Two very thought provoking posts taken from the blue, one regarding PII and a MOJ case Steven Johnston
The other regarding the impossibilities getting the Bamber case back to the appeal court
John you probably know a lot about the Johnston case?
________________________
Re: jeremy bamber poll
« Reply #6 on: Today at 12:02 AM »
Quote from: Neil on Yesterday at 11:52 PM
Can anybody give me some examples of why material may be withheld under PII?
Just watched a very interesting documentary on Sky Crime channel about the MOJ of Steven Johnston. This man was deliberately fitted up by police and documents pointing to his innocence were deliberately withheld from his defence. Just goes to show - it happens and this guy served 10 years as a result!!
http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/stevenjohnston/index.htmlHe has since been released thanks to the SCCRC and the detective inspector (Richard Munro) has been convicted for withholding evidence from prosecutors. Sadly because of ineptitude, the real killers were never brought to justice!!
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2006hcjac30.html« Last Edit: Today at 12:15 AM by Caroline »
Logged
Martin
Full Member
Posts: 66
________________________
Re: jeremy bamber poll
« Reply #7 on: Today at 04:07 AM »
Quote from: petey on Yesterday at 11:46 PM
1 - Why on earth should Julie be forced to undergo a lie detector test? Are u suggesting that every single time there is some element of doubt over whether a witness at trial is telling the absolute 100% truth, they should be forced to undergo a lie detector test?! That is an absolutely ridiculous proposition.
2 - Using the words 'conspire' and 'defraud' These are incredibly serious accusations. I certainly don't think the investigation was carried out well, but there is no way I would ever accuse the police or relatives of purposely maliciously conspiring to defraud Jeremy!
3 - This is an impossible question to answer as nobody on this forum knows the full extent of the new evidence. If the event occurred today then DNA would prove one way or the other whether JB was guilty.
4 - Again an impossible question to answer, as we do not know the reason why certain documents are withheld under pii. There may very well be genuine reasons for witholding from the defence in which case they should not be released. I think it would be very helpful for public perception if Essex police provided a document list of what was being withheld for the defence and the reasons for doing so. Without this it just gives people an excuse to jump on the bandwagon and assume that all withheld evidence points to JBs innocence. This could well not be the case.
"2 - Using the words 'conspire' and 'defraud' These are incredibly serious accusations. I certainly don't think the investigation was carried out well, but there is no way I would ever accuse the police or relatives of purposely maliciously conspiring to defraud Jeremy!"
You don’t seem to understand the basic dynamics of this case. There is simply no scenario which could be imagined where Jeremy is proven to be innocent without that implying wrongdoing on the part of the police and the relatives. The three are inseparable and are the basic reason why no evidence which Bamber can put forward, henceforth, will be accepted as strong enough to justify referring the case to the Court of Appeal. Avoiding such a scandal defines the real position of the CCRC who have almost certainly been told by the government not to refer the case. You are basically representing the pro guilt position, but somewhat dishonestly.
The commitment to supporting the police implies the commitment to supporting the guilty verdict in the face of any evidence to the contrary (apart from a “game over” situation such as policeman actually admitting that Bamber was framed.) Such a requirement is much stronger than would normally be required for a conviction to be deemed unsafe.
A referral to the Court of Appeal is virtually impossible in such a circumstance, because any evidence not strong enough to bring about an immediate acquittal will be rejected and rejected without an explanation if there is none to give.
"Two bodies found on entry."
The logs, in which it is clearly stated several times that two bodies were found on entry to the house, don’t seem to carry any weight with pro guilt people, probably because they have made a commitment to supporting authority. If those logs are correct, then the policemen who’s statements they contradict have lied. So you have to say that a number of references to two bodies and to further details consistent with Sheila having shot herself downstairs are all just mistakes. That’s where you dig your trench!
How likely is it that such a set of mutually corroborative entries are all mistaken? Random mistakes are not just unlikely to produce a logically consistent narrative. It is absurd that they should do so.
Let me see you try to explain the reporting of “One murder and one suicide.” at a time prior to when Sheila’s body was allegedly found upstairs. I know what the usual pro guilt answer is. They merely remind us that the CCRC have rejected that evidence which proves that it wasn’t as strong as Bamber’s supporters thought it was. And then, possibly, remind us that he was found guilty in a court of law and so on and so on.
A historian who argued in such a manner would be laughed at. “People who criticise Henry VIII should remember that he was the head of state at that time and, therefore, should show a little more respect for the decisions he made.”
And then there is this kind of drivel.
“Oh well, in all the confusion it was natural that mistakes would be made”
Let me ask a question. Why do you think the police did not report finding a beached whale downstairs? Well the answer is obvious isn’t it. The basic idea is to report what you did find, not what you didn’t find.
