Author Topic: Jeremy Bamber - The Campaigner Blog  (Read 47109 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

jackiepreece

  • Guest
Re: Jeremy Bamber - The Campaigner Blog
« Reply #195 on: February 20, 2013, 02:55:53 PM »

Innocent men have been kept in Jail because vital evidence has been witheld from the defence

FACT

How many more innocent men are still in prison because of this

John any thoughts on this case???

Steven A.R. Johnston
Billy Allison
 
Steven pictured with his grandfather, then wife,
and daughter in 1990
Police Inspector Jailed for fitting up Steven Johnston and Billy Allison

BBC News, 25/07/12
Detective Inspector Richard Munro has been jailed for five years for withholding evidence. He was found guilty of attempting to defeat the ends of justice, Munro led the investigation into the killing of Andrew Forsyth in Dunfermline in 1995. Steven Johnston and Billy Allison were jailed for the murder.

Passing sentence on Munro, judge Lord Doherty said: "The course of conduct you engaged in was a shocking affront to the principles which underly the criminal justice process. Your offence was committed in a variety of ways over a considerable period. It was calculated and deceitful. You contributed substantially to the convictions of Johnston and Allison being miscarriages of justice. You were in a position of trust. The criminal justice system depends upon police officers acting with honesty and integrity."

monitored by MOJUK

Senior police officers in charge of case accused of perverting the course of justice

Chief Superintendent Richard Munro and Detective Inspector Kenneth Chatham have been charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice in relation to this case

Read more in the Daily Record article by Annie Brown 26 November 2008

Convictions overturned - freed on appeal

17 March 2006

Steven and his co-accused Billy Allison have had their convictions overturned by the Scottish Court of Appeal. For more information see

Police face inquiry after two freed over murder trial 'lies'
Murder trial 'misled' by police

 
6 May 2001
Police probed over
withheld evidence
Top law-lord makes outspoken criticisms of Fife force and claims that officers were 'usurping judge, jury and justice'

By Neil Mackay, Home Affairs Editor

A Scottish police force is facing a criminal inquiry into claims that it suppressed evidence which could have cleared a man currently serving life in prison for murder.

A Sunday Herald investigation has uncovered how Fife Constabulary failed to pass on witness statements to the Crown Office which pointed towards the innocence of Steven Johnston, who was convicted in 1996 of beating his friend Andrew Forsyth to death at his home in Dunfermline. Documents have also been uncovered which reveal the Crown's outrage at being "misled" by the police.

There are now widespread calls from senior members of the legal profession and politicians for the officers involved to be suspended from duty pending a wide-ranging inquiry. The Scottish Executive has pledged to set up an independent police complaints authority in the wake of the barrage of criticism.

Lord Fraser of Carmyle, the former Scottish Lord Advocate, said Fife police had undermined the concept of "judge, jury and justice". The Scottish National Party has compared the conduct of the police to "the administration of justice under the Gulag system in the old Soviet Union", and the Scottish Conservative Party said the case should be immediately referred to the Court of Appeal. There are further demands for a root and branch overhaul of the regulations surrounding the passing of information from the police to the Crown.

Civil liberty groups say that every "major case" investigated by the officers involved must now be re-examined in case some officers in the Fife force were operating a policy similar to that of the West Midlands Constabulary - which became notorious for miscarriages of justice, including the Birmingham Six. That could lead to potential grounds for appeal in hundreds of cases in Fife.

The case centres on the police belief that Forsyth was killed on Friday, November 3 1995. During the trial, the jury was told that "to bring home a conviction against Steven Johnston, the deceased would require to have died on Friday, November 3".

However, a number of witnesses claim they saw Forsyth alive after that date. But their statements were never passed to the regional procurator fiscal, who is meant to take the decision on whether to prosecute an individual after taking account of the "full facts" of a case.

A file on the case has been passed to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission by Johnston's solicitor, Stephen Morrison.

The SCCRC has the power to refer the case to the Court of Appeal and can recommend to the current Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd, that he seek to prosecute any police officers found to have perverted the course of justice. During its investigations, the SCCRC uncovered four statements from witnesses which suggested Forsyth was alive after November 3 but which Fife Constabulary had not passed to the Crown.

