I knew we'd never hear the last of it, once you'd got your jaws round the bone.
How big is your bank account?
Meanwhile, back at HQ:
"Sarge... I've been reading up on one of these 'ere internet forums, and there's this bird who's just a bit too nosey. You know those casings in that Bamber case we've had salted away for the last 30 years... do you think we could dust 'em off and touch 'em up with some wire-wool and Brasso? Just to get rid of a bit o' that corrosion like."
"Aye, that sounds good to me, they should come up shiny and brand new. I'll turf 'em out and put yer name forward for promotion!"
When I was checking out something unrelated I stumbled across the following. If the casings still exist this could potentially provide the proof everyone is looking for.
JB states he left the magazine full (10) and maybe a bullet in the breach (1). 25 shots were fired with 24 casings recovered. Therefore the perp must have loaded a further 14 or 15 bullets.
The new forensic technique involves fingerprints on metals whereby the fingerprint/sweat causes corrosion of the metal so even if washed or wiped an indelible print remains and the technique is able to reveal the fingerprint.
http://www2.le.ac.uk/research/challenges/safe/fingerprint
As we know the bullets are tiny so unlikely to contain full prints but they should contain enough partials to determine whose prints are on the 13 or 14 casings: JB or SC. If none then this might strongly suggest JB was the perp and wore gloves. Alternatively enough partials may be found strongly suggesting SC was the perp. Or of course the technique might reveal JB's prints either in full or sufficient partials to conclude beyond any doubt he was the perp.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/aug/28/forensicscience.fingerpr
I agree Holly, any partial print belonging to someone other than Jeremy could settle this issue once and for all.
Lawyers and courts would not see it that way since Jeremy alleges the bullets by a phone were place there by him before Sheila among others used that phone and could have touched a bullet during the course of the phone conversation. It would not provide any evidence that she loaded the bullets into the weapon as opposed to just touched it while talking. The evidence that would say whether she loaded multiple rounds would be the deposits and elevated lead levels.
So in the same way they deemed the DNA as being from innocent contact they would say the print could be from innocent and fails to explain away the lack of evidence that would have been on her hands had she loaded 15 rounds.
Holly's gone quiet recently. She's probably on a pub crawl doing the rounds with her CERA collection box.
Amount raised so far - Ten quid plus two fake pound coins and a chocolate ha'penny. 8(8-))
Lawyers and courts would not see it that way since Jeremy alleges the bullets by a phone were place there by him before Sheila among others used that phone and could have touched a bullet during the course of the phone conversation. It would not provide any evidence that she loaded the bullets into the weapon as opposed to just touched it while talking. The evidence that would say whether she loaded multiple rounds would be the deposits and elevated lead levels.
So in the same way they deemed the DNA as being from innocent contact they would say the print could be from innocent and fails to explain away the lack of evidence that would have been on her hands had she loaded 15 rounds.
And that was after I spent hours scrubbing up 8)><(
If the whole kit costs 50k to purchase I can't see it costing more than a few hundred, at most, per casing. Plus the cost of an expert in fingerprints to interpret the results. I've sent the info to JB but I'm sure his spies have already briefed him. I've offered to help out with funding tests in the past so I'm sure he knows the offer is there.
I don't think funding will be an issue privately or publicly eg most media outlets would probably fund it for an exclusive. The casings must show either:
- No prints - Guilty JB - wore gloves
- JB's prints - Guilty JB
- SC prints - SC was responsible
I guess the casings might also contain prints from others dependant on how they were handled eg SoC officer DC Hammersley and Malcolm Fletcher but it should be easy to eliminate their prints.
The product lit states other methods used for fingerprinting does not impact.
The perp must have loaded an additional 14 bullets at least, less one missing case albeit we don't know which one, so that's at least 13 casings. I don't buy into the idea that because JB tipped the casings onto the work top he can claim his prints are on them through innocent contamination. Or SC just happened to innocently fiddle with 13 casings while she had a brief tel con with her Aunt Pam. Neither will the CCRC/CoA. They deal in common sense not flights of fancy.
I posted the above earlier a bit hurriedly and just wanted to point out that the above claims were not made by Myster.
I have no idea what will happen if the casings have been destroyed:
165. In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives. It might have been necessary for this court to examine the circumstances in which this had happened. The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciating that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits. However, during argument it was agreed that the court could protect the appellant's position by making assumptions in his favour and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resolve precisely how this came about.
