UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: Holly Goodhead on January 04, 2018, 06:05:22 PM
-
- I understand new forensic tests are able to undermine the following:
- Blood and silencer evidence presented at trial.
- Hand swab evidence presented at trial.
- I understand a soc reconstruction will show NB sustained his first gsw's whilst on the landing stairs with the perp stood just inside the main bedroom. This in turn lends support to JB's claim of a tel call from NB in that NB was first shot coming upstairs facing towards the main bedroom with the perp already in the main bedroom.
- Malcolm Fletcher's trial testimony is to be discredited by other experts appropriately qualified which MF was not at the time of JB's trial.
- June's mental illness circa 1955 and 1959 which in all probability caused SC to suffer an attachment disorder and unresolved trauma creating a risk of sucide and perpertrating acts of violence including filicide. The science underpinning severe maternal depression, neglect, attachment and unreolved trauma makes Dr Ferguson's trial testimony largely obsolete.
- Blood stain evidence on the bible was undisclosed to JB's defence at trial. All the facts suggest the blood stains originate from June who carried the bible with her as she walked around the bed as opposed to SC reading it prior to taking her own life or JB staging it.
?>)()<
66
-
In order to overturn such a high profile conviction for five murders, Bamber's legal team would have to provide extremely solid evidence to support their arguments and as it stands all I can see is revolving mirrors and smokescreens.
According to accepted knowledge of events, Nevill Bamber was initially shot several times as he opened the bedroom door and nothing will ever change that understanding.
I see nothing which can change the circumstances as we already know them. Julie Mugford's evidence and the forensics alone will keep Bamber in prison indefinately imho.
-
- I understand new forensic tests are able to undermine the following:
- Blood and silencer evidence presented at trial.
- Hand swab evidence presented at trial.
- I understand a soc reconstruction will show NB sustained his first gsw's whilst on the landing stairs with the perp stood just inside the main bedroom. This in turn lends support to JB's claim of a tel call from NB in that NB was first shot coming upstairs facing towards the main bedroom with the perp already in the main bedroom.
- Malcolm Fletcher's trial testimony is to be discredited by other experts appropriately qualified which MF was not at the time of JB's trial.
- June's mental illness circa 1955 and 1959 which in all probability caused SC to suffer an attachment disorder and unresolved trauma creating a risk of sucide and perpertrating acts of violence including filicide. The science underpinning severe maternal depression, neglect, attachment and unreolved trauma makes Dr Ferguson's trial testimony largely obsolete.
- Blood stain evidence on the bible was undisclosed to JB's defence at trial. All the facts suggest the blood stains originate from June who carried the bible with her as she walked around the bed as opposed to SC reading it prior to taking her own life or JB staging it.
?>)()<
They have already covered the bible blood stain evidence, that will go nowhere because the actual bible was an exhibt in court.
MF, can't be discredited - only challenged and June's mental health would have also affected Jeremy Bamber - they BOTH had the same parents. I can't see this lot getting passed the CCRC. If this is all they have - %56&
-
In order to overturn such a high profile conviction for five murders, Bamber's legal team would have to provide extremely solid evidence to support their arguments and as it stands all I can see is revolving mirrors and smokescreens.
According to accepted knowledge of events, Nevill Bamber was initially shot several times as he opened the bedroom door and nothing will ever change that understanding.
I see nothing which can change the circumstances as we already know them. Julie Mugford's evidence and the forensics alone will keep Bamber in prison indefinately imho.
What underpins the "accepted knowledge of events"?
Break the blood/silencer and JB will walk. I have strong reasons to believe this will happen.
-
They have already covered the bible blood stain evidence, that will go nowhere because the actual bible was an exhibt in court.
If this was so it wouldn't have been allowed as an appeal point at the 2002 hearing, so no it's all to play for at the next appeal. Imo Michael Turner's performance at JB's 2002 appeal was so poor he should be struck off for gross incompetence and negligence. I think most will agree the blood stain evidence of all exhibits is key to the case. MT failed to understand key material, notably Dr Lincoln's report for the defence at trial, and appreciate blood stain test results pertaining to the bible were not disclosed to the defence at trial. As you said the bible was exhibited at court and therefore should have been retained indefinitely by EP. The appeal court judges took a dim view of the fact all exhibits had been destroyed and agreed they would rule in JB's favour if points were made that were unable to be proved due to the destroyed exhibits. All the evidence surrounding the bible suggests June walked around the bed holding it and dropped it in the vicinity it was found:
- June's blood groupings were confirmed on the carpet and blue socks where the bible was found
- The bible belonged to June and was kept on her bedside table
- June was deeply religious
- Having sustained 5/6 gsw's June was able to get out of bed and walk to the other side and back therefore there's no reason she wouldn't have reached for her bible in her hour of need
- The only identifiable fingerprints on the bible belonged to June
- June's hands were contaminated with blood as confirmed by Dr Vanezis which wasn't the case with SC
- JM's WS states MM placed the bible on SC's chest. Had the blood stain results been disclosed to the defence in all probability this would seriously dent JM's testimony. As the bible was destroyed the court would have no option other than to rule in JB's favour.
MF, can't be discredited - only challenged and June's mental health would have also affected Jeremy Bamber - they BOTH had the same parents. I can't see this lot getting passed the CCRC. If this is all they have - %56&
MF could potentially be discredited if it comes to light he was less than truthful on his cv/job application. I struggle to understand why an expert witness in ballistics would need to fall back on "a small amount of experience of an air rifle as a small boy". Beggars belief. The Gov has acknowledged quality failures at FSS during the 80's.
June suffered mental breakdowns requiring in-patient psychiatric care during 1955 and 1959. SC was placed in the care of the Bambers during 1957 so was exposed to June's severe depression in the lead up to her 1959 breakdown. According to Dr Ferguson June made a full recovery. JB was not even born until 1961 so no he avoided exposure to June when she was suffering severe depression during critical periods of his development.
-
If this was so it wouldn't have been allowed as an appeal point at the 2002 hearing, so no it's all to play for at the next appeal. Imo Michael Turner's performance at JB's 2002 appeal was so poor he should be struck off for gross incompetence and negligence. I think most will agree the blood stain evidence of all exhibits is key to the case. MT failed to understand key material, notably Dr Lincoln's report for the defence at trial, and appreciate blood stain test results pertaining to the bible were not disclosed to the defence at trial. As you said the bible was exhibited at court and therefore should have been retained indefinitely by EP. The appeal court judges took a dim view of the fact all exhibits had been destroyed and agreed they would rule in JB's favour if points were made that were unable to be proved due to the destroyed exhibits. All the evidence surrounding the bible suggests June walked around the bed holding it and dropped it in the vicinity it was found:
- June's blood groupings were confirmed on the carpet and blue socks where the bible was found
- The bible belonged to June and was kept on her bedside table
- June was deeply religious
- Having sustained 5/6 gsw's June was able to get out of bed and walk to the other side and back therefore there's no reason she wouldn't have reached for her bible in her hour of need
- The only identifiable fingerprints on the bible belonged to June
- June's hands were contaminated with blood as confirmed by Dr Vanezis which wasn't the case with SC
- JM's WS states MM placed the bible on SC's chest. Had the blood stain results been disclosed to the defence in all probability this would seriously dent JM's testimony. As the bible was destroyed the court would have no option other than to rule in JB's favour.
MF could potentially be discredited if it comes to light he was less than truthful on his cv/job application. I struggle to understand why an expert witness in ballistics would need to fall back on "a small amount of experience of an air rifle as a small boy". Beggars belief. The Gov has acknowledged quality failures at FSS during the 80's.
June suffered mental breakdowns requiring in-patient psychiatric care during 1955 and 1959. SC was placed in the care of the Bambers during 1957 so was exposed to June's severe depression in the lead up to her 1959 breakdown. According to Dr Ferguson June made a full recovery. JB was not even born until 1961 so no he avoided exposure to June when she was suffering severe depression during critical periods of his development.
Have you read the 2002 appeal report? It was covered as part of the 2002 appeal hearing (ground 9) so can't be brought up a new appeal. Read the 2002 appeal document - the bible was available for the defense to scrutinise if they had wanted - see below!
Ground 9 – the Bible 405. Ground 9 is an allegation of non-disclosure relating to the Bible found beside Sheila Caffell's body. The precise complaint is that the prosecution failed to disclose at trial the pages at which the Bible had been opened. Mr Turner draws attention to two distinct matters, two photographs of the Bible and documents relating to an inquiry made to a local Rector about the relevant pages.
406. Photographs of the scene, which were before the jury at trial, clearly showed the Bible lying open but face down beside Sheila Caffell's body. Since the Bible was face down, it is not possible to ascertain from these photographs the pages at which the Bible lay open.
407. Two further photographs of the Bible have been located by those advising the appellant. When they were taken and by whom they were taken is not known. It is clear from the photographs themselves that they were not taken at the scene. But must have been taken at some other location following the removal of the Bible as a potential exhibit by the police. The photographs record the blood staining on the Bible. From this staining it is immediately obvious that the Bible has been shut whilst the blood remained wet because marks on one page are mirrored on the adjoining page.
408. The pages on which the heavy staining appears in these photographs are pages including part or all of Psalms 51-55. It is said that these pages are significant and represented "Sheila Caffell's suicide note". A number of passages are highlighted and it will suffice if we give one example, taken from verse 14 of Psalm 51:
"Save me from blood guiltiness O God…"
409. The evidence suggests that the two photographs were not brought to the attention of the defence and Mr Turner once more submits that the only explanation for this is wilful concealment by the police.
410. In addition complaint is made that a visit to discuss the relevant pages with the local Rector was not disclosed to the defence. This allegation stems from documents which came to light during the subsequent inquiries. These documents record that on a day ,which seems to be early in the inquiry into the shootings, DC Barlow was instructed by DI Miller to see the Rector to see if there was any significance in the open pages. Since at that stage the case was thought to be one in which Sheila Caffell had committed suicide, such an inquiry seems a natural one to have made. The only record of the outcome of that instruction appears in a note made by DC Barlow at a much later date which reads:
"I did see the Rector but he couldn't help us in any way on (the) point…"
411. Mr Barlow has since that time been forced to retire from the police force following a severe stroke. He does not now think that he did see the Rector. However, so far as we can tell, his record quoted above was not drawn to his attention and we conclude that he did see the Rector. We are not, however, surprised that a fruitless inquiry made almost 17 years ago does not stick in his memory following his enforced retirement from the police.
412. Mr Turner submits that there was a duty on the prosecution not only to disclose the photographs but also the fact of the visit to the Rector.
413. The only value of the photographs would be if the Bible itself was not available for inspection since if it was, the page at which it was open could very readily be found. We permitted both Mr Terzeon, the defence solicitor at trial, and Mr Edmund Lawson QC, junior counsel at trial, to give evidence about this aspect of the case. Mr Terzeon suggested that he had particularly wanted to ascertain the pages at which the Bible was open. He said that as a result he had asked the police and been told that the pages were not known. When he was asked why he had not looked at the Bible itself, he said that it was his recollection that it had been missing at the time.
414. If Mr Terzeon's recollection was right, we find it astonishing that nowhere is this recorded in any document nor does Mr Edmund Lawson have any recollection of any such problem. The fact that the police had lost an exhibit at some stage that the defence were anxious to view is we suggest the sort of detail that tends to stick in trial counsel's mind even when other details fade. Further Mr Terzeon had no recollection of the Bible being produced at trial as it undoubtedly was. If it had been missing and if the defence were attaching to it the importance that he now suggests, it must surely have come to his attention and would, we have no doubt, been carefully scrutinised. Such scrutiny would inevitably have revealed the relevant pages because the pages were so heavily bloodstained. Blood had also dripped down the edges of the pages on one of the sides when it was opened. Thus by turning to the end of this mark on the page edges one could immediately identify the bloodstained pages with little effort.
415. We are satisfied that whilst Mr Terzeon is doing his best to assist the court, his recollection in this regard is faulty. Even if he was right, any deficiency in this regard would have been cured when the Bible was produced at trial.
416. The fact that the defence made no play of the Bible's pages may very well have something to do with another aspect of the matter. The more each member of the court looked at the photographs in order to deal with this point, the more difficult we found it to reconcile the actual bloodstaining with the defence case. The largest area of blood seems to have got onto the Bible when it came into contact with a pool of blood beside the body. As already observed the Bible must have been shut whilst the blood was wet. It does not seem very likely that it was still wet hours after the event when the police might have handled it. If this is so, it was shut by someone and then reopened to lie beside the body after Sheila Caffell had been shot. These matters along with other considerations of a similar kind were placed before us by the prosecution on an application to call fresh evidence with which we will deal later. It did not, however, require fresh evidence for us to see that there was a potentially powerful point that might have been made in this regard by the prosecution at trial.
