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 February 13, 2018, 09:25:05 PM
-
The hearing was set out over 522 points as follows:
POINTS ASPECT OF CASE %
1- 174 Background 33.33%
175 - 213 Handswabs Processing 7.47%
214 - 232 Handswabs Tests 3.63% (Total handswabs 11.1%)
233 - 260 Disturbance Kitchen by EP 5.36%
261 - 288 Windows 5.36%
289 - 330 Timing tel call - JM 8.04%
331 - 366 Credibility of JM 6.89% (Total JM 14.55%)
367 - 377 Letter from CC 2.10%
378 - 391 WS of CC 2.68%
392 - 404 Photo "I hate this place" 2.49%
405 - 421 Bible 3.25%
422 - 427 Inheritance 1.14%
428 Porsche 0.19%
429 - 443 Tel Kitchen 2.87%
444 - 451 Scars on hands 1.53%
452 - 475 Blood inside silencer 4.59%
476 - 508 DNA 6.32% (Total silencer 10.91%)
509 - 511 Police misconduct 0.57%
512 - 520 Conclusion by judges incl call
for fresh evidence by prosc re
SC moved in bedroom 1.72%
521 - 522 General Observation by judges 0.38%
-
To my mind the above breakdown shows how hopeless this appeal was from the off.
It is all over the place with the kitchen sink thrown at it and there's nothing evidence based.
The case was referred to the CoA by CCRC on the back of the silencer/blood/DNA and yet this ended up taking 3rd place in terms of points covered to JM's testimony and the handswabs.
Many of the points are just unnecessary waffle imo eg the proposed purchase of a Porsche.
The judges' conclusion and observation amounted to just over 2% and this included some fresh evidence the prosecution wanted to advance. Basically the judges said 'do one'!
-
To my mind the above breakdown shows how hopeless this appeal was from the off.
It is all over the place with the kitchen sink thrown at it and there's nothing evidence based.
The case was referred to the CoA by CCRC on the back of the silencer/blood/DNA and yet this ended up taking 3rd place in terms of points covered to JM's testimony and the handswabs.
Many of the points are just unnecessary waffle imo eg the proposed purchase of a Porsche.
The judges' conclusion and observation amounted to just over 2% and this included some fresh evidence the prosecution wanted to advance. Basically the judges said 'do one'!
This just goes to show how futile any appeal is in this case imo. I have seen nothing revealed since the last appeal which has changed that situation so I find the possibility of any further hearing extremely remote.
-
This just goes to show how futile any appeal is in this case imo. I have seen nothing revealed since the last appeal which has changed that situation so I find the possibility of any further hearing extremely remote.
No doubt in my mind there will be a third successful appeal which will be evidenced based:
1. Forensic tests to undermine silencer and blood evidence
2. Forensic tests to undermine Fletcher's trial testimony re SC's hands (black discolouration) and nightdress ("relatively clean") and above to demonstrate drawback isn't "virtually certain". No reason SC's nightdress would not be "relatively clean".
3. Forensic tests to undermine Elliot's trial testimony re levels of lead on SC's hands
4. Non-disclosure of bloodstains on bible
5. Reconstruction showing NB was shot coming upstairs and not within the bedroom
6. June's mental illness circa 1959 showing the potential for SC to develop a disorganised attachment resulting in a propensity towards aggression, suicide and filicide which contradicts Dr Ferguson's trial testimony and provides a 'motive' for the murders/suicide
Two further points could include:
7. Continuing with tests carried out by Peter Sutherest over the scratches on the Aga
8. Disturbance of soc in main bedroom ie SC and bible
The above are all evidence based unlike the 2002 appeal. 6 - 8 quality points that cut to the chase and will be impossible to argue against instead of 16 points that could easily be argued away and amounted to little more than a lot of hot air and waffle.
-
This is how the COA will look at all cases - background, evidence, conclusion.
The COA spent 12 days on this case. Similar to the author of 'Crimes, hearts & Coronets' & Bob Woffinden, they just became more convinced of Bamber's guilt.
The COA is very damning. My 60+ pieces of evidence has 20 sources, the COA being the main one.
-
Not sure what more can be done as a forum guilter, than supply a huge list of sourced forensic evidence.
This can only be topped by supplying CCTV footage of Bamber entering & exiting WHF on the massacre night.
Bamber & the CT have disputed about 2% of the evidence. Most isn't mentioned by the OS, who focus on the silencer, Julie & Nevill's call to Chelmsford police.
Nugs, Lookout & Mike ignore the list while David disputes 3 or 4 pieces with his own source snippets taken from other documents.
-
This is how the COA will look at all cases - background, evidence, conclusion.
The COA spent 12 days on this case. Similar to the author of 'Crimes, hearts & Coronets' & Bob Woffinden, they just became more convinced of Bamber's guilt.
The COA is very damning. My 60+ pieces of evidence has 20 sources, the COA being the main one.
As I said in a recent post appeal court judges are not looking at ways to quash convictions rather they are looking at ways to uphold convictions and maintaining the status quo. At appeal you need hard hitting points that are impossible to argue against. MT QC produced a lot of hot air and waffle.
Afaik Bob Woffinden doesn't have a background in policing, law or forensics so I'm not sure why his views are seen to be any more important than posters on forums?
The JB CoA hearing 2002 and the resulting doc will prove a huge embarrassment to the judicial system of this country.
Most of the so-called evidence can be pulled apart and those aspects left standing can be severely criticised because they were not dealt with properly eg if you want to assert the defendant shut a window shut from outside locking it securely in the process the jury should be taken to the site to see whether or not this was possible.
-
Not sure what more can be done as a forum guilter, than supply a huge list of sourced forensic evidence.
This can only be topped by supplying CCTV footage of Bamber entering & exiting WHF on the massacre night.
Bamber & the CT have disputed about 2% of the evidence. Most isn't mentioned by the OS, who focus on the silencer, Julie & Nevill's call to Chelmsford police.