I disagree. We are not talking about one bullet/casing we're talking about at least 13 bullets/casings. If SC's prints are on 13 bullets/casings it's almost certain CoA will overturn JB's conviction. The criteria is simple 'had the jury have known about this would they have returned a different verdict'?
A few months ago Myster and myself had one of our mutually rewarding mass debating sessions re lead and residues from handling the bullets (you were too busy mass debating with Mike at the time to notice). I concluded that the description of the bullets provided by Malcolm Fletcher bears no resemblance with the manufacturers product literature. I made contact with Eley via email and telephone to confirm - see my email confirmation in the thread. Furthermore the CoA doc states that:
177. At trial Brian Elliott, a scientist from the Home Office Forensic Science Laboratory, gave evidence that the item DRH/33 described as "Swabbing Kit – hands of Sheila Caffell" had been received at the laboratory on 13 September 1985. He said that tests had been carried out for the presence of lead and that only "very low levels of lead have been detected on the two hand swabs". He further reported that tests had been carried out on two members of the laboratory staff who had loaded eighteen cartridges, similar to those used to shoot those who died at White House Farm, into the magazine of the rifle, and "significantly higher levels of lead" had been detected. Clearly if this evidence was right it cast doubt upon Sheila Caffell having loaded the cartridges into the gun and thus to her having killed the others and then herself.
215. At trial Mr Elliott had given evidence of the results of testing the swabs for lead, which included information about other elements detectable on the swab. He had also given evidence of the comparative tests carried out on other scientists after they had handled ammunition from the same source as that used in the killings and loaded it into the magazine. The tests were said to demonstrate appreciably higher lead levels on the scientists' hands than were found on the swabs taken from the hands of Sheila Caffell. This was put forward as evidence that Sheila Caffell had not handled the cartridges in a manner consistent with her being the killer.
As you will see above the document refers to "similar" bullets and also the "same" bullets. Were they similar or the same? A scientific experiment requires the exact same bullet.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6629.msg272805#msg272805
Eley subsonic extra hollow-point was 37.5 grain
Eley subsonic extra plus hollow-point was 40 grain
Eley subsonic extra was discontinued shortly after SE plus came on the seen because no one would want slightly lighter rounds. SE plus was subsequently renamed simply subsonic-hollowpoint when they redid their packaging.
They were also selling a subsonic extra lead round nose that was 40 grain but it was discontinued and not renamed when they redid their packaging.
This Bamber photo shows the SE hollow-point packaging:
(http://s11.postimg.org/8131ledxv/eleyhpplus.jpg)
Here is what that packaging looked like in full I actually found someone selling new-oldstock a while ago:
(http://s8.postimg.org/4otha2uo5/eleysubxplus.jpg)
(http://s4.postimg.org/61buncmj1/eleysub.jpg)
Eley could not tell me for sure whether the 37.5 grain was still available in 1985.
For fun here is the lead round nose SE package:
(http://s2.postimg.org/6g7qfaopl/eleysubsolid.jpg)
1) Fletcher's descriptions match perfectly with what Eley sold and what Nevill purchased. Nevill purchased Eley 22LR subsonic hollow-points. That is what all the bullets tested were including the 30 in the kitchen. Nevill didn't purchase any other ammunition. Such ammunition had a E on the back of the casing just like Fletcher described and the bullets were hollow points. I don't know what thread you are talking about but your inclinations are wrong. I asked Eley to research whether they sold any 37.5 grain hollow-points at the time or they were 40 at that point but Eley agents never got back to be they only said they sold 37.5 in the past not when they ceased. So it is possible they were only 37.5 grain not 40 but no way to know for sure which Eley was selling at the time.
2) They tested bullets from the SAME source = they test fired bullets from the supply of 30 that was found in the kitchen. The 22LR hollow-points they used for the loading test was not from the kitchen supply because nearly all of the were expended. they used the same kind of bullets but not from the supply that had been in the kitchen. Only something like 3 if that of the kitchen bullets were not used in the test firing.
3) The evidence that proved Jeremy did it is the proof that Sheila can't have killed herself. Whose prints were on the shell casings doesn't change that. She can't have killed herself regardless of whether she handled the ammunition or not and could have handled it for innocent reasons. It doesn't impact the major legs of the case so the COA would view it as irrelevant and not capable of disturbing the verdict.
