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, 06:33:53 PM
-
I have been seriously underwhelmed by the quality of JB's defence to date: Ed Lawson, Geoffrey Rivlin and Paul Terzeon (trial, 1989 appeal hearing) and Michael Turner and Michael Duck (2002 appeal hearing).
I had at one time thought about Helena Kennedy but having part read a book she authored, which I found in my Pistol Pete's (PP) book collection, I found her style heavy going. (PP was delighted to find me reading something other than the Daily Mail)!
https://www.amazon.com/Eve-Was-Framed-British-Justice/dp/0099224410
My first choice would be David Martin-Sperry who had some limited involvement with the case in the dim and distant past. Does anyone have any other suggestions? If so on what basis do you think he/she is more suitable than DMS?
http://www.charterchambers.com/our-people/barristers/david-martin-sperry.html
DMS has kind eyes/smile and can ski to instructor level all of which are a bonus!
32
-
I will have to find out how the rankings work but it appears David Martin-Sperry's chambers are in the 4th quartile (Charter Chambers).
https://www.chambersandpartners.com/11841/347/editorial/14/2
Michael Turner's chambers are in the 3rd quartile (Garden Chambers).
Samson I see David Hislop's chambers (Doughty Street) (acting for Mark Lundy) are in the 2nd quartile. Are you able to tell us anything about DH?
-
Does it really matter as there just isn't any evidence to have the conviction deemed unsafe or even overturned.
-
I have been seriously underwhelmed by the quality of JB's defence to date: Ed Lawson, Geoffrey Rivlin and Paul Terzeon (trial, 1989 appeal hearing) and Michael Turner and Michael Duck (2002 appeal hearing).
I had at one time thought about Helena Kennedy but having part read a book she authored, which I found in my Pistol Pete's (PP) book collection, I found her style heavy going. (PP was delighted to find me reading something other than the Daily Mail)!
https://www.amazon.com/Eve-Was-Framed-British-Justice/dp/0099224410
My first choice would be David Martin-Sperry who had some limited involvement with the case in the dim and distant past. Does anyone have any other suggestions? If so on what basis do you think he/she is more suitable than DMS?
http://www.charterchambers.com/our-people/barristers/david-martin-sperry.html
DMS has kind eyes/smile and can ski to instructor level all of which are a bonus!
There won't be a third appeal.
-
I will have to find out how the rankings work but it appears David Martin-Sperry's chambers are in the 4th quartile (Charter Chambers).
https://www.chambersandpartners.com/11841/347/editorial/14/2
Michael Turner's chambers are in the 3rd quartile (Garden Chambers).
Samson I see David Hislop's chambers (Doughty Street) (acting for Mark Lundy) are in the 2nd quartile. Are you able to tell us anything about DH?
David Hislop led a team that engaged the wrong experts on Immunohistochemistry, so lost the 2015 trial. The current defence team are stuck with this error. In my opinion he is solely responsible for Lundy being still in jail. He did a good job before that at the privy council, and is certainly equipped to run a deal like this one.
Joe Karam obtained full power of attorney and wsas thus able to instruct hia lawyers for Bain. He had total case knowledge and total control. Please study Trial by Ambush and learn from this. You might even consider having power of attorney for Jeremy Bamber, I doubt anyone in England comes near to you in overall case knowledge, to get JB out of jail there is no room for tactical errors and oversights.
Whether nosty and I had any influence in Lundy I don't really know, but Jonathan Eaton started his appeal address with a full description of the crime scene, showing it was definite people who were not Mark Lundy were the last people to be in the house. This is vital in my opinion, the silencer is arcane like the spots on Lundy's shirt. Any hearing should start with your proof with complete illustrations, of Nevill coming up the stairs into gunfire. This is an immoveable datapoint for the prosecution to overcome. They can't can they? We saw MikeG's disastrous efforts on IA, where he proved what he was trying to disprove. And how did (killer) JB leave? Not by that kitchen window, JB has proved that with the latch photo. And so on. Crime scene tells the story.
-
And ignore the nonsense about fresh evidence. Open by thundering this paragraph from Lord Kerr in Lundy.
120. The Board considers that the proper basis on which admission of fresh
evidence should be decided is by the application of a sequential series of tests. If the
evidence is not credible, it should not be admitted. If it is credible, the question then
arises whether it is fresh in the sense that it is evidence which could not have been
obtained for the trial with reasonable diligence. If the evidence is both credible and
fresh, it should generally be admitted unless the court is satisfied at that stage that, if
admitted, it would have no effect on the safety of the conviction. If the evidence is
credible but not fresh, the court should assess its strength and its potential impact on
the safety of the conviction. If it considers that there is a risk of a miscarriage of
justice if the evidence is excluded, it should be admitted, notwithstanding that the
evidence is not fresh.
-
David Hislop led a team that engaged the wrong experts on Immunohistochemistry, so lost the 2015 trial. The current defence team are stuck with this error. In my opinion he is solely responsible for Lundy being still in jail. He did a good job before that at the privy council, and is certainly equipped to run a deal like this one.
Joe Karam obtained full power of attorney and wsas thus able to instruct hia lawyers for Bain. He had total case knowledge and total control. Please study Trial by Ambush and learn from this. You might even consider having power of attorney for Jeremy Bamber, I doubt anyone in England comes near to you in overall case knowledge, to get JB out of jail there is no room for tactical errors and oversights.
Whether nosty and I had any influence in Lundy I don't really know, but Jonathan Eaton started his appeal address with a full description of the crime scene, showing it was definite people who were not Mark Lundy were the last people to be in the house. This is vital in my opinion, the silencer is arcane like the spots on Lundy's shirt. Any hearing should start with your proof with complete illustrations, of Nevill coming up the stairs into gunfire. This is an immoveable datapoint for the prosecution to overcome. They can't can they? We saw MikeG's disastrous efforts on IA, where he proved what he was trying to disprove. And how did (killer) JB leave? Not by that kitchen window, JB has proved that with the latch photo. And so on. Crime scene tells the story.
Control...now you're talking my language! Unfortunately JB has surrounded himself with numpties who he has come to rely upon..
-
Control...now you're talking my language! Unfortunately JB has surrounded himself with numpties who he has come to rely upon..
Perhaps numpties don't cause him the same stress as do those with more than cotton wool between their ears?
-
There appears to be some consistency with jeremy Bamber in that every lawyer eventually abandons him.
-
There appears to be some consistency with jeremy Bamber in that every lawyer eventually abandons him.
Well JB has been in prison 32 plus years now so it's inevitable there will be a lot of natural wastage too eg death (Lawson) retirement (Rivlin, Smith, Terzeon). In any event these people are paid to do a job eg defend at trial or appeal. Then they move on. If you want continuity you need look no further than Mike! At least he has remained loyal.
For the record although Michael Turner failed at JB's 2002 appeal he is on record saying he believes JB innocent:
Does he believe Bamber is innocent? “Passionately.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9716069/Devils-advocate-Michael-Turner-prepares-for-his-toughest-case.html
-
Well JB has been in prison 32 plus years now so it's inevitable there will be a lot of natural wastage too eg death (Lawson) retirement (Rivlin, Smith, Terzeon). In any event these people are paid to do a job eg defend at trial or appeal. Then they move on. If you want continuity you need look no further than Mike! At least he has remained loyal.
For the record although Michael Turner failed at JB's 2002 appeal he is on record saying he believes JB innocent:
Does he believe Bamber is innocent? “Passionately.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9716069/Devils-advocate-Michael-Turner-prepares-for-his-toughest-case.html
I don't believe he does. I get the feeling that what he's really passionate about is presenting a case a jury will buy. It has long been my contention that counsel isn't so much interested in innocence or guilt, as putting together a story which will stir a jury to belief what they're putting across. Michael Turner goes a long way to back up my belief.
-
I don't believe he does. I get the feeling that what he's really passionate about is presenting a case a jury will buy. It has long been my contention that counsel isn't so much interested in innocence or guilt, as putting together a story which will stir a jury to belief what they're putting across. Michael Turner goes a long way to back up my belief.
I thought this was how the system was supposed to work? Defence/prosecution lawyers don't pre-judge innocence or guilt they simply come up with a strategy and arguments designed to win the case where in theory the truth triumphs? Problem as I see it is that such a system with its processes and systems is not infallible. In JB's case he wanted George Carmen QC to represent him at trial. Instead he got Geoffrey Rivlin. Both men hail from the North of England and both quite small in statue. I would suggest that's where the similarities end. Geoffrey Rivlin's strategy of choreographing a correlation between the silencer and the crime instead of repudiating it was only ever going to end in tears for JB.
I only consider myself to be someone of average ability but I've been lucky enough to work alongside some very smart people in retail management and financial services and IMO they would run rings around the likes of Rivlin/Turner.
-
I thought this was how the system was supposed to work? Defence/prosecution lawyers don't pre-judge innocence or guilt they simply come up with a strategy and arguments designed to win the case where in theory the truth triumphs? Problem as I see it is that such a system with its processes and systems is not infallible. In JB's case he wanted George Carmen QC to represent him at trial. Instead he got Geoffrey Rivlin. Both men hail from the North of England and both quite small in statue. I would suggest that's where the similarities end. Geoffrey Rivlin's strategy of choreographing a correlation between the silencer and the crime instead of repudiating it was only ever going to end in tears for JB.
I only consider myself to be someone of average ability but I've been lucky enough to work alongside some very smart people in retail management and financial services and IMO they would run rings around the likes of Rivlin/Turner.
That may be so. However, I've had my theory shot down by a lawyer who perhaps thought me disrespectful to their profession. I also know someone whose daughter is a DEFENCE barrister. She chose that path. She is fully aware that not everyone she defends is innocent. THAT point is, apparently, irrelevant. Her job is to defend.
-
That may be so. However, I've had my theory shot down by a lawyer who perhaps thought me disrespectful to their profession. I also know someone whose daughter is a DEFENCE barrister. She chose that path. She is fully aware that not everyone she defends is innocent. THAT point is, apparently, irrelevant. Her job is to defend.
Yes that's exactly how the system is supposed to work. One of the problems as I see it is that prejudice creeps in. Something we all experience to some degree consciously or sub-consciously.
I think Nelly Red Belly (NGRB) should undertake copious amounts of CPD or whatever he needs to do to get readmitted to the bar and take on JB's case for the next appeal hearing.
-
Yes that's exactly how the system is supposed to work. One of the problems as I see it is that prejudice creeps in. Something we all experience to some degree consciously or sub-consciously.
I think Nelly Red Belly (NGRB) should undertake copious amounts of CPD or whatever he needs to do to get readmitted to the bar and take on JB's case for the next appeal hearing.
I think NGB has his doubts too. &%^^
-
Yes that's exactly how the system is supposed to work. One of the problems as I see it is that prejudice creeps in. Something we all experience to some degree consciously or sub-consciously.
I think Nelly Red Belly (NGRB) should undertake copious amounts of CPD or whatever he needs to do to get readmitted to the bar and take on JB's case for the next appeal hearing.
I can't believe there's anyone old enough to have experience who would be totally objective about the Bamber case and prejudice-free.
-
I can't believe there's anyone old enough to have experience who would be totally objective about the Bamber case and prejudice-free.
That may well be true but they work in pairs: leader and junior.
Trial: Leader - Rivlin, Junior - Lawson
1989 Appeal: I believe was the same trial team
2002 Appeal: Leader - Turner, Junior - Duck
So a possibility might be an oldie and a newbie comprising a male and female.
David Martin-Sperry and Isabelle Gillard did have some involvement with the case post 1989 appeal hearing and pre 2002 appeal hearing but in fairness to Turner who I have criticised for following Rivlin's strategy with the silencer they intended to pursue the same route. So adopting the one strike and you're out policy I would have to say it's back to the drawing board.
Turner most definitely shouldn't be let near the case again. His failings at 2002 were catastrophic and only in the legal world are they able to fall under the radar:
- Followed Rivlin's trial strategy of SC using the silencer with the blood comprising an "intimate" mix
- Failed to understand the pathological evidence and soc: pursued NB calling JB from kitchen phone having sustained gsw's upstairs with officers then using tel and removing blood. The soc shows NB was shot coming up the stairs and IMO had just made the call to JB.
- Overlooked the fact bloodstain test results for the bible were not disclosed to the defence. Missed an opportunity to win a point on the basis the bible was destroyed.
-
That may well be true but they work in pairs: leader and junior.
Trial: Leader - Rivlin, Junior - Lawson
1989 Appeal: I believe was the same trial team
2002 Appeal: Leader - Turner, Junior - Duck
So a possibility might be an oldie and a newbie comprising a male and female.
David Martin-Sperry and Isabelle Gillard did have some involvement with the case post 1989 appeal hearing and pre 2002 appeal hearing but in fairness to Turner who I have criticised for following Rivlin's strategy with the silencer they intended to pursue the same route. So adopting the one strike and you're out policy I would have to say it's back to the drawing board.
Turner most definitely shouldn't be let near the case again. His failings at 2002 were catastrophic and only in the legal world are they able to fall under the radar:
- Followed Rivlin's trial strategy of SC using the silencer with the blood comprising an "intimate" mix
- Failed to understand the pathological evidence and soc: pursued NB calling JB from kitchen phone having sustained gsw's upstairs with officers then using tel and removing blood. The soc shows NB was shot coming up the stairs and IMO had just made the call to JB.
- Overlooked the fact bloodstain test results for the bible were not disclosed to the defence. Missed an opportunity to win a point on the basis the bible was destroyed.
Aren't you jumping the gun a little here Holly? No points for submissions have even been handed to the CCRC yet and from his blog, it just sounds like same old to me.
-
Aren't you jumping the gun a little here Holly? No points for submissions have even been handed to the CCRC yet and from his blog, it just sounds like same old to me.
I'm acting as an independent with a view to new forensic evidence going direct to DPP and/or media domestic and international.
-
I'm acting as an independent with a view to new forensic evidence going direct to DPP and/or media domestic and international.
Good luck with that then.
-
Good luck with that then.
*&(+(+
-
*&(+(+
Seriously, I admire you for putting your money where your mouth is. I think you'll be wasting your time but good on you! 8((()*/
-
Seriously, I admire you for putting your money where your mouth is. I think you'll be wasting your time but good on you! 8((()*/
Holly should have a word with our Daisy, she's been down that road with JB.
-
Sigh.
Holl, how can you waste so much time and talent on such an obviously guilty knobhead as Jeremy Bamber? Why can't you be more interested in hedgehogs? And how are you going to feel when Prudence comes to the same conclusion as Paul Harrison and CAL? Hmm?
*&^^&
-
Sigh.
Holl, how can you waste so much time and talent on such an obviously guilty knobhead as Jeremy Bamber? Why can't you be more interested in hedgehogs? And how are you going to feel when Prudence comes to the same conclusion as Paul Harrison and CAL? Hmm?
*&^^&
Hedgehogs? I've got a prickly pussy to contend with. Sigh!
-
My first choice would be David Martin-Sperry who had some limited involvement with the case in the dim and distant past. Does anyone have any other suggestions? If so on what basis do you think he/she is more suitable than DMS?
http://www.charterchambers.com/our-people/barristers/david-martin-sperry.html
DMS has kind eyes/smile and can ski to instructor level all of which are a bonus!
As far as know, Jeremy refers to MTQC as "My Lawyer" and as far as I know the COA don't like wasting time having another QC going over all the paperwork and prefer someone already familiar with the case.
The only reason MTQC stopped working for JB is because he refused to work with GDS. He seems to have been brought back into picture with GDS now gone.
As for DMS his last involvement was recommending JB go to the COA on the basis that the defence were deprived of evidence that could result in them arguing a third party committing the crime.
-
As far as know, Jeremy refers to MTQC as "My Lawyer" and as far as I know the COA don't like wasting time having another QC going over all the paperwork and prefer someone already familiar with the case.
The only reason MTQC stopped working for JB is because he refused to work with GDS. He seems to have been brought back into picture with GDS now gone.
As for DMS his last involvement was recommending JB go to the COA on the basis that the defence were deprived of evidence that could result in them arguing a third party committing the crime.
Probably the wrong thread here, sorry about that, but has it ever been noted by Bamber supporters that it was totally Taff's fault that the crime scene wasn't taped off and vital evidence was lost? The first of many clumsy mistakes by a bolshy (IMO) copper who misdirected a murder scene so that he could tidy things up, get the result he wanted, and get to the golf course in time.
-
Probably the wrong thread here, sorry about that, but has it ever been noted by Bamber supporters that it was totally Taff's fault that the crime scene wasn't taped off and vital evidence was lost? The first of many clumsy mistakes by a bolshy (IMO) copper who misdirected a murder scene so that he could tidy things up, get the result he wanted, and get to the golf course in time.
Apparently Taff (with his head full of golf balls) spent a few minutes looking at Sheila, the gun and the bible, before he decided that it was all done and dusted and he'd better shoot(!) off sharpish or he'd never catch his mates up on the green. He didn't realise that the bible was lying on Sheila's arm, and the angle of the first shot was impossible for Sheila to inflict to herself. He also didn't notice that Sheila had been pulled down (check her hair and the angle of her head) after the first shot.
-
As far as know, Jeremy refers to MTQC as "My Lawyer" and as far as I know the COA don't like wasting time having another QC going over all the paperwork and prefer someone already familiar with the case.
One would have to question whether he went over the paperwork 2002 since he made such a pigs ear of it. I can see an article in the Daily Mail by the likes of Leo McKinstry: U-Turner QC. MTQC would need to do so many U turns he would lose all credibility. I'll elaborate when I have more time.
The only reason MTQC stopped working for JB is because he refused to work with GDS. He seems to have been brought back into picture with GDS now gone.
As for DMS his last involvement was recommending JB go to the COA on the basis that the defence were deprived of evidence that could result in them arguing a third party committing the crime.
I did say here one strike and you're out meaning DMS has also fluffed it when he too intended on pursuing the mixed blood theory:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8956.msg440104#msg440104
See attached
The only realistic chance JB has is if Nelly Red Belly gets readmitted to the bar and takes the case on with moi as his research asst and you as boy friday aka 3 muskateeers.
-
Probably the wrong thread here, sorry about that, but has it ever been noted by Bamber supporters that it was totally Taff's fault that the crime scene wasn't taped off and vital evidence was lost? The first of many clumsy mistakes by a bolshy (IMO) copper who misdirected a murder scene so that he could tidy things up, get the result he wanted, and get to the golf course in time.
Chief Sup Harris was the most senior officer at soc, two ranks above DCI Jones, he arrived at SOC some two hours before DCI Jones and was one of the first to enter once made safe by raid team. He effectively signed soc off as murder/suicide. The golf thing is a myth. Chief Sup Harris and DCI Jones departed WHF together for a pre-arranged meeting at GPO Chelmsford.
-
Apparently Taff (with his head full of golf balls) spent a few minutes looking at Sheila, the gun and the bible, before he decided that it was all done and dusted and he'd better shoot(!) off sharpish or he'd never catch his mates up on the green. He didn't realise that the bible was lying on Sheila's arm, and the angle of the first shot was impossible for Sheila to inflict to herself. He also didn't notice that Sheila had been pulled down (check her hair and the angle of her head) after the first shot.
I think the raid team moved SC to enter the box room although I accept I have near squat to back this up.
Dr Vanezis didn't raise any issues with angle of shot.
-
Bamber would be the only convicted murderer to get a third appeal.
There was a 10 year gap between the last COA & CCRC applications. As already submitted evidence can't be re submitted, it may be a 15 year gap before any (unlikely) new CCRC submission. So 2027. The CCRC may reject the submission as they did in 2012.
Bamber will be well into his 60's in 2027. But won't give up.
-
Bamber would be the only convicted murderer to get a third appeal.
There was a 10 year gap between the last COA & CCRC applications. As already submitted evidence can't be re submitted, it may be a 15 year gap before any (unlikely) new CCRC submission. So 2027. The CCRC may reject the submission as they did in 2012.
Bamber will be well into his 60's in 2027. But won't give up.
I guess someone has to be first with a third appeal so why not Jeremy Bamber? The case has many unique features to it and this may well end up being one of them.
With the advent of the Internet the world has moved on and speeded up and it's now possible to communicate with anyone anywhere. Anyway if new evidence is very strong potentially it could by-pass CCRC and wing its way straight to DPP.
I see JB is hoping his lawyers have enough. I'm amazed he has the sort of confidence in these people he seems to have given their past performances.
http://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/jeremys-33rd-birthday-in-prison-as.html?m=1
-
https://youtu.be/9V0YmVzrFNU
I see the CT are hard at work.
-
As far as know, Jeremy refers to MTQC as "My Lawyer" and as far as I know the COA don't like wasting time having another QC going over all the paperwork and prefer someone already familiar with the case.
The only reason MTQC stopped working for JB is because he refused to work with GDS. He seems to have been brought back into picture with GDS now gone.
As for DMS his last involvement was recommending JB go to the COA on the basis that the defence were deprived of evidence that could result in them arguing a third party committing the crime.
David can you offer up any reason(s) why MT QC was so grossly incompetent and negligent at JB's 2002 appeal hearing? Your explanation that "the CT don't like another QC going all over the paperwork and prefer someone already familiar with the case" when it's clear he didn't have a baldy clue would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious.
Can you explain please his failure to counter claims from the prosecution that JB moved SC when he could easily do so by reference to A/PS Woodcock's WS? Instead he allowed the prosecution to advance this theory with appeal court judges commenting ..."it represented another formidable string to the prosecution's bow". In the world of football it would amount to a spectacular own goal!
-
They don't like it up 'em, Cpt. Holly! 8((()*/
-
David can you offer up any reason(s) why MT QC was so grossly incompetent and negligent at JB's 2002 appeal hearing?
He wasn't grossly incompetent and negligent at all.
The case was referred by CCRC because of June's DNA found the moderator supporting the mixture theory and that is the avenue MTQC was employed to argue for.
The notion of MTQC being "grossly incompetent and negligent" is just you being catty because he blocked you from e-mailing him.
Your explanation that "the CT don't like another QC going all over the paperwork and prefer someone already familiar with the case"
Errr that's not what I wrote.
as far as I know the COA don't like wasting time having another QC going over all the paperwork and prefer someone already familiar with the case.
That's what I wrote
when it's clear he didn't have a baldy clue would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious.
Prehaps Holly QC should take the case then?
Ground 1 - June walking around with two bullets in her brains!
Ground 2 - Attachment theory
Ground 3 - Possibility of Lab staff eating chocolate bars before handling the bullets.
I'm sure the Judges will be blown away! @)(++(*
Can you explain please his failure to counter claims from the prosecution that JB moved SC when he could easily do so by reference to A/PS Woodcock's WS? Instead he allowed the prosecution to advance this theory with appeal court judges commenting ..."it represented another formidable string to the prosecution's bow". In the world of football it would amount to a spectacular own goal!
It was countered by the fact it was inadmissible because the prosecution could have brought it up at trial.
519. Having studied with care the statement of Mr Ismail, we concluded that this was expert evidence capable of belief. Indeed if it had been given and if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it. That evidence in itself could have led to a conclusion of guilt quite apart from the many other matters relied upon by the prosecution at trial. However, we were not satisfied that evidence of this kind was not available at the date of trial if the prosecution had sought to explore these matters and more importantly we thought that Mr Turner was right in his submission that it was very difficult to gauge with sufficient certainty the reaction of a jury to it particularly when we could not judge it against all the related evidence in the trial, which we had not heard.
The Judges wont accept SCs body being moved without the police admitting to such anyway.
-
He wasn't grossly incompetent and negligent at all.
That's your opinion and certainly not one I share.
The case was referred by CCRC because of June's DNA found the moderator supporting the mixture theory and that is the avenue MTQC was employed to argue for.
June's DNA wasn't categorically found in the silencer. DNA was taken from PB as June's closest surviving blood relative and showed the major component of DNA found in the silencer was statistically 3,500 times more likely to have originated from June. However the testing method used LCN DNA works of material invisible to the naked eye and as small as 1000th the size of a grain of sand. Therefore the major component of DNA found within the silencer could just as easily have originated from jurors contaminating silencer when they handled the various exhibits eg June's nightdress. All concerned from defence and prosecution agreed the LCN DNA tests were utterly meaningless. The appeal court judges conceded June's DNA was in the silencer on the basis the police destroyed exhibits against protocol.