They include the claims of a local housing officer who went to the dead man's house on Tuesday November 7. She and a colleague looked through Forsyth's window, directly at the site where his body was supposed to be, but saw no corpse.

Another witness, a local shopkeeper, told police he last saw Forsyth alive on Saturday, November 4. The police told the shopkeeper that this was "impossible". Johnston's lawyer, Stephen Morrison, said: "They tried to convince him that he couldn't have been right but he feels he is 99% right."

A third witness claims in her statement that she saw Forsyth as she was making her way to work on Thursday November 9. A fourth statement also implies that yet another witness saw Forsyth alive on November 4.

There was no forensic evidence linking Johnston to the killing. The blood of two different people was found in the victim's house - neither type matched Forsyth or Johnston, who had no history of violent crime.

An independent post mortem showed that Forsyth probably died sometime after Tuesday November 7 and certainly not before Sunday November 5. The Sunday Herald has also discovered that Fife Constabulary attempted to suppress other evidence from a further six witnesses prior to the murder trial. After a chance conversation, says Morrison, the defence did manage to locate these witnesses and they appeared in court.

In a letter dated February 3 1997 from the Crown Office, Deputy Crown Agent Norman McFadyen says he met with the Deputy Chief Constable of Fife Constabulary, Graham Bennet, adding with reference to the initial six witnesses: "The Lord Advocate and I are in no doubt that the information which was provided to the police by the witnesses in this case should indeed have been drawn to the attention of the procurator fiscal".

McFadyen goes on to admit that the Crown was not aware that the police had suppressed material, adding: "The Lord Advocate has instructed that it be made clear to the Chief Constable that it is wholly unacceptable that misleading information was given to the procurator fiscal when these matters were raised."

Morrison said: "This seems a clear cut case of deliberate suppression of evidence. If that is the case then it is a criminal offence and a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. My client is very bitter and angry, but he believes he will soon be out of prison and his name cleared."

Lord Fraser of Carmyle, the former Lord Advocate, said: "The alleged conduct by Fife Constabulary is totally fatal to the interests of justice and utterly wrong in practice.

"It is not difficult to conceive of circumstances where withholding information might be seen as an attempt to pervert the course of justice. There is a disturbing practice in Scottish police where they fail to understand that all information must be conveyed to the Crown.

"It is not the job of the police to decide what to send to the Lord Advocate and what to keep from him. The police must get this into their heads. We need an immediate investigation into this case to find out if this was a case of incompetence or something more sinister. If this was deliberate there should be a criminal inquiry. From now on it must be a disciplinary, if not criminal offence, for the police to fail to pass on evidence. By behaving like this the police are usurping the role of the judge, the jury and justice itself."

The SNP's justice spokesman, Michael Matheson, said: "The officers involved must be immediately suspended pending the outcome of an inquiry. This goes right to the heart of the administration of an open and fair justice system. It is the most cynical approach to justice I have ever heard of - it is reminiscent of what went on in the Gulag system of the former Soviet Union."

Phil Gallie, Tory justice spokesman, said: "We need an investigation into the way the police weeded out these statements. There are obvious grounds for appeal now. If the appeal is upheld then we need to look at a criminal investigation."

John Scott, chair of the Scottish Human Rights Centre, said: "Steven Johnston's case should be referred to Court of Appeal as soon as possible."

Steven Johnston has been convicted of murder. He is serving a life sentence for a crime he did not commit.
Steven Johnston and the victim - Andrew Forsyth - were known to associate with a number of alcoholics that congregated at a place called 'The Glen'. Andrew Forsyth himself was an alcoholic, and was regularly seen in a battered and bruised condition due to people looking for repayment of money. Steven Johnston used to drink for days at a time and stay sober for weeks, finding work to save money for the next drinking binge.

Steven Johnston admitted going to the victim's home on November 3rd 1995, but he had been invited there by Andrew Forsyth for a drink. Six days later Andrew Forsyth's body was discovered lying on his living room floor.

Steven Johnston was arrested for the murder of Andrew Forsyth between 3rd and 9th of November 1995. This charge was later amended to read that the murder took place specifically on Friday 3rd November 1995. There was no evidence against Steven Johnston, only the words of alcoholics. He was, for instance, supposed to have blood on his jeans up to his knees, but nobody in the pub saw any blood on him. It was also alleged that one of the group of alcoholics had looked through the windows of the victim's home on 4th November, and saw the victim either dead or drunk on the floor.