417. The explanation why the pages at which the Bible was open was not explored by the defence may be explicable by these matters. Counsel with the experience of Mr Rivlin QC, and with his acknowledged reputation for thoroughness, may well have decided that far from helping these matters might have presented a yet further major hurdle for the appellant to overcome and consequently decided to leave well alone. In any event we are satisfied that production of the original exhibit provided all the information that the photographs would have revealed and that there was no failure to disclose in this respect.
418. The information that the Rector had been visited was, on all the available evidence, of no help to anyone. The record shows that he could not help in any way. Thus there was nothing that could assist the defence and accordingly nothing that required to be disclosed.
419. We are satisfied, therefore, that there was no failure by the prosecution to disclose any material in this regard that required to be disclosed. Even if we had reached a different conclusion, we fail to see how it would have assisted the appellant. The pages only became relevant if Sheila Caffell had turned them up but that begged the very question that the jury were going to have to answer, namely who killed Sheila Caffell. Was it Sheila Caffell who opened the Bible as a part of her suicide or Jeremy Bamber who did it as part of a plan to make it look as if Sheila Caffell had committed suicide? Mr Turner suggests that if it was the appellant it is remarkable that he did not himself pursue this aspect of the matter. However for the appellant to suggest that these pages were of some critical significance required him to know what they were. If he was the killer, he could hardly make any great play of this aspect of the case without risking others realising that he had more knowledge about the matter than he would have had if he was innocent.
420. For these reasons, but particularly because we are satisfied that there was no failure to disclose matters of significance this ground fails. We should add that we were asked to hear evidence from Dr Ferguson in respect of the significance of these pages but we are satisfied that the evidence was available to the defence at trial and that in any event Dr Ferguson could not assist on the critical question as to who chose to open the Bible at this page. We, therefore, declined to hear this evidence.
421. For the sake of completeness, we should record that those acting for the appellant had obtained a statement from Dr Gillingham, a theologian, dealing with the theological significance of the pages at which the Bible was open. No application was made to us to admit this evidence. If it had been, we would have rejected the application. Such evidence could have been obtained for the trial because we are satisfied that the relevant passages could have been obtained by those acting for the appellant. In any event we do not consider that this evidence would have been admissible at trial because there was no evidence to suggest that Sheila Caffell had any particular theological training or expertise which would have enabled her to read more into the passages than would have been apparent to the jury from looking at the passages themselves. Further we have no doubt at all that even if admissible, this evidence could not have had any impact on the jury's verdict.
-
Have you read the 2002 appeal report? It was covered as part of the 2002 appeal hearing (ground 9) so can't be brought up a new appeal. Read the 2002 appeal document - the bible was available for the defense to scrutinise if they had wanted - see below!
Ground 9 – the Bible 405. Ground 9 is an allegation of non-disclosure relating to the Bible found beside Sheila Caffell's body. The precise complaint is that the prosecution failed to disclose at trial the pages at which the Bible had been opened. Mr Turner draws attention to two distinct matters, two photographs of the Bible and documents relating to an inquiry made to a local Rector about the relevant pages.
406. Photographs of the scene, which were before the jury at trial, clearly showed the Bible lying open but face down beside Sheila Caffell's body. Since the Bible was face down, it is not possible to ascertain from these photographs the pages at which the Bible lay open.
407. Two further photographs of the Bible have been located by those advising the appellant. When they were taken and by whom they were taken is not known. It is clear from the photographs themselves that they were not taken at the scene. But must have been taken at some other location following the removal of the Bible as a potential exhibit by the police. The photographs record the blood staining on the Bible. From this staining it is immediately obvious that the Bible has been shut whilst the blood remained wet because marks on one page are mirrored on the adjoining page.
408. The pages on which the heavy staining appears in these photographs are pages including part or all of Psalms 51-55. It is said that these pages are significant and represented "Sheila Caffell's suicide note". A number of passages are highlighted and it will suffice if we give one example, taken from verse 14 of Psalm 51:
"Save me from blood guiltiness O God…"
409. The evidence suggests that the two photographs were not brought to the attention of the defence and Mr Turner once more submits that the only explanation for this is wilful concealment by the police.
410. In addition complaint is made that a visit to discuss the relevant pages with the local Rector was not disclosed to the defence. This allegation stems from documents which came to light during the subsequent inquiries. These documents record that on a day ,which seems to be early in the inquiry into the shootings, DC Barlow was instructed by DI Miller to see the Rector to see if there was any significance in the open pages. Since at that stage the case was thought to be one in which Sheila Caffell had committed suicide, such an inquiry seems a natural one to have made. The only record of the outcome of that instruction appears in a note made by DC Barlow at a much later date which reads:
"I did see the Rector but he couldn't help us in any way on (the) point…"
411. Mr Barlow has since that time been forced to retire from the police force following a severe stroke. He does not now think that he did see the Rector. However, so far as we can tell, his record quoted above was not drawn to his attention and we conclude that he did see the Rector. We are not, however, surprised that a fruitless inquiry made almost 17 years ago does not stick in his memory following his enforced retirement from the police.
412. Mr Turner submits that there was a duty on the prosecution not only to disclose the photographs but also the fact of the visit to the Rector.
413. The only value of the photographs would be if the Bible itself was not available for inspection since if it was, the page at which it was open could very readily be found. We permitted both Mr Terzeon, the defence solicitor at trial, and Mr Edmund Lawson QC, junior counsel at trial, to give evidence about this aspect of the case. Mr Terzeon suggested that he had particularly wanted to ascertain the pages at which the Bible was open. He said that as a result he had asked the police and been told that the pages were not known. When he was asked why he had not looked at the Bible itself, he said that it was his recollection that it had been missing at the time.
414. If Mr Terzeon's recollection was right, we find it astonishing that nowhere is this recorded in any document nor does Mr Edmund Lawson have any recollection of any such problem. The fact that the police had lost an exhibit at some stage that the defence were anxious to view is we suggest the sort of detail that tends to stick in trial counsel's mind even when other details fade. Further Mr Terzeon had no recollection of the Bible being produced at trial as it undoubtedly was. If it had been missing and if the defence were attaching to it the importance that he now suggests, it must surely have come to his attention and would, we have no doubt, been carefully scrutinised. Such scrutiny would inevitably have revealed the relevant pages because the pages were so heavily bloodstained. Blood had also dripped down the edges of the pages on one of the sides when it was opened. Thus by turning to the end of this mark on the page edges one could immediately identify the bloodstained pages with little effort.
415. We are satisfied that whilst Mr Terzeon is doing his best to assist the court, his recollection in this regard is faulty. Even if he was right, any deficiency in this regard would have been cured when the Bible was produced at trial.
416. The fact that the defence made no play of the Bible's pages may very well have something to do with another aspect of the matter. The more each member of the court looked at the photographs in order to deal with this point, the more difficult we found it to reconcile the actual bloodstaining with the defence case. The largest area of blood seems to have got onto the Bible when it came into contact with a pool of blood beside the body. As already observed the Bible must have been shut whilst the blood was wet. It does not seem very likely that it was still wet hours after the event when the police might have handled it. If this is so, it was shut by someone and then reopened to lie beside the body after Sheila Caffell had been shot. These matters along with other considerations of a similar kind were placed before us by the prosecution on an application to call fresh evidence with which we will deal later. It did not, however, require fresh evidence for us to see that there was a potentially powerful point that might have been made in this regard by the prosecution at trial.
417. The explanation why the pages at which the Bible was open was not explored by the defence may be explicable by these matters. Counsel with the experience of Mr Rivlin QC, and with his acknowledged reputation for thoroughness, may well have decided that far from helping these matters might have presented a yet further major hurdle for the appellant to overcome and consequently decided to leave well alone. In any event we are satisfied that production of the original exhibit provided all the information that the photographs would have revealed and that there was no failure to disclose in this respect.
418. The information that the Rector had been visited was, on all the available evidence, of no help to anyone. The record shows that he could not help in any way. Thus there was nothing that could assist the defence and accordingly nothing that required to be disclosed.
419. We are satisfied, therefore, that there was no failure by the prosecution to disclose any material in this regard that required to be disclosed. Even if we had reached a different conclusion, we fail to see how it would have assisted the appellant. The pages only became relevant if Sheila Caffell had turned them up but that begged the very question that the jury were going to have to answer, namely who killed Sheila Caffell. Was it Sheila Caffell who opened the Bible as a part of her suicide or Jeremy Bamber who did it as part of a plan to make it look as if Sheila Caffell had committed suicide? Mr Turner suggests that if it was the appellant it is remarkable that he did not himself pursue this aspect of the matter. However for the appellant to suggest that these pages were of some critical significance required him to know what they were. If he was the killer, he could hardly make any great play of this aspect of the case without risking others realising that he had more knowledge about the matter than he would have had if he was innocent.
420. For these reasons, but particularly because we are satisfied that there was no failure to disclose matters of significance this ground fails. We should add that we were asked to hear evidence from Dr Ferguson in respect of the significance of these pages but we are satisfied that the evidence was available to the defence at trial and that in any event Dr Ferguson could not assist on the critical question as to who chose to open the Bible at this page. We, therefore, declined to hear this evidence.
421. For the sake of completeness, we should record that those acting for the appellant had obtained a statement from Dr Gillingham, a theologian, dealing with the theological significance of the pages at which the Bible was open. No application was made to us to admit this evidence. If it had been, we would have rejected the application. Such evidence could have been obtained for the trial because we are satisfied that the relevant passages could have been obtained by those acting for the appellant. In any event we do not consider that this evidence would have been admissible at trial because there was no evidence to suggest that Sheila Caffell had any particular theological training or expertise which would have enabled her to read more into the passages than would have been apparent to the jury from looking at the passages themselves. Further we have no doubt at all that even if admissible, this evidence could not have had any impact on the jury's verdict.
Yes the bible formed an appeal point at the 2002 hearing but as you've pointed out this was on the basis that the open pages were not disclosed to the defence at trial. At the 2002 hearing MT sought to advance the theory the open pages represented SC's state of mind and some sort of suicide message. Not a theory I subscribe to I hasten to add.
To date all lawyers working on the case have overlooked the fact they do not know whose blood stained the pages. There appears to be an assumption the blood originated from SC. Whereas all the surrounding facts would seem to suggest the stains originate from June. It's totally unacceptable that these lawyers are so incompetent and negligent as to overlook the most basic aspects. There can be no excuses. It is possible to include this in the next appeal ie the fact the blood stains on the bible were not disclosed to the defence at trial as it isn't something that has previously been addressed. In addition to this it might well be possible to include an appeal point covering poor defence.
The defence sent Dr Lincoln to FSS to check all blood stained exhibits who sent a report detailing such. This covered the following items but no bible:
- Sound moderator
- Rifle
- Pieces of carpet (main bedroom)
- Socks
- Watch
- Tufts of fibre (landing)
- Jacket
- Bathrobe
- Citroën Car
- Wallpaper
- Nightdress
You can read the report here pages 12 - 17 incl.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=939
-
My guess is that initially when it was thought SC was responsible all concerned attributed the bible with SC seeking it out. When the investigation changed shape and switched to JB the bible required a new narrative and hence MM/JB staging it was born. Meanwhile blood tests on the bible were likely to reveal the blood stains originated from June which presented a problem for EP/prosecution in that JM's coerced testimony was underway and shared by many hence the bible blood stain test results were withheld from the defence. You would like to think even a 1st year law student would switch on to something so basic but no so with Lawson, Rivlin, Terzeon, Duck and Turner. Turner even going as far as employing the services of a theologist to interpret the meaning of the open pages. You couldn't make it up. These people are complete numpties.
-
It will be possible to include 'poor defence' at next appeal:
http://www.criminalappeallawyers.co.uk/poor-representation-by-lawyers-appealing-against-conviction/
http://thejusticegap.com/2011/11/poor-defence/
-
What next appeal? The CCRC haven't even agreed to take any Bamber submissions - don't put the cart before the horse.
-
I can't see there being another CCRC submission.
After 1989 & 2002 COA rejections & a 2012 CCRC rejection, it would be amazing if another CCRC application was submitted. And even more amazing if it was passed to the COA.
The relatives were disappointed when the CCRC passed Bamber's case onto the COA in 2002. Then the 2002 COA judges became more convinced the jury were right after looking at the case.
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/bamber-loses-appeal-against-conviction-1-632889/amp&ved=0ahUKEwirqKnotMTYAhXFAcAKHfYMBBg4FBAWCCswBg&usg=AOvVaw1kRNeaQB942d4wlbbtIWpE&cf=1
Two interesting things here.
Contradicting my last post. It says the CCRC were right to refer to the COA in 2002, due to advances in DNA.
It also says Julie did not have to attend the hearing. She did but did not give evidence.
-
What underpins the "accepted knowledge of events"?
Break the blood/silencer and JB will walk. I have strong reasons to believe this will happen.
The blood in the silencer is but one element. To overturn this conviction Jeremy Bamber would have to prove that the case against him was malicious. It would also require Julie to retract her damning evidence and that will never happen imo.
