Jeremy Bamber - The alleged telephone calls to police

[Nicholas]

Roch states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10006.msg458017.html?PHPSESSID=jii1sjp96lmd3l88tuiqmjes67#msg458017

David, how about this...
After taking over the case from a previous standpoint where Sheila Caffell was implicated - and a casefile of evidence had been assembled supporting this conclusion
In order to prosecute Jeremy Bamber, Ainsley has to:
[1] Coordinate and lead a fresh round of statement taking, including altering or burying some previous statements, that were taken prior to him taking over the case?
[2] Not have to coordinate or lead a fresh round of statement taking.  Not have to alter or bury any previous statements that were taken prior to him taking over the case?
1 = conspiracy
2 = ?

It's impossible to pinpoint why police would sacrifice a person they either knew to be innocent or suspected was likely innocent.  Some police officers clearly favoured the relatives and empathised with their pleas, regarding their perceived 'plight'.  It's possible that the patriarch of the relatives had got wind of some info via an informal channel.  For example, things not stacking up in relation the TFG op, the positioning of bodies, 'informatives' coming in to carry out training - who knows.
But once the deputy head ordered that the attention should be turned on to JB, the culture at that time was for subordinates to be expected to fall in line and follow suit.  in these circs... if those officers now 'on the up' happened to be the same officers who had a cosy relationship with the relatives...


conspiracy
/kənˈspɪrəsi/
noun
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.


Why does Roch refer to Essex police as having carried out a conspiracy?

There wasn’t a secret plan to go after Bamber!

The police recognised they’d been duped. Bamber’s discrepancies didn’t add up. The evidence in totality pointed toward Jeremy Bamber having been responsible for the murders and not his sister.

”In order to prosecute Jeremy Bamber, Ainsley has to:” Who prosecuted Bamber?

“In order to prosecute Jeremy Bamber, Ainsley has to:
[1] Coordinate and lead a fresh round of statement taking, including altering or burying some previous statements, that were taken prior to him taking over the case?
[2] Not have to coordinate or lead a fresh round of statement taking.  Not have to alter or bury any previous statements that were taken prior to him taking over the case?
1 = conspiracy
2 = ?


Why would Ainsley have had to alter or bury some previous statements?

It’s unlikely any of the paperwork related to the original investigation and belief of Sheila having been responsible were ever altered or indeed buried.

I find it interesting Roch has chosen to use the word bury as opposed to not disclosed.

Aren’t these the documents Bamber has attempted to obtain from the police?


Could 2 be:

Live with the cognitive dissonance and allow a guilty man to get away with mass murder?

[Nicholas]

“In order to prosecute Jeremy Bamber, Ainsley has to:
[1] Coordinate and lead a fresh round of statement taking, including altering or burying some previous statements, that were taken prior to him taking over the case?
[2] Not have to coordinate or lead a fresh round of statement taking.  Not have to alter or bury any previous statements that were taken prior to him taking over the case?
1 = conspiracy
2 = ?


Why would Ainsley have had to alter or bury some previous statements?

It’s unlikely any of the paperwork related to the original investigation and belief of Sheila having been responsible were ever altered or indeed buried.

I find it interesting Roch has chosen to use the word bury as opposed to not disclosed.

Aren’t these the documents Bamber has attempted to obtain from the police?


Could 2 be:

Live with the cognitive dissonance and allow a guilty man to get away with mass murder?

“We have a scene of a crime which has been very cunningly arranged because he was a cunning man”

“The officers misdirected themselves I’m prepared to admit that”
Ron Stone Essex Deputy Chief Constable

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/minimal-entry-england-essex-int-ron-stone-essex-deputy-news-footage/1131166387?adppopup=true&uiloc=thumbnail_more_search_results_adp&uiloc=thumbnail_more_search_results_adp&uiloc=thumbnail_more_search_results_adp&uiloc=thumbnail_more_search_results_adp&uiloc=thumbnail_more_search_results_adp&uiloc=thumbnail_more_search_results_adp&uiloc=thumbnail_more_search_results_adp&uiloc=thumbnail_more_search_results_adp&uiloc=thumbnail_more_search_results_adp&uiloc=thumbnail_more_search_results_adp&uiloc=thumbnail_more_search_results_adp&uiloc=thumbnail_more_search_results_adp

[Nicholas]

Jeremy Bamber relishes the notoriety.  For their part, the MSM need to sell newspapers so promoting JB as the worst miscarriage of justice of all time sits well with that agenda.  All total rubbish of course like much of what comes out of Fleet Street these days.

