Yes imo!
The 2002 appeal was made up of the following points:
1a) Hand swabs swapped
1b) Hand swabs - reliability/validity of tests
2) Disturbance in kitchen
3) Windows
4) Timing of tel call to JM
5) Credibility of JM
6) Letter from CC to NB
7) WS from CC
8) Photograph "I hate this place"
9) Bible
10) Inheritance
11) Proposed purchase of Porsche
12) Kitchen tel used by officer
13) Scars on hands
14) Blood evidence
15) DNA evidence
16) Police misconduct
Many of the points above are simply not capable of being pursued at an appeal hearing as they are not strong enough. Appeal court judges are looking for the
factor.
No matter what 'supporters' and the likes of Michael Turner QC think the following points will never be strong enough to succeed at appeal:
1a), 2), 3), 4), 5), 6), 7), 8), 10), 11), 13) and 16).
In my opinion, Michael Turner QC failed Jeremy Bamber in not pursuing aspects that had a real chance of success:
1b), 9), 12), 14), and 15)
1b) Failed to arrange for forensic tests to be carried out on testees hands to determine lead levels having loaded cartridges into mag.
9) Failed to appreciate blood test results on the stained pages of the bible were not disclosed to the defence at trial. MT appears to have assumed the blood stains originated from SC instead of looking into the very real possibility they originated from June.
12) Failed to understand the soc. MT claims an officer used the kitchen phone thus removing blood originating from NB when he used the tel to call JB. The forensic evidence by way of bloodstaining to a variety of items over WHF, casings, distance of shots, trajectories (gsw's) and wound tracks (gsw's) support NB having made the call to JB from the kitchen with SC already upstairs shooting June, and NB then sustaining his upstairs gsw's on the landing stairs and main stairs.
14) and 15) Failed to understand the blood, DNA and silencer evidence. Did not carry out proper research eg the fact contact wounds do not result in blood presenting in barrels about 50% of the time. Failed to show Malcolm Fletcher was anything but a competent forensic scientist and his trial testimony was WRONG. I could add further here but am unable to do so at this moment in time
Other aspects completely overlooked and capable of being pursued include:
- SC's nightdress: lack of photographic evidence by way of gel electrophesis to determine whose AK enzyme on nightdress presenting the real possibility some of the blood stains originated from June. Tests to show lack of debris on SC's nightdress by way of oil etc was consistent with SC as perp.
- SC's nails: test to demonstrate loading/discharging does not cause nails to break.
- Tests to demonstrate how easy it was for novices to learn to operate the rifle.
- SC's feet: tests to determine visual absence of blood/sugar on feet is consistent with SC as perp.
- June's mental illness shortly after adopting SC with the real possibility of SC suffering an attachment disorder which Dr Ferguson did not advise the court about. I accept attachment has moved on during the last 30 years but when MT QC represented JB at his 2002 appeal hearing it is something else he overlooked.
MT QC was told by the appeal court judges they could rule in JB's favour where evidence had been destroyed. This was a golden opportunity to pursue the bible and SC's nightdress but it was all lost on MT QC.