-
I can't see there being another CCRC submission.
After 1989 & 2002 COA rejections & a 2012 CCRC rejection, it would be amazing if another CCRC application was submitted. And even more amazing if it was passed to the COA.
The relatives were disappointed when the CCRC passed Bamber's case onto the COA in 2002. Then the 2002 COA judges became more convinced the jury were right after looking at the case.
I agree, the last CCRC referral and subsequent appeal consumed a lot of resources, I cannot see that happening again unless something significant is found.
-
What next appeal? The CCRC haven't even agreed to take any Bamber submissions - don't put the cart before the horse.
Maybe any new evidence will be so compelling the case will by-pass the CCRC and go straight to DPP.
-
I can't see there being another CCRC submission.
After 1989 & 2002 COA rejections & a 2012 CCRC rejection, it would be amazing if another CCRC application was submitted. And even more amazing if it was passed to the COA.
The relatives were disappointed when the CCRC passed Bamber's case onto the COA in 2002. Then the 2002 COA judges became more convinced the jury were right after looking at the case.
The views of the relatives are irrelevant to any future appeals.
It's clear to me the judges didn't look at the case objectively. They actively look for ways to uphold convictions. Same thing happened in financial services when customers complained they received poor advice. Word from above, CEO's office, was defend at all costs and bat back. Then the Financial Services Authority and Financial Ombudsman intervened and companies were ordered to pay redress for misselling and fined accordingly.
The judges are quite happy to witter on about the blood stains on the bible and yet oblivious to where the blood originated from. The attitude of these people is there for all to see in the hearing with expert witness Mark Webster. The judges are not qualified to give opinions on complex scientific matters.
Most cases involving high profile miscarriages of justice go to appeal on more than one occasion before eventually being quashed so JB's case is no different in this regard:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3394.msg129016#msg129016
We can see it with international cases too eg David Bain and Knox/Sollecito.
-
The blood in the silencer is but one element. To overturn this conviction Jeremy Bamber would have to prove that the case against him was malicious. It would also require Julie to retract her damning evidence and that will never happen imo.
The criteria for a successful appeal is fresh evidence that had jurors have known about at trial
might have caused them to reach a different verdict. A successful appeal certainly isn't dependent on JM retracting her testimony. We have no idea what sort of weight jurors attributed to the various aspects of the case. According to former CCRC commissioner Ewan Smith the trial judge warned jurors about the reliability of JM's testimony.
If I was an award winning investigative journalist, which I most definitely ain't, I would be working outwards and inwards. By this I mean I wouldn't be looking to talk to the main players initially but those on the edge eg the Malcolm Waters, Liz Rimmington and Christine Bacon's of this world. As the story goes JM shared her intimate knowledge with others. There's always more than one way to skin a cat!
-
Yes the bible formed an appeal point at the 2002 hearing but as you've pointed out this was on the basis that the open pages were not disclosed to the defence at trial. At the 2002 hearing MT sought to advance the theory the open pages represented SC's state of mind and some sort of suicide message. Not a theory I subscribe to I hasten to add.
To date all lawyers working on the case have overlooked the fact they do not know whose blood stained the pages. There appears to be an assumption the blood originated from SC. Whereas all the surrounding facts would seem to suggest the stains originate from June. It's totally unacceptable that these lawyers are so incompetent and negligent as to overlook the most basic aspects. There can be no excuses. It is possible to include this in the next appeal ie the fact the blood stains on the bible were not disclosed to the defence at trial as it isn't something that has previously been addressed. In addition to this it might well be possible to include an appeal point covering poor defence.
The defence sent Dr Lincoln to FSS to check all blood stained exhibits who sent a report detailing such. This covered the following items but no bible:
- Sound moderator
- Rifle
- Pieces of carpet (main bedroom)
- Socks
- Watch
- Tufts of fibre (landing)
- Jacket
- Bathrobe
- Citroën Car
- Wallpaper
- Nightdress
You can read the report here pages 12 - 17 incl.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=939
What 'facts' suggest the prints were from June? And how would that point to an innocent Jeremy?
-
What 'facts' suggest the prints were from June? And how would that point to an innocent Jeremy?
The only identifiable fingerprints found on the bible originated from June. From CoA:
52. The Bible found by Sheila Caffell's body, belonged to her mother and was normally kept in a cupboard to the right of her bed. It was examined for fingerprints. Many belonged to June Bamber and there were a small number of insufficient detail for comparison, save for one which appeared to have been made by a small child.
I said all the facts surrounding the bible support June walking around the bed holding her bible and dropping it in the vicinity it was found as opposed to SC/JB seeking it out and dropping it in wet blood causing mirror staining:
- The bible belonged to June and was kept by her bed.
- June was deeply religious
- June sustained 5/6 gsw's whilst in bed/getting out but still had the wherewithal mentally and physically to get out of bed, walk around to the other side and back again. There's every reason such a person ie deeply religious would reach for a bible in their hour of need, carrying it and dropping it when she started to lose strength/consciousness.
- Other items in the vicinity the bible was found in were stained with blood originating from June: carpets and socks.
- June sustained gsw's causing significant bleeding to run down her arm onto her hand.
- Dr Vanezis confirmed June's hands were contaminated with blood. At trial he confirmed SC's hands were blood free. These facts were reiterated by others eg soc officer DC Hammersley.
- I find it suspicious that blood stain test results for the bible remain undisclosed and will remain this way given it was destroyed along with most other exhibits. Of course this was a failing on JB's defence at trial and appeal.
Afaik the English judicial system isn't about proving innocence? The bible is a relatively minor aspect of the case but it should be possible to advance the theory at appeal that rather than MM/JB staging bible as JM claims it might simply be that the stains originated from June as I've suggested. As the bible was destroyed the court might well find in JB's favour as the theory is plausible and possible. At the 2002 appeal the judges drubbed MT by focusing on the mirror stains ie how could SC have caused such albeit all were blissfully unaware of the origins of the bloodstains. The June theory overcomes this. It's not a biggie just another string to the bow so to speak!
It does show how incompetent and negligent the lawyers were at trial and appeal in not chasing the bible down and appreciating they had no idea where the bloodstains originated from. MT going all round the houses with interpreting the open pages and yet oblivious to whose blood stained the pages. It shows the appeal court judges as biased in that they are happy to attribute the bible/mirror stains to JB staging and yet oblivious as to whose blood stained the pages.
-
The only identifiable fingerprints found on the bible originated from June. From CoA:
52. The Bible found by Sheila Caffell's body, belonged to her mother and was normally kept in a cupboard to the right of her bed. It was examined for fingerprints. Many belonged to June Bamber and there were a small number of insufficient detail for comparison, save for one which appeared to have been made by a small child.
I said all the facts surrounding the bible support June walking around the bed holding her bible and dropping it in the vicinity it was found as opposed to SC/JB seeking it out and dropping it in wet blood causing mirror staining:
- The bible belonged to June and was kept by her bed.
- June was deeply religious
- June sustained 5/6 gsw's whilst in bed/getting out but still had the wherewithal mentally and physically to get out of bed, walk around to the other side and back again. There's every reason such a person ie deeply religious would reach for a bible in their hour of need, carrying it and dropping it when she started to lose strength/consciousness.
- Other items in the vicinity the bible was found in were stained with blood originating from June: carpets and socks.
- June sustained gsw's causing significant bleeding to run down her arm onto her hand.
- Dr Vanezis confirmed June's hands were contaminated with blood. At trial he confirmed SC's hands were blood free. These facts were reiterated by others eg soc officer DC Hammersley.
- I find it suspicious that blood stain test results for the bible remain undisclosed and will remain this way given it was destroyed along with most other exhibits. Of course this was a failing on JB's defence at trial and appeal.
Afaik the English judicial system isn't about proving innocence? The bible is a relatively minor aspect of the case but it should be possible to advance the theory at appeal that rather than MM/JB staging bible as JM claims it might simply be that the stains originated from June as I've suggested. As the bible was destroyed the court might well find in JB's favour as the theory is plausible and possible. At the 2002 appeal the judges drubbed MT by focusing on the mirror stains ie how could SC have caused such albeit all were blissfully unaware of the origins of the bloodstains. The June theory overcomes this. It's not a biggie just another string to the bow so to speak!
It does show how incompetent and negligent the lawyers were at trial and appeal in not chasing the bible down and appreciating they had no idea where the bloodstains originated from. MT going all round the houses with interpreting the open pages and yet oblivious to whose blood stained the pages. It shows the appeal court judges as biased in that they are happy to attribute the bible/mirror stains to JB staging and yet oblivious as to whose blood stained the pages.
Of course her prints were on it, it was her bible. I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that even if the stains did originate from June, it somehow makes Jeremy less guilty? I doubt the bible even exists now anyway so one theory would only be as bad or as good as another. It would be interesting to know if any other photographs of the bible exist?
-
This case has been to the Court of Appeal twice. I don't think there have been any cases where a third appeal has been allowed?
Further to the 2002 appeal, there have been subsequent requests to the CCRC who have reviewed in detail. I doubt the CCRC would be prepared to consider this case again unless there is some really damning new evidence e.g. an admission of serious malpractice by a former police offer or an admission of perjury by Julie Mugford or other family members who gave evidence at the original trial.
-
This case has been to the Court of Appeal twice. I don't think there have been any cases where a third appeal has been allowed?
Further to the 2002 appeal, there have been subsequent requests to the CCRC who have reviewed in detail. I doubt the CCRC would be prepared to consider this case again unless there is some really damning new evidence e.g. an admission of serious malpractice by a former police offer or an admission of perjury by Julie Mugford or other family members who gave evidence at the original trial.
There's no limit to the number of times an appellant can appeal. If the application meets the criteria it will be passed to CoA. If the evidence is strong the conviction will be quashed.
-
Of course her prints were on it, it was her bible. I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that even if the stains did originate from June, it somehow makes Jeremy less guilty? I doubt the bible even exists now anyway so one theory would only be as bad or as good as another. It would be interesting to know if any other photographs of the bible exist?
It doesn't necessarily make him less guilty but it shouldn't make him more guilty either as the appeal court judges would have us believe by assuming the blood originated from SC.
The fact remains the bible was a bloodstained exhibit and should have been blood tested by Dr Lincoln for the defence when he visited the lab and tested all the other exhibits. Experienced defence counsel like Rivlin and Turner shouldn't be making these sorts of schoolboy errors. JB should not carry the can for lazy, greedy and inept lawyers.
-
It doesn't necessarily make him less guilty but it shouldn't make him more guilty either as the appeal court judges would have us believe by assuming the blood originated from SC.
The fact remains the bible was a bloodstained exhibit and should have been blood tested by Dr Lincoln for the defence when he visited the lab and tested all the other exhibits. Experienced defence counsel like Rivlin and Turner shouldn't be making these sorts of schoolboy errors. JB should not carry the can for lazy, greedy and inept lawyers.
I don't think the print would prove anything unless it was Jeremy's and it's far too small for that. However, like I said, I would be interested to know if other pictures were taken of the bible.
-
I don't think the print would prove anything unless it was Jeremy's and it's far too small for that. However, like I said, I would be interested to know if other pictures were taken of the bible.
Is there any expert evidence confirming the stains represent a handprint?
-
JB's defence sent Dr Lincoln, a blood serologist, to FSS to carry out his own tests on all bloodstained exhibits:
- Sound moderator
- Rifle
- Pieces of carpet (main bedroom)
- Socks
- Watch
- Tufts of fibre (landing)
- Jacket
- Bathrobe
- Citroën Car
- Wallpaper
- Nightdress
Dr Lincoln visited the lab on 8th Sept '86 and sent a report to Paul Terzeon at Kingsley Napley dated 19th Sept '86 which can be read here:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=276.0;attach=929
No mention of the bible!
In 2002 Paul Terzeon produced a WS dated 2nd Sept 2002. He states he was unaware of the open pages of the bible and recalled asking an officer whether the police knew of the open pages and/or had a photograph of such. He claims he was told the police were unaware of the open pages and did not have any photographs. He states he can't recall the officer he spoke with! You can read the WS pages 8/9 here:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=569.msg17097#msg17097
- Oblivious to the fact the bloodstains on the bible were overlooked although defence were aware the bible was bloodstained during Rivlin's questions to soc officer DC Hammersley at trial:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=165.0;attach=235
- He claims his firm was instructed shortly after JB was charged in 1985 and yet is instructing experts nearly a year later and just a few weeks before start of trial.
- The list of bloodstained exhibits, excluding the bible, only amounted to 11. The appeal court judges (at the time of JB's 2002 appeal hearing Rivlin was a judge 8(0(*) refer to Rivlin as "Counsel with the experience of Geoffrey Rivlin QC, and with his acknowledged reputation for thoroughness.."