Nugs, Lookout & Mike ignore the list while David disputes 3 or 4 pieces with his own source snippets taken from other documents.
Reference to a "huge list of sourced forensic evidence" is only going to help a "forum guilter" and/or the prosecution if it is capable of withstanding 21st century forensics which I don't believe it is capable of doing.
-
As I said in a recent post appeal court judges are not looking at ways to quash convictions rather they are looking at ways to uphold convictions and maintaining the status quo. At appeal you need hard hitting points that are impossible to argue against. MT QC produced a lot of hot air and waffle.
Afaik Bob Woffinden doesn't have a background in policing, law or forensics so I'm not sure why his views are seen to be any more important than posters on forums?
The JB CoA hearing 2002 and the resulting doc will prove a huge embarrassment to the judicial system of this country.
Most of the so-called evidence can be pulled apart and those aspects left standing can be severely criticised because they were not dealt with properly eg if you want to assert the defendant shut a window shut from outside locking it securely in the process the jury should be taken to the site to see whether or not this was possible.
Don't believe a COA are looking at how to quash or uphold a conviction.
Their role is to look at new evidence submitted. Then decide if it could have resulted in the jury coming to a different verdict, if they had been given it at the time.
The COA can't look at evidence which the jury were shown. Then undermine the juries decision by overturning the verdict. There would be no point in having a jury.
-
Reference to a "huge list of sourced forensic evidence" is only going to help a "forum guilter" and/or the prosecution if it is capable of withstanding 21st century forensics which I don't believe it is capable of doing.
So all of it would be shown to be wrong using todays technology ? It must have been very basic in 1985. They can't even detect gun shot residue on a nightdress.
Even David said this month, he agrees with the list but 'it doesn't make Jeremy guilty'. Not sure who else committed the massacre if it wasn't Sheila. Jeff Blake ?
-
Don't believe a COA are looking at how to quash or uphold a conviction.
Their role is to look at new evidence submitted. Then decide if it could have resulted in the jury coming to a different verdict, if they had been given it at the time.
The COA can't look at evidence which the jury were shown. Then undermine the juries decision by overturning the verdict. There would be no point in having a jury.
Yes I agree and there was nothing in the '89/'02 appeals capable of overturning JB's conviction but there's also evidence the judges were biased towards the prosecution eg pinning the blame for the mirror staining on the bible on JB when it was clear no one knew whose blood stained the pages. And blaming JB for moving SC when the evidence points to EP. And writing off Mark Webster's suggestions that further tests needed to be carried out to establish whether drawback was possible. Instead the judges came up with their own theories of how blood behaves in silencers when they were not qualified to make such theories.
-
So all of it would be shown to be wrong using todays technology ? It must have been very basic in 1985. They can't even detect gun shot residue on a nightdress.
Even David said this month, he agrees with the list but 'it doesn't make Jeremy guilty'. Not sure who else committed the massacre if it wasn't Sheila. Jeff Blake ?
Yes it was basic in 1985 and all concerned were out of their depth with such a soc.
DC Hammersley swabbed SC at PM for GSR. I would have thought time to do it was at SOC. In any event whether GSR presented or not it could be argued both ways so really irrelevant. According to lab it was sent in with unrelated firearm so returned to EP due to potential for contamination.
Aspects of the case like June's bike at JB's are not evidence of anything.
SC's nightdress "relatively clean" why would it be otherwise if SC was perp?
SC's feet clean or even "spotless" why would it be otherwise if SC was perp?
-
No doubt in my mind there will be a third successful appeal which will be evidenced based:
1. Forensic tests to undermine silencer and blood evidence
2. Forensic tests to undermine Fletcher's trial testimony re SC's hands (black discolouration) and nightdress ("relatively clean") and above to demonstrate drawback isn't "virtually certain". No reason SC's nightdress would not be "relatively clean".
3. Forensic tests to undermine Elliot's trial testimony re levels of lead on SC's hands
4. Non-disclosure of bloodstains on bible
5. Reconstruction showing NB was shot coming upstairs and not within the bedroom
6. June's mental illness circa 1959 showing the potential for SC to develop a disorganised attachment resulting in a propensity towards aggression, suicide and filicide which contradicts Dr Ferguson's trial testimony and provides a 'motive' for the murders/suicide
Two further points could include:
7. Continuing with tests carried out by Peter Sutherest over the scratches on the Aga
8. Disturbance of soc in main bedroom ie SC and bible
The above are all evidence based unlike the 2002 appeal. 6 - 8 quality points that cut to the chase and will be impossible to argue against instead of 16 points that could easily be argued away and amounted to little more than a lot of hot air and waffle.
Points 2 and 3 won't be admissible. They would be rejected for the same reasons Dr Lloyds evidence was.
220. In a number of cases this court has made clear that it will not readily admit expert evidence as fresh evidence where the necessary expertise was available at the time of trial (see e.g. Lomas, 53 Cr. App. R. 256 & Jones (Steven) [1997] 1 Cr. App. R. 56). To do otherwise would permit an appellant to shop around for an expert after conviction and upon finding one favourable to his case mount an appeal based on the views of that expert. To allow that would subvert the trial process and generally speaking the time for advancing expert evidence is before the jury and not after conviction.
221. Mr Temple for the prosecution opposed the application. He submitted that it was clear that the appellant had sought expert advice before trial from Major Meads, a firearms expert, who in turn had consulted Mr Edwards, a chemist. There was, he submitted, nothing new about the scientific knowledge that gave rise to this evidence. With that view we agree.
232. We concluded in such circumstances that there was no valid reason why this evidence could not have been put before the jury by seeking to call an appropriate expert unless it was the case that Dr Lloyd's views were not ones shared by others and, even more importantly, that even if the evidence had been given at trial, it could not have altered the outcome of the trial. Accordingly we declined to admit this fresh evidence and any other evidence consequent upon it and this aspect of ground 1 fails as a result.