Last May Mark Newby wrote an article which was published in the justice gap, ironically, given the Barry George case as one example, he stated:

“No one wants to see a conviction overturned on technical grounds compensated”

But then I’m unsure if he’s ever supported Barry George’s claim for compensation?

https://www.thejusticegap.com/the-court-of-appeal-needs-to-acknowledge-miscarriages-of-justice-and-ensure-that-they-dont-occur-in-the-future/

Mark Newby: United Against Injustice Conference Speech 10th October 2015
“It should also be remembered that the test in Ali and Others was not a generous one so for example Barry George could not achieve compensation because his case went all the way to re-trial and therefore the Court was able to conclude that there was evidence for a properly directed jury to consider.
https://www.qualitysolicitors.com/jordans/news/2015/10/united-against-injustice-conference-speech-mark-newby

https://www.unitedagainstinjustice.com/conference-2015 Doesn’t look like Michelle Diskin Bates attended that conference?

[Nicholas]

Last May Mark Newby wrote an article which was published in the justice gap, ironically, given the Barry George case as one example, he stated:

“No one wants to see a conviction overturned on technical grounds compensated”

But then I’m unsure if he’s ever supported Barry George’s claim for compensation?

https://www.thejusticegap.com/the-court-of-appeal-needs-to-acknowledge-miscarriages-of-justice-and-ensure-that-they-dont-occur-in-the-future/

Mark Newby: United Against Injustice Conference Speech 10th October 2015
“It should also be remembered that the test in Ali and Others was not a generous one so for example Barry George could not achieve compensation because his case went all the way to re-trial and therefore the Court was able to conclude that there was evidence for a properly directed jury to consider.
https://www.qualitysolicitors.com/jordans/news/2015/10/united-against-injustice-conference-speech-mark-newby

https://www.unitedagainstinjustice.com/conference-2015 Doesn’t look like Michelle Diskin Bates attended that conference?

It’s blatantly obvious what Mark Newby appears to be attempting to achieve re the Bamber case and it has nothing to do with true justice

[Nicholas]

It’s blatantly obvious what Mark Newby appears to be attempting to achieve re the Bamber case and it has nothing to do with true justice

Convicted murderer Kevin Nunn who maintains innocence (Because imo he’s too much of a coward to confess his guilt to his family) takes his case to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s judgment in Nunn a “disaster” that reinforced difficulties getting exhibits, says Mark Newby
https://mobile.twitter.com/C4CrimAppeals/status/964528097327566848

So he attempts to ‘address the balance’ using the Bamber case (Of all cases?) via a JR

[Nicholas]

So he attempts to ‘address the balance’ using the Bamber case (Of all cases?) via a JR

Last year, the then director of public prosecutions, Alison Saunders, published a revised version of CPS disclosure manual. Saunders concluded: “To maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system, it is essential that the relevant disclosure regime is complied with in every case and all duties performed to a high standard. I hope this manual will continue to offer practical guidance to practitioners and give the lay reader a degree of reassurance that the prosecution team is fully committed to meeting its obligations in this hugely important area.”

Mark Newby, a solicitor advocate from QualitySolicitors Jordans, which represents Bamber, said: “It is disappointing that the CPS has not agreed to provide material that is needed by an independent expert to support the overwhelming inference that a second silencer was examined during the police and forensic science service investigations. We hope that this can quickly be resolved so that the expert can get on with his job and the case can be put back before the court of appeal in order to correct this very grave miscarriage of justice.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/08/jeremy-bamber-lawyers-challenge-cps-over-withheld-evidence

REGINA V BLACKBURN (Paul)
Mr Owen QC submits that the court must judge that issue in the light of current standards of fairness and of our present knowledge of the phenomenon of false confessions. He refers to a number of authorities to that effect, including Roberts (unreported, 19th March 1998) and Abid Hussain [2005] EWCA Crim 31.The point was made in the latter case at paragraph 28 that, where there was a breach of the rules in force at the time of trial, the significance of that breach is to be assessed according to the present-day approach.

Are Bamber’s chances of succeeding in a JR against the DPP and setting a precedent (re disclosure) realistic?

According to his barrister

Unwinnable” Cases Can Be Won

Michelle Diskin Bates retweets a CT ‘slogan’

‘Tell a lie once and all your truths become questionable

https://mobile.twitter.com/Bambertweets/status/1221092250249236482

[Myster]

Are Bamber’s chances of succeeding in a JR against the DPP and setting a precedent (re disclosure) realistic?