On 7th November 1995 a police officer responding to a 999 call called at the home of the victim. This police officer looked through the living room window and although he saw certain items lying around, there was no body. The officer accepted that if a body had been on the floor, he would have seen it. On 9th November 1995, the mother of the victim called to the house at approx. 10.00pm and found him dead on the floor of the living room.

There was no forensic evidence against Steven. Blood found at the scene of the crime comes from two different blood groups, neither of which match the victim or the accused. The pathology report stated that the victim had already been dead for somewhere between 24 and 48 hours when the body was found. This pathologist also said that "he was in no substantial doubt that the deceased was ALIVE 96 hours before the body was discovered".

It has been established that between 3rd and 7th November 1995 Andrew Forsyth was seen and spoken to - on at least six occasions - by local people who all knew him. Although this evidence was given to the police, it was deemed "irrelevant", and was never passed on to the Procurator Fiscal (Scotland).

How can a person who was supposed to have been murdered on the 3rd November still be walking around enjoying himself a few days after his alleged death? Furthermore, is it in the interest of British Justice for police officers to "withhold" or "ignore" evidence such as this and fail to inform either the Prosecution or Defence?

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) has been investigating Steven Johnston's case since 1st April 1999. Three further witnesses claim to have seen the victim alive AFTER 3rd November 1995. A further witness claims to have looked through the victim's living room window at 2.15pm on Tuesday 7th November 1995. He does not report seeing a body.

Steven Johnston is serving his sentence at Perth prison. His case is still under investigation by the SCCRC.

STEVEN JOHNSTON 21578
D-2-25 HMP Perth,
Scotland PH2 8AT

If you can help or want more information contact Steven at the above address.


Offline goatboy

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The Campaigner Blog
« Reply #196 on: February 20, 2013, 08:21:04 PM »
We all know miscarriages of justice occur. However, just because they do occur that doesn't mean that Bamber's case is a MOJ. I personally don't blame Bamber for making a big deal out of the phone logs. However, the fact is that they were written by someone a long way from the action with no option of correcting conflicting information as they were updating as they went along. It beggars belief that there would be anything at all to gain from framing Jeremy when the evidence apparently showed it was clearly a case of 4 murders and a suicide. Personally I find it much easier to believe someone just made a mistake in the phone log than I do to believe a slightly built woman (with little or limited experience of using firearms) would go on a crazed killing spree including battering her tall and heavily built father yet not have a single mark on her.

I remember in Colin Caffel's book he mentions he and Sheila attended a shoot once with the family. He says their role was to act as beaters. I know little about shooting but I would have thought their job is to disturb the birds in order to make them fly into range of the other people on the shoot. I may be wrong but I would imagine anyone skilled at or interested in shooting would make sure they were directly involved with the action and not be content with being a beater. This to me seems to back up the other available evidence suggesting she had no interest in guns.

Dillon

  • Guest
Re: Jeremy Bamber - The Campaigner Blog
« Reply #197 on: February 20, 2013, 10:21:51 PM »
We all know miscarriages of justice occur. However, just because they do occur that doesn't mean that Bamber's case is a MOJ. I personally don't blame Bamber for making a big deal out of the phone logs. However, the fact is that they were written by someone a long way from the action with no option of correcting conflicting information as they were updating as they went along. It beggars belief that there would be anything at all to gain from framing Jeremy when the evidence apparently showed it was clearly a case of 4 murders and a suicide. Personally I find it much easier to believe someone just made a mistake in the phone log than I do to believe a slightly built woman (with little or limited experience of using firearms) would go on a crazed killing spree including battering her tall and heavily built father yet not have a single mark on her.

