails until MT QC stopped responding.
Your claims of a chance meeting with MT QC sound remarkably reminiscent of PH claiming he had a chance meeting with the late Ed Lawson QC.
I don't care how much money has been thrown at it or who's involved I maintain:
- There's nothing remotely forensic about it
- It contains nothing of evidential value
- It wouldn't break through a paper bag
I said as much when we met face to face. After our meeting you emailed me further info and I can't recall exactly what I said without checking back, which I can't be bothered to do, but I said something to appease you just to keep you quiet.
You even told me you had tracked down Geoffrey Rivlin at his home address and asked my opinion as to whether you should drop off your feb to him at his home address. I advised against. It was at this point I was glad our meeting was at a busy public place.
So now I'm not just "catty", "nasty" and "horrible" towards MT QC but I also have "an uncooperative attitude" towards you/feb and my "scornful grumblings" are totally uncalled for.
David in case it has escaped your attention Blue and Red are debating forums. The fact we both share the same view that JB is innocent is about where the similarities end. I don't share your views on your feb and most other aspects of the case. In fact I don't share the views held by many 'supporters' incl posters on Blue, CT, Andrew Hunter, Eric Allison and MT QC. I don't even share the same views as JB. No doubt they don't share my views. Who cares? The only people capable of changing JB's fate are 3 appeal court judges. Maybe they will be blown away by your feb so why worry yourself what I think?
It strange that David keeps contacting other men. Bamber, Hunter, MT, NGB, and even finding Rivlin's address. While has contempt for female posters, including Lookout when a guilter.
To be fair his 'Forensic Evidence Breakthrough' created an impact for three reasons -
He called it 'Forensic Evidence Breakthrough'.
He asked NGB to write a post on it.
He refused to say what it was.
-
That's because you have the visual perception ability of a coconut.
"Visual perception refers to the brain's ability to make sense of what the eyes see. This is not the same as visual acuity which refers to how clearly a person sees (for example “20/20 vision”). A person can have 20/20 vision and still have problems with visual perceptual processing"
Or maybe you have an over active imagination. If it's as obvious as you and others claim and it can assist JB why haven't the defence picked up on it? I look at the surrounding facts and they don't support your claims.
Anyway I have made requests in the last few days to admin to have my account here removed. For some reason its still here. Why?
I'm not Admin. I don't know what timescales they work to.
-
What does Jeremy Bamber say about the bible?
I've never discussed it with him.
-
It strange that David keeps contacting other men. Bamber, Hunter, MT, NGB, and even finding Rivlin's address. While has contempt for female posters, including Lookout when a guilter.
To be fair his 'Forensic Evidence Breakthrough' created an impact for three reasons -
He called it 'Forensic Evidence Breakthrough'.
He asked NGB to write a post on it.
He refused to say what it was.
Even if David is correct I don't see how it will assist JB?
-
I've never discussed it with him.
I wasn't referring to you per se Holly. I Meant, what has Jeremy Bamber said in the past with regards the bible?
-
Even if David is correct I don't see how it will assist JB?
It won't.
-
It strange that David keeps contacting other men. Bamber, Hunter, MT, NGB, and even finding Rivlin's address. While has contempt for female posters, including Lookout when a guilter.
To be fair his 'Forensic Evidence Breakthrough' created an impact for three reasons -
He called it 'Forensic Evidence Breakthrough'.
He asked NGB to write a post on it.
He refused to say what it was.
Interesting Adam. Reminds me of the term the dark triad and the enabler Pontius Pilate.
David, of course, has yet to recognise he is clearly being used.
-
Although it's not what Venezis stated in his written notes.
The trial judge referred Dr V to this and he made clear SC's hands were not contaminated with blood. He stated it was restricted to her wrist only. This corroborates with police accounts. This is one of the many reasons I don't buy into the image on the bible originating from SC.
David, Roch et al would have us believe Dr V lied/overlooked all manner of things:
- Defence wounds to victims
- Bloodstains to SC's feet
- Bloodstsins to SC's hands
I just don't buy it and it doesn't stack up with other known facts.
-
I wasn't referring to you per se Holly. I Meant, what has Jeremy Bamber said in the past with regards the bible?
I'm not sure he has voiced much opinion on the bible? The CT claim all sorts of bizarre stuff eg notes sticking out were suicide notes from SC. In reality these were notes June made as she read the bible.
-
I'm not sure he has voiced much opinion on the bible? The CT claim all sorts of bizarre stuff eg notes sticking out were suicide notes from SC. In reality these were notes June made as she read the bible.