Judges decide whether new evidence is objectively strong enough to undercut a major leg of a case and objectively would get a jury to acquit. They look at the evidence sufficient for the jury to convict and then look at whether than can be undermined. Her prints on the casings would undermine neither Julies testimony nor the evidence that she can't have killed herself. Nor would it undermine the evidence that had she loaded the ammunition at the time of the killings that she would have had evidence on her hands. A fingerprint on a casing but a lack of lead would evidence touching the case innocently not loading it into a magazine.
You grossly overestimate how an Appeals Court would view it.
A good lawyer looks at what convicted the person and then tried to undermine that red herrings won't cut it. The jury was told they could convict based on either of 2 things:
1) if they believed Julie's testimony
2) the evidence proving Sheila could not have killed herself
It is not some accident that on appeal lawyers have tried to find ways to attack Julie's credibility and the moderator evidence that is what was used at trial to convict her.
Evidence she loaded and fired the weapon is what the defense needs not evidence she simply touched the casings but didn't load it and didn't fire the weapon.
Take the George case. The prosecution told jurors that proof George fired a weapon and did it was the fact that he had a single grain of gunshot residue on him. For whatever reason the defense did a horrible job and failed to get an expert to counter this. The main premise of their case was bogus. It takes a lot more than a single grain to establish one fired a weapon very recently. A single grain is easy to transfer and much more than a single grain will deposit on a shooter. Defense experts undermined the main plank of the case establishing he fired a weapon and thus his conviction was overturned. Without this bogus claim the jury would not have convicted.
The defense needs to establish she loaded bullets and fired the gun and could have killed herself to get a new trial. Evidence she simply handled some of the bullets at some point in time and didn't even touch the lead bullet as would happen when you load them into a magazine would not cut it. Only Julie recanting would be the other way to get a new trial.
I refer you to my original question Holly.
I guess EP will only respond to JB or his legal representatives. I've no idea whether they have enquired about the casings. I'm sure JB will have spies monitoring the forums and feeding back anything significant. Perhaps JB is cacking his pants!
... knowing that his fingerprints are on every casing* and all will soon be revealed, thanks to Drs. Bond and Goodhead.
*if they exist.
If JB was responsible he would surely have worn gloves?
If they do exist it might partly reveal the order of deaths too.
This CERA LT machine complete is only around £27,250 (in the USA at least), so there should be a few in UK forensic labs and police forces. Testing looks so simple - eight images taken around the circumference of each casing and stitched together to make one. Then compare with JBs and SCs original prints which EP should still have... job done!
Were any prints found on the casings using conventional powder dusting in '85/86?
Depends what sort of gloves. I've heard talk of farm gloves, whatever those might be... thick leather, light cotton or somewhere in between. Even Marigolds. But loading without gloves is easier and quicker than with, so he probably took them off while doing so.
Loading a magazine bare-fingered, 9mm here but the same would go for .22s..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SExsKY_5q8E&feature=youtu.be&t=2m42s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SExsKY_5q8E&feature=youtu.be&t=2m42s)
It sounds so simple. I hope it is capable of settling the case once and for all but I somehow doubt it.
I haven't seen any evidence EP attempted to obtain fingerprints from the casings. I would have thought even if they could only obtain partials it would be enough to eliminate either JB or SC?
This is what David said when I posed the question:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5913.msg214604#msg214604 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5913.msg214604#msg214604)
Yes might be quite fiddly with any gloves on but surely if JB is responsible he would concern himself about fingerprints on casings?
Depends what sort of gloves. I've heard talk of farm gloves, whatever those might be... thick leather, light cotton or somewhere in between. Even Marigolds. But loading without gloves is easier and quicker than with, so he probably took them off while doing so.
Loading a magazine bare-fingered, 9mm here but the same would go for .22s..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SExsKY_5q8E&feature=youtu.be&t=2m42s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SExsKY_5q8E&feature=youtu.be&t=2m42s)
Farmyards, stables, workshops, body shops, garages....you'll always find a box of latex gloves.
It was a case of hurriedly loading them, so maybe thoughts of leaving fingerprints came second place.
You've tried loading an Anschutz magazine without gloves on, haven't you? Imagine how much more difficult it would be gloved when under pressure.
If the casings have been destroyed I'm wondering if the court would order a re-trial?
Doubt it, but can a prisoner or someone on his behalf sue for wrongful disposal of evidence?