I remember in Colin Caffel's book he mentions he and Sheila attended a shoot once with the family. He says their role was to act as beaters. I know little about shooting but I would have thought their job is to disturb the birds in order to make them fly into range of the other people on the shoot. I may be wrong but I would imagine anyone skilled at or interested in shooting would make sure they were directly involved with the action and not be content with being a beater. This to me seems to back up the other available evidence suggesting she had no interest in guns.
Well put Goatboy. People who knew Sheila say that she disliked guns. It is wrong to assume that all farmer's daughters were involved in shooting. My wife is a farmer's daughter and hasn't a clue about guns but used to enjoy beating which involves basically disturbing the poor birds, usually pheasants bred for shooting, from the undergrowth so that they fly into the path of the folk with shotguns. My wife describes it as having been a nice social day out in the open and beaters often earned some remuneration as well or at least free food and maybe a drink. Sheila was apparently quite a social animal so might  have enjoyed it on that basis or maybe just got roped in with Colin ( a townie ! ) by Nevill to help with the shoot which was very much a feature of the farmers' social life. You are quite correct in your view that if a person was interested in shooting they would be out there with a shotgun banging away rather then beating. 

Offline Angelo222

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The Campaigner Blog
« Reply #198 on: February 20, 2013, 11:55:04 PM »
I remember in Colin Caffel's book he mentions he and Sheila attended a shoot once with the family. He says their role was to act as beaters. I know little about shooting but I would have thought their job is to disturb the birds in order to make them fly into range of the other people on the shoot. I may be wrong but I would imagine anyone skilled at or interested in shooting would make sure they were directly involved with the action and not be content with being a beater. This to me seems to back up the other available evidence suggesting she had no interest in guns.

That's correct goatboy.  Sheila hated guns to such an extent that she wouldn't allow the twins to have toy guns.

Another point worth repeating is the claim by Jeremy Bamber that he left the rifle on the settle in the utility room with the magazine lying separately nearby.  This was all part of his plan to put Sheila in the frame.  He may have got away with that when the children weren't around but Nevill and June would never have allowed it when they were in the house.  Had he left the rifle lying around I have no doubt the Nevill would have put it away.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline puglove

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The Campaigner Blog
« Reply #199 on: February 21, 2013, 12:10:29 AM »
I remember in Colin Caffel's book he mentions he and Sheila attended a shoot once with the family. He says their role was to act as beaters. I know little about shooting but I would have thought their job is to disturb the birds in order to make them fly into range of the other people on the shoot. I may be wrong but I would imagine anyone skilled at or interested in shooting would make sure they were directly involved with the action and not be content with being a beater. This to me seems to back up the other available evidence suggesting she had no interest in guns.

That's correct goatboy.  Sheila hated guns to such an extent that she wouldn't allow the twins to have toy guns.

Another point worth repeating is the claim by Jeremy Bamber that he left the rifle on the settle in the utility room with the magazine lying separately nearby.  This was all part of his plan to put Sheila in the frame.  He may have got away with that when the children weren't around but Nevill and June would never have allowed it when they were in the house.  Had he left the rifle lying around I have no doubt the Nevill would have put it away.

I totally agree. There is no way in the world that a gun would have been left out for the boys to find. This also explains why Sheila's print was found on a shotgun. She would have picked it up at some stage (possibly weeks before) and given it to Ralph to put it out of harm's way. Ralph was an adoring Grandad (look at that photo of him reading to the boys) and he was safety-conscious. A gun would not have been "left on the settle" for two little boys to pick up.
Jeremy Bamber kicked Mike Tesko in the fanny.

Dillon

  • Guest
Re: Jeremy Bamber - The Campaigner Blog
« Reply #200 on: February 21, 2013, 08:20:35 AM »
From everything that I have heard about Nevill and June, including years before they were murdered, they were both caring, great people
who enjoyed having the children of friends and the extended family around at WHF , all very different from the utter poisonous rubbish put out by some posters on the blue forum who have clearly never met members of the family, describe it as dysfunctional and indulge themselves in pseudo psychological explanations for what happened. Christmas for example was a great time at WHF which was a lovely family home . They were very used to having young children around and it is highly unlikely that they would have tolerated guns being left around in a cavalier fashion. I suspect that Nevill would have been particularly careful to ensure that his feckless son did not create dangers for his much loved grandchildren.

Offline puglove

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The Campaigner Blog
« Reply #201 on: July 07, 2013, 12:24:38 AM »
There was NO phone call from Nevile.

There was NO conversation about the children being taken away from their mum.

Bamber DID NOT take the gun the night before to shoot rabbits.

Sheila DID NOT bark like a dog to "confuse" the police.

Sheila was NOT found downstairs, she was murdered where she was photographed. See the bloodstains.

June didnt shoot anyone that night either.

Nevile would have called 999.