The notion of MTQC being "grossly incompetent and negligent" is just you being catty because he blocked you from e-mailing him.
I think you will find I criticised MT QC long before I emailed him during Dec 2016. I will dig out the posts. The only reason you rave about him is that he entertained you in his chambers when you dropped off your ahem 'forensic evidence breakthrough' not! When a QC has spelling mistakes on his/her website it can only spell disaster.
At one time you disagreed with me about Rivlin until you realised how absurd his whole strategy was with the mixed blood theory.
Errr that's not what I wrote.
That's what I wrote.
I stand corrected. Lol I misread COA for CT! In any event I don't think it makes any difference which QC is instructed so long as he/she is competent. The appeal was over 15 years ago.
Prehaps Holly QC should take the case then?
Ground 1 - June walking around with two bullets in her brains!
Ground 2 - Attachment theory
Ground 3 - Possibility of Lab staff eating chocolate bars before handling the bullets.
I'm sure the Judges will be blown away!
Now you're just being silly. The difference between you and me is that I'm happy to moot ideas eg June walking around the bed with the 2 gsw's to her head and to then be shown the errors of my thinking and drop them. You on the other hand are never wrong.
It's extremely unlikely JB's conviction will be quashed unless the blood/silencer is undermined even if JM retracted her testimony. I believe I am able to do this and in total have 9 other compelling points. I've not seen a single thing you've produced, which you've made available, that stands up to scrutiny. The funniest being the idea the relatives somehow removed menstrual blood from SC's soaking underwear and planted it in the silencer. The appeal court judges would so roar at that it might well cause the Thames flood defence to burst!
Joe Karam was successful assisting David Bain and there's no reason I can't do the same for JB. It's not necessary to be legally qualified to assist. In fact bringing skills acquired elsewhere can be of benefit. Joe Karam was a competitive sportsman playing for NZ's All Blacks and these traits are also important: will to win, belief, persistence, discipline, etc.
It was countered by the fact it was inadmissible because the prosecution could have brought it up at trial.
519. Having studied with care the statement of Mr Ismail, we concluded that this was expert evidence capable of belief. Indeed if it had been given and if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it. That evidence in itself could have led to a conclusion of guilt quite apart from the many other matters relied upon by the prosecution at trial. However, we were not satisfied that evidence of this kind was not available at the date of trial if the prosecution had sought to explore these matters and more importantly we thought that Mr Turner was right in his submission that it was very difficult to gauge with sufficient certainty the reaction of a jury to it particularly when we could not judge it against all the related evidence in the trial, which we had not heard.
The Judges wont accept SCs body being moved without the police admitting to such anyway.
Yes that's what I said but there was no need for it to get off the starting block. Just produce A/PS Woodcock's WS where he states SC's head was propped up against the bedside cabinet. You can't afford for these sort of oversights in a case like this.
When I have time I will go through the appeal point by point stating why IMO it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
-
David btw how's your book on the case going? I'll look out for it in the comedy section of Waterstones as it won't be making true crime!
-
David btw how's your book on the case going? I'll look out for it in the comedy section of Waterstones as it won't be making true crime!
A book ?
He is a busy boy. Posting on the forum on Friday & Saturday nights, discovering 'forensic evidence breakthrough's' & attending meetings with Jeremy's legal advisors.
Not the typical activities men in their 20's get up to. But at least he will have received his 'Jeremy Bamber is innocent' T shirt.
Will the book be called 'Gish gash images' or 'Forensic Evidence Breakthrough in 3D' ?
-
MT QC said the highlight of his legal career was representing Michael Hickey at appeal. And yet he has misspelt Michael's surname on his website. This is simply not good enough for a QC and IMO epitomises the standard of his work ie lack of care and attention to detail. Apparently he's dyslexic. This being the case why not arrange for someone to check your work?
On his website he likes to big himself up quoting others who rave about his abilities. What's this all about? No other profession carries on like this apart from maybe the odd banker who lay claim to carrying out God's work! Just get on with the job and let the results speak for themselves!
How many heart surgeons boast about number of lives saved? Etc, etc
This is the whole thing about lawyers and judges they are unaccountable in many respects and difficult to measure in terms of success or not. Everyone else is measurable.
-
David I fail to see how you can see MT QC anything other than incompetent and negligent.
A/PS Woodcock's WS:
"I was aware Sheila Bamber was lying flat on her back with her head slightly raised as it was against a bedside locker".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=166.0;attach=251
Soc images of SC - viewer discretion advised:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Sheila+Caffell+images&client=safari&hl=en-gb&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5xLbBiMLZAhWqCcAKHXUDCvoQsAQICw#mhpiv=18&spf=1519596086840
SC's head is clearly flat on the floor and to the left of NB's bedside cabinet.
The prosecution at appeal attempted to advance the following which MT QC could have easily defended against on the basis of A/PS Woodcock's WS. In fact it should have featured as an appeal point in JB's favour!
Prosecution application to call fresh evidence 514. It remains for us to give reasons why we refused an application to call fresh evidence made by the prosecution. Of course, in the light of our conclusions as to the merit of the appeal, this now becomes academic but it is right that we should indicate the nature of the application and our reasons for rejecting it albeit that they can now be given relatively briefly.
515. Mr Temple sought the court's leave to call Mr Martyn Ismail, a Senior Scientific Officer and Major Crime Service Manager with the Forensic Science Service to give evidence as to conclusions that could be drawn from a study of the distribution of blood staining associated with the body of Sheila Caffell, as depicted in the photographs. That application was opposed by Mr Turner. It was conceded that following the decision of this court in the case of Hanratty to which reference has already been made the court does have power to admit fresh evidence in support of a conviction where that evidence has become available since trial (see paragraphs 101 and 102 of the judgment in Hanratty).
516. Mr Turner's first objection was that this was not evidence that could not have been called by the prosecution at trial. He submitted that evidence of blood staining interpretation was available in the 1980s and the fact that the prosecution had not sought to look at this dimension of the case at that time should not mean that they can now introduce the evidence to support their case, if it was viewed by the court as unsafe to rely on the convictions in other respects. Mr Temple contended that whilst the study of and drawing inferences from blood staining patterns may have been available in the 1980s, it was in its relative infancy and with the passage of time since that era, the skills have become more developed so that in consequence greater reliance can be placed on such evidence. He relied in this regard on a statement from Mr Ismail which accepts that there have been references to the interpretation of blood patterns going back to the story of Cain & Abel in the Bible and that the first scientific work was published in 1939 but contends that in the United Kingdom, the first practical courses on the subject were not run until 1988. He concludes:
"In 1985 forensic scientists in this country would have been trained to interpret blood patters at scenes and on objects such as clothing and weapons. However, in my opinion, scientists today are more aware of the potential of blood distribution and practitioners are more confident in its use due (to) greater support and background knowledge."
517. Mr Turner's further ground for opposing the admission of this evidence was that it was not a matter that could be fully considered without placing it against many other aspects of the evidence called at trial, such as the pathologist's evidence and the evidence as to how the crime scene may have been altered between the moment when the farmhouse was entered and the taking of the photographs. He argued that unlike a distinct piece of evidence such as the DNA evidence in Hanratty, it was wholly impossible for the court to gauge the impact that this evidence might have had on the jury without the court being in a position to hear all these other aspects of the evidence that were before the jury. He pointed to a number of specific areas in which he argued that the evidence of Mr Ismail was capable of attack by reference to other evidence in the case. The most clear cut of which was that Mr Ismail had referred to a bloodstain on the upper right thigh of Sheila Caffell's nightdress that was clearly caused by a bloody hand print. He said that he understood that Dr Vanezis, the pathologist, had given evidence that there was no blood on the palm side of Sheila Caffell's hands. Therefore, he concluded, this staining must have been deposited by another individual. However, whilst Mr Ismail rightly recorded the evidence of Dr Vanezis, Mr Turner was able to point to a note made by Dr Vanezis at the time of the post-mortem examination that read:
"bloodstained palm prints on nightdress matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from R hand. "
518. To decide whether we considered that the interests of justice required that we heard Mr Ismail's evidence, we first had regard to the evidence that it was said that he could give. From the blood staining he concluded that following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet. For her then to slide to be found in the position depicted in the photographs would have required the downward force to be greater than the friction of her body against the floor. In his opinion this simply was not possible as there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force. Therefore he concluded that an additional force would have been necessary. It could not have come from Sheila Caffell since the second shot would have been instantly fatal and thus she must have been moved by someone else, for example with her legs being pulled. He also considered that the weight and the friction between her skin and her nightdress was likely to have been less than the weight and friction between the nightdress and the carpet. Therefore, he would expect movement of the body within the nightdress rather than the body and clothing sliding together across the carpet. He pointed out that the photographs demonstrated this effect at the back of the nightdress with the nightdress staying rucked up in its original position. However the front of the nightdress had not demonstrated this effect. Accordingly Mr Ismail concluded that the nightdress had been pulled down after Sheila Caffell slid into her final position. Since on the evidence, she was dead by this stage, Mr Ismail concluded that some one else had arranged her nightdress.
519. Having studied with care the statement of Mr Ismail, we concluded that this was expert evidence capable of belief. Indeed if it had been given and if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it. That evidence in itself could have led to a conclusion of guilt quite apart from the many other matters relied upon by the prosecution at trial. However, we were not satisfied that evidence of this kind was not available at the date of trial if the prosecution had sought to explore these matters and more importantly we thought that Mr Turner was right in his submission that it was very difficult to gauge with sufficient certainty the reaction of a jury to it particularly when we could not judge it against all the related evidence in the trial, which we had not heard.
520. Our conclusion was that we should not therefore admit the evidence and we have had no regard to it in reaching our conclusion. It can, however, be said about it that if it had been called at trial, it may well have represented yet another formidable string to the prosecution's bow in a case where even without any regard to that evidence, it has to be said that the prosecution were able to put forward a very strong case pointing to guilt.
-
David you state:
The Judges wont accept SCs body being moved without the police admitting to such anyway.
Effectively A/PS Woodcock's WS is firm evidence either EP or Dr Craig moved SC from the time she was first observed by A/PS Woodcock at approx 7.30am and soc images taken by DC Bird at approx 10.30am.
JB could not have 'staged' SC, rifle and bible since he was outside with EP. This should have formed an appeal point which was capable of withstanding scrutiny. Instead MT QC attempted to form an appeal point around the raid team disturbing the kitchen which there's little or no evidence of. And the above the prosecution attempted to use against JB.
-
MT QC attempted to advance the idea the raid team disturbed soc in kitchen: table moved, crockery and sugar bowl knocked over and upturned chairs and stools. There's little evidence for this other than hearsay evidence from DI Cook (as evidenced in appeal point below). The raid team deny moving anything other than a couple of stools in their path. What does this prove anyway? All these items were lightweight meaning they were easily moved if knocked into. My guess (and it is a guess) is that NB fleeing from the perp knocked into the table causing the items on top to topple and also knocking over the stools. Based on the reconstruction upstairs NB was fleeing the perp so he was likely to be the person stumbling into furniture with the perp following in his path. NB then fell awkwardly onto the chair he was found knocking the other in the process. Dr Vanezis didn't attribute any marks to NB or SC from knocking into items. And JM didn't mention seeing any marks on JB's body. The stools I could probably lift with a couple of fingers. The kitchen table looks on par with a picnic table. As I said I think NB tumbled onto the chair he was found knocking the other in the process.
My copy button doesn't seem to be working so I'll have to logout and login and see if that works to enable me to copy the relevant section of appeal hearing. Then perhaps you could explain why MT QC attempted to advance this, which was dismissed out of hand by appeal court judges, and yet completely overlooked firm evidence showing EP or Dr Craig moved SC in the bedroom and in doing so the rifle and bible too.
-
Here we go David. I've put a question for you at the bottom.
Ground 2 – disturbance of the crime scene 233. The appellant contends that officers of the Tactical Firearms Group ("TFG") upon entering the premises themselves knocked over chairs, stools, and a sugar bowl but falsely contended at trial that such disturbance preceded their entry. This is relevant to the suggestion that there was a violent struggle between Mr Bamber and his killer before he was killed and the prosecution contention that Sheila Caffell would have been incapable of overpowering her father. Further if there was no violent struggle, the absence of any indication of such on Sheila Caffell was not of significance.
234. Additionally the appellant contends that the Crown failed to disclose a police action record, Action 94 in which DI Cook was asked to examine for sugar the bag in which the body of Sheila Caffell had been transported from the farm to the mortuary. He reported back to DCI Wright in the following terms:
"There was no sugar on the floor it was all confined to an area under the table and if it was, officers would have been walking in the same
Sugar was later found because the table was moved and sugar swept around. No sugar in body bag"
235. The complaint of non disclosure in relation to Action 94 is that whilst, as was the practice in 1986, no general disclosure took place in relation to any action or message, this particular action was clearly of importance to the defence and thus the prosecution were under a positive duty to bring it to the attention of the defence and failed so to do.
236. The assertion in the first part of this ground namely that officers knocked over chairs, stools and a sugar bowl is based in part upon Action 94 but also upon three other documents. Firstly the report of the Essex Review in which the reviewing officer, Detective Chief Superintendent Dickinson, wrote:
"The kitchen was in some disorder. A number of chairs had been knocked to the ground, the table had been pushed forward causing some items of crockery to fall to the floor, including a sugar basin and two stools had been knocked over. It is now believed the stools were possibly knocked over by members of the TFG whilst making their way through the kitchen"
237. The Review does not disclose the source of such belief and accordingly affords no evidential support for the appellant's contention.
238. We have looked at a number of statements taken recently by the prosecution to check that they do not reveal any possible source of this hearsay. In a statement dated 9 May 2000, DI Cook stated that any information he had relating to the subject was "sort of hearsay as far as I was concerned". He said he could not categorically recall any of the officers saying that they knocked the chairs over or the stools or whatever they are, "but certainly I can't recall specifically saying the sugar. I cannot recall who the third party was who may have told me. I don't believe it was the firearms team". We have been supplied with statements from every member of the firearms team all of whom positively assert that save for moving two stools they moved nothing and disturbed nothing upon entering the kitchen.
239. We have considered with great care the statements of PC Collins and PC Delgado who must have been the two officers who entered first at about 7.30 a.m. on the 7 August. PC Collins in a statement of the same date describes forcing an entry into the house and seeing the body of a male person positioned over an upturned chair, which balanced against a cupboard. Having described that person and concluding that he was dead he said:
"On looking around the kitchen I saw upturned chairs and stools and broken crockery on the floor, and on the floor on the far side of the room there were small spots of what appeared to be blood. It appeared that a violent struggle had taken place within this room".
PC Delgado made a similar statement. 240. Mr Turner draws our attention to the fact that on the 19 September 1985 all the police officers who attended at the scene were summoned to attend at Witham Police Station for a round the table conference with Investigating Officers. On the following day, 20 September 1985, PC Delgado made a further statement in which he said:
"in the kitchen by the doorway to the hall were two stools which were laying down on the floor blocking a covering position into the hall, these stools were moved to near the kitchen table. In the hallway the door to the cellar was forced open to allow access, it appeared the door was stuck with old paint and had not been opened for some time. PC Collins attempted to go down the cellar stairs, which gave way beneath him. A window in the dining room was unlocked and opened to allow an escape route if needed, this window was later shut and secured. The door to the bedroom opposite the children's room was locked and this was forced to allow access".
241. On 30 September PC Collins made a second statement in which he said:
"I moved two kitchen stools which were laying down near to the hallway entrance. I moved these stools about 2 or 3 feet but left them in a similar position as they were found. I moved them to enable me to carry on my search of the house as safe as possible. In the hallway a cellar door was forced open, the door appeared to have not been open for a long time. I opened a window in the dining room which I first had to unlock by moving a small catch to allow an escape route for an officer I had left to cover the stairway from the doorway of the dining room. To my knowledge nothing else was moved or disturbed".
242. We take the statements of PC Collins and PC Delgado as clear statements that apart from moving two stools they moved no other furniture. The statements from some 10 other TFG officers indicate that there was no other movement of furniture and certainly no spillage of sugar attributable to any officer. On the other hand the crime scene was disturbed in the sense that the door to the cellar was forced, the cellar stairs gave way, the dining room window was unlocked and opened and a bedroom door was forced.
243. The second document advanced by the appellant in support of the proposition that furniture was moved and sugar was spilled by the officers is the City of London Police Review of 1991 which makes reference to a statement taken from DI Cook in which he stated:
"I later learned that the chairs and brown sugar had been knocked over by the firearms unit when they rushed about the house looking for Sheila".
This again is necessarily hearsay evidence or hearsay upon hearsay. 244. A statement was made to the same inquiry by Ann Eaton in these terms:
"I think it was then I asked if Sheila had sugar on her feet, this was based upon my observation of sugar grains being all over the floor of the kitchen but I later found out that it had been knocked over the floor by a police officer. When it was I was not told, but it was apparently done when they were clearing the house up. If that was the case they must have really knocked it over as it was all over the kitchen".
245. This statement is also based upon hearsay and is at odds with the sworn evidence given at trial. It cannot possibly be right because there is clear photographic evidence of the sugar bowl and the sugar on the floor on the morning of 7 August with Mr Bamber's body still in place when no clearing up of the house had then taken place.
246. Finally it is said that Detective Superintendent Ainsley's interim report of 23 September 1985 and his final report of 7 November 1985 both contain the following paragraph:
"Whilst it is fair to say that the Tactical Firearms Group when searching the premises take the utmost care not to disturb the scene, there is of necessity a certain amount of disturbance and as will be seen from their statements, this was no exception"
247. It seems to us that there is nothing in this passage, which is inconsistent with the "disturbance" identified by PC Collins and PC Delgado in their second statements (namely forcing doors and opening windows). It may well be significant that the round table meeting of the TFG officers and others took place on 19 September. PC Delgado made his statement the following day and the interim report was written three days after that.
248. Application was made pursuant to s.23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 by Mr Turner inviting the Court to call Mr Cook so that he might cross-examine him. We refused that application. Mr. Cook arrived at the farmhouse at 9.20 a.m., one hour and fifty minutes after the entry by the TFG officers. He had gone there accompanied by a photographer and he had arranged for the photographer to photograph the scene beginning with the kitchen at approximately 10.00 a.m. It necessarily follows that any attempt at giving evidence about disturbance of the scene could not result from his own observations since it is not suggested that he observed any disturbance as it took place. The nearest Mr Turner came to suggesting a basis for Mr Cook to give evidence about these matters was that the photographs did not realistically or accurately depict the state of the kitchen. We do not accept that proposition. The photographs are of excellent quality and accurately depict the scene of the crime. DI Cook could not give any admissible additional evidence supporting the appellant's proposition that the TFG knocked over chairs, stools and a sugar bowl.
249. We have considered the potential impact that Action 94 might have had on the jury. We think it is wholly unrealistic to suggest that the jury might have been persuaded by it that there had not been a violent struggle in the kitchen. Even if one discounts the evidence of the overturned stools and chairs and the broken sugar bowl, there was sufficient other evidence to suggest a violent struggle. Mr Bamber's body lay across an overturned chair that can have had nothing to do with the actions of the TFG, the light fitting was broken, there were the injuries apart from the shot wounds to Mr Bamber, there was the piece broken off the rifle stock, there were score marks under the mantelpiece where it had been struck by the sound moderator attached to the rifle, and there was Mr Bamber's watch lying damaged under a rug on the other side of the room.
250. DI Cook's comments on the Action 94 are unsatisfactory in themselves. The words "There was no sugar on the floor it was all confined to an area under the table and if it was, officers would have been walking in the same. Sugar was later found because the table was moved and sugar swept around" are in themselves potentially contradictory depending upon how they are read. It should not be forgotten that DI Cook was one of the officers who had supported the murder/suicide conclusion and that at the date of Action 94, different officers had taken over responsibility for the inquiry and concluded that the original investigation had missed significant evidence. In such circumstances DI Cook had every motive to seek to support his original view by reading into matters that had been reported to him more than was the reality of the situation.
251. We find that there is nothing in the hearsay comments recorded in the Action 94 that even if they could have been introduced into evidence could realistically have been thought to lead to a conclusion other than that there had been a violent struggle in the kitchen.
252. Looking at the Ainsley Reports, we consider that the comment "there is of necessity a certain amount of disturbance" was entirely in accord with the evidence of the TFG officers. A sledgehammer was taken to a door, a window opened, a door unlocked, a chair moved, stools moved, a cellar door forced, a window unlocked and the door opposite the children's room forced. We reject the submission that Ainsley's reports in any way support the appellant's submission that the firearms officers "knocked over the chairs, stools, and a sugar bowl".
253. As to the Essex Police Report, we can find no evidential support for the hearsay suggestion that "It is now believed the stools were possibly knocked over by members of the TFG". By the time of that inquiry, there must have been a number of officers who had every motive to down play the failure to spot important factors in the early stage of the inquiry and the situation was such that just such a proposition might very well be floated. However there is nothing to cause us to believe that it originated from anyone who could give first hand information about the matter.
254. As already explained Ann Eaton's recollection years after the event of what she had been told cannot be factually right whether or not she correctly recalled that which she was told.
255. We find there to be no substance whatsoever in this ground of appeal. The firearms officers have been consistent throughout. Mr Turner indicated that he would not wish to cross-examine them in the event of the Crown successfully applying to call them.
256. The issue of the absence of sugar on Sheila's feet was of minimal significance in the trial. In the summing up all the references to Sheila Caffell's feet were to the absence of blood rather than sugar. In the prosecution case summary it was said:
"The only blood to be found on the body was that of Sheila Caffell nor was there any debris or blood on the soles of her feet" and in their closing speech: "Compare Sheila to June. June is covered in blood, blood on her feet".
257. The defence faced the task of explaining the absence of blood on Sheila's feet with the implausible suggestion that she may have worn socks or washed her feet before committing suicide. In the circumstances the absence of sugar on Sheila's feet added nothing to the prosecution case.
258. As the Judge said at p.84 F in the passage to which we have already referred:
"there were no blood marks on the soles of her feet. Well, you may think that is a matter of considerable importance, because if she had been involved in the fighting with her father as well as killing her mother, surely it is inconceivable that her feet would have been clean"
259. There is simply no evidence available to contradict the evidence of the firearms officers that save for moving one chair and two stools there was no disturbance of furniture and the sugar bowl was not disturbed by them. Their recent statements indicate a search effected slowly and carefully with the minimum of noise and carried out in relative silence with officers believing that Sheila Caffell may still be alive with a gun in her hand. They were trained to create as little disturbance as possible and not to move or touch anything unless it be for reasons of safety or self-preservation. The situation in which they found themselves with the possibility of an armed person somewhere in the premises meant it was both necessary and sensible to go into the farm house with the minimum of noise and disturbance until they were satisfied that an armed person would not suddenly emerge and confront them.
260. We are sure that none of the matters placed before us could possibly have resulted in the jury reaching a different conclusion on any material aspect of the case. This ground of appeal fails there being no evidence to support it.
Question for David:
As evidenced above the appeal point is largely relying on hearsay evidence from DI Cook. Whereas A/PS Woodcock's WS is direct evidence. Why did MT QC overlook this?
You can't afford to be sentimental on the basis he invited you into his chambers for coffee.
-
David are you going to withdraw your comment that I was being "catty" towards MT QC on the basis he blocked my emails?
Are you now prepared to accept I was critical of him in that he pursued hearsay evidence from DI Cook re soc in kitchen disturbed and yet overlooked direct evidence from A/PS Woodcock which shows SC was disturbed in between his observations and SOC images taken?
The above is just the top of the iceberg. I will go through the other points when I have time.
-
David, Holly has been doing her "catty" thing overnight and contentedly purring in anticipation of your response?!
We spent some 4 to 5 hours together when we met so I'm assuming you didn't find me stupid?! Do you honestly think I expected a response from MT QC? No. The objective was to leave an electronic footprint for the day of reckoning.
These lawyers are as much to blame as anyone for JB's plight. We all make mistakes but this goes way beyond that. It is incompetence and negligence on a breathtaking scale and worst of all there's simply no mechanism for addressing it.
Long before I joined the blue forum I asked my Pete (lawyer) how I should address a judge in writing as I wanted to write about JB's case. The response "Under no circumstances should you write to the judge".