417. The explanation why the pages at which the Bible was open was not explored by the defence may be explicable by these matters. Counsel with the experience of Mr Rivlin QC, and with his acknowledged reputation for thoroughness, may well have decided that far from helping these matters might have presented a yet further major hurdle for the appellant to overcome and consequently decided to leave well alone. In any event we are satisfied that production of the original exhibit provided all the information that the photographs would have revealed and that there was no failure to disclose in this respect.
- Had Geoffrey Rivlin lived up to his reputation for thoroughness he would not have been oblivious as to whose blood stained the pages of the bible. If it was the case it only came to his attention during his cross-examination of DC Hammersley then why not ask for an adjournment?
- Judges are suppose to be impartial truth seekers but it's clear from the above they are not. Obviously the mirror staining could be detrimental to JB if the blood originated from SC. But there's no evidence the blood originated from SC there's just as much evidence if not more that the blood originated from June.
-
Here is JM's WS where she states JB told her MM put a bible on SC's chest:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=284.0;attach=1112
-
The bible contained significant bloodstains so in all probability it would have been possible to identify whose blood stained the pages had it not been destroyed.
-
5 of the 11 exhibits bloodstained tested by Dr Lincoln feature in the CoA doc:
- SC's nightdress at point 51
- Carpet samples at point 57
- Wallpaper at point 57
- Rifle at point 71
- Sound moderator internally point 75
- Sound moderator externally point 76
The above points discuss whose blood featured on these exhibits. Some of the above exhibits are referred to at other points within the doc too. However the point I'm endeavouring to make is that all concerned are aware the bible contains significant bloodstains and yet all concerned are oblivious whose blood? The bible is the only exhibit where there's no evidence/discussion of bloodstain test results. The bible is referred to at the following points:
- 35
- 52
- 405 - 421
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
Spot the difference?!
- IMO EP/FSS withheld bloodstain test results for the bible.
- The defence at trial and 2002 appeal overlooked this.
- Appeal court judges so far up their own a**** they're unable to see the wood for the trees!
-
The CoA doc confirms religion always played a strong part in June's life to the point it dominated her thoughts and might have been thought obsessive.
14. June Bamber was also 61 years old. Religion had always played a strong part in her life. In her latter years her interest in this regard had to an extent come to dominate her thinking, to a point that might have been thought to be obsessive. In 1982, she received treatment at a psychiatric hospital in Northampton.
The CoA doc confirms 5 bloodstained carpet samples taken from the main bedroom were found to match June's blood groupings:
57. Five carpet samples taken from the main bedroom were examined and found to bear numerous spots of dripped blood. These were tested and found to match the blood groupings of June Bamber.
The CoA doc confirms the bible found on/near SC's body belonged to June, was kept by her bedside and the only identifiable fingerprints originated June:
52. The Bible found by Sheila Caffell's body, belonged to her mother and was normally kept in a cupboard to the right of her bed. It was examined for fingerprints. Many belonged to June Bamber and there were a small number of insufficient detail for comparison, save for one which appeared to have been made by a small child.
The CoA doc confirms June/her nightdress were heavily bloodstained from her gsw's:
43. Mrs Bamber was bare footed and dressed in a nightdress. She had received seven gunshot wounds, of which one to her forehead and one to the right side of the head would have caused death very quickly. She also suffered shots to the right side of the lower part of her neck, the right forearm, two injuries to the right side of the chest and to the right knee. There was a great deal of blood on her body and clothing and from its pattern, it appeared that at some stage of the attack she had been in an upright position
The CoA acknowledge:
- June's interest in religion might be regarded as obsessive
- The bible belonged to June
- The bible was kept by June's bedside
- The bible contained June's fingerprints
- June sustained heavy bloodstaining to her person/nightdress from the gsw's sustained
- June's blood was found on the carpet where the bible was found (along with blue socks also found near bible)
Was it really beyond the defence at trial and 2002 hearing, and appeal court judges, to think *%87 hey...
- June
- Obsessed with religion
- Her bible
- Kept by her bedside
- Her fingerprints on bible
- Her blood on carpets/socks where bible was found
- June found with heavy bloodstains including hands
Did June walk around the bed holding her bible hoping expecting God Almighty to help her in her hour of need? *%87
-
Why are the bloodstains on the bible unknown?
Were the stains tested? Did they reveal June's blood groupings?
Were the results withheld from the defence on the basis they revealed June's blood groupings which counters the story told by JM re MM placing a bible on SC's chest?
Why were the defence at trial and 2002 appeal hearing so inept?
Why were the judges at 2002 appeal hearing so biased?
Why was the bible destroyed?
-
With regard to the destroyed bible the CoA took a dim view of the fact that all exhibits had 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.
Instead of MT pursuing the open pages of the bible in an attempt to show they represented SC's state of mind with themes of 'blood guilt' would it not have been better to pursue the June theory and say ok it can't be proved but I'll take you up on your offer of making an assumption in JB's favour due to the fact the exhibit was destroyed? This would surely then call into question the reliability of JM's testimony of MM placing the bible on SC's chest?
-
There's no limit to the number of times an appellant can appeal. If the application meets the criteria it will be passed to CoA. If the evidence is strong the conviction will be quashed.
That's the point Holly, there is nothing of any consequence. Appeal Courts don't make decisions based on hypotheses and wishful thinking. The evidence clearly shows that Jeremy Bamber had the means, the motive and the opportunity to carry out that dreadful crime against his adoptive family. Nothing that has been revealed since has changed that fact.
We know that the crimescene in the master bedroom was manipulated in order to make it appear to be a murder suicide. As it stands, only one person knows the Bible's relevance to that crimescene and that person is Jeremy Bamber. Blood stains and fingerprints could have been added after the killings for all anyone knows. The Bible issue is yet another blind alley.
-
Is there any expert evidence confirming the stains represent a handprint?
I don't need an expert to tell me something I can see for myself.
-
That's the point Holly, there is nothing of any consequence. Appeal Courts don't make decisions based on hypotheses and wishful thinking. The evidence clearly shows that Jeremy Bamber had the means, the motive and the opportunity to carry out that dreadful crime against his adoptive family. Nothing that has been revealed since has changed that fact.
We know that the crimescene in the master bedroom was manipulated in order to make it appear to be a murder suicide. As it stands, only one person knows the Bible's relevance to that crimescene and that person is Jeremy Bamber. Blood stains and fingerprints could have been added after the killings for all anyone knows. The Bible issue is yet another blind alley.
Except in this case they have done by assuming the bloodstains on the bible originate from SC. If the bloodstains on the bible were tested and found to originate from SC where's the evidence? Where are the bloodstain test results? Such test results would be damning against JB. So why withhold them?
-
I don't need an expert to tell me something I can see for myself.
Are you able to confirm whether the handprint you see originates from SC or June?
I ask the same question of David who also sees a handprint? SC or June?
No point asking me as I don't see anything of significance in the bloodstains.
-
Are you able to confirm whether the handprint you see originates from SC or June?
I ask the same question of David who also sees a handprint? SC or June?
No point asking me as I don't see anything of significance in the bloodstains.
Having not been at the murder scene - no but I'm not interested in anything David repeats.
-
Having not been at the murder scene - no but I'm not interested in anything David repeats.
Well it seems to me if you're right about a bloodstained handprint (palm) it can only mean 1 of 2 things:
- it originates from June
- it originates from SC but she must have washed prior to being found as all concerned said her hands were free of bloodstains including Dr Vanezis
-
I can't see a hand/palm print but imo any bloodstains originate from June.
-
Well it seems to me if you're right about a bloodstained handprint (palm) it can only mean 1 of 2 things:
- it originates from June
- it originates from SC but she must have washed prior to being found as all concerned said her hands were free of bloodstains including Dr Vanezis
He seems to have rethought that issue when talking to CAL.
-
He seems to have rethought that issue when talking to CAL.
Remind me please.
I gave a friend my copy of CAL and threw out the others. Waiting for the 'Final Analysis' by Prudence Winnalot.
-
Remind me please.
I gave a friend my copy of CAL and threw out the others. Waiting for the 'Final Analysis' by Prudence Winnalot.
He intimated that he may have seen her hands after washing and that he now thinks the stain on the nightdress is from finger marks.
-
I agree, the last CCRC referral and subsequent appeal consumed a lot of resources, I cannot see that happening again unless something significant is found.
There won't be any progress for Bamber in 2018. What will be interesting is what David does now.
He believes Bamber is guilty & was a hardcore guilter in 2015.
He changed stance in 2016 & didn't let the forum know. Then started quoting 5 year old posts from other posters who had been open about their stance changes. Together with goading me and SteveUK, knowing we are not moderators & as guilters not fiercely protected by the moderators.
When I exposed his stance change in 2017, he said he changed stance after realising it was possible for the relatives to fabricate the silencer. Which me and every other guilter has known since day one. David & every other guilter also knows there is no evidence the relatives did this.
Should David continue to support Bamber even though everyone knows that he believes Bamber is guilty. Or is a humiliating stance change now the only option ?
-
JB has long since exhausted every possible avenue open to him. Blood on the bible or any of the above won't be enough, 33 years later now and we're still waiting. Short of a perjury admission I can't see him proving his innocence in a court.
The best course of action is a full confession now, for some hope of seeing the light of day a la Harry Roberts in 20 years time.
-
I don't need an expert to tell me something I can see for myself.
Well it seems to me if you're right about a bloodstained handprint (palm) it can only mean 1 of 2 things:
- it originates from June
- it originates from SC but she must have washed prior to being found as all concerned said her hands were free of bloodstains including Dr Vanezis
I can't see a hand/palm print but imo any bloodstains originate from June.
I think the print belongs to June as she was attempting to get out of bed and placed her bloodied right hand on the opened pages as she forced herself up after being shot and feeling at her neck wounds. Then after all the shooting was over JB placed it on Sheila to give the impression she was reading it prior to "committing suicide". QED
According to CAL the bible was handed back to the relatives in 2002 or 2006?, or so I've read.
-
Remind me please.
I gave a friend my copy of CAL and threw out the others. Waiting for the 'Final Analysis' by Prudence Winnalot.
I backed my CAL book prezzy (from you know who?) with thick polythene... to match my others on the case. Looks really good!!!
-
I backed my CAL book prezzy (from you know who?) with thick polythene... to match my others on the case. Looks really good!!!
Yeah! Books always seem to adopt a sensual "came hither" look when they're lined up, enticingly on a shelf @)(++(*
-
Yeah! Books always seem to adopt a sensual "came hither" look when they're lined up, enticingly on a shelf @)(++(*
Sure... but don't mention "Deviant" when Holly's about... or she'l have a fit of the heeby-jeebies!
-
Sure... but don't mention "Deviant" when Holly's about... or she'l have a fit of the heeby-jeebies!
Mum's the word...................although in these days of stricktest PC, I'm not sure if it's the correct one *%87
-
I think the print belongs to June as she was attempting to get out of bed and placed her bloodied right hand on the opened pages as she forced herself up after being shot and feeling at her neck wounds. Then after all the shooting was over JB placed it on Sheila to give the impression she was reading it prior to "committing suicide". QED
According to CAL the bible was handed back to the relatives in 2002 or 2006?, or so I've read.
Yes, so did I but I doubt they have it now - It's not something I would want to keep
-
Sure... but don't mention "Deviant" when Holly's about... or she'l have a fit of the heeby-jeebies!
Deviant! Deviant DEVIANT!!!!!! @)(++(*
-
Haha I don't have anytime for anything deviant. All my spare time is taken up here mass debating!
-
JB has long since exhausted every possible avenue open to him. Blood on the bible or any of the above won't be enough, 33 years later now and we're still waiting. Short of a perjury admission I can't see him proving his innocence in a court.
The best course of action is a full confession now, for some hope of seeing the light of day a la Harry Roberts in 20 years time.
The system isn't exhaustive. The likes of JB can make any number of submissions to CCRC and the case can be heard any number of times in CoA.
The system isn't based on innocence. No one has to prove his/her innocence at any stage. At this stage all JB needs to do is find some evidence leads appeal court judges to conclude that had jurors known about it at trial might have caused them to return a different verdict.
You cant blame JB for incompetent and negligent lawyers.
A different QC at trial with a different strategy and not making silly oversights may have resulted in jurors returning a different verdict.
-
The system isn't exhaustive. The likes of JB can make any number of submissions to CCRC and the case can be heard any number of times in CoA.
The system isn't based on innocence. No one has to prove his/her innocence at any stage. At this stage all JB needs to do is find some evidence leads appeal court judges to conclude that had jurors known about it at trial might have caused them to return a different verdict.
You cant blame JB for incompetent and negligent lawyers.
A different QC at trial with a different strategy and not making silly oversights may have resulted in jurors returning a different verdict.
So a competent trial lawyer might get a guilty person off? Where's the justice in that?
-
The system isn't exhaustive. The likes of JB can make any number of submissions to CCRC and the case can be heard any number of times in CoA.