If Major mead had reasons to believe the silencer was never used. As Jim Shelly claims. Then point 1 would also not be admissible.
An appeal hearing is based on question of law not facts.
"In jurisprudence, a question of law (also known as a point of law) is a question which must be answered by applying relevant legal principles, by an interpretation of the law. Such a question is distinct from a question of fact, which must be answered by reference to facts and evidence, and inferences arising from those facts."
-
Points 2 and 3 won't be admissible. They would be rejected for the same reasons Dr Lloyds evidence was.
220. In a number of cases this court has made clear that it will not readily admit expert evidence as fresh evidence where the necessary expertise was available at the time of trial (see e.g. Lomas, 53 Cr. App. R. 256 & Jones (Steven) [1997] 1 Cr. App. R. 56). To do otherwise would permit an appellant to shop around for an expert after conviction and upon finding one favourable to his case mount an appeal based on the views of that expert. To allow that would subvert the trial process and generally speaking the time for advancing expert evidence is before the jury and not after conviction.
221. Mr Temple for the prosecution opposed the application. He submitted that it was clear that the appellant had sought expert advice before trial from Major Meads, a firearms expert, who in turn had consulted Mr Edwards, a chemist. There was, he submitted, nothing new about the scientific knowledge that gave rise to this evidence. With that view we agree.
232. We concluded in such circumstances that there was no valid reason why this evidence could not have been put before the jury by seeking to call an appropriate expert unless it was the case that Dr Lloyd's views were not ones shared by others and, even more importantly, that even if the evidence had been given at trial, it could not have altered the outcome of the trial. Accordingly we declined to admit this fresh evidence and any other evidence consequent upon it and this aspect of ground 1 fails as a result.
If Major mead had reasons to believe the silencer was never used. As Jim Shelly claims. Then point 1 would also not be admissible.
An appeal hearing is based on question of law not facts.
"In jurisprudence, a question of law (also known as a point of law) is a question which must be answered by applying relevant legal principles, by an interpretation of the law. Such a question is distinct from a question of fact, which must be answered by reference to facts and evidence, and inferences arising from those facts."
If forensic tests show Elliot and Fletcher were wrong it can only mean they were incompetent, fabricating evidence or both. Parliament has confirmed:
3.3.1 Following some high profile quality failures in the 1980s the FSS implemented accreditation to quality standards from 1993 onwards, a world first for forensic science.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm
DPP/COA/CCRC will need to confirm JB's case was unaffected by these failures.
Remember also Fletcher opened up the silencer for John Hayward to analyse the blood within.
Let's keep it simple the criteria for appeal is basically fresh evidence that had jurors heard at trial may have caused them to reach a different verdict.
From the CPS:
Hearing new evidence
The Court of Appeal may hear new evidence that was not adduced in the original proceedings (section 23(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1968), if:
it appears capable of belief;
it may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
it would have been admissible;
it is an issue which is the subject of the appeal;
there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/appeals-court-appeal
I think you're taking Major Mead's comment literally; I think it was a figure of speech. In any event it comes back to how reliable was FSS in 1980's? Malcolm Fletcher? "Small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy"?
-
If forensic tests show Elliot and Fletcher were wrong it can only mean they were incompetent, fabricating evidence or both. Parliament has confirmed:
3.3.1 Following some high profile quality failures in the 1980s the FSS implemented accreditation to quality standards from 1993 onwards, a world first for forensic science.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm
DPP/COA/CCRC will need to confirm JB's case was unaffected by these failures.
Remember also Fletcher opened up the silencer for John Hayward to analyse the blood within.
Let's keep it simple the criteria for appeal is basically fresh evidence that had jurors heard at trial may have caused them to reach a different verdict.
From the CPS:
Hearing new evidence
The Court of Appeal may hear new evidence that was not adduced in the original proceedings (section 23(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1968), if:
it appears capable of belief;
it may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
it would have been admissible;
it is an issue which is the subject of the appeal;
there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/appeals-court-appeal
I think you're taking Major Mead's comment literally; I think it was a figure of speech. In any event it comes back to how reliable was FSS in 1980's? Malcolm Fletcher? "Small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy"?
But they won't show that their tests were wrong - just (perhaps) different.
It would need to be proven that Bambers case WAS affected by such failures - you're forgetting innocent until proven guilty.
Malcolm Fletcher's experience extended beyond having an air rifle as a small boy. Any court would take a dim view (rightly or wrongly) of questioning and experts credentials in such a manner
-
But they won't show that their tests were wrong - just (perhaps) different.
I think it is possible to repeat the tests on a like-for-like basis to determine whether or not jurors were misled. The cartridges are precision engineered and weighed in grains (a grain = 0.0648 gram so gives some idea of the precision. As I see it nothing could be simpler and more straight-forward.
If testees load cartridges into mag and black discolouration doesn't present this will finish Fletcher's testimony in this regard. Fletcher also claimed the cartridges, bullets produced oil and wax upon firearm discharge which he expected to find on SC's nightdress. Again if this doesn't present upon firearm discharge this will finish off another aspect of Fletcher's testimony. Elliot claimed lead on swabs taken from testees hands after loading cartridges into mag was higher than swabs taken from SC's. Again if the test is repeated and testees hands show no lead or similar levels to swabs taken from SC it will finish off Elliot's testimony in this regard.
It would need to be proven that Bambers case WAS affected by such failures - you're forgetting innocent until proven guilty.
Yes of course and I believe it will as above. Where incompetence or wrongdoing exists it takes someone or something to shine a bright light on it. The financial crisis was a mixture of incompetence and wrongdoing which only really hit home when Lehman Bros collapsed and RBS was about to run out of cash. Other examples are VW emission rigging, phone hacking and child sex abuse by the likes of Savile. They are able to fall under the radar for years and sometimes decades and then whoosh they're exposed warts n all!