Nelly always very careful about over criticising Rivlin and Turner.
The judicial system is probably the last bastion of an old boys network that needs bringing down for a radical makeover.
Reading trial transcripts why the need to ask my Lord for his indulgence? No other profession carries on like this: military, medical, teaching. Respect can be show if deserved without this level of deference.
-
David, Holly has been doing her "catty" thing overnight and contentedly purring in anticipation of your response?!
We spent some 4 to 5 hours together when we met so I'm assuming you didn't find me stupid?! Do you honestly think I expected a response from MT QC? No. The objective was to leave an electronic footprint for the day of reckoning.
These lawyers are as much to blame as anyone for JB's plight. We all make mistakes but this goes way beyond that. It is incompetence and negligence on a breathtaking scale and worst of all there's simply no mechanism for addressing it.
Long before I joined the blue forum I asked my Pete (lawyer) how I should address a judge in writing as I wanted to write about JB's case. The response "Under no circumstances should you write to the judge".
Nelly always very careful about over criticising Rivlin and Turner.
The judicial system is probably the last bastion of an old boys network that needs bringing down for a radical makeover.
Reading trial transcripts why the need to ask my Lord for his indulgence? No other profession carries on like this: military, medical, teaching. Respect can be show if deserved without this level of deference.
What 'breakthroughs' did you and David make at you're meeting ?
Will David's book be released at the same time Bamber is released ? That will be good for book sales.
Maybe David's book will answer my latest unanswered question to him. How dried toe nail polish came off Sheila's toe by 'standing on a rug'.
-
Is there anything really happening in the Jeremy Bamber case at all now or have the CT given up and faced the inevitable?
-
What 'breakthroughs' did you and David make at you're meeting ?
Well from my perspective it was nice to meet someone face 2 face from the forum and a millennial at that! I found David a pleasant enough guy. I was unimpressed with his 'forensic evidence breakthrough' and told him as much. Although we both believe JB innocent our case related views are very different.
Will David's book be released at the same time Bamber is released ? That will be good for book sales.
David has recently complained on Blue no one takes him seriously so if he's writing a book I hope any would be readers will not be disappointed.
Maybe David's book will answer my latest unanswered question to him. How dried toe nail polish came off Sheila's toe by 'standing on a rug'.
Sadly it shows how society is still sexist when men dominate the case by way of police officers, pathologists, experts, lawyers and journalists.
At trial various men claimed had SC been responsible her nails/polish would not remain in tact. Now Peter Sutherest and David claiming SC's toenail polish would chip. Have any of these men experience of wearing their fingernails long with polish on finger and toenails?
David you can't have your cake and eat it! You believe SC was responsible and her fingernails and polish remained in tact and yet mysteriously this doesn't apply to her toenails? The pathologist didn't note any bruises etc around SC's fingers/toes so how/why would toenail polish chip but not fingernail polish?
-
Well from my perspective it was nice to meet someone face 2 face from the forum and a millennial at that! I found David a pleasant enough guy. I was unimpressed with his 'forensic evidence breakthrough' and told him as much. Although we both believe JB innocent our case related views are very different.
David has recently complained on Blue no one takes him seriously so if he's writing a book I hope any would be readers will not be disappointed.
Sadly it shows how society is still sexist when men dominate the case by way of police officers, pathologists, experts, lawyers and journalists.
At trial various men claimed had SC been responsible her nails/polish would not remain in tact. Now Peter Sutherest and David claiming SC's toenail polish would chip. Have any of these men experience of wearing their fingernails long with polish on finger and toenails?
David you can't have your cake and eat it! You believe SC was responsible and her fingernails and polish remained in tact and yet mysteriously this doesn't apply to her toenails? The pathologist didn't note any bruises etc around SC's fingers/toes so how/why would toenail polish chip but not fingernail polish?
You said in reply 38 David is writing a book.
It's true no one takes David seriously on the Blue forum. He believes Bamber is guilty but attempted a quiet stance change so he could post his images. He did create a minor stir two years ago after asking another poster to support his secret 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.
He said yesterday 'I chip and damage my toe nails all the time and dont even notice unless I actually bother to look'. In support of the OS's 2010 claim that Sheila's dried toe nail polish fell off her foot. During the kitchen fight David says 'didn't happen' !
David said dried toe nail polish fell off Sheila's foot while she was 'standing on the rug', but won't elaborate on this. He has a photo of Sheila's damaged toe nail on his lap top, but will not post it even though it would show the pathologist was wrong.
-
You said in reply 38 David is writing a book.
It's true no one takes David seriously on the Blue forum. He believes Bamber is guilty but attempted a quiet stance change so he could post his images. He did create a minor stir two years ago after asking another poster to support his secret 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.
He said yesterday 'I chip and damage my toe nails all the time and dont even notice unless I actually bother to look'. In support of the OS's 2010 claim that Sheila's dried toe nail polish fell off her foot. During the kitchen fight David says 'didn't happen' !
David said dried toe nail polish fell off Sheila's foot while she was 'standing on the rug', but won't elaborate on this. He has a photo of Sheila's damaged toe nail on his lap top, but will not post it even though it would show the pathologist was wrong.
David said he intended to write a book but saying and doing are not necessarily the same thing. I hope he doesn't as IMO he will just muddy the waters further. I find David lacks critical thinking skills. A thought/idea enters his head and it's then a fact without thinking ok does it stack up with other known facts, can it be argued against, is it capable of withstanding scrutiny. Most of what David advocates can be knocked down with a feather!
-
There are serious parallels here
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12002290
Sheila was fortunate she managed to shoot herself, and avoid the tragedy of this situation.
"The court case heard how Jackson left a suicide note before the murder, writing: "I do not want to leave her behind but I can't go on either.
"There's nothing for me or Macey, life's sh**."
Jackson tried to take own her life after writing the notes but police managed to break into her home and save her."
-
David said he intended to write a book but saying and doing are not necessarily the same thing. I hope he doesn't as IMO he will just muddy the waters further. I find David lacks critical thinking skills. A thought/idea enters his head and it's then a fact without thinking ok does it stack up with other known facts, can it be argued against, is it capable of withstanding scrutiny. Most of what David advocates can be knocked down with a feather!
David is making a fool of himself in the Lundy case on IA, ignoring the established truth and parroting the prosecution case. I am mystified how he could be so wilfully deceived.
-
David gets very frustrated when I post a mountain of sourced evidence incriminating Bamber.
Sometimes he tries to dismiss 3 or 4 pieces with his own sources, which are snippets of documents rather than links. This doesn't help him as I've posted over 60 pieces. Usually he will just focus on me with an abusive '10 step' post. Not sure what he expects a guilter to do on a forum if I have undisputed sourced evidence.
To be fair he was the only poster who provided a list which he believed showed Sheila was the killer. This was easily dismissed. Claiming one document which included the words 'photo of footprint' showed Sheila was the killer was particulary poor.
-
Is there anything really happening in the Jeremy Bamber case at all now or have the CT given up and faced the inevitable?
Nothing new on the OS but I think I saw a recent tweet on Blue where CT are asking for disclosure of the report produced by DI Kennelly (rank/spelling?).
As I understand it this report was produced at the request of senior officers and concluded SC was responsible but I believe this was before JM and silencer emerged.
-
David gets very frustrated when I post a mountain of sourced evidence incriminating Bamber.
Sometimes he tries to dismiss 3 or 4 pieces with his own sources, which are snippets of documents rather than links. This doesn't help him as I've posted over 60 pieces. Usually he will just focus on me with an abusive '10 step' post. Not sure what he expects a guilter to do on a forum if I have undisputed sourced evidence.
To be fair he was the only poster who provided a list which he believed showed Sheila was the killer. This was easily dismissed. Claiming one document which included the words 'photo of footprint' showed Sheila was the killer was particulary poor.
Have you quoted your 60 pieces here? If not perhaps you could so in a new thread? I'm always up for a challenge!
-
There are serious parallels here
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12002290
Sheila was fortunate she managed to shoot herself, and avoid the tragedy of this situation.
"The court case heard how Jackson left a suicide note before the murder, writing: "I do not want to leave her behind but I can't go on either.
"There's nothing for me or Macey, life's sh**."
Jackson tried to take own her life after writing the notes but police managed to break into her home and save her."
Sadly happens all the time. It seems to feature more in economically developed countries or maybe we just don't get to hear about cases in economically underdeveloped countries.
-
Have you quoted your 60 pieces here? If not perhaps you could so in a new thread? I'm always up for a challenge!
I have put the sources in capitals. Each point may have other sources.
'Disputed/undisputed' relates to whether Bamber or the CT have disputed it. Feel free to dispute each point yourself.
---------------
Perfectly clean palm of hands on Sheila - Not disputed - COA
One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila - Not disputed - COA
Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected - Not disputed - COA, BAMBER'S DEFENCE.
Well manicured nails on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
No broken nails - Not disputed COA.
Nails in tact - Not disputed - COA.
No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers - Not disputed - COA.
No blood on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
No dirt on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
No powder on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE, BAMBER.
No trace of any lead dust coating on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.
No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice - Not disputed - COA
Very clean feet - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
Feet free from significant blood staining - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.
Bamber doing nothing between 3.10am - 3.26/36am - Not disputed - BAMBER
No debris such as sugar on feet - Not disputed - COA.
No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST.
Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
No presence of firearm residue on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
No trace of rifle oil on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.
No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight - Not disputed - COA.
No facial injuries on Sheila - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS, PATHOLOGIST.
Sheila avoiding kitchen fight injuries with no body or face protection - Not disputed - FORUM.
Nevill's massive height/weight advantage over Sheila - Not disputed - ACCEPTED FACT.
Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Nevill being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting had just got out of bed - Not disputed - PHOTOS.
Sheila being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting she had just got out of bed - Not disputed - PHOTOS.
Paint in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES. .
Aga scratch's - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
Blood in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
No blood in the rifle end - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
Sheila's legs pulled after second shot - Not disputed - COA.
Blood underneath the bible - Not disputed - COA.
A lot of blood on Nevill's side of the bed - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
Large scale multiple mental & physical effects of Haloperidol - Not disputed. - INTERNET ARTICLES, YOUTUBE.
Sheila having Haloperidol in her body - Not disputed - COA.
Sheila's condition hours before the massacre - Not disputed. Bamber being a main witness - BAMBER & OTHER PEOPLE.
Sheila under sedation - Not disputed - COA.
Easy window entrance into WHF - Not disputed. Agreed by Bamber. - BAMBER.
Shutting kitchen window from outside - Disputed in 2017 but 20 independent sources prove otherwise - 20 SOURCES IN THE LIBRARY.
No better massacre weapon options for Bamber - Not disputed - FORUM.
Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell - Not disputed after Bamber hired him - WILKES'S BOOK.
Easy bike routes to WHF - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
Bike brought to Bamber's cottage just before the massacre - Not disputed - BAMBERS POLICE INTERVIEWS.
June not waking or getting woken by Nevill - Not disputed - COA.
Nevill's back burns - Not disputed. Suggestion burns were caused minus silencer rejected - BAMBER, TONIGHT PROGRAMME.
2012 CCRC court judgement - judicial review request made & rejected - JUDICIAL REVIEW DOCUMENT.
The twins not waking - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
Bamber's call to the police - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.
Nevill's horrific injuries - Not disputed - COURT OF APPEAL.
Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE STATEMENTS.
No valid Sheila scenario - Not disputed - OS & FORUM.
Bamber's 3am call to Julie - Not disputed - BAMBER.
Nevill's 2/4 second call to Bamber - Not disputed - BAMBER.
Bamber asking the police to pick him up - Not disputed - WILKES, CRIMES, HEARTS & CORONETS.
Nevill's back burns - Not disputed - BAMBER.
Ease for a man to lift & carry a woman - Not disputed. YOUTUBE VIDEO.
Crime scenes of 5 individuals - Not disputed - COA.
Bamber's found hacksaw - Not disputed - BAMBER.
Bible on Sheila's arm- Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.
Only execution period available to Bamber, 12am - 3am - Not disputed - BAMBER
Housekeeper evidence of items around the sink being moved - Not disputed- PB WS, WILKES'S BOOK
Only Sheila receiving a contact shot in a location that produces back splatter- Not disputed, COA.
Bloodied plam print on Sheila's nightdress - Not disputed. COA
-
Thanks Adam. I'll put your post above in a new thread and respond later when I have more time.
-
David are you going to withdraw your comment that I was being "catty" towards MT QC on the basis he blocked my emails?
Are you now prepared to accept I was critical of him in that he pursued hearsay evidence from DI Cook re soc in kitchen disturbed and yet overlooked direct evidence from A/PS Woodcock which shows SC was disturbed in between his observations and SOC images taken?
The above is just the top of the iceberg. I will go through the other points when I have time.
David I said above I would go through the appeal and critique it which I'll do on the relevant thread.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9335.msg455914#msg455914
From David
LOL. You are grilling the poor guy on the basis of a sugar coated appeal summary for public consumption and not actual appeal transcripts of the hearing itself. More or less judging a book by its cover.
The Judges wont accept the police moved the body unless the police admit to such. A single discrepancy is not direct proof of anything. The prosecution had Vanezis look into this back in 1985/6 and never brought it forward at trial. Thus its not admissible for the prosecution to submit it into evidence and thus Ismali was not brought forward to testify at the appeal for the same reason Dr Lloyd was not called to testify either.
Likewise MTQC did not dispute that Cooks statement was hearsay. The reasoning MTQC put forward was that since DI Cook could not remember who reported that information to him come the time of his 2001 statements. And that Ainsley also documented police causing the mess back in 1985. Not disclosing this information back in 1986 deprived the defence counsel of persuing the matter and thus could not cross examine Cook on the issue or ascertain the identification of the officer who reported that information to him with memory fresh in his mind.
The point was that If the authorities had played fair and disclosed this information the argument put in-front of the Jury would have been very different.
Make sense?
From Holly
"Poor guy","sugar coated"? Did he serve you organic milk and homemade biscuits when you shared a coffee with him in chambers?
Where in Dr Vanezis' testimony does it mention anything about bodies being moved or not? Afaik all he has ever said is that rigor mortis was well established and hypostasis was consistent with the position in which SC was found at the scene.
A/PS Woodcock was one of the first to observe SC. He stated SC's head was slightly raised as it was against a bedside locker:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=166.0;attach=251
A/PS Woodcock's WS regarding SC's position at approx 7.30am amounts to direct evidence and contradicts soc images of SC taken at approx 10.30am by DC Bird showing SC's head flat to the floor and to the left of the bedside locker. SC was moved by either a member of EP or Dr Craig between the time she was first observed and the time she was photographed. By moving SC it is obvious all items found resting on her person or in close proximity eg rifle and bible moved too.
This is something the defence should have pursued not the prosecution?! I've no idea why you are making ref to prosecution above?
The judges will not have a problem accepting a member of EP or Dr Craig moved SC since there's clear evidence of such from an acting police sergeant. It seems to me David it's only you that has a problem with it. Probably on the basis that it wasn't you who identified it and it doesn't fit with all your other theories.
I've always thought SC's head doesn't look right in soc images and in the past I've posted to this effect. Her head would have fallen straight back and this is in fact what happened.
There's no real evidence anything was moved in the kitchen and imo it seems unlikely anything was moved. An experienced lawyer would surely appreciate DI Cook's evidence was simply hearsay and not capable of being advanced.
So in answer to your question no your post doesn't make sense to me.
-
Here's retired DCI Gradwell's take on how serious an issue it is where the soc has been disturbed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPRd912xv9M
@ about 8 min in.
Jurors at trial heard SC's hand was moved by DI Cook to enable DC Bird to photograph bloodstains underneath. The jury didn't hear SC was moved by EP or Dr Craig as stated in the post above.
-
Where in Dr Vanezis' testimony does it mention anything about bodies being moved or not? Afaik all he has ever said is that rigor mortis was well established and hypostasis was consistent with the position in which SC was found at the scene.
It doesn't. Like I said it was looked into but the prosecution never brought it up at trial. Hence it cannot be submitted.
(https://s9.postimg.org/xgz3o4g27/appeal257_resized.jpg)
A/PS Woodcock was one of the first to observe SC. He stated SC's head was slightly raised as it was against a bedside locker:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=166.0;attach=251
A/PS Woodcock's WS regarding SC's position at approx 7.30am amounts to direct evidence and contradicts soc images of SC taken at approx 10.30am by DC Bird showing SC's head flat to the floor and to the left of the bedside locker. SC was moved by either a member of EP or Dr Craig between the time she was first observed and the time she was photographed. By moving SC it is obvious all items found resting on her person or in close proximity eg rifle and bible moved too.
This is something the defence should have pursued not the prosecution?! I've no idea why you are making ref to prosecution above?
The judges will not have a problem accepting a member of EP or Dr Craig moved SC since there's clear evidence of such from an acting police sergeant. It seems to me David it's only you that has a problem with it. Probably on the basis that it wasn't you who identified it and it doesn't fit with all your other theories.
I've always thought SC's head doesn't look right in soc images and in the past I've posted to this effect. Her head would have fallen straight back and this is in fact what happened.
There's no real evidence anything was moved in the kitchen and imo it seems unlikely anything was moved. An experienced lawyer would surely appreciate DI Cook's evidence was simply hearsay and not capable of being advanced.
So in answer to your question no your post doesn't make sense to me.
It was not just DI Cooks evidence in that ground. It was also in a report written by Ainsley and also in the Dickinson enquiry. Is that hearsay also?
Saying Woodcocks statement is direct evidence police moved the body is like saying Dr Craigs statement is direct proof that the police inflicted the second shot by accident. It does not hold water.
The biggest problem I have with Woodcocks statement is the fact that blood is running straight down sheila's cheek and also running over and down her other cheek to her eye. If she was found with her head resting upwards I would expect the blood on her right cheek to be more diagonal and I would also expect no blood running up her face at all. For this reason alone I dont believe her head was resting on anything. Thats not to say I dont believe the police moved her. Unless you want to argue that they moved her up onto the cabinet then pulled her back down again?
-
It doesn't. Like I said it was looked into but the prosecution never brought it up at trial. Hence it cannot be submitted.
(https://s9.postimg.org/xgz3o4g27/appeal257_resized.jpg)
Where's the evidence the prosecution looked into this at trial? It should have been something the defence brought up at trial and just further evidence of a poor defence at trial and appeal hearings. An appeal point should include 'poor defence' at trial and appeal hearings.
It was not just DI Cooks evidence in that ground. It was also in a report written by Ainsley and also in the Dickinson enquiry. Is that hearsay also?
Doesn't matter it was not direct evidence ie evidence they observed directly it was all hearsay.
Saying Woodcocks statement is direct evidence police moved the body is like saying Dr Craigs statement is direct proof that the police inflicted the second shot by accident. It does not hold water.
You have been advised numerous times by just about everyone on both forums that Dr Craig was not tasked with counting gsw's. He only listed 1 gsw per victim despite the fact all sustained multiple gsw's. His role was to certify death not to count gsw's. How could he do so when all except NB were prone? How would he know if victims sustained gsw's to their undersides without disturbing them? No one is disputing SC sustained 2 gsw's.
The biggest problem I have with Woodcocks statement is the fact that blood is running straight down sheila's cheek and also running over and down her other cheek to her eye. If she was found with her head resting upwards I would expect the blood on her right cheek to be more diagonal and I would also expect no blood running up her face at all. For this reason alone I dont believe her head was resting on anything. Thats not to say I dont believe the police moved her. Unless you want to argue that they moved her up onto the cabinet then pulled her back down again?
Expert opinion begs to differ:
Forensic Scientist Martyn Ismail
518. To decide whether we considered that the interests of justice required that we heard Mr Ismail's evidence, we first had regard to the evidence that it was said that he could give. From the blood staining he concluded that following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet. For her then to slide to be found in the position depicted in the photographs would have required the downward force to be greater than the friction of her body against the floor. In his opinion this simply was not possible as there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force. Therefore he concluded that an additional force would have been necessary. It could not have come from Sheila Caffell since the second shot would have been instantly fatal and thus she must have been moved by someone else, for example with her legs being pulled. He also considered that the weight and the friction between her skin and her nightdress was likely to have been less than the weight and friction between the nightdress and the carpet. Therefore, he would expect movement of the body within the nightdress rather than the body and clothing sliding together across the carpet. He pointed out that the photographs demonstrated this effect at the back of the nightdress with the nightdress staying rucked up in its original position. However the front of the nightdress had not demonstrated this effect. Accordingly Mr Ismail concluded that the nightdress had been pulled down after Sheila Caffell slid into her final position. Since on the evidence, she was dead by this stage, Mr Ismail concluded that some one else had arranged her nightdress.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
A/PS Woodcock's WS:
"I was aware that Sheila Bamber was lying flat on her back with her head slightly raised as it was against a bedside locker".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=166.0
SoC image of SC - viewer discretion advised
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sheila+caffell+scene+of+crime&rlz=1C1CHBD_en-GBGB782GB782&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwicmL3vhq7aAhXKC8AKHZvBCA0QsAQIJg&biw=1217&bih=577#imgrc=T2Z-5wdxyrX9RM:
-
Where's the evidence the prosecution looked into this at trial?
I just posted the appeal transcript that makes reference to it.
It should have been something the defence brought up at trial and just further evidence of a poor defence at trial and appeal hearings. An appeal point should include 'poor defence' at trial and appeal hearings.
You are saying the defence should have raised the issue of Sheila's dead body moving. In-front of the trial Jury while the prosecution decided not to even play the card and keep shtoom about it? As part of a defence strategy to persuade a jury that Sheila committed suicide? That would be serious malpractice if you ask me. That's insane!
The prosecution never brought it forward and thus the defence have nothing to argue against. Nor would the defence raise the issue on their initiative. Because it does not help them at all.
We can only speculate why the prosecution never brought this forward but I can narrow it down to two most likely reasons.
A) The opinion from Vanezis didn't favour the prosecution case
or
B) They knew that by introducing it they risked the possibility of the defence cross examining the firearms unit etc on the issue and it would open a can worms and backfire.
Take your pick. Whatever the answer not much we can do now.
You have been advised numerous times by just about everyone on both forums that Dr Craig was not tasked with counting gsw's. He only listed 1 gsw per victim despite the fact all sustained multiple gsw's. His role was to certify death not to count gsw's. How could he do so when all except NB were prone? How would he know if victims sustained gsw's to their undersides without disturbing them? No one is disputing SC sustained 2 gsw's.
The only person I know of who defends Dr Craig is you.
In a statement where he is asked to describe what happened that morning
"I saw only one gunshot wound at that stage" - Dr Craig.
Why didn't he see the other gunshot would that was right infront of him? Because he is not a competent or reliable witness.
Why did he feel this was important enough to warrant a mention in the statement? Because as he recalls it in his mind he only saw one gunshot wound. And with retrospect knowing she had two wounds that he should have observed, to him that was not there. Hence he felt it was important to mention.
Dr Craigs sloppy and negligent work has only resulted in people thinking the police shot Sheila the second time by accident while moving the rifle on her chest. His evidence should be thrown out en masse.
Expert opinion begs to differ:
Forensic Scientist Martyn Ismail
518. To decide whether we considered that the interests of justice required that we heard Mr Ismail's evidence, we first had regard to the evidence that it was said that he could give. From the blood staining he concluded that following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet. For her then to slide to be found in the position depicted in the photographs would have required the downward force to be greater than the friction of her body against the floor. In his opinion this simply was not possible as there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force. Therefore he concluded that an additional force would have been necessary. It could not have come from Sheila Caffell since the second shot would have been instantly fatal and thus she must have been moved by someone else, for example with her legs being pulled. He also considered that the weight and the friction between her skin and her nightdress was likely to have been less than the weight and friction between the nightdress and the carpet. Therefore, he would expect movement of the body within the nightdress rather than the body and clothing sliding together across the carpet. He pointed out that the photographs demonstrated this effect at the back of the nightdress with the nightdress staying rucked up in its original position. However the front of the nightdress had not demonstrated this effect. Accordingly Mr Ismail concluded that the nightdress had been pulled down after Sheila Caffell slid into her final position. Since on the evidence, she was dead by this stage, Mr Ismail concluded that some one else had arranged her nightdress.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
A/PS Woodcock's WS:
"I was aware that Sheila Bamber was lying flat on her back with her head slightly raised as it was against a bedside locker".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=166.0
SoC image of SC - viewer discretion advised
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sheila+caffell+scene+of+crime&rlz=1C1CHBD_en-GBGB782GB782&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwicmL3vhq7aAhXKC8AKHZvBCA0QsAQIJg&biw=1217&bih=577#imgrc=T2Z-5wdxyrX9RM:
Mr Ismail's evidence was not sucessfully submitted into evidence for reasons already mentioned. As a result Mr Ismail was not called to testify at the appeal hearing for cross examination. Nor did the defence need to hire a counter expert to challeneg Mr Ismalis evidence at the appeal hearing.