According to his barrister

Michelle Diskin Bates retweets a CT ‘slogan’

‘Tell a lie once and all your truths become questionable

https://mobile.twitter.com/Bambertweets/status/1221092250249236482

That's my aphorism they've stolen, and it fits Bamber to T.

[Nicholas]

Convicted murderer Kevin Nunn who maintains innocence (Because imo he’s too much of a coward to confess his guilt to his family) takes his case to the Supreme Court.
So he attempts to ‘address the balance’ using the Bamber case (Of all cases?) via a JR

https://m.facebook.com/comment/replies/?ctoken=2493869674222952_2493937207549532&count=23&curr&pc=1&ft_ent_identifier=2493869674222952&gfid=AQD58gVLJwh71vDK&notif_t=feed_comment

[Nicholas]

It's complete horseshit and I have a document from Bamber obviously knocked up by the CT arguing the complete opposite!

The following is from Norman Edward Gilfoyle v Criminal Cases Review Commission judgement (24/11/2017)

80. The Commission went on to analyse in some detail a number of potential relevant discrepancies in the accounts given by various persons, including the claimant over the years. Further, it said that the claimant had not raised the issue with his legal team at the time. The Commission said it was unclear why he was not capable of doing so,
https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/R-Gilfoyle-v-Criminal-Cases-Review-Commission-2017-EWCA-Crim-3008.doc

[Nicholas]

May 2017
‘We cannot understand why he was charged with murder”: family of man, 87, accused of murdering wife speak out
https://www.huntspost.co.uk/news/we-cannot-understand-why-he-was-charged-with-murder-family-of-man-87-accused-of-murdering-wife-speak-out-1-5001886

Sept 2018

”In May this year, Bamber’s lawyer Mark Newby received a letter from Frank Ferguson, head of special crimes at the CPS. He had written to the prosecutors’ office on the issue of two silencers being examined in the case but the jury only being told about one.
Although Ferguson stated “there is no documentary evidence either provided or referred to which supports the existence of a second silencer”, he added: “Any evidence that suggests that there was or may have been another silencer for the rifle would raise the possibility that the other silencer was used during the shooting and not the one alleged by the prosecution.

“Such a possibility would significantly undermine the case against JB [Jeremy Bamber] and any material supporting such a possibility would plainly be material which casts doubt on the safety of the conviction.”

Now Bamber believes he has the evidence to undermine the case against him. Writing to the Guardian from Wakefield prison, Bamber said: “The report in the hands of the CPS proves with absolute certainty that this case featured two silencers. And now the CPS must act. There are moments in life when the truth can no longer be suppressed and this is one of those times.”
Newby, a solicitor advocate from Quality Solicitors Jordans, said: “I hope this report will persuade the CPS to now authorise the handing over of all the undisclosed material still held by Essex police in this case.”
A spokesperson for the CPS said: “We have received correspondence relating to this case and requested additional material in order to respond to the points raised.”
An Essex Police spokesperson said: “Essex Police has no comment to make on these claims given that Jeremy Bamber’s conviction has been the subject of several appeals and reviews by the Criminal Cases Review Commission and there has never been anything to suggest that he was wrongly convicted.”
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/21/scientists-report-casts-doubt-on-jeremy-bamber-trial-evidence?__twitter_impression=true

July 2019
”The High Court has expressed concern about how much care the Crown Prosecution Service takes in reviewing decisions after intervening in what judges called a 'troubling case'.
Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Mrs Justice Farbey quashed the decision of a reviewing lawyer made in October not to prosecute a police officer for causing death by dangerous driving and/or causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving following a pursuit in 2016.

“The judgment, handed down last week, states that the review decision was made by barrister Frank Ferguson, head of special crime, deputy head of the special crime and counter terrorism division.

“For the reasons given above we find that the reviewing lawyer did not bring to his task that same care, thoroughness and detail. We are conscious that a broad commonsense approach should be taken to the reasoning in a review decision,  but when statements are made which are not easily identifiable in the evidence, that is a matter of concern. It is also reflective of the wider concern which the court has as to the care, thoroughness and detail which went into the writing of this review decision.'
More here https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/high-court-quashes-lawyers-decision-not-to-prosecute-police-driver/5071006.article


Has Mark Newby ever reflected on the contents of the letter he received from Frank Ferguson following the above revelations ?