Malcolm Fletcher's experience extended beyond having an air rifle as a small boy. Any court would take a dim view rightly or wrongly) of questioning and experts credentials in such a manner
Yes at trial Fletcher claimed his relevant experience amounted to 13 years in the firearms dept and "a small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy". It will be sufficient to undermine Fletcher's tests and up to the authorities to address any incompetence and/or wrongdoing.
No doubt in my mind the fall out from this case will be massive.
-
I think it is possible to repeat the tests on a like-for-like basis to determine whether or not jurors were misled. The cartridges are precision engineered and weighed in grains (a grain = 0.0648 gram so gives some idea of the precision. As I see it nothing could be simpler and more straight-forward.
If testees load cartridges into mag and black discolouration doesn't present this will finish Fletcher's testimony in this regard. Fletcher also claimed the cartridges, bullets produced oil and wax upon firearm discharge which he expected to find on SC's nightdress. Again if this doesn't present upon firearm discharge this will finish off another aspect of Fletcher's testimony. Elliot claimed lead on swabs taken from testees hands after loading cartridges into mag was higher than swabs taken from SC's. Again if the test is repeated and testees hands show no lead or similar levels to swabs taken from SC it will finish off Elliot's testimony in this regard.
Yes of course and I believe it will as above. Where incompetence or wrongdoing exists it takes someone or something to shine a bright light on it. The financial crisis was a mixture of incompetence and wrongdoing which only really hit home when Lehman Bros collapsed and RBS was about to run out of cash. Other examples are VW emission rigging, phone hacking and child sex abuse by the likes of Savile. They are able to fall under the radar for years and sometimes decades and then whoosh they're exposed warts n all!
Yes at trial Fletcher claimed his relevant experience amounted to 13 years in the firearms dept and "a small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy". It will be sufficient to undermine Fletcher's tests and up to the authorities to address any incompetence and/or wrongdoing.
No doubt in my mind the fall out from this case will be massive.
Holly, if you're paying for this, it's your money but, you'd be better spending it on yourself. I honestly do wish you good luck though. Least you have the courage of your convictions (pardon the pun).
-
Would have thought if Bamber was innocent it would have been proved by now.
He's been protesting his innocence for 33 years. Backed 24/7 by lawyers, websites, authors, MP's & Campaign teams. Even Nugs said he is doing outside work.
However the Jeremy Bamber forum, which is 'pro' Bamber, has supporters spending most of their time fire fighting incriminating evidence rather than showing how he is innocent.
-
Holly, if you're paying for this, it's your money but, you'd be better spending it on yourself. I honestly do wish you good luck though. Least you have the courage of your convictions (pardon the pun).
But I haven't got any convictions!
These points are minor in relation to the blood and silencer and at best can only ever form secondary points to an appeal.
As part of the 1989 appeal, when Rivlin was still running with the mixed blood theory, he suggested the flake of blood would not withstand the environment within the silencer eg hot gasses etc. I'm sure you will recall the mixed blood theory involves a theory whereby blood spattered back from NB and June's gsw's and/or the beating NB sustained resulting in combined blood group test results which match SC's blood group test results as a stand alone. To demonstrate this wasn't so FSS claimed it placed blood within a number of silencers, discharged the same rifle 25 times and claimed the blood wasn't compromised in that it was still able to produce blood group test results. This is at odds with all other forensic literature and to my mind tells me there was something wrong at the lab. Bearing in mind blood serology testing requires a good quality sample. Blasting 25 bullets through the silencer with the accompanying hot gases would obliterate any blood.
I don't think FSS was run by forensic scientists as we know them today. Rather it housed a bunch of guys (and they were mainly guys) with science degrees eg biology, chemistry and made it up on the hoof in an attempt to show whatever the police were looking for.
-
Would have thought if Bamber was innocent it would have been proved by now.
He's been protesting his innocence for 33 years. Backed 24/7 by lawyers, websites, authors, MP's & Campaign teams. Even Nugs said he is doing outside work.
However the Jeremy Bamber forum, which is 'pro' Bamber, has supporters spending most of their time fire fighting incriminating evidence rather than showing how he is innocent.
These things run deep like financial crisis and child sex abuse scandals. Often they are flagged up by the minority years before the proverbial s**t hits the fan but their concerns are brushed aside by the powers that be!
-
IMO those most responsible for JB's plight (if you believe him innocent) are the lawyers both at trial and 1989 and 2002 appeal hearings.
I've already highlighted how MT QC appealed against police officers disturbing soc in kitchen based on hearsay evidence from a police officer whilst overlooking direct evidence from a police officer showing unknown other(s) disturbing soc in bedroom ie SC. Unless SC moved significantly as a result of biological functions post death. The latter was suggested by friends: a former police officer and a former paratrooper. In any event what's important is direct evidence shows SC moved and in all probability the bible and rifle too. Impossible JB was responsible.
The hand swabs took up a significant amount of time at appeal. I accept gun crime is low in UK but it isn't unheard of. Surely Terzeon, Rivlin, Lawson, Turner and Duck between them had some experience? Or if they didn't they were able to turn to others who did eg colleagues, forensic scientists. I'm simply dumbfounded how poor it all is.
Hand swabs were taken from SC at 3.15pm on 7th Aug using a special kit for capturing gunshot residue. They were submitted to lab on 9th but returned to EP as they were sent in with an unrelated firearm which was thought to present a risk of contamination. Even if this wasn't so the swabs presented numerous other issues:
GSR dissipates after a few hours which is exacerbated upon movement. DI Cook moved SC's hand for DC Bird to photograph underneath.
DC Hammersley placed SC's hands in bags. The bags were not examined. SC was then placed in a body bag and moved to the path lab. DC Hammersley then swabbed SC's hands approx 3.15pm.
Even if GSR presented the prosecution could argue SC was found in a room where a firearm had been discharged numerous times including twice over her body with her hand in contact with the rifle.
The presence or absence of GSR could be argued either way and could never provide anything meaningful.
As I said above a special swabbing kit was used to capture GSR which I understand is invisible to the naked eye and contains particles unique to firearm discharge residue in that the particles contain materials used in the cartridges. To qualify as GSR particles have to contain a number of the materials used in the manufacture of the cartridges.
In his infinite wisdom FSS scientist, Brian Elliot, took it upon himself to test the swabs for lead in an attempt to link SC's hands with the handling of cartridges. Surely everyone can see this simply isn't possible to do for a number of reasons:
- GSR presents on a shooters hand/person/clothes upon firearm discharge. It presents indiscriminately ie covers a wide area so all that is required is a random swipe to capture the fall-out. Attempting to link the hand swabs with handling discriminates in that everyone will handle the cartridges differently ie firmer/lighter touch and hold them in different positions. Consider how people hold a writing pen. Also it would require DC Hammersley and Brian Elliot to swab the hands in exactly the same location and there's no evidence this happened. And all of this is before we even consider lead was present in the atmosphere and everyday items in the mid 80's coupled with other facts ie the very low levels present from SC and testees and the fact control swabs were not taken from testees to determine any lead already on hands.
The results of the hand swab tests do not show it was unlikely SC handled cartridges.
No such test for handling cartridges features in forensic textbooks nor is it offered by forensic service providers.
The lawyers were utterly useless in not picking up on these aspects and yet afaik there's no body, as in organisation, who deals with such complaints?
-
A poster on the Madeleine McCann board uses the following tag:
Accept nothing
Believe no-one
Confirm everything
You might think this was a good starting point for defence lawyers but it seems not in JB's case.
-
To add insult to injury the CoA 2002 appeal states at point 177:
177. At trial Brian Elliott, a scientist from the Home Office Forensic Science Laboratory, gave evidence that the item DRH/33 described as "Swabbing Kit – hands of Sheila Caffell" had been received at the laboratory on 13 September 1985. He said that tests had been carried out for the presence of lead and that only "very low levels of lead have been detected on the two hand swabs".He further reported that tests had been carried out on two members of the laboratory staff who had loaded eighteen cartridges, similar to those used to shoot those who died at White House Farm, into the magazine of the rifle, and "significantly higher levels of lead" had been detected. Clearly if this evidence was right it cast doubt upon Sheila Caffell having loaded the cartridges into the gun and thus to her having killed the others and then herself.
Surely anyone would realise that such a test needs to be carried out on a like-for-like basis not just throwing in "similar" cartridges.
Then at point 187:
"The hands – were swabbed – swabs rejected by the laboratory. Later raised by D/Superintendent Ainsley in conference at the laboratory when the laboratory again stated that it was too costly to do and that it would be expected to show a positive result as the body of Sheila was in a room contaminated by gunfire. D/Superintendent Ainsley made issue that the swabs should be examined and if not done he wished a statement to explain why it had not been done. As a result they were examined and found to be virtually negative of residue, i.e. lead, oil and propellant."
The swabbing kit used to swabs SC's hands was designed to capture the fall-out from firearm discharge ie gunshot residue not lead, oil and propellant. If SC was perp there's no reason her hands would contain lead, oil and propellant.
176. It is necessary to start by examining those parts of the evidence which are not in issue. It is clear that the police from an early stage appreciated the possible significance of the state of Sheila Caffell's hands and of anything that might connect them with the use of the gun. To preserve any available evidence, the hands were covered with plastic bags before the body was removed. When the post-mortem examination of the bodies of Nevill Bamber & Sheila Caffell took place later that day an officer, DC Hammersley, took swabs from the hands of Sheila Caffell using a special kit made for taking samples for testing for firearm residues. He labelled the swabs with the reference DRH/33. There is evidence from which it can be established that these samples were taken at 3.15 p.m. on 7 August.
I just can't get my head round how these people can be so incompetent.
The "special kit" was made specifically for taking samples for testing for firearm residues. PERIOD! Not lead, oil and propellant.
-
I'm beginning to think MT QC's teacher may have been right:
Turner’s mother was given a letter saying her seven-year-old son should go to “a school for the educationally subnormal” but refused to believe it. She took him off to an IQ test, in which he scored highly. “I was – I am – a dyslexic.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9716069/Devils-advocate-Michael-Turner-prepares-for-his-toughest-case.html
-
https://www.forensicmag.com/article/2008/08/controversy-concerning-gunshot-residues-examinations
Fundamentally, GSR examiners are seeking microscopic particles containing lead (Pb), barium (Ba), and antimony (Sb) which, for the purposes of this article, are found uniquely in combination only in the primers of firearms cartridges. A particle composed of PbBaSb, fused together in a single unit, which exhibits the correct morphology (shape and appearance) to an experienced examiner is termed a unique particle. The examination itself consists of computer-controlled scanning electron microscope examinations of samples from suspect areas (commonlysuspect shooter’s hands) to locate the particles coupled with an X-rayanalyzer and an EDS, for energy dispersive analysis of X-rays to determine the elemental composition of the particles.
-
David just for you...
I refute your theory about SC's palm print appearing in/on the bible.
I refute MT QC's theory SC handled the bible and the open pages represented her state of mind.
- The bible belonged to June and was kept in/on her bedside cabinet. June was deeply religious to the point the CoA described it as obsessive. She attended weekly bible classes.
- The bible was collected at soc and given the exhibit number DRH/44. Unlike all other bloodstained exhibits tested at FSS bloodstain test results for the bible were not made available. Of course the defence should have chased up but they didn't.
- Fingerprint testing revealed the following:
52. The Bible found by Sheila Caffell's body, belonged to her mother and was normally kept in a cupboard to the right of her bed. It was examined for fingerprints. Many belonged to June Bamber and there were a small number of insufficient detail for comparison, save for one which appeared to have been made by a small child.
- Bearing in mind we know from A/PS Woodcock's WS that SC was moved between 7.30am - 10.30am we have no precise idea of the bibles found position.
- The pathologist stated SC's palms and fingers were uncontaminated with blood. The reverse was so for June.