Mr Ismali's opinion (based purley on photos) is inadmissible and thus had not been scrutinized nor has a counter expert opinion been pursued. We dont know how reliable this evidence is. And its not worth arguing about since its been done and dusted at the appeal allready. Unless you plan on building a time machine?
From a legal point of view this evidence is not part of the prosecution case. There is nothing to challenge. When it comes to debating on a forum and people using Mr Ismail's evidence to advance their own opinions on the case then thats a different matter all together.
-
I just posted the appeal transcript that makes reference to it.
Where? Please type out the text you are referring to where the prosecution raised the matter of SC being moved in main bedroom at trial? Please also identify the relevant expert along with their testimony raising such at trial.
You are saying the defence should have raised the issue of Sheila's dead body moving. In-front of the trial Jury while the prosecution decided not to even play the card and keep shtoom about it? As part of a defence strategy to persuade a jury that Sheila committed suicide? That would be serious malpractice if you ask me. That's insane!
I have absolutely no idea how you arrive at the above? There's clear direct evidence from a member of the raid team, A/PS Woodcock, that SC's body was moved by either a police officer or Dr Craig in between A/PS Woodcock's observation of SC at approx 7.30 am and police photographer DC Bird's image of SC at approx 10.30am. Of course the prosecution would want to remain shtoom about this. It is a very serious breach of police procedures when victims at soc are moved before being photographed etc. The prosecution didn't have a card to play David. The dopey defence had the card but as with many aspects of the case they were totally incompetent and negligent.
The prosecution never brought it forward and thus the defence have nothing to argue against. Nor would the defence raise the issue on their initiative. Because it does not help them at all.
Why would the prosecution raise an aspect that was harmful to the case against JB? If the prosecution raised the aspect the defence may have looked more carefully at the raid team and their wit stats and come to understand SC was moved between approx 7.30am - 10.30am which would have been helpful to the defence.
We can only speculate why the prosecution never brought this forward but I can narrow it down to two most likely reasons.
A) The opinion from Vanezis didn't favour the prosecution case
or
B) They knew that by introducing it they risked the possibility of the defence cross examining the firearms unit etc on the issue and it would open a can worms and backfire.
Take your pick. Whatever the answer not much we can do now.
See my comments above. The prosecution didn't raise it as it was harmful to the case against JB. The defence didn't raise it because they were incompetent and negligent.
The only person I know of who defends Dr Craig is you.
In a statement where he is asked to describe what happened that morning
"I saw only one gunshot wound at that stage" - Dr Craig.
Why didn't he see the other gunshot would that was right infront of him? Because he is not a competent or reliable witness.
Why did he feel this was important enough to warrant a mention in the statement? Because as he recalls it in his mind he only saw one gunshot wound. And with retrospect knowing she had two wounds that he should have observed, to him that was not there. Hence he felt it was important to mention.
Dr Craigs sloppy and negligent work has only resulted in people thinking the police shot Sheila the second time by accident while moving the rifle on her chest. His evidence should be thrown out en masse.
Have you ever considered that when Dr Craig observed SC her head may still have been propped up against the bedside cabinet thus only exposing one gsw? In any event he was there to certify death, nothing more and nothing less. You object to his testimony on the basis it doesn't fit with your own ill-conceived theories that SC died much later than the other victims.
The only people who think the police shot SC or anyone in WHF are cranks.
Mr Ismail's evidence was not sucessfully submitted into evidence for reasons already mentioned. As a result Mr Ismail was not called to testify at the appeal hearing for cross examination. Nor did the defence need to hire a counter expert to challeneg Mr Ismalis evidence at the appeal hearing.
Mr Ismali's opinion (based purley on photos) is inadmissible and thus had not been scrutinized nor has a counter expert opinion been pursued. We dont know how reliable this evidence is. And its not worth arguing about since its been done and dusted at the appeal allready. Unless you plan on building a time machine?
From a legal point of view this evidence is not part of the prosecution case. There is nothing to challenge. When it comes to debating on a forum and people using Mr Ismail's evidence to advance their own opinions on the case then thats a different matter all together.
Mr Ismail's evidence was regarded inadmissible purely on the basis that it was evidence that could have been adjudicated on at trial. The reason it wasn't adjudicated on at trial is that it was harmful to the prosecution in that someone moved SC between the hours of approx 7.30am - 10.30am and it certainly wasn't JB.
The appeal judges commented as follows:
519. Having studied with care the statement of Mr Ismail, we concluded that this was expert evidence capable of belief. Indeed if it had been given and if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it. That evidence in itself could have led to a conclusion of guilt quite apart from the many other matters relied upon by the prosecution at trial. However, we were not satisfied that evidence of this kind was not available at the date of trial if the prosecution had sought to explore these matters and more importantly we thought that Mr Turner was right in his submission that it was very difficult to gauge with sufficient certainty the reaction of a jury to it particularly when we could not judge it against all the related evidence in the trial, which we had not heard.
520. Our conclusion was that we should not therefore admit the evidence and we have had no regard to it in reaching our conclusion. It can, however, be said about it that if it had been called at trial, it may well have represented yet another formidable string to the prosecution's bow in a case where even without any regard to that evidence, it has to be said that the prosecution were able to put forward a very strong case pointing to guilt.
-
David I note in the trial transcript you've uploaded MT @ 5th para comments that had SC been pulled by her legs as MI claimed then he would expect to see the bloodstains underneath her body indicating such but didn't.
This suggests:
- The bloodstains underneath SC's body were dry when she was moved between 7.30am - 10.30am. Hardly surprising given all the evidence suggests she died approx 3.30am.
- MT overlooked A/PS Woodcock's WS in other words further evidence he was incompetent and negligent.
-
David can I assume from your silence you have had a rethink and discovered the errors in your thinking? If not I would appreciate a response.
-
David I note in the trial transcript you've uploaded MT @ 5th para comments that had SC been pulled by her legs as MI claimed then he would expect to see the bloodstains underneath her body indicating such but didn't.
This suggests:
- The bloodstains underneath SC's body were dry when she was moved between 7.30am - 10.30am. Hardly surprising given all the evidence suggests she died approx 3.30am.
No he is arguing that pulling her body would have revealed blood staining on the carpet from the blood that seeped down her neck onto the carpet.
You say "Hardly surprising given all the evidence suggests she died approx 3.30am." There is no evidence that suggests she died 3.30am. Like Adams "mountain of incriminating evidence" Its something you like to believe exists when it doesn't. Empty talk that is intended to sway opinion for what ever reasons you may have.
- MT overlooked A/PS Woodcock's WS in other words further evidence he was incompetent and negligent.
How do you know? He succeeded in preventing the evidence from being submitted period. Thus didn't need to challenge it. How do you know he didn't keep A/PS Woodcock's WS up his sleeve in-case the judges decided to bring the evidence forward?. How do you know if MTQC wouldn't have torn Mr Ismali to shreds in the witness box under cross examination had the judges decided to bring the evidence forward?
Your criticism of him is fallacious, narrow minded and myopic.
David can I assume from your silence you have had a rethink and discovered the errors in your thinking? If not I would appreciate a response.
I have been busy. The other day I looked into Mr Ismali. Turns out he was an employee of the FSS with a science degree. Based on your previous comments (Elliot and Fletcher) need I say more? Not me that needs a rethink.
I also discovered that in 2006 that the FSS had Mr Ismali on a salary of 100K per annum! what on earth is going on there? Does he keep the DPP,COA and other Government agencies happy with his "opinions" ?
Anyways I think this discussion is a waste of time and does nothing to advance anything. There are only two pursuits that will directly advance the case and they are
A - Fresh evidence that undermines the sound moderator.
B - Fresh evidence that inciminates Sheila.
Only the above will gut us anywhere. Slaging a guy off because of percieved negligence decades ago wont achieve anything (unless you are building a time machine)
Undermining facets of the crown the crown case like Mugford and Fletcher ect or things that merely support Jeremys version of events, wont get anywhere without A or B above.
I think A might have been exhausted by now but I could be wrong. A undermines the case alltogether and B indirectly undermines A and B could have swayed the Jury.
-
No he is arguing that pulling her body would have revealed blood staining on the carpet from the blood that seeped down her neck onto the carpet.
That's your interpretation. It's certainly none mine and since you've removed your attachment we are unable to review it.
You say "Hardly surprising given all the evidence suggests she died approx 3.30am." There is no evidence that suggests she died 3.30am. Like Adams "mountain of incriminating evidence" Its something you like to believe exists when it doesn't. Empty talk that is intended to sway opinion for what ever reasons you may have.
If you're claiming SC died significantly later than the other victims provide the evidence showing such. I am holding you to this.
How do you know? He succeeded in preventing the evidence from being submitted period. Thus didn't need to challenge it. How do you know he didn't keep A/PS Woodcock's WS up his sleeve in-case the judges decided to bring the evidence forward?. How do you know if MTQC wouldn't have torn Mr Ismali to shreds in the witness box under cross examination had the judges decided to bring the evidence forward?
Oh come off it David the appeal judges comment as follows and you think MTQC was holding his ace card up his sleeve? If MTQC bothered to read the raid team stats he would have known one of the first, if not the first, to observe SC was A/PS Woodcock who stated SC's head was raised against NB's bedside cabinet which just so happens to tally with evidence from Mr Ismail on behalf of the prosecution. You couldn't make it up!
518. To decide whether we considered that the interests of justice required that we heard Mr Ismail's evidence, we first had regard to the evidence that it was said that he could give. From the blood staining he concluded that following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet. For her then to slide to be found in the position depicted in the photographs would have required the downward force to be greater than the friction of her body against the floor. In his opinion this simply was not possible as there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force. Therefore he concluded that an additional force would have been necessary. It could not have come from Sheila Caffell since the second shot would have been instantly fatal and thus she must have been moved by someone else, for example with her legs being pulled. He also considered that the weight and the friction between her skin and her nightdress was likely to have been less than the weight and friction between the nightdress and the carpet. Therefore, he would expect movement of the body within the nightdress rather than the body and clothing sliding together across the carpet. He pointed out that the photographs demonstrated this effect at the back of the nightdress with the nightdress staying rucked up in its original position. However the front of the nightdress had not demonstrated this effect. Accordingly Mr Ismail concluded that the nightdress had been pulled down after Sheila Caffell slid into her final position. Since on the evidence, she was dead by this stage, Mr Ismail concluded that some one else had arranged her nightdress.
519. Having studied with care the statement of Mr Ismail, we concluded that this was expert evidence capable of belief. Indeed if it had been given and if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it. That evidence in itself could have led to a conclusion of guilt quite apart from the many other matters relied upon by the prosecution at trial. However, we were not satisfied that evidence of this kind was not available at the date of trial if the prosecution had sought to explore these matters and more importantly we thought that Mr Turner was right in his submission that it was very difficult to gauge with sufficient certainty the reaction of a jury to it particularly when we could not judge it against all the related evidence in the trial, which we had not heard.
Your criticism of him is fallacious, narrow minded and myopic.
My criticism of all the defence lawyers, judges, Malcolm Fletcher and Brian Elliot will be mild compared to the fall-out post JB's acquittal.
I have been busy. The other day I looked into Mr Ismali. Turns out he was an employee of the FSS with a science degree. Based on your previous comments (Elliot and Fletcher) need I say more? Not me that needs a rethink.
I also discovered that in 2006 that the FSS had Mr Ismali on a salary of 100K per annum! what on earth is going on there? Does he keep the DPP,COA and other Government agencies happy with his "opinions" ?
Parliament acknowledged quality failures at FSS during the 1980's when the likes of Elliot and Fletcher featured. Mr Ismail might well be a different category of fish. His testimony at 2002 appeal seems spot on.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm
Anyways I think this discussion is a waste of time and does nothing to advance anything. There are only two pursuits that will directly advance the case and they are
A - Fresh evidence that undermines the sound moderator.
B - Fresh evidence that inciminates Sheila.
Only the above will gut us anywhere. Slaging a guy off because of percieved negligence decades ago wont achieve anything (unless you are building a time machine)
Undermining facets of the crown the crown case like Mugford and Fletcher ect or things that merely support Jeremys version of events, wont get anywhere without A or B above.
I think A might have been exhausted by now but I could be wrong. A undermines the case alltogether and B indirectly undermines A and B could have swayed the Jury.
It's not perceived incompetence and negligence it's there for all to see:
- Overlooking A/PS Woodcock's WS
- Failing to understand Elliot's handswab test/results are flawed and meaningless
- Rambling on about the bloodstains on the bible oblivious to whose blood
- Failing to understand the soc and claiming DCI Ainsley inadvertently removed NB's blood from mouthpiece
JB's acquital is in the bag but those responsible need holding to account.
-
David can you upload the attachment you originally included in post #63. Please also provide your evidence showing SC died much later than the other victims. Thanks.
-
JB's acquital is in the bag but those responsible need holding to account.
Holly, your optimism is infectious. You've almost got me convinced. What makes you so sure that his conviction will be reversed?
I've only been reading about this case in any detail for two or three weeks, but I know enough now to realise that the case against him is quite strong. Not that I'm saying he did it: I've really no idea about that one way or the other.
-
It's not perceived incompetence and negligence it's there for all to see:
- Overlooking A/PS Woodcock's WS
- Failing to understand Elliot's handswab test/results are flawed and meaningless
- Rambling on about the bloodstains on the bible oblivious to whose blood
- Failing to understand the soc and claiming DCI Ainsley inadvertently removed NB's blood from mouthpiece
- Overlooking A/PS Woodcock's WS
That's an assumption on your part. You do not know what he would have done had the evidence been brought forward. You are criticising him for not challening evidence that he prevented from getting to the stage of being challenged in the first place.
- Failing to understand Elliot's handswab test/results are flawed and meaningless
He hired Dr Lloyd to establish just that. How can he be oblivious to it?
- Rambling on about the bloodstains on the bible oblivious to whose blood
We have all done that.
- Failing to understand the soc and claiming DCI Ainsley inadvertently removed NB's blood from mouthpiece
Replacing a blood stained phone with a clean phone is actually in the realm of possibility however albeit improbable. Someone walking around with their brains mashed by multiple gunshot wounds to the head is not possible at all. You have done the exact same thing but to a much greater extent. So your criticism and quibbling's are rather unjust and puerile.
Furthermore the CCRC announced its referral in March of 2001 and MT was hired by Ewen Smith around July 2001 then the appeal hearing started in October of 2002. So that's just over a year divided by whatever his caseload was, to prepare for the hearing. Needless to say there is a lot to go through. Furthermore Owen Smith said several month before the appeal started, that It was not possible to adequately go through all the case material given the time frame and the resources available. But I am sure you took all this into consideration prior to coming to the conclusion that he should be sacked for "gross incompetence and negligence" and that "he didn't have a clue".
-
David can you upload the attachment you originally included in post #63.
For some reason I cannot use the standard attach feature. Says I need moderators permission. Not a problem. Its attached within the post as image hosted on the web.
Dr V TFG, Dr V view he looked at in relation to other matter. if you go to PM.S5. 25c. this is something Dr V looked at, go back to page 8 and he had an opinion on. (quote from). The issue was in our submissions very much looked at in this vain at trial
The Judges were not satisfied it was not available. And? Reading further down Justice Wright argues that it could be fresh evidence because Vanezis is a doctor and not a scientist LOL
Please also provide your evidence showing SC died much later than the other victims. Thanks.
Have done numerous times. You remain entrenched, why waste my time again?
Your arguments to the contrary are
- Distefano edited the photo (despite other photos showing the same thing)
- Dr Craig never said anything (despite not examining the body)
- Vanezis never said anything (despite not giving a TOD in his examination)
- Knight never said anything (despite not being asked and believes anything is possible so no point asking him anyway)
- a skewed interpretation of "anytime the previous night" (from someone who never closely examine the body)
I will admit my points are open to challenge but the above does not convince me of anything. So until you find something else, not much point debating.
-
A half-decent criminal defence lawyer will know lay witnesses can be unreliable for a whole host of reasons. They will know a few cops are bent for a whole host of reasons and some are incompetent and negligent. The same applies to expert witnesses. It's up to defence lawyers to expose the truth warts and all. MTQC failed to do so (as did Rivlin at trial) with the appeal court judges commenting:
Conclusion 512. Having considered and rejected each of the grounds advanced on behalf of the appellant, it follows that this appeal must be dismissed. Each member of the court has reached the conclusion that there is nothing in any of the matters raised before us that throws doubt upon the safety of these convictions.
IMO those that believe JB innocent and understand the case will not single out JM, the relatives, DS Jones et al as being responsible but understand the defence lawyers were simply incompetent and negligent.
-
That's an assumption on your part. You do not know what he would have done had the evidence been brought forward. You are criticising him for not challening evidence that he prevented from getting to the stage of being challenged in the first place.
Lets forget MI's testimony. MT QC should have raised SC being moved between A/PS Woodcock's observations contained in his WS and DC Bird's soc images. SC was clearly moved between approx 7.30am - 10.30am. Do you not understand it was a viable defence point for the prosecution to be challenged on not vice-versa?!
He hired Dr Lloyd to establish just that. How can he be oblivious to it?
Dr Lloyd was a chemist not a ballistics expert. Some simple research shows MT QC failed to grasp the basics, instruct the right expert and arrange the appropriate tests.
We have all done that.
Done all what?
Replacing a blood stained phone with a clean phone is actually in the realm of possibility however albeit improbable. Someone walking around with their brains mashed by multiple gunshot wounds to the head is not possible at all. You have done the exact same thing but to a much greater extent. So your criticism and quibbling's are rather unjust and puerile.
I mooted an ill-conceived idea about June walking around the bed with all gsw's incl those to her head. It was a belief I held for about 4 weeks until I checked it out with a retired pathologist of long experience who showed me the errors of my ways. At this point it was promptly dropped. This shows I'm flexi and fluid unlike you and your theories whereby you seize on something and stick to it rigidly even when other evidence comes to light showing your theory is wrong.
MT QC's claims that DCI Ainsley used the kitchen phone to make a phone call while at the same time inadvertently removing blood from NB's gsw's shows he has totally failed to understand the case:
- pathological evidence shows NB could not engage in purposeful speech having sustained the 2 facial gsw's upstairs
- the soc supports NB sustaining his gsw's on landing with perp (SC IMO) inside the main bedroom ie NB made the phone call to JB before he sustained any gsw's. The upstairs gsw's can be supported by bloodstains to carpet and lack of, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks.
Furthermore the CCRC announced its referral in March of 2001 and MT was hired by Ewen Smith around July 2001 then the appeal hearing started in October of 2002. So that's just over a year divided by whatever his caseload was, to prepare for the hearing. Needless to say there is a lot to go through. Furthermore Owen Smith said several month before the appeal started, that It was not possible to adequately go through all the case material given the time frame and the resources available. But I am sure you took all this into consideration prior to coming to the conclusion that he should be sacked for "gross incompetence and negligence" and that "he didn't have a clue".
I think it's called case management. If justice is denied because QC's are unable to manage their time and resources that's worrying.
-
A half-decent criminal defence lawyer will know lay witnesses can be unreliable for a whole host of reasons. They will know a few cops are bent for a whole host of reasons and some are incompetent and negligent. The same applies to expert witnesses. It's up to defence lawyers to expose the truth warts and all. MTQC failed to do so (as did Rivlin at trial) with the appeal court judges commenting:
Conclusion 512. Having considered and rejected each of the grounds advanced on behalf of the appellant, it follows that this appeal must be dismissed. Each member of the court has reached the conclusion that there is nothing in any of the matters raised before us that throws doubt upon the safety of these convictions.
IMO those that believe JB innocent and understand the case will not single out JM, the relatives, DS Jones et al as being responsible but understand the defence lawyers were simply incompetent and negligent.
Would your observations also apply to the criminal in question? Would Jeremy Bamber know, for example, that lay witnesses can be unreliable etc etc?
-
For some reason I cannot use the standard attach feature. Says I need moderators permission. Not a problem. Its attached within the post as image hosted on the web.
Dr V TFG, Dr V view he looked at in relation to other matter. if you go to PM.S5. 25c. this is something Dr V looked at, go back to page 8 and he had an opinion on. (quote from). The issue was in our submissions very much looked at in this vain at trial
The Judges were not satisfied it was not available. And? Reading further down Justice Wright argues that it could be fresh evidence because Vanezis is a doctor and not a scientist LOL
Where did the doc go? I will find a way for it to be uploaded again.
MT QC, 3 appeal judges and MI are clearly oblivious to A/PS Woodcock's WS which clearly proves SC was moved between 7.30am - 10.30am. Therefore the inference, based on MI's testimony alone, is that JB moved SC. This was not brought up at trial probably because the prosecution was a bit smarter than the defence and realised SC was moved between approx 7.30am - 10.30am.
My interpretation of LJH's comments is that Dr V's testimony was not admitted because it amounted to evidence that could have been adjudicated on at trial and/or it involved bloodstain analysis which could have been adjudicated on at trial.
I only read the doc quickly and would like to read it again. In any event I think there's some conflating here:
- potential movement SC could have made voluntarily between her 2 gsw's
- movement SC could not have made voluntarily post 2nd immediately fatal gsw.
The first was adjudicated on at trial with testimony from Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight. The latter was raised at appeal by the prosecution as all concerned were clearly oblivious to A/PS Woodcock's WS showing SC was moved between approx 7.30am - 10.30am.
Have done numerous times. You remain entrenched, why waste my time again?
You haven't proposed your theory here only on Blue and IA. I would like you to post it here to give others the opportunity to comment.
Your arguments to the contrary are
- Distefano edited the photo (despite other photos showing the same thing)
- Dr Craig never said anything (despite not examining the body)
- Vanezis never said anything (despite not giving a TOD in his examination)
- Knight never said anything (despite not being asked and believes anything is possible so no point asking him anyway)
- a skewed interpretation of "anytime the previous night" (from someone who never closely examine the body)
I don't believe you can deduce a tod for SC and this seems to be the opinion of Prof Knight who is well qualified and of long experience who also took a particular interest in TOD. Soc images were examined by 2 highly experienced pathologists of long experience with unblemished reputations. Numerous police officers observed witnesses in situ incl the police surgeon. No one, I repeat no one, at any time has suggested SC looked different from other victims in terms of LM/RM. The info you've posted is unconvincing. Why not share your ideas here and see what others think?
I will admit my points are open to challenge but the above does not convince me of anything. So until you find something else, not much point debating.
Oh David don't be such a spoil sport.
-
Posters are reminded to comment strictly according to the thread topic otherwise posts run the risk of being expunged.
-
Holly.
Considering the amount of QCs and lawyers Jeremy has hired and fired in the last 30 years. MTQC is the only one who Jeremy has sought help from a second time round. And it was not JBs decision or intention to part with him after the failed 2002 appeal in the first place. MTQC left JB because he refused to work alongside GDS.
Furthermore JB does not blame MTQC for losing the appeal. Sympathetic to his efforts at the appeal JB descibes MTQC as being "buried under a snowstorm of case material" So is this why you thought David Martin-Sperry should take the case based on his skiing ability?
Anyway I honestly do think you are being nasty and catty towards the guy because he blocked you from emailing him. Your long winded expressions of disapproval and fault finding filled with bitter undertones all began within the last 12 months or so. You were never so critical prior and hardly spoke about him despite being familiar with the appeal and his role in the case. So something must have provoked this and I believe its that.
Of course I could be wrong and you may have no ill feelings towards him at all. But you are sure making it look way.
-
Holly.