It sounds so simple. I hope it is capable of settling the case once and for all but I somehow doubt it.
I haven't seen any evidence EP attempted to obtain fingerprints from the casings. I would have thought even if they could only obtain partials it would be enough to eliminate either JB or SC?
This is what David said when I posed the question:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5913.msg214604#msg214604
Cook superglue fumed the casings in an attempt to locate latent prints since no visible prints could be located . Thus they did in fact make the attempt though no latent prints were revealed either.
The Anschutz and magazine probably exist, (was the original, or a similar one used in the US tests?), so maybe the casings do as well... on display, polished up like new in EP's "Black Museum". ; - )
The CERA device could also be used on the moderator, but more likely to find every other Bob, Dave and Stan's fingerprints on it as well.
Apparently, cyanoacrylate fuming doesn't affect underlying corrosion, so there could be a better chance of lifting readable prints with the CERA. If it works successfully, this discovery/invention is up there with DNA "fingerprinting" in advancing crime detection.
The CA fuming method, just for info...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkdlRN0jU7U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkdlRN0jU7U)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0e8WXkFA64 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0e8WXkFA64)
Well hopefully we will have the definitive answer we all seek thanks to CERA LT. If the casings have been destroyed then it appears the only way forward will be a retrial.
Meanwhile we have Trudi's vlog to look forward to tomorrow 8)-)))
Retrial after 30 years? wont happen. First of all the COA will have to quash the conviction before a retrial is ordered.
COA will either uphold or acquit, Ordering a retrial will be pointless because A) Three decades have passed B) The evidence is a joke by todays standards C) Most the senior witnesses are dead or not far from it.
The best option for the COA is to uphold
Retrial after 30 years? wont happen. First of all the COA will have to quash the conviction before a retrial is ordered.
COA will either uphold or acquit, Ordering a retrial will be pointless because A) Three decades have passed B) The evidence is a joke by todays standards C) Most the senior witnesses are dead or not far from it.
The best option for the COA is to uphold
Those elusive cartridge cases heard about your crafty scheming and have gone on the run...(http://i.imgur.com/gXBdnOh.png?1)
So based on Trudi's vlog it seems the only exhibits still available are the rifle and silencer 8(8-)) No chance of the conclusive evidence I was hoping for as a result of CERA LT 8(8-)) 8)><(
No idea what the way forward is now or even if one exists! &%+((£ Perhaps judicial review &%+((£ Judicial review as I understand it is concerned with process rather than outcomes. If EP didn't follow due processes with regards to the preservation of court exhibits maybe there's some scope here (for a retrial)? No idea. I will discuss with 'my Pete' but he deals in litigation and in any event you can never get a straight answer from any of these people!
(Just previewed and the post is not displaying emoticons?)
Oh dear, Oh dear, Oh dear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's saved them raising twenty-seven grand for a CERA LT.
Videos and emoticons make strange bedfellows.
Here Pete!... Come on, that's a good boy! Sit!... now tell me.......
Oh dear, Oh dear, Oh dear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! what? You do appreciate that CPS clearly state it's the prosecutions responsibility to preserve court exhibits post trial?
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/exhibits/
General Guidance: After Production In Court
Once an exhibit is produced in court, or treated as being produced in accordance with section 5B(5) Magistrates Courts Act 1980 (Archbold 10-16), the court has a responsibility to preserve or retain it. Normally the court entrusts the exhibits to the prosecution, usually the police.
The court can impose restrictions on the prosecution. Where it imposes no restrictions, it is for the prosecution to deal with the exhibits in whatever way appears best for the purposes of justice. If the prosecution has doubts as to how to deal with an exhibit it may, but is not obliged to, apply to the court for directions (R v Stipendiary Magistrates at Lambeth and Another, ex p McComb 1983) All ER 321).
It strikes me that at least Trudi is aware of the importance of material exhibits and forensic evidence in criminal trials. With respect April you have recently stated forensics are not your thing:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7129.msg337738.html#msg337738
I thought it was 25k? Anyway I am sure it would not have been necessary to buy the complete kit to test a few casings. Its the end of the road in terms of CERA and casings but it might open up other possibilities if the courts decide JB was deprived of potentially forwarding fresh evidence as EP didn't follow due processes.
There's only one thing that annoys me about 'my Pete' and that's when he raises his eyes to the ceiling and sighs AT ME 8()(((@# It infuriates me.