- The bible is full of Abrahamic myths with themes along the lines of the open pages. To my mind saying the open pages represent SC's state of mind is akin to the overweight horoscope guy in the tabloids, Russell someone.
- SC wasn't particularly religious. Has she been she would have taken her own bible to WHF
My theory re the bible is that June having sustained gsw's in bed and getting out bed reached for her bible in her hour of need. She walked from her side of the bed to NB's and back where she collapsed. As she started to lose consciousness NB's side of the bed she dropped the bible.
Why do you believe SC sought out the bible and what evidence do you have for this?
-
David "Catty" is calling...
You accued me of being "catty" and "nasty" towards MT QC on the basis he blocked my emails. In response to your accusations I said I would set out my reasons why IMO the 2002 appeal was pants where MT QC was lead counsel. I've posted about the bible - ground 9. Do you have any intention of responding?
-
David just for you...
I refute your theory about SC's palm print appearing in/on the bible.
I refute MT QC's theory SC handled the bible and the open pages represented her state of mind.
- The bible belonged to June and was kept in/on her bedside cabinet. June was deeply religious to the point the CoA described it as obsessive. She attended weekly bible classes.
- The bible was collected at soc and given the exhibit number DRH/44. Unlike all other bloodstained exhibits tested at FSS bloodstain test results for the bible were not made available. Of course the defence should have chased up but they didn't.
- Fingerprint testing revealed the following:
52. The Bible found by Sheila Caffell's body, belonged to her mother and was normally kept in a cupboard to the right of her bed. It was examined for fingerprints. Many belonged to June Bamber and there were a small number of insufficient detail for comparison, save for one which appeared to have been made by a small child.
- Bearing in mind we know from A/PS Woodcock's WS that SC was moved between 7.30am - 10.30am we have no precise idea of the bibles found position.
- The pathologist stated SC's palms and fingers were uncontaminated with blood. The reverse was so for June.
- The bible is full of Abrahamic myths with themes along the lines of the open pages. To my mind saying the open pages represent SC's state of mind is akin to the overweight horoscope guy in the tabloids, Russell someone.
- SC wasn't particularly religious. Has she been she would have taken her own bible to WHF
My theory re the bible is that June having sustained gsw's in bed and getting out bed reached for her bible in her hour of need. She walked from her side of the bed to NB's and back where she collapsed. As she started to lose consciousness NB's side of the bed she dropped the bible.
Why do you believe SC sought out the bible and what evidence do you have for this?
What did Bamber tell the police about the bible when he was questioned under caution and what was his argument at trial regarding this? Nevermind what came later re SC psychiatrist. Psychopaths have a knack at persuading anyone to fall for their manufactured tales. What was Bambers argument at trial?
-
What did Bamber tell the police about the bible when he was questioned under caution and what was his argument at trial regarding this? Nevermind what came later re SC psychiatrist. Psychopaths have a knack at persuading anyone to fall for their manufactured tales. What was Bambers argument at trial?
JB was questioned about the bible during his interviews. He was asked whether he had ever handled it and he said he may have done to hit June's small dog Crispy.
JB's trial transcript doesn't appear to have survived so I don't know what if anything he said about it at trial.
I don't recall reading anything from SC's psychiatrist re the bible but I've only read his WS's not TT.
There's no evidence SC or JB handled the bible. It's the only bloodstained exhibit where the bloodstain test results remain unknown. This is one of the many reasons I say the lawyers and judges were incompetent and negligent in that they all assumed, wrongly IMO, the blood originated from SC. The evidence points to June.
-
The hearing was set out over 522 points as follows:
POINTS ASPECT OF CASE %
1- 174 Background 33.33%
175 - 213 Handswabs Processing 7.47%
214 - 232 Handswabs Tests 3.63% (Total handswabs 11.1%)
233 - 260 Disturbance Kitchen by EP 5.36%
261 - 288 Windows 5.36%
289 - 330 Timing tel call - JM 8.04%
331 - 366 Credibility of JM 6.89% (Total JM 14.55%)
367 - 377 Letter from CC 2.10%
378 - 391 WS of CC 2.68%
392 - 404 Photo "I hate this place" 2.49%
405 - 421 Bible 3.25%
422 - 427 Inheritance 1.14%
428 Porsche 0.19%
429 - 443 Tel Kitchen 2.87%
444 - 451 Scars on hands 1.53%
452 - 475 Blood inside silencer 4.59%
476 - 508 DNA 6.32% (Total silencer 10.91%)
509 - 511 Police misconduct 0.57%
512 - 520 Conclusion by judges incl call
for fresh evidence by prosc re
SC moved in bedroom 1.72%
521 - 522 General Observation by judges 0.38%
The background of this case cannot be erased. No amount of mathematical equations will minus out the fact that Jeremy Bamber was responsible for what he told police both when outside WHF, during police questioning, to witnesses and during his trial.
All subsequent theories have not been able to break down the back story that makes up the case of Jeremy Bamber.
-
JB was questioned about the bible during his interviews. He was asked whether he had ever handled it and he said he may have done to hit June's small dog Crispy.
JB's trial transcript doesn't appear to have survived so I don't know what if anything he said about it at trial.
I don't recall reading anything from SC's psychiatrist re the bible but I've only read his WS's not TT.
There's no evidence SC or JB handled the bible. It's the only bloodstained exhibit where the bloodstain test results remain unknown. This is one of the many reasons I say the lawyers and judges were incompetent and negligent in that they all assumed, wrongly IMO, the blood originated from SC. The evidence points to June.
Put aside your theories and focus on Bambers. Focus on the people he persuaded to hear his manufactured version of events. Go back to the beginning and look at the times and dates of those people he slowly started to hook in with his lies.
Whether you like it or not Holly, Bamber was responsible for his 2002 appeal. His legal team were working for him. You can make all the excuses you like and blame his legal teams for failing to put forward certain points, same applies with the CCRC.