Considering the amount of QCs and lawyers Jeremy has hired and fired in the last 30 years. MTQC is the only one who Jeremy has sought help from a second time round. And it was not JBs decision or intention to part with him after the failed 2002 appeal in the first place. MTQC left JB because he refused to work alongside GDS.
Furthermore JB does not blame MTQC for losing the appeal. Sympathetic to his efforts at the appeal JB descibes MTQC as being "buried under a snowstorm of case material" So is this why you thought David Martin-Sperry should take the case based on his skiing ability?
Anyway I honestly do think you are being nasty and catty towards the guy because he blocked you from emailing him. Your long winded expressions of disapproval and fault finding filled with bitter undertones all began within the last 12 months or so. You were never so critical prior and hardly spoke about him despite being familiar with the appeal and his role in the case. So something must have provoked this and I believe its that.
Of course I could be wrong and you may have no ill feelings towards him at all. But you are sure making it look way.
Exactly how many legal people has he hired and fired these past 3 decades?
You don't honestly believe Bamber's excuse as to why MTQC lost the appeal do you? B
BAMBER lost his appeal - not his barrister.
It's high time he starting taking responsibility for his owns actions. Bamber knows the system inside out. You are foolish to think otherwise.
You've seen how quick LM has sifted through all the material he's needed to form his opinions; do you honestly think a barrister (and their teams of eager beavers) don't work at high speed or quicker?
-
Holly.
Considering the amount of QCs and lawyers Jeremy has hired and fired in the last 30 years. MTQC is the only one who Jeremy has sought help from a second time round. And it was not JBs decision or intention to part with him after the failed 2002 appeal in the first place. MTQC left JB because he refused to work alongside GDS.
So effectively JB chose GDS, a bogus lawyer and convicted criminal, over MT QC?
Furthermore JB does not blame MTQC for losing the appeal. Sympathetic to his efforts at the appeal JB descibes MTQC as being "buried under a snowstorm of case material" So is this why you thought David Martin-Sperry should take the case based on his skiing ability?
I've repeatedly said IMO JB has a poor understanding of his case so the fact he's oblivious to how poor his defence was at trial and appeal is hardly surprising.
"Buried under a snowstorm of case material" is an occupational hazard for lawyers. A half decent one will quickly sift the relevant from the "snowstorm of case material".
Comparing the web profiles of DMS and MT, DMS sounds more capable IMO.
Anyway I honestly do think you are being nasty and catty towards the guy because he blocked you from emailing him. Your long winded expressions of disapproval and fault finding filled with bitter undertones all began within the last 12 months or so. You were never so critical prior and hardly spoke about him despite being familiar with the appeal and his role in the case. So something must have provoked this and I believe its that.
Of course I could be wrong and you may have no ill feelings towards him at all. But you are sure making it look way.
You can honestly think what you like. I note your ref to "catty" again which IMO is rather sexist. It implies my reasons for criticising MT are emotionally driven rather than evidence driven. If a male criticised MT would you refer to him as "catty"? Do I refer to you as "catty" when you refer to Dr Craig as an incompetent drunk and/or accuse Dr Vanezis of lying under oath?
If my posts criticising MT upset your sensibilities then I suggest you stop reading my posts because I'm not going to stop criticising him where I think it's justified.
My criticism of him coincided with having a better understanding of the case and speaking with numerous experts who reinforced my views.
Afaik I'm about the only 'supporter' who has been very critical of the judiciary: lawyers, trial judge and appeal judges. On IA I recall entering into a rather lengthy and heated mass debating session with Clive Wismayer about Kingsley Napley, PT, GR and EL. I would go as far as saying any 'supporter' who disagrees doesn't understand the case against JB.
Here are some of my historic posts that I could easily locate but there are many more:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2720.msg88969.html#msg88969
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4048.msg166820.html#msg166820
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=292.msg134974#msg134974
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=123&t=2931&start=5200#p181833
-
You are his current lawyers ?
-
So effectively JB chose GDS, a bogus lawyer and convicted criminal, over MT QC?
This was long before GDS was exposed and shorty after his high profile successes in the Van-Hoogstraten and Goldfinger case. People like GDS know how to present themselves. Without hindsight how can't really blame people for seeking his services.
I've repeatedly said IMO JB has a poor understanding of his case so the fact he's oblivious to how poor his defence was at trial and appeal is hardly surprising.
"Buried under a snowstorm of case material" is an occupational hazard for lawyers. A half decent one will quickly sift the relevant from the "snowstorm of case material".
Comparing the web profiles of DMS and MT, DMS sounds more capable IMO.
Comparing web profiles? LOL
Whoever represents JB at the appellate court in the future will be instructed to do so via JBs solicitor acting on instructions from JB. So long as that barrister that is instructed agrees to take the case.
Furthermore JB has no money. Like in 2002 legal aid will only get him a Junior Barrister that has recently taken the silk (Like MT was in 2002) So if a now highly experienced QC already familiar with the case is prepared to go pro bono. JB would be mad to refuse and thus end up with someone inexperienced unseasoned like in 2002. With legal aid even more restrained than ever, I dread to think.
So unless you are prepared to fork out the money. Looking at fancy "web profiles" is merely window shopping.
You can honestly think what you like. I note your ref to "catty" again which IMO is rather sexist. It implies my reasons for criticising MT are emotionally driven rather than evidence driven. If a male criticised MT would you refer to him as "catty"? Do I refer to you as "catty" when you refer to Dr Craig as an incompetent drunk and/or accuse Dr Vanezis of lying under oath?
If my posts criticising MT upset your sensibilities then I suggest you stop reading my posts because I'm not going to stop criticising him where I think it's justified.
My criticism of him coincided with having a better understanding of the case and speaking with numerous experts who reinforced my views.
If your posts are not emotionally driven then you wont be stubbornly going round in circles despite shown evidence to the contrary. On a subject that untimatley acheive nothing whatsoever to advance the case.
Afaik I'm about the only 'supporter' who has been very critical of the judiciary: lawyers, trial judge and appeal judges. On IA I recall entering into a rather lengthy and heated mass debating session with Clive Wismayer about Kingsley Napley, PT, GR and EL.
It does not achieve anything. Unless you are compiling a case for inffective assistance at council at trial. To criticize-in-hindsight wont change anything. Unless you are building a time machine.
-
.
You will come to learn you've been conned by a mass murderer
You made a false claim about your "forensic evidence breakthrough."
You stated:
"Lying and trolling is problem for any internet forum. Justified and legitimate exposé of such behaviour should be allowed. If this forum allows people to lie and troll then it should be permitted for posters to freely point out and condemn such behaviour. You cannot properly debate with someone who is lying if you are not allowed to point out they are indeed lying. The current standpoint taken by the moderators is IMO counter productive.
Following the exchanges yesterday on the topic "A Tentative Sheila-As-Killer Scenario"
Can we please have a revision of this policy to remove the lack of ambiguity?
Accusation or allegation of a poster as a liar is one thing. Exposing and making it known that a poster is indeed a lair is another. The latter does not strictly break the rule above. Yet it is considered as doing such.
I have in the past pointed out people as lying and deliberately misleading. Nevertheless my posts in doing so were removed.
This is EXACTLY how Jeremy Bamber has behaved over the years David. And many of us have recognised this fact. He's hidden away or pleaded with others to cover up his wrong doings. Attempted to sweep things under the carpet and carry on regardless and thinks no one will notice his discrepancies.
-
This was long before GDS was exposed and shorty after his high profile successes in the Van-Hoogstraten and Goldfinger case. People like GDS know how to present themselves. Without hindsight how can't really blame people for seeking his services. So do people like Jeremy Bamber!
Comparing web profiles? LOL
Whoever represents JB at the appellate court in the future will be instructed to do so via JBs solicitor acting on instructions from JB. So long as that barrister that is instructed agrees to take the case. There won't be a third appeal. But for arguments sake, in the current climate, he could well be representing himself
Furthermore JB has no money. Like in 2002 legal aid will only get him a Junior Barrister that has recently taken the silk (Like MT was in 2002) So if a now highly experienced QC already familiar with the case is prepared to go pro bono. JB would be mad to refuse and thus end up with someone inexperienced unseasoned like in 2002. With legal aid even more restrained than ever, I dread to think. Is this what Bamber has told you?
So unless you are prepared to fork out the money. Looking at fancy "web profiles" is merely window shopping. in your opinion
If your posts are not emotionally driven then you wont be stubbornly going round in circles despite shown evidence to the contrary. On a subject that untimatley acheive nothing whatsoever to advance the case. This is what you are doing David
It does not achieve anything. Unless you are compiling a case for inffective assistance at council at trial To criticize-in-hindsight wont change anything. Unless you are building a time machine.
-
Holly I have just searched for Martin-Sperry at the COA in the BAILII website.
BAILII only show a fraction of the appeal cases he has been involved with but of the 10 results I got. Seven of them were dismissed and only two were successful. The other COA case only came up in the search results because Martin-Sperry was the prosecutor as the appellants trial and that appeal was successful!
So it seems a kind smile and skiing qualifications are not the positive attributes they seem to be.
How about this guy Stuart Martin? http://www.zenithchambers.co.uk/barristers/stuart-martin/family
(http://www.zenithchambers.co.uk/barristers/stuart-martin/family)
No experience in criminal law it seems but so what if we don't bother looking? Not quite sure about his smile but he likes rugby, running and swimming. What do you think?
-
Holly I have just searched for Martin-Sperry at the COA in the BAILII website.
BAILII only show a fraction of the appeal cases he has been involved with but of the 10 results I got. Seven of them were dismissed and only two were successful. The other COA case only came up in the search results because Martin-Sperry was the prosecutor as the appellants trial and that appeal was successful!
So it seems a kind smile and skiing qualifications are not the positive attributes they seem to be.
How about this guy Stuart Martin? http://www.zenithchambers.co.uk/barristers/stuart-martin/family
(http://www.zenithchambers.co.uk/barristers/stuart-martin/family)
No experience in criminal law it seems but so what if we don't bother looking? Not quite sure about his smile but he likes rugby, running and swimming. What do you think?
IMO Jeremy Bamber will be hard pressed to find decent representation full stop!
Who is Bambers current solicitor? Does he have one?
Is it this chap?
"I am delighted to endorse this comprehensive book on wrongful convictions. In its clear and concise terms it will help readers start to grasp hold of a system which is overly complex and stacked against those who have been wrongfully convicted. The book will help all those who have suffered an injustice to have direction as they continue to fight to clear their names.’ – Mark Newby, Solicitor Advocate, Jordans LLP, Doncaster
http://michaeljnaughton.com/?page_id=877
"WRONGLY ACCUSED: Show me a miscarriage of justice and, nine times out of 10, I will show you the blueprint that caused it, writes Eric Allison.
Eric Allison is the Guardian’s prison correspondent.
This essay will feature in a new collection of essays (No defence: miscarriages of justice and lawyers) as part of the Justice Gap series and following on from Wrongly Accused: who is responsible for investigating miscarriages of justice? (to be published in association with Solicitors Journal and Wilmington). You can download that collection HERE.
Contributors for No Defence include Eric Allison; Dr Ros Burnett; Prof Ed Cape; Dr Dennis Eady; Francis Fitzgibbon QC; Mark George QC; Andrew Green; Campbell Malone; Michael Mansfield QC; Mark Newby; Daniel Newman; Paul May; Dr Angus Nurse; Correna Platt; Julie Price; Dr Hannah Quirk; David Rose; Adam Sampson; Satish Sekar; and Tom Wainwright. Thanks to all.
‘Instead of closing the gap a huge chasm has just opened up right at the top of the system. It is a shocking and disgraceful manoeuvre by those who carry the core responsibility for maintaining and protecting the provision of justice… . This series of admirable essays has sought to identify and suggest remedies for those most disadvantaged by our judicial system.’
Michael Mansfield QC
__________________________________________
Eric Allison: Show me a miscarriage of justice and, nine times out of 10, I will show you the blueprint that caused it. There is a pattern, a template, in virtually all of these cases, made up of the following strands.
First: you have a defendant who has little or no knowledge of the criminal justice system – and, in many cases, a touching belief in the integrity of that system.
Two: investigating police officers who act as judge and jury, making up their minds they have the right person and going to great lengths to hamper the defence. Non-disclosure of evidence being the main obstacle they place in the path of truth.
Three: prejudicial pre-trial reports by the media. Jurors are told to ignore this, but I suggest this is asking too much of them, especially in high profile cases.
Four: poor legal representation. In every case I have studied, I have found glaring errors on the part of the defence lawyers. These include, failure to call witnesses, failure to seek full disclosure of evidence and a general lack of endeavour on the part of those chosen to lead defendants through the minefield of criminal trials. And, with cutbacks in legal aid biting deeper, this situation can only get worse.
Last, but not least, those wrongly convicted face a hostile, intractable, appeal system, with an appeal court seemingly concerned only with maintaining the status quo, that being, the validity of the original conviction. Their Lordships never being more unyielding than when confronted with the assertion that an appellant’s trial lawyers let him or her down. The wigged ones all feed from the same trough and few will question the abilities of another of their ilk.
Other factors go towards the likelihood of more and more innocent people being convicted.
Reasonable doubt
The introduction of majority verdicts, in 1967, was a dangerous step. Given it is for the prosecution to prove guilt; I would have thought two people, out of 12, not being satisfied with the Crown’s case, constituted reasonable doubt? Not so and many high profile alleged miscarriages were the subject of majority verdicts -notably Jeremy Bamber, found guilty on a 10 to two basis.
The law changed in 2003 to allow into evidence of a defendant’s convictions for previous offences. Prior to then, unless a defendant attacked the character of a prosecution witness, juries were kept in the dark about previous convictions the people in the dock had to their name. Easier for the prosecution to prove it’s case. But is it fair? ‘Give a dog a bad name…’
Safety net
On paper, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) provides a safety net for those floundering in the mire of a wrongful conviction. But the CCRC has disappointed those who hoped the establishment of such a body would deal swiftly and surely with miscarriages of justice.
In practice, the CCRC is under-resourced and seemingly unable to carry out the in-depth investigations required to uncover the truth when the justice system has got it wrong. Critics see them as gatekeepers to the court of appeal, trying to second guess how that tribunal will view the cases they refer, rather than the independent, fact finding, body hoped for.
Of all the alleged miscarriages of justice I have researched, the cases of Jeremy Bamber and Susan May stand out for two reasons: firstly, I have absolutely no doubt about their innocence and, secondly, they tick every box of the blueprint of how the system fails.
Both were people of hitherto good character, with no experience of the criminal justice system. If either had had one tenth of the knowledge of the law – and trial procedure – they have now, both would have walked free – of that I am certain. (Despite both falling victim to prejudicial pre-trial reporting and biased police investigations.) Both have had their cases rejected by the court of appeal twice. Both have had their submissions rejected by the CCRC – though Susan’s case is now being reviewed again by that body.
I am convinced there are more miscarriages of justice now than at any time since I have been a student of the system-a study going back over half a century. I am personally aware of well over a hundred, serious, cases that scream out to be looked at again.
And I repeat, I believe the situation is set to worsen a) because of cut backs in legal aid and b) the massive increase in convictions for historical sexual offences.
The latter area concerns me greatly – in the current, post-Saville, climate, I expect the conviction rates for these offences to take a surge. And yet this is one area where greater care than ever ought to be taken in deciding guilt or innocence. Almost uniquely, as far as criminal trials are concerned, a defendant can be convicted on the uncorroborated word of the accuser. There are usually no witnesses to such crimes and, because of the passage of time, no forensic or medical evidence to support the allegations. It is one person’s word against another.
I have researched several convictions for historical sexual offences and, in some cases, my findings are deeply troubling. It is a murky world to peer into and any concern for the safety of such a conviction can be taken as having some sympathy for people deemed beyond the pale in the court of public opinion.
Questioning some of those convictions is to risk being accused of having no understanding of the awful trauma endured by victims of sexual abuse. But two wrongs never made a right and some things need to be said.
Consider this: Albany prison, on the Isle of Wight holds some 560 prisoners – virtually all sex-offenders, many convicted of historical offences. Around half of the population of Albany is in denial. This means they are not addressing their offending behaviour and not participating in treatment programmes. Because of their plea of innocence, they will never become eligible for parole. Many are serving extremely long sentences, so they count the difference in years and some will die in prison. They will not have their security classification downgraded – a move which invariably means better prison conditions – and, on their eventual release, will find their place on the sex offenders register coming under intense scrutiny.
Without doubt, some of these men will be in denial because they cannot come to terms with the offences they have committed. But over 250 of them, in one jail? Something is wrong.
Like many, I hoped, with the freeing of the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four et al and the setting up of the CCRC, we had seen the back of wholesale wrongful convictions. The ever burgeoning case file of alleged miscarriages of justice tells me the hope was in vain. We are back to where were before we thought: ‘This cannot happen again’.
http://www.thejusticegap.com/2013/03/im-convinced-there-are-more-miscarriages-of-justice-than-ever/
-
Posters are asked to refrain from using any images eg emoticons, gifs etc for the purpose of goading.
-
Holly I have just searched for Martin-Sperry at the COA in the BAILII website.
BAILII only show a fraction of the appeal cases he has been involved with but of the 10 results I got. Seven of them were dismissed and only two were successful. The other COA case only came up in the search results because Martin-Sperry was the prosecutor as the appellants trial and that appeal was successful!
So it seems a kind smile and skiing qualifications are not the positive attributes they seem to be.
How about this guy Stuart Martin? http://www.zenithchambers.co.uk/barristers/stuart-martin/family
(http://www.zenithchambers.co.uk/barristers/stuart-martin/family)
No experience in criminal law it seems but so what if we don't bother looking? Not quite sure about his smile but he likes rugby, running and swimming. What do you think?
Based on the 1 strike and you're out policy I have already ruled out DMS:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8956.msg444981#msg444981
-
..................Consider this: Albany prison, on the Isle of Wight holds some 560 prisoners – virtually all sex-offenders, many convicted of historical offences. Around half of the population of Albany is in denial. This means they are not addressing their offending behaviour and not participating in treatment programmes. Because of their plea of innocence, they will never become eligible for parole.....................
I find the above interesting as a double edged sword. A guilty prisoner who maintains innocence is unlikely to "own up" because "admitting offending behaviour" is an admission of guilt which will have some consequences on their release, OR could possibly rule out release. Maintaining innocence and trying to prove it may give them elevated status in prisons, ie that of an innocent person behind bars maybe felt to be a safer position than a guilty person who's been released?
-
This was long before GDS was exposed and shorty after his high profile successes in the Van-Hoogstraten and Goldfinger case. People like GDS know how to present themselves. Without hindsight how can't really blame people for seeking his services.
JB has a very long history pre and post prison of involving himself with those who come to do him much harm. You say GDS knows how to present himself but the fact is David he's not qualified to represent JB at CoA so pretty futlie really. In terms of presenting himself he has spent much of his adult life behind bars and is currently about a third of a way through a 14 year sentence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Di_Stefano_(fraudster)
Comparing web profiles? LOL
I was referring to academic quals. ie DMS Cambs and MT Sussex. Although I don't necessarily think academic quals alone are an indication of ability to practice law. MT QC would probably struggle to get anywhere today with a degree from Sussex especially if he didn't obtain a first. I was impressed with how DMS emphasised building relationships with experts that sort of thing. He's also described as the top ten sexiest criminal defence barristers:
http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=https://uk.linkedin.com/in/david-martin-sperry-10779b47&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwj65MHx6rnaAhUcOsAKHfR8BoEQFggLMAA&usg=AOvVaw0ekmgyJ4f_TQjePUqulydY
Whoever represents JB at the appellate court in the future will be instructed to do so via JBs solicitor acting on instructions from JB. So long as that barrister that is instructed agrees to take the case.
Furthermore JB has no money. Like in 2002 legal aid will only get him a Junior Barrister that has recently taken the silk (Like MT was in 2002) So if a now highly experienced QC already familiar with the case is prepared to go pro bono. JB would be mad to refuse and thus end up with someone inexperienced unseasoned like in 2002. With legal aid even more restrained than ever, I dread to think.
So unless you are prepared to fork out the money. Looking at fancy "web profiles" is merely window shopping.
You are not party to any proposals I might have put to JB.
Barristers operate on the cab-rank rule.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cab-rank_rule
If your posts are not emotionally driven then you wont be stubbornly going round in circles despite shown evidence to the contrary. On a subject that untimatley acheive nothing whatsoever to advance the case.
It does not achieve anything. Unless you are compiling a case for inffective assistance at council at trial. To criticize-in-hindsight wont change anything. Unless you are building a time machine.
Your definition of me being stubborn is that you are unable to persuade me to buy into your theories many of which either in part or full originate and/or are shared by MT QC and have already failed miserably.
When I have time I will add more to the thread here to explain why I think MT QC's representation of JB at his 2002 appeal hearing was pants:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9154.0
-
JB has a very long history pre and post prison of involving himself with those who come to do him much harm. You say GDS knows how to present himself but the fact is David he's not qualified to represent JB at CoA so pretty futlie really. In terms of presenting himself he has spent much of his adult life behind bars and is currently about a third of a way through a 14 year sentence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Di_Stefano_(fraudster)
I was referring to academic quals. ie DMS Cambs and MT Sussex. Although I don't necessarily think academic quals alone are an indication of ability to practice law. MT QC would probably struggle to get anywhere today with a degree from Sussex especially if he didn't obtain a first. I was impressed with how DMS emphasised building relationships with experts that sort of thing. He's also described as the top ten sexiest criminal defence barristers:
http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=https://uk.linkedin.com/in/david-martin-sperry-10779b47&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwj65MHx6rnaAhUcOsAKHfR8BoEQFggLMAA&usg=AOvVaw0ekmgyJ4f_TQjePUqulydY
You are not party to any proposals I might have put to JB.
Barristers operate on the cab-rank rule.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cab-rank_rule
You're definition of me being stubborn is that you are unable to persuade me to buy into your theories many of which either in part or full originate and/or are shared by MT QC and have already failed miserably.
When I have time I will add more to the thread here to explain why I think MT QC's representation of JB at his 2002 appeal hearing was pants:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9154.0
Did Bamber tell you this Holly?
Or is it your assumption?
-
Did Bamber tell you this Holly?
Or is it your assumption?
It's in the link above. Plus:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2093.msg64380.html#msg64380
-
It's in the link above. Plus:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2093.msg64380.html#msg64380
On this point, I will agree with David, in that you are naive
I couldn't be bothered to read all of the link you posted but ngb appears to have been referring to cases where a defendant first goes to court.
He's not referring to, as far as I can tell, cases where a defendant is appealing. Or someone, like for example, LM, an alleged repeat offender (I don't believe anything LM has posted btw - they could be anyone and could be saying anything, without supportive evidence I'm not taken in), who gets to know some of the barristers in the system etc. Prisoners speak to other prisoners and read newspapers. They learn a lot through word of mouth and pick up tip bits from their fellow "lags"
Jeremy Bamber has rinsed the criminal justice system IMO and run out of options Holly. He'll be hard pressed to find anyone willing to defend him even if he were ever cunning enough to get given the opportunity. His case is over, he has no where to go. No self respectimg professional barrister will touch him with a barge pole. Imagine the public outcry if Jeremy Bamber were ever to be released on a technicality? I say again, look at the Worboys case. Public outcry won out in the end. The government couldn't ignore the pleas of all his victims and recognised the flaws in the parole boards decision making.
-
On this point, I will agree with David, in that you are naive
I couldn't be bothered to read all of the link you posted but ngb appears to have been referring to cases where a defendant first goes to court.
He's not referring to, as far as I can tell, cases where a defendant is appealing. Or someone, like for example, LM, an alleged repeat offender (I don't believe anything LM has posted btw - they could be anyone and could be saying anything, without supportive evidence I'm not taken in), who gets to know some of the barristers in the system etc.
If you can't be bothered to read what I've posted how can you deduce I'm naive?
My understanding is that in cases such as JB's a solicitor will call up a barrister to act and he/she will be obliged to take the case if he/she is available and it falls within his/her area of expertise referred to as the cab-rank rule.
-
What is your understanding of the cab-rank rule and how barristers are instructed in criminal cases.
-
What is your understanding of the cab-rank rule and how barristers are instructed in criminal cases.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8956.msg456580#msg456580
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8956.msg456580#msg456580
Thanks but I can't find your understanding of cab-rank rule.
-
Thanks but I can't find your understanding of cab-rank rule.
These days you can approach a barrister direct
There was a recent murder case heard at the old Bailey where the defendant had to represent themselves. Their solicitor attempted to contact 20 barristers none of whom would take the case.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43643589
-
You are not party to any proposals I might have put to JB.
I dread to think.
Barristers operate on the cab-rank rule.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cab-rank_rule
Indeed. Why do you think they have legal clerks? They cannot refuse instructions that don't get to them in the first place. If you thinks its a matter of pick up the phone and away we go, then you are as Stephanie put it naïve.
Your definition of me being stubborn is that you are unable to persuade me to buy into your theories many of which either in part or full originate and/or are shared by MT QC and have already failed miserably.
My definition of you being stubborn is as follows "dogged determination not to change one's attitude or position on something, especially in spite of good arguments or reasons to do so"
Here are some examples were I was unable to persuade you of something even though I put irrefutable evidence right in-front of you.
Once on IA you expressed the view that a picture of Sheila's feet taken at autopsy were not Sheila's and the picture was bogus. I then showed you two very clear photos of the feet at both the crime scene and the autopsy room photo in question. I also included markers showing the spots and toenail damage was identical in both photos. So being shown conclusively that the feet were indeed the same and already privy to the fact AH obtained the photo from the CCRC. You still refused to accept the authenticity of the photo. Arguing something along the lines of that I knew nothing about the "female anatomy"
Then there's the time when you argued that shell casings could not bounce off a wall or hard surface like my images depicted. I then spent a rather lengthy amount time looking for footage that would demonstrate a .22 shell casing doing just that. Having then shown you the footage clear as day, what happens? That was not good enough. Incredibly you then asked if I had anything to further support the video (that proved my point beyond any reasonable debate). Arguing that the shell casings were actually bullets!
Have you got anything further to support this vid? Commentary/ text? How do we know its casings and not bullets ricocheting back towards the shooter? If live bullets I can only assume the shooter had a death wish.
In fact yes I did. What I converted into a slow-mo gif was taken from a video of a girl getting a hot casing down her bra from it bouncing off the wall.
https://youtu.be/bfNC1c-9aZI?t=30s
But I cut that bit out believing it was irrelevant. With hindsight I underestimated the stubbornness I was up against. No need to bring up the debate we had about the gunshot wounds to Junes head again but thats another example.
So yes, you are stubborn and very much so. Its not my persuation skills that are the problem. You wonder why you don't always get a reply from me and that's because I simply don't see the point in doing so. Most of the time all it accomplishes is me feeling frustrated and you looking stupid. Not that you are stupid its more a case of stubbornness disabling your judgment and common sense.
I did say here one strike and you're out meaning DMS has also fluffed it when he too intended on pursuing the mixed blood theory:
Again I have already explained to you that neither MTQC or DMS or anyone else can deviate from the original defence strategy at an appeal unless they have FRESH EVIDENCE that can impetrate a FRESH ARGUMENT. They had no such thing to enable them to argue for something else. All they could do was get Webster to advance betting testing and DNA to argue the possibility of a mixture was not remote and the Jury was mislead.
Rivlin had all the available evidence to construct such a defence. He had the documents showing that the relatives took bloodstained clothing from the crime scene. He had Haywards statement saying the blood in the SM could be Robert Boutflours. Rivlin could have stood in-front of jury and argue that this was a case of malicious contamination by the extended family against his client motivated by money, Whether it was true or not it could have been done. But since Rivlin didn't chose that path. Such a change of strategy cannot be done without compelling fresh evidence that shows a malicious contamination.
This "one strike and you're out" folly means you are writing them off for abiding by the legal principles and decree of their own profession which they have no option but to follow.
The only person that does not yet have a "strike" in this respect is Giovanni DeStefano lol. I rest my case.
-
David, I have not entirely followed the thread, but you seem to be supporting the idea that an innocent man must stay dutifully caged because his previous lawyers did not bring the best interpretation of the evidence to previous hearings. This is nonsense. This straitjacket does not exist with a talented barrister, and the idea it could brings the whole system into diabolical disrepute.
I have lost count of the number of times I have posted Lord Kerr from the privy council in Lundy.
39. In the Board’s view, Dr McGinn’s evidence should be admitted. The process by
which admission of new evidence should be determined was stated in Lundy v R
[2013] UKPC 28, [2014] 2 NZLR 273, at para 120:
“… the proper basis on which admission of fresh evidence should
be decided is by the application of a sequential series of tests. If
the evidence is not credible, it should not be admitted. If it is
credible, the question then arises whether it is fresh in the sense
that it is evidence which could not have been obtained for the trial
with reasonable diligence. If the evidence is both credible and
fresh, it should generally be admitted unless the court is satisfied
at that stage that, if admitted, it would have no effect on the safety
of the conviction. If the evidence is credible but not fresh, the court
should assess its strength and its potential impact on the safety of
the conviction. If it considers that there is a risk of a miscarriage
of justice if the evidence is excluded, it should be admitted,
notwithstanding that the evidence is not fresh.”
-
David, I have not entirely followed the thread, but you seem to be supporting the idea that an innocent man must stay dutifully caged because his previous lawyers did not bring the best interpretation of the evidence to previous hearings.
No not at all. I am simply explaining the reasons why the lawyers in question have worked in the way they have done.
The work we are talking about here took place in 1993 and 2002. The quote from Lord Kerr was not until 2013. So such precedent was not in existence.
Over the last 30 years the lawyers have actually shown the jury would have come to a different verdict. Its the Judges that wont uphold thier end of the deal.
The Jury were deadlocked. They then asked the Judge to go over haywards evidence on what was the chances of the blood being a mixture of Nevills and Junes. The Judge remineded them that it was a match Sheila's blood and the possibility of the blood in the silencer being a mixture of Nevills and June's was a remote one. On hearing this they convicted 10-2.
Justice Drake at trial 1986
"The sound moderator is clearly of very great importance, and the evidence relating to the sound moderator could, on its own, lead you to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty."
Lord Lane C.J in the Court of Appeal 1989
"The question of the silencer, quite apart from where it was found and how it got there in the cupboard, loomed very large first in the view of the Judge, certainly in the view of this Court and plainly in the view of the jury, because when they came back to ask a question it was a question directed to this very point".
"We need to hear blood expert's evidence regarding the blood in the silencer, (a) a perfect match of Sheila's blood, (b) what was the chance of the blood group being June and Ralph's mixing together"
"That of course was fatal, the jury accepted it"
And so, had the jury heard Websters testimony from 2002 that the possibility was good and not remote. Had the jury been shown the ballistic evidence produced in 2011 showing no silencer was on the weapon when Sheila was shot. You cannot reasonably argue that the verdict would be the same. To my mind the lawyers have done there job its the Judges that have moved the goal post.
Had Lord Lane C.J ruling at the 1989 appeal been a binding factor in the second appeal the conviction would have been ruled unsafe. The Judges in 2002 made clear it was not binding.
-
No not at all. I am simply explaining the reasons why the lawyers in question have worked in the way they have done.
The work we are talking about here took place in 1993 and 2002. The quote from Lord Kerr was not until 2013. So such precedent was not in existence.
Over the last 30 years the lawyers have actually shown the jury would have come to a different verdict. Its the Judges that wont uphold thier end of the deal.
The Jury were deadlocked. They then asked the Judge to go over haywards evidence on what was the chances of the blood being a mixture of Nevills and Junes. The Judge remineded them that it was a match Sheila's blood and the possibility of the blood in the silencer being a mixture of Nevills and June's was a remote one. On hearing this they convicted 10-2.
Justice Drake at trial 1986
"The sound moderator is clearly of very great importance, and the evidence relating to the sound moderator could, on its own, lead you to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty."
Lord Lane C.J in the Court of Appeal 1989
"The question of the silencer, quite apart from where it was found and how it got there in the cupboard, loomed very large first in the view of the Judge, certainly in the view of this Court and plainly in the view of the jury, because when they came back to ask a question it was a question directed to this very point".
"We need to hear blood expert's evidence regarding the blood in the silencer, (a) a perfect match of Sheila's blood, (b) what was the chance of the blood group being June and Ralph's mixing together"
"That of course was fatal, the jury accepted it"
And so, had the jury heard Websters testimony from 2002 that the possibility was good and not remote. Had the jury been shown the ballistic evidence produced in 2011 showing no silencer was on the weapon when Sheila was shot. You cannot reasonably argue that the verdict would be the same. To my mind the lawyers have done there job its the Judges that have moved the goal post.
Had Lord Lane C.J ruling at the 1989 appeal been a binding factor in the second appeal the conviction would have been ruled unsafe. The Judges in 2002 made clear it was not binding.
If you can David, apply your logic to Bamber; he was after all responsible for instructing his defence team. They worked for him, not the other way round.
What did Bamber know at his trial that his defence team didn't? Cast your mind back to when he was initially arrested for the caravan park robbery. Be mindful of what he told the police during his interview.
Why didn't Bamber tell his defence team his surviving family members had a grudge against him during his trial for MURDER and that they were attempting to fit him up?
For some reason you keep missing the bigger picture, you seem to hold on to what you think you know and dismiss all other vital evidence. Why David?
-
I dread to think.
Oh but how you would just love to know because I know how nosey and snoopy you are.
Indeed. Why do you think they have legal clerks? They cannot refuse instructions that don't get to them in the first place. If you thinks its a matter of pick up the phone and away we go, then you are as Stephanie put it naïve.
As per usual your research skills let you down. The law surrounding access to barristers changed in 2014.
My definition of you being stubborn is as follows "dogged determination not to change one's attitude or position on something, especially in spite of good arguments or reasons to do so"
Here are some examples were I was unable to persuade you of something even though I put irrefutable evidence right in-front of you.
Once on IA you expressed the view that a picture of Sheila's feet taken at autopsy were not Sheila's and the picture was bogus. I then showed you two very clear photos of the feet at both the crime scene and the autopsy room photo in question. I also included markers showing the spots and toenail damage was identical in both photos. So being shown conclusively that the feet were indeed the same and already privy to the fact AH obtained the photo from the CCRC. You still refused to accept the authenticity of the photo. Arguing something along the lines of that I knew nothing about the "female anatomy"
Then there's the time when you argued that shell casings could not bounce off a wall or hard surface like my images depicted. I then spent a rather lengthy amount time looking for footage that would demonstrate a .22 shell casing doing just that. Having then shown you the footage clear as day, what happens? That was not good enough. Incredibly you then asked if I had anything to further support the video (that proved my point beyond any reasonable debate). Arguing that the shell casings were actually bullets!
In fact yes I did. What I converted into a slow-mo gif was taken from a video of a girl getting a hot casing down her bra from it bouncing off the wall.
https://youtu.be/bfNC1c-9aZI?t=30s
But I cut that bit out believing it was irrelevant. With hindsight I underestimated the stubbornness I was up against. No need to bring up the debate we had about the gunshot wounds to Junes head again but thats another example.
So yes, you are stubborn and very much so. Its not my persuation skills that are the problem. You wonder why you don't always get a reply from me and that's because I simply don't see the point in doing so. Most of the time all it accomplishes is me feeling frustrated and you looking stupid. Not that you are stupid its more a case of stubbornness disabling your judgment and common sense.
Again I have already explained to you that neither MTQC or DMS or anyone else can deviate from the original defence strategy at an appeal unless they have FRESH EVIDENCE that can impetrate a FRESH ARGUMENT. They had no such thing to enable them to argue for something else. All they could do was get Webster to advance betting testing and DNA to argue the possibility of a mixture was not remote and the Jury was mislead.
Rivlin had all the available evidence to construct such a defence. He had the documents showing that the relatives took bloodstained clothing from the crime scene. He had Haywards statement saying the blood in the SM could be Robert Boutflours. Rivlin could have stood in-front of jury and argue that this was a case of malicious contamination by the extended family against his client motivated by money, Whether it was true or not it could have been done. But since Rivlin didn't chose that path. Such a change of strategy cannot be done without compelling fresh evidence that shows a malicious contamination.
This "one strike and you're out" folly means you are writing them off for abiding by the legal principles and decree of their own profession which they have no option but to follow.
The only person that does not yet have a "strike" in this respect is Giovanni DeStefano lol. I rest my case.
You claim an image of SC's foot has emerged which depicts bloodstains. I would need experts to verify the authenticity of the image. On the assumption you're correct I would need experts to verify the marks, which you claim are bloodstains, are in fact bloodstains and not marks associated with the biological effects of post death. Police officers at soc stated SC's feet were clean a fact which seems to tally with Dr V's pm. You are asking me to believe your interpretation of an image over numerous police officers at soc and the pathologist. Moreover if the image is authentic and depicts bloodstains as you claim at most it will show police officers and the pathologist provided misleading info. SC was found on the carpeted floor which was heavily bloodstained with June's blood so unless SC was carried to the location (as Adam has proposed) then what does it prove? She either walked there of her own accord or was marched there by JB either way she potentially walked on wet blood. Dr V told CAL he believed the blood drips from June would quickly absorb into the carpet hence he found SC's feet clean.
The casings are not an exact science. Extensive testing shows 25% deviation based on many factors. The totality of the soc shows the position of victims/perp: bloodstains, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks.
The only way JB has a fighting chance of a successful appeal is to undermine the silencer evidence to the point the only explanation is fabrication. I believe this is possible. If I'm right this renders previous defence strategies of the mixed blood theory defunct and defence counsel at what will be JB's third appeal will be in a position to argue such.
How can I apply my one strike and you're out policy to GDS when the guy isn't and never has been qualified to act in the UK?
-
Oh but how you would just love to know because I know how nosey and snoopy you are.
As per usual your research skills let you down. The law surrounding access to barristers changed in 2014.
You claim an image of SC's foot has emerged which depicts bloodstains. I would need experts to verify the authenticity of the image. On the assumption you're correct I would need experts to verify the marks, which you claim are bloodstains, are in fact bloodstains and not marks associated with the biological effects of post death. Police officers at soc stated SC's feet were clean a fact which seems to tally with Dr V's pm. You are asking me to believe your interpretation of an image over numerous police officers at soc and the pathologist. Moreover if the image is authentic and depicts bloodstains as you claim at most it will show police officers and the pathologist provided misleading info. SC was found on the carpeted floor which was heavily bloodstained with June's blood so unless SC was carried to the location (as Adam has proposed) then what does it prove? She either walked there of her own accord or was marched there by JB either way she potentially walked on wet blood. Dr V told CAL he believed the blood drips from June would quickly absorb into the carpet hence he found SC's feet clean.
The casings are not an exact science. Extensive testing shows 25% deviation based on many factors. The totality of the soc shows the position of victims/perp: bloodstains, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks.
The only way JB has a fighting chance of a successful appeal is to undermine the silencer evidence to the point the only explanation is fabrication. I believe this is possible. If I'm right this renders previous defence strategies of the mixed blood theory defunct and defence counsel at what will be JB's third appeal will be in a position to argue such.
How can I apply my one strike and you're out policy to GDS when the guy isn't and never has been qualified to act in the UK?
Where does JM's evidence fit in to your theory?
You may find the following book of interest Holly
Privilege or Punish
Criminal Justice and the Challenge of Family Ties
Dan Markel, Jennifer M Collins, and Ethan J Leib
"Provides a new and sweeping analysis of the broad range of rules, doctrines and practices in criminal law that are driven by concerns about familial relationships
Argues for the abolition or reduction of widespread and long-established family tie practices and is sure to be regarded as a provocative approach to the topic
Co written from the perspective of three scholars with three different areas of scholarly expertise: criminal law; political theory; and family law and criminal law https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=CUxRDAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=incestuous+amplification+criminal+justice+system&ots=AogWRvGOgq&sig=u8Ca74O0qD0knHYFgxC1MGUTjOg#v=onepage&q&f=false
-
No not at all. I am simply explaining the reasons why the lawyers in question have worked in the way they have done.
The work we are talking about here took place in 1993 and 2002. The quote from Lord Kerr was not until 2013. So such precedent was not in existence.
Over the last 30 years the lawyers have actually shown the jury would have come to a different verdict. Its the Judges that wont uphold thier end of the deal.
The Jury were deadlocked. They then asked the Judge to go over haywards evidence on what was the chances of the blood being a mixture of Nevills and Junes. The Judge remineded them that it was a match Sheila's blood and the possibility of the blood in the silencer being a mixture of Nevills and June's was a remote one. On hearing this they convicted 10-2.
Justice Drake at trial 1986
"The sound moderator is clearly of very great importance, and the evidence relating to the sound moderator could, on its own, lead you to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty."
Lord Lane C.J in the Court of Appeal 1989
"The question of the silencer, quite apart from where it was found and how it got there in the cupboard, loomed very large first in the view of the Judge, certainly in the view of this Court and plainly in the view of the jury, because when they came back to ask a question it was a question directed to this very point".
"We need to hear blood expert's evidence regarding the blood in the silencer, (a) a perfect match of Sheila's blood, (b) what was the chance of the blood group being June and Ralph's mixing together"
"That of course was fatal, the jury accepted it"
And so, had the jury heard Websters testimony from 2002 that the possibility was good and not remote. Had the jury been shown the ballistic evidence produced in 2011 showing no silencer was on the weapon when Sheila was shot. You cannot reasonably argue that the verdict would be the same. To my mind the lawyers have done there job its the Judges that have moved the goal post.
Had Lord Lane C.J ruling at the 1989 appeal been a binding factor in the second appeal the conviction would have been ruled unsafe. The Judges in 2002 made clear it was not binding.
I will refer your post to the Lundy defence, who never agreed that Lord Kerr was breaking ground that the plebescite always assumed aligned with a common sense view of the world and the people they understood.
Sorry to be circumloquacious, but this is incredibly important to Jeremy Bamber.
-
Where does JM's evidence fit in to your theory?
If JM's evidence underpins JB's conviction why did CCRC refer JB's case to CoA on the back of the silencer?
Ground 15 is the sole ground upon which this case was referred to the Court by the CCRC. It is based upon the testing of the sound moderator for DNA, a technique that was not available at trial.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
I believe the new evidence will be devastating to the prosecution case against JB. Time will tell.
-
If JM's evidence underpins JB's conviction why did CCRC refer JB's case to CoA on the back of the silencer?
Ground 15 is the sole ground upon which this case was referred to the Court by the CCRC. It is based upon the testing of the sound moderator for DNA, a technique that was not available at trial.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
I believe the new evidence will be devastating to the prosecution case against JB. Time will tell.
Why did the CCRC refer Simon Hall's case on the fibre evidence?
I know the grounds of appeal in Bambers case and Hall's case and I know why both convictions were upheld.
Time will tell his supporters that Jeremy Bamber is a con artist. His case won't make it back to the COA Holly.
-
I will refer your post to the Lundy defence, who never agreed that Lord Kerr was breaking ground that the plebescite always assumed aligned with a common sense view of the world and the people they understood.
Sorry to be circumloquacious, but this is incredibly important to Jeremy Bamber.
That statement by Lord Kerr does not effect the criminal appeals act. I am not disagreeing with what Lord Kerr said but simply pointing out it does not effect this case or any appeal for that matter.
This is from a failed appeal that took place less than two years ago - "It would require a compelling piece of fresh evidence or line of argument to persuade us to re-tread well-trodden ground. In the appellant's case, there is in truth very little by the way of fresh evidence or fresh argument"
Previous legal representatives of Jeremy are being criticized for advancing the blood mixing theory, when anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the adversarial justice system would understand they had no other option. In the Netherlands, at their appeal courts the case is tried de novo, meaning that in principle the case is tried anew. Everything can be reconsidered and all evidence looked over again. That's the inquisitorial system whereby the appeal is more or less an inquisitorial tribunal. If that was our system then the criticism of MTQC and DMS would be more than justified. But that's not the system in this case.
The reality is that any future appeal by JB will be presented in very narrow circumstances (narrower than prior) in fact. And it will not make a huge amount of difference who leads it.
I am not here to argue for or against adversarial-inquisitorial Justice or how crappy our legal system is. That's another debate for another time.
-
That statement by Lord Kerr does not effect the criminal appeals act. I am not disagreeing with what Lord Kerr said but simply pointing out it does not effect this case or any appeal for that matter.
This is from a failed appeal that took place less than two years ago - "It would require a compelling piece of fresh evidence or line of argument to persuade us to re-tread well-trodden ground. In the appellant's case, there is in truth very little by the way of fresh evidence or fresh argument"
Previous legal representatives of Jeremy are being criticized for advancing the blood mixing theory, when anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the adversarial justice system would understand they had no other option. In the Netherlands, at their appeal courts the case is tried de novo, meaning that in principle the case is tried anew. Everything can be reconsidered and all evidence looked over again. That's the inquisitorial system whereby the appeal is more or less an inquisitorial tribunal. If that was our system then the criticism of MTQC and DMS would be more than justified. But that's not the system in this case.
The reality is that any future appeal by JB will be presented in very narrow circumstances (narrower than prior) in fact. And it will not make a huge amount of difference who leads it.
I am not here to argue for or against adversarial-inquisitorial Justice or how crappy our legal system is. That's another debate for another time.
I disagree. In the fullness of time JB's defence at trial and appeal hearings 89'and 02 will be shown to be incompetent and negligent.
I would like to see fresh faces at appeal.
-
I disagree. In the fullness of time JB's defence at trial and appeal hearings 89'and 02 will be shown to be incompetent and negligent.
I would like to see fresh faces at appeal.
I can't ever see there being a referral by the CCRC let alone an appeal requiring the appointment of junior and senior counsel. There just isn't any new evidence which could support a referral. The Campaign Team are grasping at every decreasing straws and what's more, I believe they have now come to realise it. Bambers only hope now is to bite the bullet, come clean and pray the parole board is feeling generous.
-
I disagree. In the fullness of time JB's defence at trial and appeal hearings 89'and 02 will be shown to be incompetent and negligent.
Will this happen before or after Maurice Drake gets stripped of his knighthood? lol
On a serious note you have accused everything and everyone of incompetence. The FSS, CCRC, Judges and Lawyers the lot. So its not really fair to single people out people here, because their own results or success/ failure depends on the competency of all the others involved.
But on the issue of DMS and MTQC what do you think they should have done instead of advance the blood mixture theory? The CCRC decided to refer the case in 2000 on the possibility of fresh DNA evidence supporting the mixture theory at trial. This was before MTQC was even involved. It was a card that Ewen Smith and MTQC had to play regardless. The only way MTQC could avoid advancing the mixture theory is by refusing to take the case.
As for DMS what could he have done? The only option I can think of is to find a scientist that would be prepared to come up with fresh evidence that suggests the blood was rabbit blood misinterpreted as human. And I dont think that would work.
I would like to see fresh faces at appeal.
Based on my own observations, they are not much to look at.
-
Will this happen before or after Maurice Drake gets stripped of his knighthood? lol
I don't believe it is possible to remove a knighthood posthumously. In fairness to the judges they can only be as good as the lawyers before them. Judges rely on the lawyers to tease out, if you will, the salient points from expert witnesses. However I do believe the appeal judges over stepped the mark with regard to Mark Webster's testimony ie providing opinion about how wet blood might behave upon unscrewing and removing the silencer etc. This sort of thing will come back to haunt them. It's extremely complex subject matter falling under fluid mechanics and certainly not for the judges to provide opinion on.
On a serious note you have accused everything and everyone of incompetence. The FSS, CCRC, Judges and Lawyers the lot. So its not really fair to single people out people here, because their own results or success/ failure depends on the competency of all the others involved.
If you believe JB innocent then by definition one must believe there are faults in the judicial process and system? The processes and system need to cater for the worst case scenario where the truth still triumphs. By this I mean unreliable lay witnesses and incompetence, negligence and wrongdoing by police, experts and lawyers. IMO singling out JM and the relatives is akin to buying rotten eggs from Waitrose and then berating the checkout person for scanning them thru the till. The problem is much higher up the chain. In an ideal world all lay witnesses would be reliable and all police officers, experts and lawyers would be reliable but that isn't the real world and defence counsel need to be alert to this.
The CT single out JM and the relatives. You single out Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight. Mike singles out the police. I single out the lawyers.
Where have I criticised the CCRC? If you want to accuse a fellow poster of something David you need to back it up. You have no difficulty in retrieving posts from April and Caroline so please provide mine where I have criticised CCRC. If you're unable to I trust you will withdraw your comment and apologise?
I'm not alone in criticising FSS. Parliament did so long before me:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm
My criticism is very much directed at the lawyers who represented JB at trial and appeals. DMS has to date played a minor role.
But on the issue of DMS and MTQC what do you think they should have done instead of advance the blood mixture theory? The CCRC decided to refer the case in 2000 on the possibility of fresh DNA evidence supporting the mixture theory at trial. This was before MTQC was even involved. It was a card that Ewen Smith and MTQC had to play regardless. The only way MTQC could avoid advancing the mixture theory is by refusing to take the case.
As for DMS what could he have done? The only option I can think of is to find a scientist that would be prepared to come up with fresh evidence that suggests the blood was rabbit blood misinterpreted as human. And I dont think that would work.
Based on my own observations, they are not much to look at.
If JB accepts my proposals I believe all will be revealed at a third successful appeal.
-
I don't understand how anyone can believe that JB is innocent given what occurred. To do so is nothing more than semantics imo. I don't believe any of Bamber's legal teams have ever believed him to be innocent and that includes the more recent efforts by a lawyer who couldn't distance himself quickly enough from him in the end. In his own words, he didn't want his own children reading on the internet that their father was a supporter of a double child murderer.
-
I don't understand how anyone can believe that JB is innocent given what occurred. To do so is nothing more than semantics imo. I don't believe any of Bamber's legal teams have ever believed him to be innocent and that includes the more recent efforts by a lawyer who couldn't distance himself quickly enough from him in the end. In his own words, he didn't want his own children reading on the internet that their father was a supporter of a double child murderer.
MT QC is on record saying he believes passionately JB is innocent.
JB has a some rather odd supporters or perhaps I should say supporters who IMO go about supporting him in odd ways. Nonetheless he does have many supporters who seem ordinary sensible people eg former Tory MP Andrew Hunter and NGB putting aside his extreme left of centre politics.
-
MT QC is on record saying he believes passionately JB is innocent.
JB has a some rather odd supporters or perhaps I should say supporters who IMO go about supporting him in odd ways. Nonetheless he does have many supporters who seem ordinary sensible people eg former Tory MP Andrew Hunter and NGB putting aside his extreme left of centre politics.
Ordinary and sensible are not descriptions I recognise in either of those individuals you named. Many people have attempted to piggyback on the Jeremy Bamber case for one reason or another but none of them have ever provided any evidence which could be considered compelling.
-
Where have I criticised the CCRC? If you want to accuse a fellow poster of something David you need to back it up. You have no difficulty in retrieving posts from April and Caroline so please provide mine where I have criticised CCRC. If you're unable to I trust you will withdraw your comment and apologise?
I don't expect folk at the ccrc sit around discussing this and finding ways to reject JB's submissions but it will be lurking. You only get to be in the ccrc and all the rest of it if you're a certain type.
I am pessimistic for a referral to the court of appeal for political reasons and the ruling elite closing ranks.
You have made it clear on many occasions that you believe the prevalence of men is part to blame for JBs current situation. Thus the following is binding.
Those assessing JB's case at CCRC and CoA are again all male as far as I can see?
I cant help but mention, the only organisation in this case that is predominantly female. Is the official campaign team. Need I say more?
I rest my case.
If JB accepts my proposals I believe all will be revealed at a third successful appeal.
This?
The only realistic chance JB has is if Nelly Red Belly gets readmitted to the bar and takes the case on with moi as his research asst and you as boy friday aka 3 muskateeers.
Anyway back to the question that I asked. How could MTQC have not possibly argued for the blood mixture theory when it was the CCRCs sole reason for referring the case to the COA in the first place? I quote -
Ground 15 is the sole ground upon which this case was referred to the Court by the CCRC. It is based upon the testing of the sound moderator for DNA, a technique that was not available at trial.
The Commission concluded:
"10.10 Whilst it might be arguable that the recent DNA tests do not establish that the source of the female DNA was blood, the Commission believes, as a matter of probability, that it is from blood because it was found deep within the silencer. Given the record of handling of the silencer by the scientists, the Commission does not believe that any possible contamination from them is likely to have been found that far down inside. Also, given that it is an accepted fact that blood was in the silencer in 1985, the Commission considers that it is much more likely that the DNA is from the blood found in the silencer at the time. Considering the length of time that has past and the fact that much of the blood was swabbed out for blood grouping, the Commission does not consider that the negative KM result strengthens the possibility that the DNA does not originate from blood. In any event, the Commission considers that the absence of Sheila Caffell's DNA is significant.
10.11 The Commission considers that the fresh evidence relating to the silencer severely undermines the Crown's case against Mr Bamber as it was presented to the jury. …"
Oopps... looks like the CCRC have got a strike and they are now out. $6(&
So prehaps you should stop slagging off MTQC and instead be more critical of the CCRC who reffered JB to the right place for the wrong reasons?
-
You have made it clear on many occasions that you believe the prevalence of men is part to blame for JBs current situation. Thus the following is binding.
I cant help but mention, the only organisation in this case that is predominantly female. Is the official campaign team. Need I say more?
I rest my case.
This?
Anyway back to the question that I asked. How could MTQC have not possibly argued for the blood mixture theory when it was the CCRCs sole reason for referring the case to the COA in the first place? I quote -
Ground 15 is the sole ground upon which this case was referred to the Court by the CCRC. It is based upon the testing of the sound moderator for DNA, a technique that was not available at trial.
The Commission concluded:
"10.10 Whilst it might be arguable that the recent DNA tests do not establish that the source of the female DNA was blood, the Commission believes, as a matter of probability, that it is from blood because it was found deep within the silencer. Given the record of handling of the silencer by the scientists, the Commission does not believe that any possible contamination from them is likely to have been found that far down inside. Also, given that it is an accepted fact that blood was in the silencer in 1985, the Commission considers that it is much more likely that the DNA is from the blood found in the silencer at the time. Considering the length of time that has past and the fact that much of the blood was swabbed out for blood grouping, the Commission does not consider that the negative KM result strengthens the possibility that the DNA does not originate from blood. In any event, the Commission considers that the absence of Sheila Caffell's DNA is significant.
10.11 The Commission considers that the fresh evidence relating to the silencer severely undermines the Crown's case against Mr Bamber as it was presented to the jury. …"
Oopps... looks like the CCRC have got a strike and they are now out. $6(&
So prehaps you should stop slagging off MTQC and instead be more critical of the CCRC who reffered JB to the right place for the wrong reasons?
Oh come off it David they're hardly critical in the same way as I have criticised your QC crush. I could recall one post I made criticising the CCRC but these were made when I was new to the case. You find me some under NN, H on IA or HG here. Let's not forget at one time you believed JB guilty.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2305.msg69761.html#msg69761
I've said many times and very recently I think the best ideas, decisions etc are made by heterogeneous groups not homogeneous groups. I'm not some man hating strident feminist on the contrary but I think it's very unhealthy to have areas of public life overseen by people that aren't representative of society at large. In JB's case the investigation and trial involved all males with the exception of WPC Jeapes and Glynis Howard. It's an extremely unhealthy situation. All the research shows where you have groups of people that are alike in terms of background, age, education, ethnicity, gender etc they will a) think similarly and b) are less likely to disagree.
The so-called official campaign team are not working in a paid professional capacity. In any event you are forgetting the two M's: Matt and Marty.
Surely MT QC could see the flaws in the LCN DNA tests given it's limitations and the issues surrounding contamination? I will accept the likes of us have the advantage of unlimited time but on the other hand surely MT QC has a lot more experience of handling criminal cases and is quickly able to identify the challenges and opportunities? If JB accepts my proposals and things go the way I anticipate MT QC should resign or be struck off. It shouldn't be that lay people on internet forums sort out failings by QC's.
Your case related views are very much aligned with MT QC's 2002 appeal which I've challenged you on here
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9154.msg446977#msg446977
but so far no response.
One of the reasons I'm more critical of MT QC than Rivlin is that MT QC had access to the Internet leading up to JB's appeal which is a fantastic research tool.
-
Oh come off it David they're hardly critical in the same way as I have criticised your QC crush. I could recall one post I made criticising the CCRC but these were made when I was new to the case. You find me some under NN, H on IA or HG here. Let's not forget at one time you believed JB guilty.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2305.msg69761.html#msg69761
I've said many times and very recently I think the best ideas, decisions etc are made by heterogeneous groups not homogeneous groups. I'm not some man hating strident feminist on the contrary but I think it's very unhealthy to have areas of public life overseen by people that aren't representative of society at large. In JB's case the investigation and trial involved all males with the exception of WPC Jeapes and Glynis Howard. It's an extremely unhealthy situation. All the research shows where you have groups of people that are alike in terms of background, age, education, ethnicity, gender etc they will a) think similarly and b) are less likely to disagree.
The so-called official campaign team are not working in a paid professional capacity. In any event you are forgetting the two M's: Matt and Marty.
Surely MT QC could see the flaws in the LCN DNA tests given it's limitations and the issues surrounding contamination? I will accept the likes of us have the advantage of unlimited time but on the other hand surely MT QC has a lot more experience of handling criminal cases and is quickly able to identify the challenges and opportunities? If JB accepts my proposals and things go the way I anticipate MT QC should resign or be struck off. It shouldn't be that lay people on internet forums sort out failings by QC's.
Your case related views are very much aligned with MT QC's 2002 appeal which I've challenged you on here
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9154.msg446977#msg446977
but so far no response.
One of the reasons I'm more critical of MT QC than Rivlin is that MT QC had access to the Internet leading up to JB's appeal which is a fantastic research tool.
It is quiet clear by reading the CCRCs own words on their justifications for referring the case in 2001 was that they believed the presence of Junes DNA discovered in the sound moderator the previous year was a result of blood being in the sound moderator from 1985.
The appeal in 2002 was a case of the CCRCs poorly thought out reasoning thus seemingly supporting Rivlins defence strategy. MT QC had no choice but to argue for it - FACT
Ironically the Judges were correct in dissmissing gound 15 and correct in critising the CCRC for not thinking it through. Its rather obvious why MT QC brought up 14 auxiliary grounds leaving the CCRCs main gound till last. It all rested on gound 15.
Incidentally I noticed the other day that it was actually Edmund Lawson AKA "brightest of the bright" that mentioned the police swapping the kitchen phone at the appeal hearing not MT. (See attached)
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 @)(++(*
Lol seems you have.
So the question is not why was MT QC grossly negligent. The question is why was the CCRC grossly negligent in the way it reffered the case to the COA in the first place. They got a grilling last time (rightly so) and are now too overly cautious to reffer the case again.
So if you would please direct your catty crusade in the direction of the CCRC rather than elsewhere. Thanks.
-
It is quiet clear by reading the CCRCs own words on their justifications for referring the case in 2001 was that they believed the presence of Junes DNA discovered in the sound moderator the previous year was a result of blood being in the sound moderator from 1985.
The appeal in 2002 was a case of the CCRCs poorly thought out reasoning thus seemingly supporting Rivlins defence strategy. MT QC had no choice but to argue for it - FACT
Ironically the Judges were correct in dissmissing gound 15 and correct in critising the CCRC for not thinking it through. Its rather obvious why MT QC brought up 14 auxiliary grounds leaving the CCRCs main gound till last. It all rested on gound 15.
Incidentally I noticed the other day that it was actually Edmund Lawson AKA "brightest of the bright" that mentioned the police swapping the kitchen phone at the appeal hearing not MT. (See attached)
Lol seems you have.
So the question is not why was MT QC grossly negligent. The question is why was the CCRC grossly negligent in the way it reffered the case to the COA in the first place. They got a grilling last time (rightly so) and are now too overly cautious to reffer the case again.
So if you would please direct your catty crusade in the direction of the CCRC rather than elsewhere. Thanks.
The ONLY person at fault here is Jeremy Bamber. It is he who has manufactured these stories in the hope of getting away with murder and being labelled as wrongly convicted as opposed a mass murderer.
When you are dealing with a cunning and manipulative individual like this, it's all too easy to blame ever one else. The pair of you should be looking at the mountain of evidence which clearly shows his guilt, not blaming everyone else for Bambers blatent BS.
You aren't the oracle on this David. Whilst you are all too consumed with critiquing legal papers you are missing what is starring you in the face.
There will NOT be a third appeal because the Criminal Justice System and the CCRC KNOW Bamber is attempting to con his way out of jail on a manufactured technicality. The prison and parole board and all other agencies know Bamber is too dangerous to be released back into society.
Oh and David, you stated the following in response to Steve_UK re Neville phoning his son
"I believe so not because I take Jeremy's word for it, but because the forensic evidence indirectly shows it took place
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7966.msg377926.html#msg377926
You then went on to say:
"I can prove the fight in the kitchen never happened. I will create a threat on it later when I have time.
The forensic evidence shows no such thing! Your forensic evidence theories are flawed!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7861.msg372798.html#msg372798
No amount of conspiracy theories will overturn Bambers conviction because it's solid. JM's evidence was and is crucial!
Bamber has engineered his campaign for freedom but in the process of his 30 year claims, he's given away many clues as to his guilt.
As I said to LM previously, there is the moral imperative to consider, not just legal arguments over technicalities of law.
You are using the wrong case in which to attempt to score points David!
-
It is quiet clear by reading the CCRCs own words on their justifications for referring the case in 2001 was that they believed the presence of Junes DNA discovered in the sound moderator the previous year was a result of blood being in the sound moderator from 1985.
The appeal in 2002 was a case of the CCRCs poorly thought out reasoning thus seemingly supporting Rivlins defence strategy. MT QC had no choice but to argue for it - FACT
Ironically the Judges were correct in dissmissing gound 15 and correct in critising the CCRC for not thinking it through. Its rather obvious why MT QC brought up 14 auxiliary grounds leaving the CCRCs main gound till last. It all rested on gound 15.
Incidentally I noticed the other day that it was actually Edmund Lawson AKA "brightest of the bright" that mentioned the police swapping the kitchen phone at the appeal hearing not MT. (See attached)
Lol seems you have.
So the question is not why was MT QC grossly negligent. The question is why was the CCRC grossly negligent in the way it reffered the case to the COA in the first place. They got a grilling last time (rightly so) and are now too overly cautious to reffer the case again.
So if you would please direct your catty crusade in the direction of the CCRC rather than elsewhere. Thanks.
I've criticised all the lawyers. It's obvious EL was hopeless:
- Allowed MF's "Small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy" to pass.
- Allowed MF to claim adult victims sustained all upstairs gsw's in main bedroom without any explanation or challenge
- Allowed MF to claim NB sustained an exit gsw to his head. This contradicts Dr V's autopsy. Who do you believe MF or Dr V? Tough call 8)-)))
Are you telling me barristers receive a brief and they run with it regardless? They don't carry out any analysis or research they simply argue the brief placed before them?
The CCRC referred the case on the basis it was unable to identify SC's DNA in the silencer. What prevented MT QC from going down the contamination or fabrication route and knocking the mixed blood theory on the head? I'm looking for a better answer than 'how do you explain June's DNA?' How do you explain the absence of NB's DNA?
I don't know enough about the 2011 CCRC application to comment on SM's input but IMO all those that I know of up until then were grossly incompetent and negligent:
- Paul Terzeon - retired
- Geoffrey Rivlin - retired
- Ed Lawson - deceased
- David Martin Sperry - still practicing - minor role in JB's case ie didn't represent at court
- Isabelle Gillard - still practicing - minor role as DMS above
- Ewan Smith - retired
- Michael Duck - still practising
- Michael Turner - still practicing
-
I've criticised all the lawyers. It's obvious EL was hopeless:
- Allowed MF's "Small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy" to pass.
- Allowed MF to claim adult victims sustained all upstairs gsw's in main bedroom without any explanation or challenge
- Allowed MF to claim NB sustained an exit gsw to his head. This contradicts Dr V's autopsy. Who do you believe MF or Dr V? Tough call 8)-)))
Are you telling me barristers receive a brief and they run with it regardless? They don't carry out any analysis or research they simply argue the brief placed before them?
The CCRC referred the case on the basis it was unable to identify SC's DNA in the silencer. What prevented MT QC from going down the contamination or fabrication route and knocking the mixed blood theory on the head? I'm looking for a better answer than 'how do you explain June's DNA?' How do you explain the absence of NB's DNA?
I don't know enough about the 2011 CCRC application to comment on SM's input but IMO all those that I know of up until then were grossly incompetent and negligent:
- Paul Terzeon - retired
- Geoffrey Rivlin - retired
- Ed Lawson - deceased
- David Martin Sperry - still practicing - minor role in JB's case ie didn't represent at court
- Isabelle Gillard - still practicing - minor role as DMS above
- Ewan Smith - retired
- Michael Duck - still practising
- Michael Turner - still practicing
-
Jeremy Bamber was hopeless Holly. It was he who instructed his legal teams. They were working for him.
You state:
"I don't know enough about the 2011 CCRC application to comment on SM's input but IMO all those that I know of up until then were grossly incompetent and negligent
Why has Bamber never put his submission to the CCRC into the public domain for scrutiny? What is in them he doesn't want his supporters to see?
Your criticism should be directed at Bamber Holly.
-
The ONLY person at fault here is Jeremy Bamber. It is he who has manufactured these stories in the hope of getting away with murder and being labelled as wrongly convicted as opposed a mass murderer.
When you are dealing with a cunning and manipulative individual like this, it's all too easy to blame ever one else. The pair of you should be looking at the mountain of evidence which clearly shows his guilt, not blaming everyone else for Bambers blatent BS.
You aren't the oracle on this David. Whilst you are all too consumed with critiquing legal papers you are missing what is starring you in the face.
There will NOT be a third appeal because the Criminal Justice System and the CCRC KNOW Bamber is attempting to con his way out of jail on a manufactured technicality. The prison and parole board and all other agencies know Bamber is too dangerous to be released back into society.
Oh and David, you stated the following in response to Steve_UK re Neville phoning his son
"I believe so not because I take Jeremy's word for it, but because the forensic evidence indirectly shows it took place
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7966.msg377926.html#msg377926
You then went on to say:
"I can prove the fight in the kitchen never happened. I will create a threat on it later when I have time.
The forensic evidence shows no such thing! Your forensic evidence theories are flawed!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7861.msg372798.html#msg372798
No amount of conspiracy theories will overturn Bambers conviction because it's solid. JM's evidence was and is crucial!
Bamber has engineered his campaign for freedom but in the process of his 30 year claims, he's given away many clues as to his guilt.
As I said to LM previously, there is the moral imperative to consider, not just legal arguments over technicalities of law.
You are using the wrong case in which to attempt to score points David!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8470.msg402874.html#msg402874
David did say he was going to create a 3D reconstruction of events in the kitchen. Which he said was 'almost done'.
Bit of a waste of thread really. Better to just create the 3D reconstruction.
Anyway the thread was never created. I suspect because for it to be accurrate, it would highlight a huge kitchen fight, which supporters have to claim didn't happen.
I did chase David up, but he said he had never promised the reconstruction.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8470.msg402874.html#msg402874
David did say he was going to create a 3D reconstruction of events in the kitchen. Which he said was 'almost done'.
Bit of a waste of thread really. Better to just create the 3D reconstruction.
Anyway the thread was never created. I suspect because for it to be accurrate, it would highlight a huge kitchen fight, which supporters have to claim didn't happen.
I did chase David up, but he said he had never promised the reconstruction.
I remember and you could well be right.
David appears to be ignoring many of Holly's questions as well, along with many questions raised by others.
Isn't this behaviour Bambers preferred method when caught out. Doesn't Bamber pretend to play dumb and claims things never happened or comes up with numerous excuses, like for example, when he played ignorant over Caroline's letters?
-
Jeremy Bamber was hopeless Holly. It was he who instructed his legal teams. They were working for him.
You state:
"I don't know enough about the 2011 CCRC application to comment on SM's input but IMO all those that I know of up until then were grossly incompetent and negligent
Why has Bamber never put his submission to the CCRC into the public domain for scrutiny? What is in them he doesn't want his supporters to see?
Your criticism should be directed at Bamber Holly.
As I've said many times IMO JB's understanding of his case is poor so if JB was leading maybe that explains the outcomes.
I understand JB wanted Rivlin to argue the silencer was contaminated or fabricated but Rivlin said it was too far fetched.
Maybe JB doesn't want to put his 2011/12 into the public domain as it contains some points he want going into a future appeal.
-
The ONLY person at fault here is Jeremy Bamber. It is he who has manufactured these stories in the hope of getting away with murder and being labelled as wrongly convicted as opposed a mass murderer.
When you are dealing with a cunning and manipulative individual like this, it's all too easy to blame ever one else. The pair of you should be looking at the mountain of evidence which clearly shows his guilt, not blaming everyone else for Bambers blatent BS.
You aren't the oracle on this David. Whilst you are all too consumed with critiquing legal papers you are missing what is starring you in the face.
There will NOT be a third appeal because the Criminal Justice System and the CCRC KNOW Bamber is attempting to con his way out of jail on a manufactured technicality. The prison and parole board and all other agencies know Bamber is too dangerous to be released back into society.
Oh and David, you stated the following in response to Steve_UK re Neville phoning his son
"I believe so not because I take Jeremy's word for it, but because the forensic evidence indirectly shows it took place
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7966.msg377926.html#msg377926
You then went on to say:
"I can prove the fight in the kitchen never happened. I will create a threat on it later when I have time.
The forensic evidence shows no such thing! Your forensic evidence theories are flawed!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7861.msg372798.html#msg372798
No amount of conspiracy theories will overturn Bambers conviction because it's solid. JM's evidence was and is crucial!
Bamber has engineered his campaign for freedom but in the process of his 30 year claims, he's given away many clues as to his guilt.
As I said to LM previously, there is the moral imperative to consider, not just legal arguments over technicalities of law.
You are using the wrong case in which to attempt to score points David!
I cannot emphasise this enough!
The moral imperative of Jeremy Bamber's case will weigh heavy on any possible future appeal.
Bambers campaign, like Simon Hall's, has been played out in the public arena. His surviving relatives and their relatives, Julie Mugford and Colin Caffell, and others, have had their past lives scutinised by all and sundry. They have faced public ridicule and criticism and have been subjected to malicious smear campaigns and their characters assassinated.
Any future defence team will need to consider this when going forward with this case.
-
As I've said many times IMO JB's understanding of his case is poor so if JB was leading maybe that explains the outcomes.
I understand JB wanted Rivlin to argue the silencer was contaminated or fabricated but Rivlin said it was too far fetched.
Maybe JB doesn't want to put his 2011/12 into the public domain as it contains some points he want going into a future appeal.
I don't know how you've come to the conclusion you have Holly but it's not the conclusion of the majority.
I once wrongly thought this of Simon Hall, because he too played a blinder. He even convinced me once I learned of the Zenith burglary that he'd omitted this fact as he said it would have given the police motive. He blogged about it.
Holly if you were innocent and in prison after 30 years, would you sit on something that could help clear your name? Come on, let's be realistic here. Bamber has nothing to lose by being completely transparent. Nothing. He's serving a full life tariff.
This isn't a game.
But Bamber is playing it like a game because that's exactly what it is to him. One big fat game. He knows he's guilty. He knows he has no hope of release. What's he got to lose by keeping people like you going round in circles year after year? He doesn't care about any of his supporters, regardless what he may say to them. He doesn't care about anyone other than Jeremy Bamber.
Have you ever met a psychopath Holly? Would you know what signs to look out for if you did?
He hasn't put his past submissions into the public domain because he is dishonest Holly.
You don't go around publicly requesting from Essex police full disclosure if you are not prepared to be as equally transpararent.
Anyway, it appears Bamber has had disclosure but he's again not been open and honest about what he's had and what he hasn't had. Because he's a conman!
-
The CCRC referred the case on the basis it was unable to identify SC's DNA in the silencer. What prevented MT QC from going down the contamination or fabrication route and knocking the mixed blood theory on the head? I'm looking for a better answer than 'how do you explain June's DNA?' How do you explain the absence of NB's DNA?
I cannot believe you are asking such a stupid question.