How would Sheila manage to carry all those bullets around with her? No pockets in nightdress.

How come Sheila's nightdress is only stained with her own blood?

Why is there no blood on the phone?

Why were there only minimal traces of Gun Residue found on Sheila?

Why were Sheila's feet clean?

Why were her nails in perfect condition?

The red forum solved the Bamber case!! Woo-hoo!!

In your face Tesko, you fat little knob.   @)(++(*


 8)--))
Jeremy Bamber kicked Mike Tesko in the fanny.

Offline puglove

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The Campaigner Blog
« Reply #202 on: July 09, 2013, 09:58:12 AM »
Has anyone seen Bamber's latest news?



 8)--))
Jeremy Bamber kicked Mike Tesko in the fanny.

Offline Angelo222

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The Campaigner Blog
« Reply #203 on: July 09, 2013, 10:13:40 AM »
Has anyone seen Bamber's latest news?



 8)--))

Yes, the European Court have effectively closed the door to any possibility of parole for our double child killer Bamber.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Outlook

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The Campaigner Blog
« Reply #204 on: July 09, 2013, 07:10:43 PM »
Oops!! BBC and Sky screwed up a bit, didn't they?

Never mind, it won't make an ounce of difference.      8(>((
That is the problem these days, nobody reads things properly.  The first reports said it had been thrown out and then it said that a review process was lacking.

The way I see it is all they have said is that there should be some degree of review occasionally and this is what the UK had prior to 2003 and Northern Ireland still does have.  The Court has already accepted that it is in order to lock dangerous people up for full life sentences.  All they are saying now is that it is reasonable to review the sentence occasionally.  Personally I do not see anything wrong in that as if prison supposed to work then it might be worth putting it to the test every quarter century or so.

In many cases the prisoners may not wish to be part of the review process because they are institutionalized or resigned to their crimes and wish to remain "inside."  In other cases they may claim religious or political justification for their crimes and be otherwise unrepentant or barking mad so the review would promptly find that they should remain in prison.  In the case of prisoners claiming innocence then they have had adequate reviews over the years with appeals and CRCC so they can hardly claim they have not had the chance to air their views and have a fair hearing.

The idea of a review does not offend me as much as Ian Brady making use of Mental Health tribunals at great cost or of Bamber repeatedly demanding an appeal based on regurgitation of "old" evidence presented as "new."  A review process could be a lot more cost effective and be little more than the Parole Board picking up the file and saying "Has this guy moved on over the last 25/40 years?" (whatever the original sentence was)  "No, oh well, back to the bottom if the pile again."

The European Court is not saying that prisoners should be automatically released, just that there should be some sort of periodic review process.

Offline Nicholas

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The Campaigner Blog
« Reply #205 on: April 15, 2020, 12:12:34 PM »
A phoenix rises from the ashes of a failed appeal.... http://jeremybambercampaigner.blogspot.co.uk/

Any guesses who that is in the lie-detector's chair... Doesn't look like Bamber to me?    (L...u....g....g)

Who's behind this site then ?

Who was behind this site? They appear to have stopped blogging in 2014?
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Caroline

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The Campaigner Blog
« Reply #206 on: April 15, 2020, 12:20:23 PM »
Who was behind this site? They appear to have stopped blogging in 2014?

The CT are responsible for it - his latest address to the faithful https://jeremybamber.blogspot.com is now available.

Offline Nicholas

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The Campaigner Blog
« Reply #207 on: April 15, 2020, 12:23:50 PM »
The CT are responsible for it - his latest address to the faithful https://jeremybamber.blogspot.com is now available.

Thanks Caroline but who from the CT ?

Already seen his recent bs http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8088.msg583341#msg583341

Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Caroline

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The Campaigner Blog
« Reply #208 on: April 15, 2020, 12:25:15 PM »
Thanks Caroline but who from the CT ?

Already seen his recent bs http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8088.msg583341#msg583341

No idea, but I don't think Bamber writes. them - could be wrong but they don't sound like him.

Offline Nicholas

Re: Jeremy Bamber - The Campaigner Blog
« Reply #209 on: April 15, 2020, 12:27:54 PM »
No idea, but I don't think Bamber writes. them - could be wrong but they don't sound like him.

Could the person who initially wrote the blog decided he was guilty after all ?
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation