What constitutes 'Fresh Evidence' for an appeal?

[Angelo222]

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.

[Caroline]

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!

[Holly Goodhead]

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.   

[Nicholas]

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.

[adam]

Not sure why June's bible would be on Nevill's side of the bed.

[Holly Goodhead]

"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.

[Holly Goodhead]

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.

[Holly Goodhead]

David "Catty" is calling...

Please provide your scenario as I've posted above and requested of Adam and Stephanie.  Thanks. 

[adam]

Please provide your scenario of how it arrived where it was photographed matching known facts eg forensics and pathological.

Bamber put it there.

[Nicholas]

Bamber put it there.

Thanks Adam.

[Holly Goodhead]

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?

[Nicholas]

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! 

[Holly Goodhead]

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? 

[Holly Goodhead]

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! 

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. 

[Holly Goodhead]

Posters are reminded to stay on topic.  Thanks.