Did the CCRC find any fresh evidence not avaliable at trial to justify sending the case the COA on the basis the blood was a fabrication? NO
Did the CCRC reffer the case for reasons they thought the blood was a fabrication? NO
Did the CCRC reffer the case because they thought Junes DNA was the result of blood from 1985? YES
Was there any fresh evidence not avaliable at trial to enable MT QC to argue for a fabrication? NO
Would it have been possible for MT QC to raise a ground of fabrication without contradicting the very reason the case came to the appeal? NO
Was MT instucted by Ewen Smith and CCRC to argue ground 15? YES
Would it have been possible for MT to ignore the sole reason the case came to the COA and come up with an argument for fabrication without any fresh evidence for it? NO
Was fabrication a fresh argument not avaliable at trial? NO
And so
Did the CCRCs incompetance ultimatley sent JB to the right place for the wrong reasons? YES
-
I cannot believe you are asking such a stupid question.
Did the CCRC find any fresh evidence not avaliable at trial to justify sending the case the COA on the basis the blood was a fabrication? NO
Did the CCRC reffer the case for reasons they thought the blood was a fabrication? NO
Did the CCRC reffer the case because they thought Junes DNA was the result of blood from 1985? YES
Was there any fresh evidence not avaliable at trial to enable MT QC to argue for a fabrication? NO
Would it have been possible for MT QC to raise a ground of fabrication without contradicting the very reason the case came to the appeal? NO
Was MT instucted by Ewen Smith and CCRC to argue ground 15? YES
Would it have been possible for MT to ignore the sole reason the case came to the COA and come up with an argument for fabrication without any fresh evidence for it? NO
Was fabrication a fresh argument not avaliable at trial? NO
And so
Did the CCRCs incompetance ultimatley sent JB to the right place for the wrong reasons? YES
You cannot possibly know the answers to these questions David without first having seen all submissions made by Bamber prior to the referral by the CCRC and following on from its referral.
It is still possible to consider and put forward further argument to the appeal courts judges once a case has been referred. I know because of the Hall case.
What did Bamber put forward to his legal team following referral by the CCRC and before his COA hearing?
Please post the evidence!
I cannot be bothered to highlight your 'point scoring' chart above but you are once again wrong with your assumptions.
It was Jeremy Bambers incompetence, no one else's! You are foolish to make the claims you do without having all the facts at your disposal.
You have dismissed my knowledge of psychopathy, often referring to it or me as "psychobabble/Mrs psychobabble" but in time you will come to learn the error of your ways.
-
I remember and you could well be right.
David appears to be ignoring many of Holly's questions as well, along with many questions raised by others.
Isn't this behaviour Bambers preferred method when caught out. Doesn't Bamber pretend to play dumb and claims things never happened or comes up with numerous excuses, like for example, when he played ignorant over Caroline's letters?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8470.msg402874.html#msg402874
David said in 2017 his kitchen 3D diagrams are 'almost done'.
He needs to be man enough to either -
Post the 3D diagrams even if they highlight the obvious brutal kitchen fight.
Say he won't post the 3D diagrams because he didn't like the results.
----------
At present he has not been man enough to do either.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8470.msg402874.html#msg402874
David said in 2017 his kitchen 3D diagrams are 'almost done'.
He needs to be man enough to either -
Post the 3D diagrams even if they highlight the obvious brutal kitchen fight.
Say he won't post the 3D diagrams because he didn't like the results.
----------
At present he has not been man enough to do either.
"You see, hypocrites like to believe that they belong to a certain “class,” despite their victim-playing, complaining, and outright lying. The only “class” to which these fraudsters belong is alongside all the other phonies.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8088.msg456771#msg456771
-
I cannot believe you are asking such a stupid question.
Did the CCRC find any fresh evidence not avaliable at trial to justify sending the case the COA on the basis the blood was a fabrication? NO
Did the CCRC reffer the case for reasons they thought the blood was a fabrication? NO
Did the CCRC reffer the case because they thought Junes DNA was the result of blood from 1985? YES
Was there any fresh evidence not avaliable at trial to enable MT QC to argue for a fabrication? NO
Would it have been possible for MT QC to raise a ground of fabrication without contradicting the very reason the case came to the appeal? NO
Was MT instucted by Ewen Smith and CCRC to argue ground 15? YES
Would it have been possible for MT to ignore the sole reason the case came to the COA and come up with an argument for fabrication without any fresh evidence for it? NO
Was fabrication a fresh argument not avaliable at trial? NO
And so
Did the CCRCs incompetance ultimatley sent JB to the right place for the wrong reasons? YES
Oh but I can believe your knee-jerk, ill-thought out response which is factually wrong.
The CCRC referred the case back to CoA on the following basis:
"10.10 Whilst it might be arguable that the recent DNA tests do not establish that the source of the female DNA was blood, the Commission believes, as a matter of probability, that it is from blood because it was found deep within the silencer. Given the record of handling of the silencer by the scientists, the Commission does not believe that any possible contamination from them is likely to have been found that far down inside. Also, given that it is an accepted fact that blood was in the silencer in 1985, the Commission considers that it is much more likely that the DNA is from the blood found in the silencer at the time. Considering the length of time that has past and the fact that much of the blood was swabbed out for blood grouping, the Commission does not consider that the negative KM result strengthens the possibility that the DNA does not originate from blood. In any event, the Commission considers that the absence of Sheila Caffell's DNA is significant.
10.11 The Commission considers that the fresh evidence relating to the silencer severely undermines the Crown's case against Mr Bamber as it was presented to the jury. …"
It was up to your QC crush to take up the mantle and put forward the best arguments. No requirement whatsoever to run with the mixed blood theory or be dictated to by solicitors, CCRC or indeed anyone. According to you he doesn't have a mind of his own and nothing is his responsibility? He just blindly takes instruction and acts almost robotic like?
You said when you met MT you suggested the blood/silencer was fabricated and he rejected the idea out of hand. Therein lies your answer. If you want stubborn you need look no further than your QC crush. It has cost JB 15 plus years and counting. How do these people sleep at night?
-
David I refer you to the relevant section of the Bar Standards Board:
https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/regulatory-requirements/the-old-code-of-conduct/the-old-code-of-conduct/part-iii-fundamental-principles/
303. A barrister:
(a) must promote and protect fearlessly and by all proper and lawful means the lay client's best interests and do so without regard to his own interests or to any consequences to himself or to any other person (including any colleague, professional client or other intermediary or another barrister, the barrister's employer or any Authorised Body of which the barrister may be an owner or manager);
(b) owes his primary duty as between the lay client and any other person to the lay client and must not permit any other person to limit his discretion as to how the interests of the lay client can best be served;
-
David I refer you to the relevant section of the Bar Standards Board:
https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/regulatory-requirements/the-old-code-of-conduct/the-old-code-of-conduct/part-iii-fundamental-principles/
303. A barrister:
(a) must promote and protect fearlessly and by all proper and lawful means the lay client's best interests and do so without regard to his own interests or to any consequences to himself or to any other person (including any colleague, professional client or other intermediary or another barrister, the barrister's employer or any Authorised Body of which the barrister may be an owner or manager);
(b) owes his primary duty as between the lay client and any other person to the lay client and must not permit any other person to limit his discretion as to how the interests of the lay client can best be served;
Holly I am in no doubt all those who have represented Bamber in the past did the best to their abilities.
You do not appear to be taking into consideration Jeremy Bamber is a psychopath, and as such these individuals are extremely difficult if not impossible to defend. They are a rule unto themselves.
Whilst you continue to focus on the legal people involved in this case, you appear to forget about the person responsible for instructing said legal people.
You also appear to be forgetting Bambers rather arrogant comment made to the court during his trial. How do you think his legal team managed to smooth things over after such an ignorant statement. They did their best Holly. You are judging them based on only part of the story. What did Bamber have to say about why he said what he said? Has he ever regretted saying what he said? He's most definitely never made these regrets public.
-
Michael Turner QC was asked: What if he realises halfway through a trial that his client is evil?
He replied: Whether I think my client is an evil individual or not is neither here nor there”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9716069/Devils-advocate-Michael-Turner-prepares-for-his-toughest-case.html
-
I remember and you could well be right.
David appears to be ignoring many of Holly's questions as well, along with many questions raised by others.
Isn't this behaviour Bambers preferred method when caught out. Doesn't Bamber pretend to play dumb and claims things never happened or comes up with numerous excuses, like for example, when he played ignorant over Caroline's letters?
I don't believe David will be man enough to produce his 3D diagrams of the kitchen fight.
This is a shame as it would create good discussion. His main bedroom 3D reconstruction was very interesting, with magical side ejecting bouncing bullet casings.
Two days ago he accused me of previously posting something I had not posted. When I asked him to quote my apparent post I got no response, rather than being man enough to retract.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9381.0.html
-
David I refer you to the relevant section of the Bar Standards Board:
https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/regulatory-requirements/the-old-code-of-conduct/the-old-code-of-conduct/part-iii-fundamental-principles/
303. A barrister:
(a) must promote and protect fearlessly and by all proper and lawful means the lay client's best interests and do so without regard to his own interests or to any consequences to himself or to any other person (including any colleague, professional client or other intermediary or another barrister, the barrister's employer or any Authorised Body of which the barrister may be an owner or manager);
(b) owes his primary duty as between the lay client and any other person to the lay client and must not permit any other person to limit his discretion as to how the interests of the lay client can best be served;
I’m fed up of wasting my time so I will keep it simple.
Was there any fresh evidence not available at trial to argue for a fabrication in 2002?
-
David appears to be ignoring many of Holly's questions as well, along with many questions raised by others.
Holly keeps bringing up the same questions and topics over and over again expecting me to give a different answer from last time.
Questions raised by others such as Adam and yourself are only intended to annoy and irritate me thus not worthy of a reply and best avoided.
-
Holly keeps bringing up the same questions and topics over and over again expecting me to give a different answer from last time.
Questions raised by others such as Adam and yourself are only intended to annoy and irritate me thus not worthy of a reply and best avoided.
What a pitiful response
-
I’m fed up of wasting my time so I will keep it simple.
Was there any fresh evidence not available at trial to argue for a fabrication in 2002?
Yes.
Was there any fresh evidence not available at trial to argue NB was shot on the landing? Yes
Was there any fresh evidence not available at trial to argue many points? Yes.
Fresh evidence can mean forensic tests carried out on a different theme producing different results.
-
Holly keeps bringing up the same questions and topics over and over again expecting me to give a different answer from last time.
Questions raised by others such as Adam and yourself are only intended to annoy and irritate me thus not worthy of a reply and best avoided.
It's called debate David. You're a bad loser. When shown you're wrong you either go into denial or ignore it. Or you become abusive eg referring to me as "catty", "nasty" and "horrible" and/or you use emoticons and gifs to goad. Failing this you betray confidences eg revealing MT QC blocked my emails. Of course now you've betrayed me I have no reason not to post up your 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. I knew you were not to be trusted that's why I didn't send you copies of the emails sent to MT QC but I can assure you another barrister received a copy of every email I sent to MT QC.
-
I cannot believe you are asking such a stupid question.
Did the CCRC find any fresh evidence not avaliable at trial to justify sending the case the COA on the basis the blood was a fabrication? NO
Did the CCRC reffer the case for reasons they thought the blood was a fabrication? NO
Did the CCRC reffer the case because they thought Junes DNA was the result of blood from 1985? YES
Was there any fresh evidence not avaliable at trial to enable MT QC to argue for a fabrication? NO
Would it have been possible for MT QC to raise a ground of fabrication without contradicting the very reason the case came to the appeal? NO
Was MT instucted by Ewen Smith and CCRC to argue ground 15? YES
Would it have been possible for MT to ignore the sole reason the case came to the COA and come up with an argument for fabrication without any fresh evidence for it? NO
Was fabrication a fresh argument not avaliable at trial? NO
And so
Did the CCRCs incompetance ultimatley sent JB to the right place for the wrong reasons? YES
Are you going to apologise for saying I asked a stupid question?
Do you now accept barristers must act in the clients best interests regardless of input from any other individual(s) and/or organisation(s).
-
It's called debate David. You're a bad loser. When shown you're wrong you either go into denial or ignore it. Or you become abusive eg referring to me as "catty", "nasty" and "horrible" and/or you use emoticons and gifs to goad. Failing this you betray confidences eg revealing MT QC blocked my emails. Of course now you've betrayed me I have no reason not to post up your 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. I knew you were not to be trusted that's why I didn't send you copies of the emails sent to MT QC but I can assure you another barrister received a copy of every email I sent to MT QC.
We await David's "forensic evidence breakthrough" BS 8((()*/
-
I’m fed up of wasting my time so I will keep it simple.
Was there any fresh evidence not available at trial to argue for a fabrication in 2002?
If you're fed up wasting your time here why are you lurking and rifling through my back posts?
-
It's called debate David. You're a bad loser. When shown you're wrong you either go into denial or ignore it. Or you become abusive eg referring to me as "catty", "nasty" and "horrible" and/or you use emoticons and gifs to goad. Failing this you betray confidences eg revealing MT QC blocked my emails. Of course now you've betrayed me I have no reason not to post up your 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. I knew you were not to be trusted that's why I didn't send you copies of the emails sent to MT QC but I can assure you another barrister received a copy of every email I sent to MT QC.
I look forward to seeing the 'mysterious' 'Forensic Evidence Breakthrough'.
-
I look forward to seeing the 'mysterious' 'Forensic Evidence Breakthrough'.
Don't think we are going to see it. It seems Holly"s using it as a bargaining tool in order for David to respond to her posts
-
It's called debate David. You're a bad loser. When shown you're wrong you either go into denial or ignore it. Or you become abusive eg referring to me as "catty", "nasty" and "horrible" and/or you use emoticons and gifs to goad. Failing this you betray confidences eg revealing MT QC blocked my emails. Of course now you've betrayed me I have no reason not to post up your 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. I knew you were not to be trusted that's why I didn't send you copies of the emails sent to MT QC but I can assure you another barrister received a copy of every email I sent to MT QC.
David has showed time and time again he is not to be trusted Holly http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7638.3015.html
Jeremy Bamber is not to be trusted either. Whilst you are entitled to your opinions, why are you doing the bidding of a man you have never met or are ever likely to meet? Why put your energies in to this case when there are others far more deserving?
-
"WRONGLY ACCUSED: Show me a miscarriage of justice and, nine times out of 10, I will show you the blueprint that caused it, writes Eric Allison.
Eric Allison is the Guardian’s prison correspondent.
This essay will feature in a new collection of essays (No defence: miscarriages of justice and lawyers) as part of the Justice Gap series and following on from Wrongly Accused: who is responsible for investigating miscarriages of justice? (to be published in association with Solicitors Journal and Wilmington). You can download that collection HERE.
Contributors for No Defence include Eric Allison; Dr Ros Burnett; Prof Ed Cape; Dr Dennis Eady; Francis Fitzgibbon QC; Mark George QC; Andrew Green; Campbell Malone; Michael Mansfield QC; Mark Newby; Daniel Newman; Paul May; Dr Angus Nurse; Correna Platt; Julie Price; Dr Hannah Quirk; David Rose; Adam Sampson; Satish Sekar; and Tom Wainwright. Thanks to all.
‘Instead of closing the gap a huge chasm has just opened up right at the top of the system. It is a shocking and disgraceful manoeuvre by those who carry the core responsibility for maintaining and protecting the provision of justice… . This series of admirable essays has sought to identify and suggest remedies for those most disadvantaged by our judicial system.’
Michael Mansfield QC
__________________________________________
Eric Allison: Show me a miscarriage of justice and, nine times out of 10, I will show you the blueprint that caused it. There is a pattern, a template, in virtually all of these cases, made up of the following strands.
First: you have a defendant who has little or no knowledge of the criminal justice system – and, in many cases, a touching belief in the integrity of that system.
Two: investigating police officers who act as judge and jury, making up their minds they have the right person and going to great lengths to hamper the defence. Non-disclosure of evidence being the main obstacle they place in the path of truth.
Three: prejudicial pre-trial reports by the media. Jurors are told to ignore this, but I suggest this is asking too much of them, especially in high profile cases.
Four: poor legal representation. In every case I have studied, I have found glaring errors on the part of the defence lawyers. These include, failure to call witnesses, failure to seek full disclosure of evidence and a general lack of endeavour on the part of those chosen to lead defendants through the minefield of criminal trials. And, with cutbacks in legal aid biting deeper, this situation can only get worse.
Last, but not least, those wrongly convicted face a hostile, intractable, appeal system, with an appeal court seemingly concerned only with maintaining the status quo, that being, the validity of the original conviction. Their Lordships never being more unyielding than when confronted with the assertion that an appellant’s trial lawyers let him or her down. The wigged ones all feed from the same trough and few will question the abilities of another of their ilk.
Other factors go towards the likelihood of more and more innocent people being convicted.
Reasonable doubt
The introduction of majority verdicts, in 1967, was a dangerous step. Given it is for the prosecution to prove guilt; I would have thought two people, out of 12, not being satisfied with the Crown’s case, constituted reasonable doubt? Not so and many high profile alleged miscarriages were the subject of majority verdicts -notably Jeremy Bamber, found guilty on a 10 to two basis.
The law changed in 2003 to allow into evidence of a defendant’s convictions for previous offences. Prior to then, unless a defendant attacked the character of a prosecution witness, juries were kept in the dark about previous convictions the people in the dock had to their name. Easier for the prosecution to prove it’s case. But is it fair? ‘Give a dog a bad name…’
Safety net
On paper, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) provides a safety net for those floundering in the mire of a wrongful conviction. But the CCRC has disappointed those who hoped the establishment of such a body would deal swiftly and surely with miscarriages of justice.
In practice, the CCRC is under-resourced and seemingly unable to carry out the in-depth investigations required to uncover the truth when the justice system has got it wrong. Critics see them as gatekeepers to the court of appeal, trying to second guess how that tribunal will view the cases they refer, rather than the independent, fact finding, body hoped for.
Of all the alleged miscarriages of justice I have researched, the cases of Jeremy Bamber and Susan May stand out for two reasons: firstly, I have absolutely no doubt about their innocence and, secondly, they tick every box of the blueprint of how the system fails.
Both were people of hitherto good character, with no experience of the criminal justice system. If either had had one tenth of the knowledge of the law – and trial procedure – they have now, both would have walked free – of that I am certain. (Despite both falling victim to prejudicial pre-trial reporting and biased police investigations.) Both have had their cases rejected by the court of appeal twice. Both have had their submissions rejected by the CCRC – though Susan’s case is now being reviewed again by that body.
I am convinced there are more miscarriages of justice now than at any time since I have been a student of the system-a study going back over half a century. I am personally aware of well over a hundred, serious, cases that scream out to be looked at again.
And I repeat, I believe the situation is set to worsen a) because of cut backs in legal aid and b) the massive increase in convictions for historical sexual offences.
The latter area concerns me greatly – in the current, post-Saville, climate, I expect the conviction rates for these offences to take a surge. And yet this is one area where greater care than ever ought to be taken in deciding guilt or innocence. Almost uniquely, as far as criminal trials are concerned, a defendant can be convicted on the uncorroborated word of the accuser. There are usually no witnesses to such crimes and, because of the passage of time, no forensic or medical evidence to support the allegations. It is one person’s word against another.
I have researched several convictions for historical sexual offences and, in some cases, my findings are deeply troubling. It is a murky world to peer into and any concern for the safety of such a conviction can be taken as having some sympathy for people deemed beyond the pale in the court of public opinion.
Questioning some of those convictions is to risk being accused of having no understanding of the awful trauma endured by victims of sexual abuse. But two wrongs never made a right and some things need to be said.
Consider this: Albany prison, on the Isle of Wight holds some 560 prisoners – virtually all sex-offenders, many convicted of historical offences. Around half of the population of Albany is in denial. This means they are not addressing their offending behaviour and not participating in treatment programmes. Because of their plea of innocence, they will never become eligible for parole. Many are serving extremely long sentences, so they count the difference in years and some will die in prison. They will not have their security classification downgraded – a move which invariably means better prison conditions – and, on their eventual release, will find their place on the sex offenders register coming under intense scrutiny.
Without doubt, some of these men will be in denial because they cannot come to terms with the offences they have committed. But over 250 of them, in one jail? Something is wrong.
Like many, I hoped, with the freeing of the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four et al and the setting up of the CCRC, we had seen the back of wholesale wrongful convictions. The ever burgeoning case file of alleged miscarriages of justice tells me the hope was in vain. We are back to where were before we thought: ‘This cannot happen again’.
http://www.thejusticegap.com/2013/03/im-convinced-there-are-more-miscarriages-of-justice-than-ever/
Broken WWW links or articles being removed?
-
Just reading a book by William Clegg QC 'Under The Wig':
William Clegg QC is a lawyer in England specialising in serious crime. He is head of chambers at 2 Bedford Row and has fought more than 100 murder cases - more than anyone else currently practising at the English Bar.
The book is an autobiography of sorts interspersed with chapters dedicated to his high profile cases.
I've thought for some time that a significant feature of miscarriages of justice is an incompetent and negligent defence and this book has just reinforced the view. For example WC tells he always makes a point of visiting the soc to understand the evidence and speak more authoritatively in court. JB's defence did not visit the soc but I believe prosecuting counsel did.
Based on how WC conducted other high profile cases eg Barry George, Colin Stagg, and Vincent Tabak I am sure JB's trial would have taken a very different direction!
Hopefully William Clegg QC might still be around to represent JB at a third appeal hearing!
-
Posters are reminded to stay on topic. Irrelevant postings will be removed.
-
Just reading a book by William Clegg QC 'Under The Wig':
William Clegg QC is a lawyer in England specialising in serious crime. He is head of chambers at 2 Bedford Row and has fought more than 100 murder cases - more than anyone else currently practising at the English Bar.
The book is an autobiography of sorts interspersed with chapters dedicated to his high profile cases.
I've thought for some time that a significant feature of miscarriages of justice is an incompetent and negligent defence and this book has just reinforced the view. For example WC tells he always makes a point of visiting the soc to understand the evidence and speak more authoritatively in court. JB's defence did not visit the soc but I believe prosecuting counsel did.
Based on how WC conducted other high profile cases eg Barry George, Colin Stagg, and Vincent Tabak I am sure JB's trial would have taken a very different direction!
Hopefully William Clegg QC might still be around to represent JB at a third appeal hearing!
Thank you Holly for a book recommendation there..sounds worth a read.
Was it standard practice to visit SOC back in the 80s do you know?
Obviously the prosecuting counsel did but.I wonder if it was a common practice at the time...as in recommended practice.
-
Thank you Holly for a book recommendation there..sounds worth a read.
Was it standard practice to visit SOC back in the 80s do you know?
Obviously the prosecuting counsel did but.I wonder if it was a common practice at the time...as in recommended practice.
Hi. I have no idea what the criteria was for the defense and/or judge/jurors to visit soc 85/86. I will take a look at other high profile cases from that era.
I have recently been posting on the Madeleine McCann board. The soc was quickly released, as was WHF, and forensic scientist, Dave Barclay, said on occasions British police have purchased a property to preserve the soc. He gave the example of how blood stains were recovered from a ceiling and that it put a completly different perspective on the case. At the time of JB's trial blood stain analysis was in its infancy. Pity as it would have been very revealing IMO!
-
It has recently been said JB would struggle to find legal representation for his 3rd appeal. William Clegg QC explains how the cab rank rule works @ 48 mins in.
https://youtu.be/BLJLwID6Tso
-
It has recently been said JB would struggle to find legal representation for his 3rd appeal. William Clegg QC explains how the cab rank rule works @ 48 mins in.
https://youtu.be/BLJLwID6Tso
Not sure how that's favourable to Bamber.
-
It has recently been said JB would struggle to find legal representation for his 3rd appeal. William Clegg QC explains how the cab rank rule works @ 48 mins in.
https://youtu.be/BLJLwID6Tso
?
Had already posted the secret barristers interpretation on the cab rank rule
Yes have seen their BS on the cab rank rule too - ‘In practice, the rule has been watered down since its inception’ *&^^& ergo it’s a fallacy
“The fundamental principle that a barrister, like a cabbie, has to take the first “fare” that arrives. The obvious rationale being to ensure that no-one simply cherrypicks the plum cases (to mangle a fruit metaphor), and to maintain the cherished independence of the bar.
https://thesecretbarrister.com/glossary/