The system isn't based on innocence. No one has to prove his/her innocence at any stage. At this stage all JB needs to do is find some evidence leads appeal court judges to conclude that had jurors known about it at trial might have caused them to return a different verdict.
You cant blame JB for incompetent and negligent lawyers.
A different QC at trial with a different strategy and not making silly oversights may have resulted in jurors returning a different verdict.
No, but his supporters believe in his innocence otherwise why are they campaigning for him ? not because you believe he's guilty and are trying to get him off on a technicality.
His QC was at original trial was excellent and so nearly got him off the hook, in the face of a sea of evidence proving he was the perpetrator.
Going into 2018, It's good to pop in here occasionally to see his grubby campaign deader in the water than ever @)(++(*
-
No, but his supporters believe in his innocence otherwise why are they campaigning for him ? not because you believe he's guilty and are trying to get him off on a technicality.
His QC was at original trial was excellent and so nearly got him off the hook, in the face of a sea of evidence proving he was the perpetrator.
Going into 2018, It's good to pop in here occasionally to see his grubby campaign deader in the water than ever @)(++(*
The only living person in the world who knows whether or not JB is guilty is JB. I believe JB innocent but I'm not such a zealot that my mind isn't open to the fact I might be wrong! I've seen one poster state she knows JB is innocent. This can't possibly be true. If the person knew she would have evidence of such and JB wouldn't still be behind bars. Believing and thinking are different from knowing!
On what basis do you believe Rivlin was excellent at trial? I disagree. JB claims he handled the rifle towards the end of the day sans silencer. The rifle was found on SC sans silencer. It is claimed JB discussed with Rivlin the possibility the silencer was contaminated either accidentally or deliberately. Appreciating the importance of the bloodstained exhibits the defence instructed Dr Lincoln, a blood serologist, to visit the lab and carry out his own tests. Dr Lincoln then forwarded a report to the defence which one wonders if they bothered reading! I've extracted the bloodstain results for each exhibit:
Surely any half decent defence lawyer would be all over this:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg315135#msg315135
Extracted from pages 12 - 17:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=276.0
- How come the blood supposedly found inside the silencer was capable of yielding bloodstain test results in excess of other exhibits especially given:
- other exhibits contained a greater quantity of stain?
- other exhibits were tested a month earlier than the blood inside the silencer eg rifle externally
- blood on other exhibits weren't subjected to environments which had the potential to degrade the blood prior to being tested notably the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber
- Also where are the bloodstain test results for the bible?
How can anyone think JB's lawyers at trial and appeal were even half decent when the answers from their own expert were staring them in the face?
The bloodstain test results inside the silencer were fabricated and the bloodstain test results for the bible were withheld from the defence as they were helpful to the defence case and unhelpful to the prosecution.
Rivlin's crazy strategy of SC using the silencer and removing and tidying up before taking her own life with the blood representing an intimate mix of NB's and June's was/is madness.
Michael Turner repeating the same mistake along with his crazy theories that the open pages of the bible represented SC's state of mind and a police officer removed NB's blood from the mouthpiece of the kitchen phone. Lol you couldn't make it up @)(++(*
-
The only living person in the world who knows whether or not JB is guilty is JB. I believe JB innocent but I'm not such a zealot that my mind isn't open to the fact I might be wrong! I've seen one poster state she knows JB is innocent. This can't possibly be true. If the person knew she would have evidence of such and JB wouldn't still be behind bars. Believing and thinking are different from knowing!
On what basis do you believe Rivlin was excellent at trial? I disagree. JB claims he handled the rifle towards the end of the day sans silencer. The rifle was found on SC sans silencer. It is claimed JB discussed with Rivlin the possibility the silencer was contaminated either accidentally or deliberately. Appreciating the importance of the bloodstained exhibits the defence instructed Dr Lincoln, a blood serologist, to visit the lab and carry out his own tests. Dr Lincoln then forwarded a report to the defence which one wonders if they bothered reading! I've extracted the bloodstain results for each exhibit:
Surely any half decent defence lawyer would be all over this:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg315135#msg315135
Extracted from pages 12 - 17:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=276.0
- How come the blood supposedly found inside the silencer was capable of yielding bloodstain test results in excess of other exhibits especially given:
- other exhibits contained a greater quantity of stain?
- other exhibits were tested a month earlier than the blood inside the silencer eg rifle externally
- blood on other exhibits weren't subjected to environments which had the potential to degrade the blood prior to being tested notably the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber
- Also where are the bloodstain test results for the bible?
How can anyone think JB's lawyers at trial and appeal were even half decent when the answers from their own expert were staring them in the face?
The bloodstain test results inside the silencer were fabricated and the bloodstain test results for the bible were withheld from the defence as they were helpful to the defence case and unhelpful to the prosecution.
Rivlin's crazy strategy of SC using the silencer and removing and tidying up before taking her own life with the blood representing an intimate mix of NB's and June's was/is madness.
Michael Turner repeating the same mistake along with his crazy theories that the open pages of the bible represented SC's state of mind and a police officer removed NB's blood from the mouthpiece of the kitchen phone. Lol you couldn't make it up @)(++(*
A very conservative view Holly. I don't feel like a zealot in saying it was impossible for JB to pull off this crime with the scene as found. One of the key things people forget to discuss is the nature of the plan, and paraphernalia disposal. It happens they neglected to search JB's route and home, yet any plan would assume this search. The prosecution cutely suggest he had plenty of time after to dispose the wetsuit (lol) and clothing.
This is barking hindsight. Think about it. His time was completely limited to that available between the crime and the phone calls. It is all so obvious.
-
A very conservative view Holly. I don't feel like a zealot in saying it was impossible for JB to pull off this crime with the scene as found. One of the key things people forget to discuss is the nature of the plan, and paraphernalia disposal. It happens they neglected to search JB's route and home, yet any plan would assume this search. The prosecution cutely suggest he had plenty of time after to dispose the wetsuit (lol) and clothing.
This is barking hindsight. Think about it. His time was completely limited to that available between the crime and the phone calls. It is all so obvious.
WHY would they search his home? He was -allegedly- the grieving and only remaining member of a murdered family. They were hardly going to break into his home an strip it down to look for evidence a few hours after the crime when he wasn't a suspect. WHY would they his route home when he wasn't a suspect? It was nearly a month before they started to seriously investigate him. Ample time to dispose of anything necessary.
-
A very conservative view Holly. I don't feel like a zealot in saying it was impossible for JB to pull off this crime with the scene as found. One of the key things people forget to discuss is the nature of the plan, and paraphernalia disposal. It happens they neglected to search JB's route and home, yet any plan would assume this search. The prosecution cutely suggest he had plenty of time after to dispose the wetsuit (lol) and clothing.
This is barking hindsight. Think about it. His time was completely limited to that available between the crime and the phone calls. It is all so obvious.
Well there's very little doubt in my mind JB is innocent but I like to try and keep a balance and perspective. If it was clear cut JB wouldn't still be behind bars.
You raise the point about JB disposing of clothing but this presupposes the perps clothes would contain incriminating evidence? The prosecution case at trial was that SC's clothing was "relatively" clean.
32 years ago forensic science wasn't what it is today. By the UK Gov's own admission the forensic science service (fss) failed to deliver on quality during the 1980's. This can be evidenced by the fss's so-called ballistics expert, Malcolm Fletcher, who advised the court at trial his relevant experience included a small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy. This is the numpty who advised the court:
- all shots fired upstairs were within the main bedroom (excl twins) ie victims sustained gsw's within main bedroom only.
- he would expect to find gun oil on SC's nightdress
- loading the cartridges into the magazine produced a black discolouration on his hands - SC's were found to be clean
I think you and I (and many others) agree NB was first shot on the landing as he approached the main bedroom. I doubt Malcolm Fletcher had any idea about the trajectories.
The rifle was found resting on SC's person/nightdress so if any gun oil was present on the rifle then it was going to deposit/transfer whether SC was victim or perp assuming gun oil was present to deposit/transfer. Gun oil doesn't feature as a routine test in forensic textbooks. Why would farmers/hunters slather firearms with gun oil to the point transfer was possible to clothes/hands?
I visited a gun shop and loaded the exact same cartridges into the exact same mag. My hands were perfectly clean to the naked eye.
It's clear Malcolm Fletcher was grossly incompetent. Question is was he just incompetent?
Bearing in mind this was also the guy who dismantled the silencer before it was passed to the biologist for blood testing and advised the court on 'drawback'!
-
WHY would they search his home? He was -allegedly- the grieving and only remaining member of a murdered family. They were hardly going to break into his home an strip it down to look for evidence a few hours after the crime when he wasn't a suspect. WHY would they his route home when he wasn't a suspect? It was nearly a month before they started to seriously investigate him. Ample time to dispose of anything necessary.
You are arguing backwards April. It is universally agreed by both sides there are two suspects. JB's alleged plan is to create Sheila Caffel as a suspect, and be so careful he is quickly eliminated as a suspect. Thus he could embark only when he was sure his paraphernalia could be permanently disappeared very quickly.
However, there was no time or opportunity to do so.
This is true in Bain and our running case, Mark Lundy. He and his car were seized immediately, and an exhaustive search of the crime environs executed. Of course nothing was found as he did not do it. JB is bound to consider his cottage might become a place of interest IMMEDIATELY.
Do you see what I am getting at? Forensic purity after a crime is a powerful signature of a miscarriage of justice.
Kirsten Lobato has just been released after 20 years, a very bloody violent crime, no trace on her, excellent alibi. These are the hallmarks. Trust me JB is in the same category, he did not do the crime, the "plan" does not stack up, right through to the forced suicide simulation.
Another keyboard pointlessly gone, but we can't help ourself. 8(8-))
-
Well there's very little doubt in my mind JB is innocent but I like to try and keep a balance and perspective. If it was clear cut JB wouldn't still be behind bars.
You raise the point about JB disposing of clothing but this presupposes the perps clothes would contain incriminating evidence? The prosecution case at trial was that SC's clothing was "relatively" clean.
32 years ago forensic science wasn't what it is today. By the UK Gov's own admission the forensic science service (fss) failed to deliver on quality during the 1980's. This can be evidenced by the fss's so-called ballistics expert, Malcolm Fletcher, who advised the court at trial his relevant experience included a small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy. This is the numpty who advised the court:
- all shots fired upstairs were within the main bedroom (excl twins) ie victims sustained gsw's within main bedroom only.
- he would expect to find gun oil on SC's nightdress
- loading the cartridges into the magazine produced a black discolouration on his hands - SC's were found to be clean
I think you and I (and many others) agree NB was first shot on the landing as he approached the main bedroom. I doubt Malcolm Fletcher had any idea about the trajectories.
The rifle was found resting on SC's person/nightdress so if any gun oil was present on the rifle then it was going to deposit/transfer whether SC was victim or perp assuming gun oil was present to deposit/transfer. Gun oil doesn't feature as a routine test in forensic textbooks. Why would farmers/hunters slather firearms with gun oil to the point transfer was possible to clothes/hands?
I visited a gun shop and loaded the exact same cartridges into the exact same mag. My hands were perfectly clean to the naked eye.
It's clear Malcolm Fletcher was grossly incompetent. Question is was he just incompetent?
Bearing in mind this was also the guy who dismantled the silencer before it was passed to the biologist for blood testing and advised the court on 'drawback'!
It is wrong to say to garner sufficient evidence must lead to release. Here is a good book to read after Trial by Ambush to show this. There are countless cases worldwide continuing. JB is routine in a global sense.
https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Injustice-Prosecutor-Psychology-Convictions-ebook/dp/B074CW4WQL/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1516052614&sr=1-1&keywords=Blind+Justice%22+by+Mark+Godsey.
Try reading this intro where he answers 7 questions
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/11/26/1717395/-Seven-questions-for-Mark-Godsey-author-of-Blind-Injustice
"4. People tend to have a Perry Mason view of our justice system: When evidence of innocence is found, we believe the defendant is immediately freed. You write that the reality is that the justice system tends to instead fight back even in the face of conclusive evidence of innocence"
-
Also watch episode 1 (and the other 5) of The Confession Tapes on netflix.
Sebastian Burns and Atif Rafay
And then see what you think about proof. These guys are out of circulation forever, yet proof of innocence is straightforward. Or watch it with an open mind.
-
It is wrong to say to garner sufficient evidence must lead to release. Here is a good book to read after Trial by Ambush to show this. There are countless cases worldwide continuing. JB is routine in a global sense.
https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Injustice-Prosecutor-Psychology-Convictions-ebook/dp/B074CW4WQL/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1516052614&sr=1-1&keywords=Blind+Justice%22+by+Mark+Godsey.
Try reading this intro where he answers 7 questions
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/11/26/1717395/-Seven-questions-for-Mark-Godsey-author-of-Blind-Injustice
"4. People tend to have a Perry Mason view of our justice system: When evidence of innocence is found, we believe the defendant is immediately freed. You write that the reality is that the justice system tends to instead fight back even in the face of conclusive evidence of innocence"
Well I don't know enough about other cases to comment but in terms of JB's case I don't believe previous appeals have garnered sufficient evidence to lead to release.
I look at the case holistically and see problems from the off which no doubt are similar in other cases:
- Poor recruitment practices/induction training within police force. Every day I read about police wrongdoing on a grand scale.
- Poor supervision and management within police force. DCI Jones' name is bandied about as though he was the most senior officer involved in the case. He wasn't. It was Chief Sup Harris who was at the soc long before DCI Jones and wrote it off as murder/suicide. We rarely hear of Chief Sup Harris. WHF is UK's only peacetime mass shooting where the perp was not observed by numerous witnesses. Why would Chief Sup Harris not take ownership of such a case? Why was a junior (by rank) officer such as DS Jones single handedly dealing with all the important aspects:
- Picking up silencer from relatives and easily circumventing processes and systems by entering the silencer into the incorrect property book meaning it wouldn't undergo the sort of scrutiny such an exhibit would normally undergo.
- Taking casts of scratches on Aga
- Undertaking all JB/JM's interviews
- Poor training within the police force:
- Even recently DC Cook told CAL had SC fired rifle 25/26 times he would have expected to find more of her fingerprints on firearm. DI Cook being the "fingerprint" expert! And yet it is notoriously difficult to recover latent fingerprints from firearms due to the coating known as 'bluing'. Hence we have all the garbage about JB wearing gloves.
The whole thing is a recipe for disaster.
It then appears, certainly at the time of JB's case, that FSS was not run by experienced and qualified forensic scientists who operated independently of the police but was run by a bunch of numpties like Malcolm Fletcher who worked hand in glove with the police to construct a case based on the hunches of poorly recruited, trained and managed police officers.
The nail in the coffin being incompetent and negligent defence lawyers and a biased trial judge.
Once a jury returns a verdict it's seen as sacrosanct and a living nightmare to get it quashed in the appeal courts.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jvIdgW74LC
-
The link in the above doesn't appear to be working so here it is again:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jvIdgW74LCk
Love Richard Dawkins.
-
So Holly, what you are saying is that Jeremy Bamber is in prison due to:
- a large number of incompetent/dishonest police officers some of whom were very senior and experienced
- a large number of incompetent/dishonest civil servants including professionally qualified scientists
- a large number of incompetent/dishonest lawyers including at least 2 experienced QC's and multiple solicitors over a period of 30 years
- 7 incompetent judges (1 in the original trial, 2 x 3 Court of Appeal judges)
- a dishonest ex girlfriend
- a number of dishonest relatives
While 1 or 2 of the above features will be common to miscarriage of justice cases I think the chances of all of the above happening in a single case are remote in the extreme.
And you are right there are no limits to the number of appeals someone can make, I am not aware of any case which has been referred to the Court of Appeal on more than 2 occasions. The CCRC will need some very compelling evidence to consider this case again e.g. an admission of perjury by a witness or police officer. Until then any submission by Bamber will head straight for the shredder.
-
So Holly, what you are saying is that Jeremy Bamber is in prison due to:
- a large number of incompetent/dishonest police officers some of whom were very senior and experienced
- a large number of incompetent/dishonest civil servants including professionally qualified scientists
- a large number of incompetent/dishonest lawyers including at least 2 experienced QC's and multiple solicitors over a period of 30 years
- 7 incompetent judges (1 in the original trial, 2 x 3 Court of Appeal judges)
- a dishonest ex girlfriend
- a number of dishonest relatives
While 1 or 2 of the above features will be common to miscarriage of justice cases I think the chances of all of the above happening in a single case are remote in the extreme.
And you are right there are no limits to the number of appeals someone can make, I am not aware of any case which has been referred to the Court of Appeal on more than 2 occasions. The CCRC will need some very compelling evidence to consider this case again e.g. an admission of perjury by a witness or police officer. Until then any submission by Bamber will head straight for the shredder.
Hang about I didn't refer to any number let alone "large number". Nor did I refer to anyone as "dishonest".
I referred to:
- Police - Poor recruitment practices, induction training, ongoing training, supervision and management leading to poor outcomes for justice based on the reasons I've given above.
- FSS - Basically as the police above. Evidenced by Malcolm Fletcher's trial testimony whereby he told the court his relevant experience included "Small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy". Hardly sounds like a competent and credible expert witness? The government identified "high profile quality failures in the 1980's" at FSS:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm
Lawyers - negligent and incompetent - For the reasons I've given:
- Rivlin's trial strategy of SC using the silencer instead of repudiating it on the basis of fabrication
- Rivlin not chasing down the bloodstain test results for bible
- Rivlin allowing Fletcher with his "small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy" to run rings around the defence with all sorts of unsubstantiated nonsense covering 'drawback', SC's nightdress and NB sustaining his upstairs gsw's in the main bedroom.
I don't believe I've ever referred to any lay witness as "dishonest"? To my mind there's so much forensic evidence I don't concern myself with lay witness testimony. I find it all lay witness testimony unreliable.
If fresh compelling evidence is available the case could by-pass CCRC and go straight to DPP. In any event an acquittal is most definitely not dependent on admission of perjury by anyone.
The judicial system is fallible like any other system. An analogy might be the financial system which you may recall crashed spectacularly just under a decade ago to the point a state bail-out was required to prevent the banks going bust. How was this allowed to come about when supposedly the system is overseen by the great and the good? As Lord Turner, former Chair of FSA said:
“I think we – as the authorities, central banks, regulators, those involved today – are the inheritors of a 50-year-long, large intellectual and policy mistake,” he says.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9934819/Adair-Turner-Bankers-no-longer-in-denial.html
The numbers of people responsible for overseeing the global financial system is huge compared with the small number of people involved in miscarriages of justice.
You appear to have blind faith in our systems and those that run them TBL?
-
The only living person in the world who knows whether or not JB is guilty is JB.
I disagree Holly, I have always said that Jeremy Bamber had help.
As for the evidence against him, it was compelling back in 1986 and is even more so today IMHO. The only hope Jeremy Bamber has of ever being released is if he comes clean and apologises for his behaviour. He might then be given some opportunity to gain supervised parole further down the line.
-
I disagree Holly, I have always said that Jeremy Bamber had help.
As for the evidence against him, it was compelling back in 1986 and is even more so today IMHO. The only hope Jeremy Bamber has of ever being released is if he comes clean and apologises for his behaviour. He might then be given some opportunity to gain supervised parole further down the line.
I appreciate those that believe JB guilty often consider he required "help". A guilty JB = 3 awake adults to control in at least 2 different locations.
Since I'm firmly in the JB innocent camp I don't face the above dilemma. All the forensic evidence imo by way of:
- Bloodstains
- Casings
- Distance of shots
- Gsw trajectories
- Wound tracks
shows the perp (SC IMO) in the main bedroom shooting June with NB sustaining his first gsw's: lip and jaw whilst stood on the landing stairs facing towards the main bedroom - NB on the landing stairs having just made the tel call to JB from the kitchen.
There's not a scintilla of doubt in my mind that in the 'Final Analysis' (by Prudence Cellalot) this theory will be proved correct.
At this moment in time it's:
Holly
- V -
Malcolm Fletcher - "Small amount of experience of air rifle as a small boy".
-
Hang about I didn't refer to any number let alone "large number". Nor did I refer to anyone as "dishonest".
I referred to:
- Police - Poor recruitment practices, induction training, ongoing training, supervision and management leading to poor outcomes for justice based on the reasons I've given above.
- FSS - Basically as the police above. Evidenced by Malcolm Fletcher's trial testimony whereby he told the court his relevant experience included "Small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy". Hardly sounds like a competent and credible expert witness? The government identified "high profile quality failures in the 1980's" at FSS:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm
Lawyers - negligent and incompetent - For the reasons I've given:
- Rivlin's trial strategy of SC using the silencer instead of repudiating it on the basis of fabrication
- Rivlin not chasing down the bloodstain test results for bible
- Rivlin allowing Fletcher with his "small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy" to run rings around the defence with all sorts of unsubstantiated nonsense covering 'drawback', SC's nightdress and NB sustaining his upstairs gsw's in the main bedroom.
I don't believe I've ever referred to any lay witness as "dishonest"? To my mind there's so much forensic evidence I don't concern myself with lay witness testimony. I find it all lay witness testimony unreliable.
If fresh compelling evidence is available the case could by-pass CCRC and go straight to DPP. In any event an acquittal is most definitely not dependent on admission of perjury by anyone.
The judicial system is fallible like any other system. An analogy might be the financial system which you may recall crashed spectacularly just under a decade ago to the point a state bail-out was required to prevent the banks going bust. How was this allowed to come about when supposedly the system is overseen by the great and the good? As Lord Turner, former Chair of FSA said:
“I think we – as the authorities, central banks, regulators, those involved today – are the inheritors of a 50-year-long, large intellectual and policy mistake,” he says.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9934819/Adair-Turner-Bankers-no-longer-in-denial.html
The numbers of people responsible for overseeing the global financial system is huge compared with the small number of people involved in miscarriages of justice.
You appear to have blind faith in our systems and those that run them TBL?
Where does it state that Fletcher's ONLY experience of firearms was using an air rifle as a small boy? I doubt whether this is true because I doubt he could have become a ballistics expert by writing that on his CV?
-
Where does it state that Fletcher's ONLY experience of firearms was using an air rifle as a small boy? I doubt whether this is true because I doubt he could have become a ballistics expert by writing that on his CV?
At JB's trial every expert witness is asked about his/her qualifications and experience. From the trial testimonies I've read the following witnesses outline degrees, membership of professional bodies and relevant experience:
- John Hayward
- Glynis Howard
- Prof Knight
- Dr Vanezis
Malcolm Fletcher referred to experience in the firearms dept at FSS and "a small amount of experience of an air rifle as a small boy". What sort of 'expert witness' would consider for a minute "a small amount of experience of an air rifle as a small boy" as being remotely relevant? I would expect the judge to ask "Who's the joker" and arrange for court ushers to point out the exit sign.
On a document dated 1st October 1986 Fletcher signs himself off as 'Senior Scientific Officer' with a BSc. If this was so why not let the court know about his degree in science? Why fall back on "A small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy"?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=271.0;attach=871
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8955.0;attach=12168
-
At JB's trial every expert witness is asked about his/her qualifications and experience. From the trial testimonies I've read the following witnesses outline degrees, membership of professional bodies and relevant experience:
- John Hayward
- Glynis Howard
- Prof Knight
- Dr Vanezis
Malcolm Fletcher referred to experience in the firearms dept at FSS and "a small amount of experience of an air rifle as a small boy". What sort of 'expert witness' would consider for a minute "a small amount of experience of an air rifle as a small boy" as being remotely relevant? I would expect the judge to ask "Who's the joker" and arrange for court ushers to point out the exit sign.
On a document dated 1st October 1986 Fletcher signs himself off as 'Senior Scientific Officer' with a BSc. If this was so why not let the court know about his degree in science? Why fall back on "A small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy"?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=271.0;attach=871
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8955.0;attach=12168
Experience in the firearms dept of FSS would imply a working knowledge of firearms. "a small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy" implies a life long interest. Obviously I can't answer WHY he didn't list his BSc as a qualification, but it would have covered a multitude of disciplines rather than firearms in particular.
-
Experience in the firearms dept of FSS would imply a working knowledge of firearms. "a small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy" implies a life long interest. Obviously I can't answer WHY he didn't list his BSc as a qualification, but it would have covered a multitude of disciplines rather than firearms in particular.
WHF is the UK's only peacetime mass shooting where all those who witnessed events unfold lost their lives. I would suggest "a working knowledge of firearms" was inadequate for the complexity of the soc.
Having a lifelong interest in something doesn't equate to an expert.
I think today a degree in forensic science includes ballistics and an MSc (post grad) in ballistics is available. Fletcher may have had a degree in science but if this was so why not let the court know?
-
I appreciate those that believe JB guilty often consider he required "help". A guilty JB = 3 awake adults to control in at least 2 different locations.
Since I'm firmly in the JB innocent camp I don't face the above dilemma. All the forensic evidence imo by way of:
- Bloodstains
- Casings
- Distance of shots
- Gsw trajectories
- Wound tracks
shows the perp (SC IMO) in the main bedroom shooting June with NB sustaining his first gsw's: lip and jaw whilst stood on the landing stairs facing towards the main bedroom - NB on the landing stairs having just made the tel call to JB from the kitchen.
There's not a scintilla of doubt in my mind that in the 'Final Analysis' (by Prudence Cellalot) this theory will be proved correct.
At this moment in time it's:
Holly
- V -
Malcolm Fletcher - "Small amount of experience of air rifle as a small boy".
Sorry, I should have made it clear that the help I referred to did not take place on the night of the murders.
And as already pointed out previously the bullet casings in the master bedroom would not have ended up where they were found had the shooter been in the bedroom shooting towards the landing. For the casings to end up where they did, the shooter had to be in the bedroom or on the door threshold firing into the bedroom.
-
WHF is the UK's only peacetime mass shooting where all those who witnessed events unfold lost their lives. I would suggest "a working knowledge of firearms" was inadequate for the complexity of the soc.
Having a lifelong interest in something doesn't equate to an expert.
I think today a degree in forensic science includes ballistics and an MSc (post grad) in ballistics is available. Fletcher may have had a degree in science but if this was so why not let the court know?
I would have said that "a working knowledge of firearms" is likely to create more expert knowledge than theory alone. If nothing else, it would enhance the theory.
It may well be that his degree didn't fully cover ballistics. He MAY have had to gain experience 'on the job', in which case, personal interest would have been beneficial.
I feel certain that if we were to examine, closely, the qualifications of ALL individual professionals involved in the case, we'd find SOMETHING lacking. However, I wonder how much that would have mattered if Jeremy had got off?
-
WHF is the UK's only peacetime mass shooting where all those who witnessed events unfold lost their lives. I would suggest "a working knowledge of firearms" was inadequate for the complexity of the soc.
Having a lifelong interest in something doesn't equate to an expert.
I think today a degree in forensic science includes ballistics and an MSc (post grad) in ballistics is available. Fletcher may have had a degree in science but if this was so why not let the court know?
They didn't ALL lose their lives, Bamber survived.
I think you are doing this man a disservice and using his quote about the air rifle to define his career. I think you're better than this Holly! *&^^&
-
Sorry, I should have made it clear that the help I referred to did not take place on the night of the murders.
And as already pointed out previously the bullet casings in the master bedroom would not have ended up where they were found had the shooter been in the bedroom shooting towards the landing. For the casings to end up where they did, the shooter had to be in the bedroom or on the door threshold firing into the bedroom.
The casings are a small part of a shooting reconstruction. They are not an exact science as obviously many random variables influence the found position eg accidetal movement by victims, perp, police officers and hitting objects and then bouncing and rolling. IMO the casings do not support NB sustaining his upstairs gsw's in the so-called main bedroom. The lack of bloodstains, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks will IMO in the 'final analysis' (by Prudence Cellalot) prove NB was shot whilst he was stood on the landing facing the main bedroom. Had the tragedy happened in US a shooting reconstruction would feature centre stage at trial. At JB's trial it was limited to Lawson asking Fletcher if anyone was shot outside the main bedroom with Fletcher answering no. This is Fletcher "small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy".
-
I would have said that "a working knowledge of firearms" is likely to create more expert knowledge than theory alone. If nothing else, it would enhance the theory.
It may well be that his degree didn't fully cover ballistics. He MAY have had to gain experience 'on the job', in which case, personal interest would have been beneficial.
I feel certain that if we were to examine, closely, the qualifications of ALL individual professionals involved in the case, we'd find SOMETHING lacking. However, I wonder how much that would have mattered if Jeremy had got off?
As I said above if you read the trial testimonies of other expert witnesses:
- Glynis Howard
- John Hayward
- Dr Vanezis
- Prof Knight
I think you will agree there's a stark contrast in their openings and introduction to the court by way of outlining academic qualifications, membership of professional bodies and relevant experience. I haven't read testimonies from other experts eg Dr Bradley, Dr Craig and Brian Elliot but I wouldn't mind betting Fletcher is the odd person out.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/legal_guidance/expert_evidence_first_edition_2014.pdf
-
They didn't ALL lose their lives, Bamber survived.
I think you are doing this man a disservice and using his quote about the air rifle to define his career. I think you're better than this Holly! *&^^&
JB as defendant can hardly be counted upon as an independent witness to the crime.
Malcolm Fletcher's testimony was arguably the most important to the prosecution and yet there's no evidence based on his trial testimony that he was appropriately qualified and experienced to act as an expert witness and testify.
Unlike some 'supporters' I have not criticised other experts (excl lawyers and judges) as I've no reason to believe they were anything other than credible and reliable expert witnesses appropriately experienced and qualified to provide expert evidence to the court.
I just can't get my head round why a scientist/expert witness testifying in a court of law in England involving mass murder by shooting would introduce himself by including:
"A small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy".
We know FSS failed on quality during the 80's so was all this part of it?
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm
-
JB as defendant can hardly be counted upon as an independent witness to the crime.
Malcolm Fletcher's testimony was arguably the most important to the prosecution and yet there's no evidence based on his trial testimony that he was appropriately qualified and experienced to act as an expert witness and testify.
Unlike some 'supporters' I have not criticised other experts (excl lawyers and judges) as I've no reason to believe they were anything other than credible and reliable expert witnesses appropriately experienced and qualified to provide expert evidence to the court.
I just can't get my head round why a scientist/expert witness testifying in a court of law in England involving mass murder by shooting would introduce himself by including:
"A small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy".
We know FSS failed on quality during the 80's so was all this part of it?
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm
His career is described as.
"Professional Background
Between 1964 and 2003 Malcolm worked at the Forensic Science Service (Nottingham, Huntingdon, Met Lab, Manchester (NFU) rising to Senior Scientific Officer. From 1964 to 1974 he worked as an assistant in a variety of departments. From 1974 to retirement he specialised in firearms, ammunition and forensic ballistics."
He didn't get any of those jobs due to "A small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy"
-
The casings are a small part of a shooting reconstruction. They are not an exact science as obviously many random variables influence the found position eg accidetal movement by victims, perp, police officers and hitting objects and then bouncing and rolling. IMO the casings do not support NB sustaining his upstairs gsw's in the so-called main bedroom. The lack of bloodstains, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks will IMO in the 'final analysis' (by Prudence Cellalot) prove NB was shot whilst he was stood on the landing facing the main bedroom. Had the tragedy happened in US a shooting reconstruction would feature centre stage at trial. At JB's trial it was limited to Lawson asking Fletcher if anyone was shot outside the main bedroom with Fletcher answering no. This is Fletcher "small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy".
When a SOCO examines a crimescene he looks for the most likely scenario. If a semi automatic .22 Anschutz rifle is discharged the shells are ejected in a particular manner, forward and to the right, the ejections are not random. When multiple shots are discharged in an enclosed space the empty casings will fall more or less in the same area depending on the direction the rifle is pointed. When the casings are clumped together as they were in the master bedroom at White House Farm then the position of the shooter and the direction the rifle was pointing can be very accurately determined. The chances of all these empty casings landing where they did by shear accident is pretty slim as is the suggestion that they were all trod on or kicked about again either by accident or by design. I can assure you that police officers and especially firearms officers are trained not to move bullet casings.
Consequently, like it or not, the empty shell casings very accurately indicate June being shot as she lay in bed and after getting to her feet. They also indicate that the shooter attempted to enter the bedroom and shot Nevill several times from the location of the bedroom door. No other scenario fits exactly with this evidence.
-
His career is described as.
"Professional Background
Between 1964 and 2003 Malcolm worked at the Forensic Science Service (Nottingham, Huntingdon, Met Lab, Manchester (NFU) rising to Senior Scientific Officer. From 1964 to 1974 he worked as an assistant in a variety of departments. From 1974 to retirement he specialised in firearms, ammunition and forensic ballistics."
He didn't get any of those jobs due to "A small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy"
Yes:
http://www.csofs.org/Malcolm-Fletcher
So why advise the court at JB's trial his relevant experience included: "A small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy"?
In addition to his experience with an air rifle as a boy he talked about 13 years experience in the firearms department at various FSS sites. What exactly did this experience cover? I very much doubt it qualified him to provide testimony which ventured into the complex world of the pathology of gunshot wounds and 'drawback'.
Much of Fletcher's testimony contradicts my own investigations and research drawing on the findings from the likes of Prof Herb MacDonell and Dr Vincent DiMaio.
-
When a SOCO examines a crimescene he looks for the most likely scenario. If a semi automatic .22 Anschutz rifle is discharged the shells are ejected in a particular manner, forward and to the right, the ejections are not random. When multiple shots are discharged in an enclosed space the empty casings will fall more or less in the same area depending on the direction the rifle is pointed. When the casings are clumped together as they were in the master bedroom at White House Farm then the position of the shooter and the direction the rifle was pointing can be very accurately determined. The chances of all these empty casings landing where they did by shear accident is pretty slim as is the suggestion that they were all trod on or kicked about again either by accident or by design. I can assure you that police officers and especially firearms officers are trained not to move bullet casings.
Consequently, like it or not, the empty shell casings very accurately indicate June being shot as she lay in bed and after getting to her feet. They also indicate that the shooter attempted to enter the bedroom and shot Nevill several times from the location of the bedroom door. No other scenario fits exactly with this evidence.
The casings were not all clumped together. Excl the two which clearly pertain to SC, 8 were found June's side of the bed either on it or on the floor June's side, 2 were found near the door, 1 on the transition strip and a further 1 on the landing. Tests show 25% of casings are found in locations outside areas they would be expected based on casing ejection pattern alone:
http://www.forcescience.org/articles/ShellCasingStudy.pdf
Absence of NB's blood in the bedroom and the downward trajectories of the gsw's to NB's lip and jaw support the theory NB sustained these gsw's facing the main bedroom whilst stood on the landing stairs.
The only expert evidence to date in this regard amounts to Lawson asking Fletcher if any victim sustained upstairs gsw's outside the main bedroom and Fletcher replied no. For those that view Fletcher as a credible and reliable expert witness there's your answer but it's not one I'm going to rely on.
-
Yes:
http://www.csofs.org/Malcolm-Fletcher
So why advise the court at JB's trial his relevant experience included: "A small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy"?
In addition to his experience with an air rifle as a boy he talked about 13 years experience in the firearms department at various FSS sites. What exactly did this experience cover? I very much doubt it qualified him to provide testimony which ventured into the complex world of the pathology of gunshot wounds and 'drawback'.
Much of Fletcher's testimony contradicts my own investigations and research drawing on the findings from the likes of Prof Herb MacDonell and Dr Vincent DiMaio.
But you aren't an expert, not even close so why do you imagine your research would or should be taken more seriously than his?
Perhaps he mentioned the air rifle to show just how many years he'd been interested in guns and ballistics but that certainly wasn't the sum total of the mans qualifications and experience? How would you define your own credentials on the subject?
-
But you aren't an expert, not even close so why do you imagine your research would or should be taken more seriously than his?
Perhaps he mentioned the air rifle to show just how many years he'd been interested in guns and ballistics but that certainly wasn't the sum total of the mans qualifications and experience? How would you define your own credentials on the subject?
I don't need to be an expert to read forensic textbooks by the likes of Dr Vincent DiMaio and understand that his experiences, research and test results contradict Malcolm Fletcher's trial testimony.
Who do I find the most credible and reliable:
Dr Vincent DiMaio
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Di_Maio
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gunshot-Wounds-Ballistics-Techniques-Investigations/dp/0849381630
- V -
Malcolm Fletcher
"Small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy"
If MF had qualifications relevant to ballistics and forensic pathology of gunshot wounds then why not share such detail with the court as all the other expert witnesses did. Why fall back on "A small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy".
All Fletcher was able to tell the court was that he had 13 years experience working in the firearms dept at various FSS sites. What exactly did this entail and how did it qualify him to provide testimony at JB's trial on:
- blood distribution from gsw's
- the 'drawback' mechanism
- victims' location by way of identifying which rooms victims were shot in
Lots of people have nurtured passionate interests since childhood but it doesn't make them experts.
For all we know Mike might have been passionately interested in astronomy since childhood but it doesn't make him an expert. And judging by his planet earth is flat theory I think we can safely say he isn't an expert!
-
I don't need to be an expert to read forensic textbooks by the likes of Dr Vincent DiMaio and understand that his experiences, research and test results contradict Malcolm Fletcher's trial testimony.
Who do I find the most credible and reliable:
Dr Vincent DiMaio
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Di_Maio
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gunshot-Wounds-Ballistics-Techniques-Investigations/dp/0849381630
- V -
Malcolm Fletcher
"Small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy"
If MF had qualifications relevant to ballistics and forensic pathology of gunshot wounds then why not share such detail with the court as all the other expert witnesses did. Why fall back on "A small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy".
All Fletcher was able to tell the court was that he had 13 years experience working in the firearms dept at various FSS sites. What exactly did this entail and how did it qualify him to provide testimony at JB's trial on:
- blood distribution from gsw's
- the 'drawback' mechanism
- victims' location by way of identifying which rooms victims were shot in
Lots of people have nurtured passionate interests since childhood but it doesn't make them experts.
For all we know Mike might have been passionately interested in astronomy since childhood but it doesn't make him an expert. And judging by his planet earth is flat theory I think we can safely say he isn't an expert!
Dr Vincent DiMaio didn't have first hand experience of the case material.
Fletcher didn't JUST nurture and 'interest'!
If this is how you're intending to approach a submission you WILL fall at the first hurdle.
-
Dr Vincent DiMaio didn't have first hand experience of the case material.
Fletcher didn't JUST nurture and 'interest'!
If this is how you're intending to approach a submission you WILL fall at the first hurdle.
The following vid runs for just over 30 minutes where Dr Vincent Di Maio advises the court on his qualifications and experience in order to testify at the trial of George Zimmerman:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab2h2ceC5ic
What a contrast with our Malcolm Fletcher:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8955.0;attach=12168
VDM is asked if he has ever been involved in cases in UK he gives 2 examples including 'Bloody Sunday'. With the UK's low rates of gun crime I've often asked why JB's defence didn't seek out experts from US. Did Kingsley Napley put profit before justice? It was the firms first case funded by legal aid.
-
The following vid runs for just over 30 minutes where Dr Vincent Di Maio advises the court on his qualifications and experience in order to testify at the trial of George Zimmerman:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab2h2ceC5ic
What a contrast with our Malcolm Fletcher:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8955.0;attach=12168
VDM is asked if he has ever been involved in cases in UK he gives 2 examples including 'Bloody Sunday'. With the UK's low rates of gun crime I've often asked why JB's defence didn't seek out experts from US. Did Kingsley Napley put profit before justice? It was the firms first case funded by legal aid.
I didn't say VDM didn't have qualifications, I'm sure he has lots of experience but he didn't investigate the Bamber case whereas Fletcher did.
-
Holl, I know that you've done your homework, visited a gun shop, fannied around with some bullets....but have you tried to aim and shoot the gun in question? Bearing in mind that Sheila had never handled that gun before? I've said before that BT has the exact same gun (he has many guns), he gave me a go to shoot at the magpies that raid the swallow nests in the stables. He might as well have given me a giant parsnip. It's not a big gun, but it's heavy, unbalanced and unwieldy, by the time I'd got it into position the magpies had died of old age.
Whoever shot the Bamber family had used a gun before.... they obviously underestimated the power of it, but they could hold it steady, point it, fire it and...most importantly, reload it.
-
Holl, I'll be back next week, taking the piss out of Nelly's moptop. Try the scampi.
And don't forget that the Earth is flat. For Bamber to be innocent, we all have to live in an alternative universe. Where fairies live by the dustbins, and Lord Lucan canters gently by on Shergar, while Rolf Harris and Gary Glitter run a super-doop nursery.
&^&*%
-
Holl, I know that you've done your homework, visited a gun shop, fannied around with some bullets....but have you tried to aim and shoot the gun in question? Bearing in mind that Sheila had never handled that gun before? I've said before that BT has the exact same gun (he has many guns), he gave me a go to shoot at the magpies that raid the swallow nests in the stables. He might as well have given me a giant parsnip. It's not a big gun, but it's heavy, unbalanced and unwieldy, by the time I'd got it into position the magpies had died of old age.
Whoever shot the Bamber family had used a gun before.... they obviously underestimated the power of it, but they could hold it steady, point it, fire it and...most importantly, reload it.
Excellent post pugs!
-
Excellent post pugs!
Thanks Caro!
(But I should have said OVERestimated. ?8)@)-) )
-
I didn't say VDM didn't have qualifications, I'm sure he has lots of experience but he didn't investigate the Bamber case whereas Fletcher did.
If VDM provides expert opinion for DPP/COA/CCRC then yes he will need to be case specific but I thought we were discussing his level of experience and qualifications compared with Fletcher's? And whether or not Fletcher had the credentials to provide reliable expert testimony at JB's trial?
I will start a new thread on this next week and extract sections from a book authored by VDM which contradict Fletcher's testimony. Eg Fletcher told the court it was "almost certain" blood would deposit in/on rifle barrel/silencer from SC's contact gsw. Whereas VDM examined numerous firearms involved in contact gunshot wounds and found a significant % (can't recall the fig off the top of my head will check next week but approx 50%) didn't present with blood in/on barrels. One could argue the conditions with SC gave rise to 'drawback' but all the literature, not just from VDM, shows this isn't the case:
- A silencer lowers the PSI making drawback ? Would like to say more but can't at this stage.
- Drawback is mostly observed with large calibre firearms and high velocity ammo neither of which were used in this case.
- Drawback is mostly observed with gsw's to the head. NC sustained a gsw to the head but his blood groupings were not found in the silencer.
Anyway I don't think I need to try and convince you about the silencer as I think I'm right in saying you believe it was fabricated? All of Fletcher's testimony is capable of being obliterated from the face of planet earth which is most definitely round!
-
Holl, I know that you've done your homework, visited a gun shop, fannied around with some bullets....but have you tried to aim and shoot the gun in question? Bearing in mind that Sheila had never handled that gun before? I've said before that BT has the exact same gun (he has many guns), he gave me a go to shoot at the magpies that raid the swallow nests in the stables. He might as well have given me a giant parsnip. It's not a big gun, but it's heavy, unbalanced and unwieldy, by the time I'd got it into position the magpies had died of old age.
Whoever shot the Bamber family had used a gun before.... they obviously underestimated the power of it, but they could hold it steady, point it, fire it and...most importantly, reload it.
The purpose of the visit to the gun shop was just to check out the cartridges. Back to our friend Fletcher, he said when he loaded them they produced a black discolouration to his hands and had a greasy feel. This contradicted the manufactures key features doc so I decided to check them out for myself and found:
- loading the cartridges into the mag was easier than replacing a battery into a tv remote. There was nothing remotely difficult about the task. It's intuitive and only possible to load them the correct way. IMO even a complete novice to the task would have to suffer severe learning difficulties to find any difficulty.
- my hands were perfectly clean to the naked eye. There was no discolouration or greasy feel or odour.
You may recall Myster suggested maybe the manufactures changed the way they were made. I emailed Eley and was told no changes.
The only firearm I've ever fired was my brother's air rifle. He set up some targets in the garden for us to shoot. I don't recall thinking it was heavy or unwieldy and I'm pretty small fully grown: 5' 3.5" 8st 7llbs. I just kept thinking what if it backfires! Most of the top female golfers in the world are from SE Asia ie petite and boy can they hit the ball!
The rifle is the exact same length as my golf clubs. I looked up the weight of the Anshutz (I'll check it again next week as I can't recall the exact figs now) but it isn't heavy in relation to other objects SC must have handled including the twins. SC was a single mother living in London and relying on her own steam to get out and about. She was used to carrying and handling childcare paraphernalia eg twin buggy, heavy shopping: food, drink, house cleaning, toiletries and of course lifting and carrying the twins.
If you consider other mass shootings involving family members in private dwellings eg Bain and Defeo the perps were experienced with firearms and shot more adults with similar low powered firearms to the rifle used at WHF using far fewer cartridges. The soc at WHF was IMO compatible with an inexperienced shooter. Of course the counter argument to this is that JB went for overkill to make it appear amateurish and frenzied.
-
Here's the tech spec for the rifle:
Total weight: 3.1kg/7 llbs rounded up
Total length: 109cm/43" rounded up
http://jga.anschuetz-sport.com/index.php5?produktID=313&menu=106&sprache=1&produktShow=detail&PHPSESSID=77f29b217478cf5d82b7c0201cc4e627
-
Here's the tech spec for the rifle:
Total weight: 3.1kg/7 llbs rounded up
Total length: 109cm/43" rounded up
http://jga.anschuetz-sport.com/index.php5?produktID=313&menu=106&sprache=1&produktShow=detail&PHPSESSID=77f29b217478cf5d82b7c0201cc4e627
Some items that SC must have handled heavier than the rifle:
- Twin baby buggy - almost 4 times the weight of the rifle
https://www.johnlewis.com/baby-jogger-city-mini-twin-pushchair-crimson-grey/p1125659
- A large box of washing powder - over twice as heavy as the rifle. Bearing in mind SC wasn't a car driver.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Professional-Ariel-Colour-245-Washes/dp/B012H3Y8Q4
- Ironing board - over twice as heavy as rifle
https://www.johnlewis.com/brabantia-titan-oval-ironing-board-135-x-45cm/p166796
- Averaqe weight of new born twin - nearly twice as heavy as rifle
https://www.thebump.com/a/average-birth-weight-for-multiples
-
The purpose of the visit to the gun shop was just to check out the cartridges. Back to our friend Fletcher, he said when he loaded them they produced a black discolouration to his hands and had a greasy feel. This contradicted the manufactures key features doc so I decided to check them out for myself and found:
- loading the cartridges into the mag was easier than replacing a battery into a tv remote. There was nothing remotely difficult about the task. It's intuitive and only possible to load them the correct way. IMO even a complete novice to the task would have to suffer severe learning difficulties to find any difficulty.
- my hands were perfectly clean to the naked eye. There was no discolouration or greasy feel or odour.
You may recall Myster suggested maybe the manufactures changed the way they were made. I emailed Eley and was told no changes.
The only firearm I've ever fired was my brother's air rifle. He set up some targets in the garden for us to shoot. I don't recall thinking it was heavy or unwieldy and I'm pretty small fully grown: 5' 3.5" 8st 7llbs. I just kept thinking what if it backfires! Most of the top female golfers in the world are from SE Asia ie petite and boy can they hit the ball!
The rifle is the exact same length as my golf clubs. I looked up the weight of the Anshutz (I'll check it again next week as I can't recall the exact figs now) but it isn't heavy in relation to other objects SC must have handled including the twins. SC was a single mother living in London and relying on her own steam to get out and about. She was used to carrying and handling childcare paraphernalia eg twin buggy, heavy shopping: food, drink, house cleaning, toiletries and of course lifting and carrying the twins.
If you consider other mass shootings involving family members in private dwellings eg Bain and Defeo the perps were experienced with firearms and shot more adults with similar low powered firearms to the rifle used at WHF using far fewer cartridges. The soc at WHF was IMO compatible with an inexperienced shooter. Of course the counter argument to this is that JB went for overkill to make it appear amateurish and frenzied.
If you're desperate you could email CAL to confirm that MF told her that the bullets were coated with beeswax (which gives/gave off a distinctive smell) rather than paraffin wax.
-
If you're desperate you could email CAL to confirm that MF told her that the bullets were coated with beeswax (which gives/gave off a distinctive smell) rather than paraffin wax.
(ty6e[
In Fletchers testimony he states that loading the cartridges into the mag caused black discolouration to his hands. As you know this is at complete odds with my own experiences at the gun shop. I think the way forward is for a forensic scientist to load the exact same cartridges into the exact same mag and see what the result is. There's so much of Fletcher's testimony that simply doesn't ring true. I will post it up on the relevant thread when I have time. Maybe I lack objectivity when reading it but I can't help thinking all the way through he wasn't there as an objective expert witness but someone who was for whatever reason(s) desperate to assist the prosecution in securing a conviction. I will provide some examples when I have time.
-
(ty6e[
In Fletchers testimony he states that loading the cartridges into the mag caused black discolouration to his hands. As you know this is at complete odds with my own experiences at the gun shop. I think the way forward is for a forensic scientist to load the exact same cartridges into the exact same mag and see what the result is. There's so much of Fletcher's testimony that simply doesn't ring true. I will post it up on the relevant thread when I have time. Maybe I lack objectivity when reading it but I can't help thinking all the way through he wasn't there as an objective expert witness but someone who was for whatever reason(s) desperate to assist the prosecution in securing a conviction. I will provide some examples when I have time.
(ty6e[ ... still flogging a dead horse, I see!
The bullets and brass casings used at WHF might have been covered in more lead dust than those you experienced recently and the manufacturing process could have changed significantly since '85, with less contamination. Similarly, the spring in the original magazine might have been stronger than the one which you tried to load.
-
(ty6e[ ... still flogging a dead horse, I see!
The bullets and brass casings used at WHF might have been covered in more lead dust than those you experienced recently and the manufacturing process could have changed significantly since '85, with less contamination. Similarly, the spring in the original magazine might have been stronger than the one which you tried to load.
More like 1 4 Arthur!
I'm pleased you raised these points as I was going to bring them up next week. I'm out and about at the mo on my phone so can't post up extracts of Fletcher's testimony but to give you an idea:
- It seems the cartridges produced at trial had holes in to empty the contents and make safe. Surely unless they were thoroughly rinsed thru and dried the contents would cling to the sides and contaminate the hands. Had a coffee in my local Waitrose cafe this morning. I noticed the chocolate powder shaker for cappuccino had powder clinging to the sides and top. In fact it even contaminated the lid of my latte.
- It also appears the magazine used at trial was the one from WHF which had clearly been bashed around on 7th Aug hence the broken stock. Not only this but Fletcher admitted dropping the rifle and mag from height to see if he could cause a discharge by jarring! Maybe this accounts for my experience at the gun shop ie it wad easy as the mag was undamaged.