I recall when the CCRC referred Simon Hall's case back in 2009. There was a disputes between Campbell Malone and Michael Naughton. I was in the middle of it all, wrongly believing Hall was innocent. The dispute came up again at the COA in 2010. It was about the knife evidence, which the CCRC hadn't referred on.
Bottom line Holly, sometimes all is not as it seems. I'm not suggesting you are clueless btw but without Bamber being open, honest and as transparent as he expect all other parties to be, ultimately you are only working with part of the story.
"Private Eye in November 2009, made public that other evidence which could positively prove Simon Hall’s innocence was uncovered by the University of Bristol Innocence Project investigation. This relates to another burglary which occurred on the night of Joan Albert’s murder, just ten minutes away from where she lived.
"Crucially, students uncovered a statement by a witness, who did not give evidence at trial, who identified the murder weapon as similar, if not identical, to the one that had gone missing from the burgled house: it had the same colour handle, length of blade and rivets on the knife handle. Simon Hall, who has evidence that he was out all night with his friends on the night/morning of Joan Albert’s murder could not have committed the burglary and obtain the knife which could have been used to kill her.
"In addition, the schedule of unused material made reference to DNA profile(s) belonging to ‘more than one person’ that were found on the handle of the knife. This DNA evidence has never been disclosed, despite requests from Simon Hall’s original defence solicitor. It is our contention that if it incriminated Simon Hall the DNA profile(s) would have been disclosed and used at trial by the prosecution.
"However, within weeks of the University of Bristol Innocence Project highlighting the existence of this evidence, the Criminal Cases Review Commission announced that it was referring his case back to the Court of Appeal on grounds of the possible unreliability of the fibre evidence.
"But, the Criminal Cases Review Commission did not fully investigate the possible evidential value of the DNA profile(s) and the witness who identified the murder weapon prior to referring Mr Hall’s case.
"This undoubtedly diminished the possible impact that the evidence could have had on the appeal had it been fully explored. As such, although the evidence of the knife and burglary was included as a supplementary ground of appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, it is perhaps not surprising that it did not feature at all in Simon Hall’s appeal.
"The failure to fully investigate the DNA profile(s) and the identification of the murder weapon as stolen from the other burglary highlights the extent to which the criminal justice system is not concerned with innocence or guilt.
"The Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Court of Appeal generally only consider evidence that was not available or adduced at the time of the trial or in previous appeals. Under the existing system the evidence relating to the other burglary will not be able to be used in any subsequent applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission or feature in any future appeals.
"Until such time as the criminal justice system takes claims of innocence seriously and seeks the truth of whether alleged victims of wrongful convictions are innocent or not, it seems that the door is closed on the evidence which could exonerate Simon Hall entirely and potentially even lead to the conviction of the real perpetrator(s) of Joan Albert’s murder." https://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2010/7432.html
The innocent project were wrong.
Michael Naughton was wrong.
The CCRC were wrong.
Tiernan Coyle was wrong.
I was wrong.
Private Eye were wrong
Ray Hollinswoth was wrong.
Many people were wrong.
Simon Hall was guilty. He wasn't involved in the Higham burglary because he was too busy with his mate elsewhere burgling Zenith. What many of us had presumed regarding the knife evidence was wrong. The knife found at the murder scene had not been stolen. It came from the kitchen drawer of Hall's victim.
And as I've said numerous times before, until such time that Michael Naughton and all those others who were conned admit to having been conned and go back and revise their public claims, Jeremy Bambers supporters and many other supporters of many other claims of innocence will be working on the misleading (factually wrong) statements of others.
I ask again what does Jeremy Bamber say about the bible? I'm not interested in hearing from those people he has persuaded to come up with theories relating to it. What did he say when he was facing a murder charge. What did he say during his trial. What did his defence team at trial put forward?
-
David just for you...
I refute your theory about SC's palm print appearing in/on the bible.
I refute MT QC's theory SC handled the bible and the open pages represented her state of mind.
- The bible belonged to June and was kept in/on her bedside cabinet. June was deeply religious to the point the CoA described it as obsessive. She attended weekly bible classes.
- The bible was collected at soc and given the exhibit number DRH/44. Unlike all other bloodstained exhibits tested at FSS bloodstain test results for the bible were not made available. Of course the defence should have chased up but they didn't.
- Fingerprint testing revealed the following:
52. The Bible found by Sheila Caffell's body, belonged to her mother and was normally kept in a cupboard to the right of her bed. It was examined for fingerprints. Many belonged to June Bamber and there were a small number of insufficient detail for comparison, save for one which appeared to have been made by a small child.
- Bearing in mind we know from A/PS Woodcock's WS that SC was moved between 7.30am - 10.30am we have no precise idea of the bibles found position.
- The pathologist stated SC's palms and fingers were uncontaminated with blood. The reverse was so for June.
- The bible is full of Abrahamic myths with themes along the lines of the open pages. To my mind saying the open pages represent SC's state of mind is akin to the overweight horoscope guy in the tabloids, Russell someone.
- SC wasn't particularly religious. Has she been she would have taken her own bible to WHF
My theory re the bible is that June having sustained gsw's in bed and getting out bed reached for her bible in her hour of need. She walked from her side of the bed to NB's and back where she collapsed. As she started to lose consciousness NB's side of the bed she dropped the bible.
Why do you believe SC sought out the bible and what evidence do you have for this?
David are you going to respond to the above?
-
David just for you...
I refute your theory about SC's palm print appearing in/on the bible.
I refute MT QC's theory SC handled the bible and the open pages represented her state of mind.
- The bible belonged to June and was kept in/on her bedside cabinet. June was deeply religious to the point the CoA described it as obsessive. She attended weekly bible classes.
- The bible was collected at soc and given the exhibit number DRH/44. Unlike all other bloodstained exhibits tested at FSS bloodstain test results for the bible were not made available. Of course the defence should have chased up but they didn't.