However CERA LT is capable of identifying fingerprints on casings. How can the CoA judges make a concession as they did above? What is the alternative to a retrial? JB will claim had the casings not been destoyed he would be in a position to prove his innocence. They might still exist but I believe a lot of exhibits were destroyed.
There is no concession that can be made, there is no alternative way to get evidence as there is to get mitochondrial DNA.
You keep ignoring though that her prints being on the casings would not be able to establish she loaded them into the weapon at most such would establish she touched some while on the phone. Actually loading them would have left evidence on her person and such evidences were missing. There was evidence that Jeremy attempted to plan her prints as well and it can be argued he did such.
Finding her prints on the casings would not render it possible for her to have killed herself which is what the defense needs to establish to get the conviction vacated. This is little more than a red herring in the eyes of the law. Only a few arguments would be legally significant in terms of warranting vacating the conviction: 1) undermining the evidence that proves Sheila didn't kill herself; 2) Julie changing her testimony. Nothing else anyone argues holds any legal significance at all.
The judge told the jury that they could convict if they believed Julie or if they believed the evidence that proves Sheila could not have killed herself. Undermining at least one of these is the only way to get the conviction vacated. Anything that fails to address 1 of these 2 things is simply a red herring that holds no legal significance.
I assume there's some sort of national hol today in US as I've been checking the DOW and other US indices and they're closed!?
No I disgaree. I've previously posted the CCRC and CoA criteria for fresh submissions and a referral to CoA:
CCRC:
What is “new evidence or legal argument”?
If we are going to be able to refer your case for an appeal we will
usually need to find some importan
t new evidence or legal argument.
Usually this means something that was
not covered at your trial or your
appeal.For example it may be new
evidence not known about at the
time, or something that has chan
ged since your trial, like the
appearance of a new witness or a new development in science. We
can’t usually look again at things that were known about by the jury,
the judge or the magistrates, even
if you believe that they made the
wrong decision in your case. We need to identify something new that
wasn’t raised back then, and that
the judges at your appeal didn’t
know either, that makes your case
look significantly different now.
In some cases it might be a new
legal argument, rather than new
evidence, that means we can refer a case. New legal argument is
usually some significant new point of law that has not been made
before, such as a complaint that the judge’s summing-up was faulty, or
that the prosecution app
lied the law incorrectly.
http://ccrc.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/ccrc-q-and-a.pdf
Court of Appeal
Hearing new evidence
The Court of Appeal may hear new evidence that was not adduced in the original proceedings (section 23(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1968), if:
it appears capable of belief;
it may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
it would have been admissible;
it is an issue which is the subject of the appeal;
there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it.
The court can call persons who were not called at trial but may be able to give relevant evidence to the Court of Appeal such as jurors or lawyers.
The court has power to compel the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses. These powers extend to hearings of applications for leave to appeal as well as the appeal itself, (section 23 Criminal Appeal Act 1968, as amended by section 47 and schedule 8 paragraph 10 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008).
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/appeals_to_the_court_of_appeal/#a02
I maintain that if SC's fingerprints were found on the casings it would throw new light on the case and be treated as "fresh evidence". It could be argued that SC might have fiddled with one cartridge whislt talking with Aunty Pam but I think the prosecution would struggle with circa 15 or more! Especially when control groups exist ie all the other cartridges seized as exhibits that were unlikely to contain SC's fingerprints if SC was responsible. It's not known where the cartridges used came from eg kitchen worktop, gun cupboard or elsewhere. Or even who had previously handled the cartridges that had been reloaded.
The CoA will not second guess what weight the jury attributed to the various aspects of the case and in this context the judge's summing up is irrelevant. This can be evidenced by the appeal court judges comments at JB's 2002 CoA hearing:
513. It should be understood that it is not the function of this court to decide whether or not the jury was right in reaching its verdicts. That is a task that is wholly impossible in virtually every case because this court does not have the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses give evidence, and deciding which of the witnesses are trying to tell the truth and which of those who are trying to do so are accurate in their recollection. Our system trusts the judgment of a group of 12 ordinary people to make such assessments and it is not for the Court of Appeal to try to interfere with their assessment unless the verdicts are manifestly wrong, or something has gone wrong in the process leading up to or at trial so as to deprive the jury of a fair opportunity to make their assessment of the case, or unless fresh evidence has emerged that the jury never had an opportunity to consider. We have found no evidence of anything that occurred which might unfairly have affected the fairness of the trial. We do not believe that the fresh evidence that has been placed before us would have had any significant impact upon the jury's conclusions if it had been available at trial. Finally the jury's verdicts were, in our judgment, ones that they were plainly entitled to reach on the evidence. We should perhaps add in fairness to the jury that the deeper we have delved into the available evidence the more likely it has seemed to us that the jury were right, but our views do not matter in this regard, it is the views of the jury that are paramount.