Then you would be wrong.
-
Then you would be wrong.
I mean publically eg his contributions to books, interviews with journalists, his blogs etc. I don't recall any specific mention to the bible from JB personally?
The stuff on the OS seems to emanate from the CT.
-
I mean publically eg his contributions to books, interviews with journalists, his blogs etc. I don't recall any specific mention to the bible from JB personally?
The stuff on the OS seems to emanate from the CT.
Oh OK, publically, he has said very little. Not sure why he doesn't want to promote the notion of the handprint - perhaps because it's easier to get others to do it. The fact that it originated from him, would need some explanation. He says he has a high resolution picture and can see all of the details.
-
Oh OK, publically, he has said very little. Not sure why he doesn't want to promote the notion of the handprint - perhaps because it's easier to get others to do it. The fact that it originated from him, would need some explanation. He says he has a high resolution picture and can see all of the details.
According to David CT funds from fundraising are being spent on analysing David's FEB/claims SC's blood stained handprint is on the bible. Even if they can find an expert symapthetic to their cause I've no idea how this will assist JB.
-
According to David CT funds from fundraising are being spent on analysing David's FEB/claims SC's blood stained handprint is on the bible. Even if they can find an expert symapthetic to their cause I've no idea how this will assist JB.
David claims a lot of things but David didn't realise that the palm print originated with Jeremy Bamber when he first announced 'his breakthrough'. There are also other issues relating to the bible that he isn't aware of.
I thought Jeremy's legal team were supposed to be interested in David's project? How come he's been reduced to asking the CT? Thought he thought they were useless?
-
David claims a lot of things but David didn't realise that the palm print originated with Jeremy Bamber when he first announced 'his breakthrough'. There are also other issues relating to the bible that he isn't aware of.
I thought Jeremy's legal team were supposed to be interested in David's project? How come he's been reduced to asking the CT? Thought he thought they were useless?
We also know that he isn't fully aware about the buckets, nor did it seem is NGB. Do these people even speak with Bamber and get the full story before defending him - or is it a case of JB telling different people different things.
-
David claims a lot of things but David didn't realise that the palm print originated with Jeremy Bamber when he first announced 'his breakthrough'. There are also other issues relating to the bible that he isn't aware of.
I thought Jeremy's legal team were supposed to be interested in David's project? How come he's been reduced to asking the CT? Thought he thought they were useless?
I think the answers are in the first part of your first sentence.
-
According to David CT funds from fundraising are being spent on analysing David's FEB/claims SC's blood stained handprint is on the bible. Even if they can find an expert symapthetic to their cause I've no idea how this will assist JB.
It will be interesting to see the JB limited companies accounts in the next few months to get some idea what amounts of money they are putting through the books etc and how much these alleged tests are costing
-
We also know that he isn't fully aware about the buckets, nor did it seem is NGB. Do these people even speak with Bamber and get the full story before defending him - or is it a case of JB telling different people different things.
Of course it's Bamber telling different people different things. This is the only reason he still has a few supporters left. They have yet to play catch up and recognise Bambers manipulation tactics
-
It will be interesting to see the JB limited companies accounts in the next few months to get some idea what amounts of money they are booking through the books etc
In reality awareness is low and no one is interested which the fund raising no doubt reflects.
-
We also know that he isn't fully aware about the buckets, nor did it seem is NGB. Do these people even speak with Bamber and get the full story before defending him - or is it a case of JB telling different people different things.
8((()*/
-
8((()*/
8((()*/
-
We also know that he isn't fully aware about the buckets, nor did it seem is NGB. Do these people even speak with Bamber and get the full story before defending him - or is it a case of JB telling different people different things.
All he had to do was ask but he wouldn't and didn't because he couldn't be sure that if he posted Jeremy's reply, it would be the same as he told me. Seekers or truth? My arse!
-
All he had to do was ask but he wouldn't and didn't because he couldn't be sure that if he posted Jeremy's reply, it would be the same as he told me. Seekers or truth? My arse!
If they were trying to get to the truth and trying to actually help Bamber, they wouldn't be sat posting pish on a forum that Bamber wants removed.
-
If they were trying to get to the truth and trying to actually help Bamber, they wouldn't be sat posting pish on a forum that Bamber wants removed.
You left out the word 'repeatedly' @)(++(*
-
I think the answers are in the first part of your first sentence.
I wonder if the VT are aware of his feelings towards them?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7566.msg355479.html#msg355479