Had the casings existed and had the CETRA device produced SC's fingerprints then for sure this would be considered "fresh evidence" meeting the CCRC and CoA criteria and in all probability JB's conviction would be overturned. The appeal court judges would not think 'but hey hang on what about the silencer evidence &%+((£ and what about Julie Mugford's testimony &%+((£ That's not how it works. The appeal court judges have to put themselves in the shoes of jurors and consider if the "fresh evidence" would have altered their verdicts.
It is Martin Luther king Day.
Evidence being new is not enough the new evidence must be sufficient to warrant vacating the verdict. The only new evidence sufficient to do that would be for Julie to change her testimony or evidence that proves Sheila fired a weapon and could have killed herself. Her prints being on casings would not establish she loaded let alone fired a weapon. You can ignore this all you like but it is the terrain in which we currently find ourselves deployed...
Anyway as far as I can see all is not lost. Given the above and the fact EP destroyed evidence against CPS procedures JB has been deprived of the chance to submit fresh evidence.
Example: Two identical cases. In A's case Manchester police were responsible for maintaining exhibits and had done so enabling A's case to reach CoA. Convictions quashed as sister's fingerprints were found on casings by CERA which was not avaialble at A's trial in 1985 and therefore treated as "fresh evidence" in 2016.
In JB's case Essex police were responsbile for maintaining exhibits but went against procedures and destroyed in 1996. ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
We can't have a system where justice is potentially denied on the basis of whether or not a police force decide to maintain exhibits or destroy them when the CPS clearly states exhibits must be maintained post trial.
Anyway as far as I can see all is not lost. Given the above and the fact EP destroyed evidence against CPS procedures JB has been deprived of the chance to submit fresh evidence.
Example: Two identical cases. In A's case Manchester police were responsible for maintaining exhibits and had done so enabling A's case to reach CoA. Convictions quashed as sister's fingerprints were found on casings by CERA which was not avaialble at A's trial in 1985 and therefore treated as "fresh evidence" in 2016.
In JB's case Essex police were responsbile for maintaining exhibits but went against procedures and destroyed in 1996. ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
We can't have a system where justice is potentially denied on the basis of whether or not a police force decide to maintain exhibits or destroy them when the CPS clearly states exhibits must be maintained post trial.
It's a hypothetical case, scipio. Holly was highlighting the inefficiency of EP in comparison to a different police force whereby evidence would have been retained not destroyed.
I know I want a plausible case where fingerprints on the casings would result in a retrial. The only fact pattern that could be conjured up would be with much different facts than Jeremy's for instance where 2 people could have committed the crime and the prints on the casings implicate one over the other. The evidence here is that Sheila could not have killed herself and that Julie insists Jeremy was planning in advance to carry out the murders and frame Sheila and admitted to her he had them killed. Only overcoming this evidence can create reasonable doubt. Her prints being planted on the casings would not suffice given she could not have killed herself you have make it possible for her to have killed herself to even try to create reasonable doubt.
A conviction will not be overturned on the basis that evidence was destroyed and maybe that destroyed evidence could have held evidence useful to the defense. You have to show the prosecution knew it had evidence that was able to result in the case being overturned and destroyed it intentionally to prevent the defense from having access. I can't think of any cases where courts ruled such offhand. In the meantime we know the circumstances of the destruction here, the police thought the appeal process ended in 1994. The police were unaware that the defense sent 2-4 letters to Home office over the course of 2 years let alone that such contact meant there was still an active appeal.
There is no concession that can be made, there is no alternative way to get evidence as there is to get mitochondrial DNA.
You keep ignoring though that her prints being on the casings would not be able to establish she loaded them into the weapon at most such would establish she touched some while on the phone. Actually loading them would have left evidence on her person and such evidences were missing. There was evidence that Jeremy attempted to plan her prints as well and it can be argued he did such.