- Fingerprint testing revealed the following:
52. The Bible found by Sheila Caffell's body, belonged to her mother and was normally kept in a cupboard to the right of her bed. It was examined for fingerprints. Many belonged to June Bamber and there were a small number of insufficient detail for comparison, save for one which appeared to have been made by a small child.
- Bearing in mind we know from A/PS Woodcock's WS that SC was moved between 7.30am - 10.30am we have no precise idea of the bibles found position.
- The pathologist stated SC's palms and fingers were uncontaminated with blood. The reverse was so for June.
- The bible is full of Abrahamic myths with themes along the lines of the open pages. To my mind saying the open pages represent SC's state of mind is akin to the overweight horoscope guy in the tabloids, Russell someone.
- SC wasn't particularly religious. Has she been she would have taken her own bible to WHF
My theory re the bible is that June having sustained gsw's in bed and getting out bed reached for her bible in her hour of need. She walked from her side of the bed to NB's and back where she collapsed. As she started to lose consciousness NB's side of the bed she dropped the bible.
Why do you believe SC sought out the bible and what evidence do you have for this?
You're wrong. I have already given you the reasons why, and nothing has changed since. No need to reiterate.
-
David are you going to respond to the above?
Done
-
David re your claim MT QC simply run with EL's theory DCI Ainsley used the kitchen tel thus inadvertently removing blood from NB. I have posted up on the other thread that barristers are duty bound to put up the best defence case for the lay person (client) irrespective of any other person(s) or organisation. Your excuses for MT that he was taking up the mantle and acting on instructions from others simply don't hold.
Ground 12, point 429:
MT QC claims DCI Ainsley inadvertently removed blood from the kitchen phone are nonsense:
- NB sustained 8 gsw's. The 4 to his head individually or collectively immobilised him meaning he must have sustained the upstairs gsw's first. We know he sustained 4 gsw's upstairs based on casings. The two gsw's he sustained to his lip and jaw meant he was unable to engage in purposeful speech thereafter. How did he then call and speak to JB having sustained the gsw's upstairs? There was no trace of blood found on the phone. A careful read of the pathology reports, casing layout diagram, layout of WHF and bloodstain test results makes clear:
- NB was first shot on landing approaching main bedroom probably having come from kitchen cutting short the call to JB.
So why did MT argue point 12 as he did?
-
You're wrong. I have already given you the reasons why, and nothing has changed since. No need to reiterate.
Please refer me to the post. Thanks Holly.
-
David re your claim MT QC simply run with EL's theory DCI Ainsley used the kitchen tel thus inadvertently removing blood from NB. I have posted up on the other thread that barristers are duty bound to put up the best defence case for the lay person (client) irrespective of any other person(s) or organisation. Your excuses for MT that he was taking up the mantle and acting on instructions from others simply don't hold.
Ground 12, point 429:
MT QC claims DCI Ainsley inadvertently removed blood from the kitchen phone are nonsense:
- NB sustained 8 gsw's. The 4 to his head individually or collectively immobilised him meaning he must have sustained the upstairs gsw's first. We know he sustained 4 gsw's upstairs based on casings. The two gsw's he sustained to his lip and jaw meant he was unable to engage in purposeful speech thereafter. How did he then call and speak to JB having sustained the gsw's upstairs? There was no trace of blood found on the phone. A careful read of the pathology reports, casing layout diagram, layout of WHF and bloodstain test results makes clear:
- NB was first shot on landing approaching main bedroom probably having come from kitchen cutting short the call to JB.
So why did MT argue point 12 as he did?
Because Jeremy Bamber told him to.
-
But I haven't got any convictions!
These points are minor in relation to the blood and silencer and at best can only ever form secondary points to an appeal.
As part of the 1989 appeal, when Rivlin was still running with the mixed blood theory, he suggested the flake of blood would not withstand the environment within the silencer eg hot gasses etc. I'm sure you will recall the mixed blood theory involves a theory whereby blood spattered back from NB and June's gsw's and/or the beating NB sustained resulting in combined blood group test results which match SC's blood group test results as a stand alone. To demonstrate this wasn't so FSS claimed it placed blood within a number of silencers, discharged the same rifle 25 times and claimed the blood wasn't compromised in that it was still able to produce blood group test results. This is at odds with all other forensic literature and to my mind tells me there was something wrong at the lab. Bearing in mind blood serology testing requires a good quality sample. Blasting 25 bullets through the silencer with the accompanying hot gases would obliterate any blood.
I don't think FSS was run by forensic scientists as we know them today. Rather it housed a bunch of guys (and they were mainly guys) with science degrees eg biology, chemistry and made it up on the hoof in an attempt to show whatever the police were looking for.
There were many women also working for the FSS Holly and you don't have proof for the claims you have made.
Your comment "I don't this FSS was run by forensic scientist as we know them today" does not make sense. After the FSS disbanded, many of the experts went off and set up on their own and are still practicing in their fields of work today.
-
I'm beginning to think MT QC's teacher may have been right:
Turner’s mother was given a letter saying her seven-year-old son should go to “a school for the educationally subnormal” but refused to believe it. She took him off to an IQ test, in which he scored highly. “I was – I am – a dyslexic.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9716069/Devils-advocate-Michael-Turner-prepares-for-his-toughest-case.html
You appear to be cherry picking Holly.
"But he has also represented the likes of Jeremy Bamber, who on Thursday lost his latest appeal against a whole-term life sentence for the murder of five relatives. So what is it like to stand up in court and plead the case for a killer?
“Everybody asks me that,” says this expert cross-examiner, looking sternly over the top of his half-moon glasses. “The answer is that you don’t know if someone’s guilty. You take instructions from your client. You think: 'Oh no, this sounds really unlikely.’ Then you test it and find out that what he says might actually be true. A jury might believe him. So you give it everything you’ve got.”
Does he believe Bamber is innocent? “Passionately.”
Not that he always has to believe that. “It’s not my job to believe my client. It’s my job to represent him
His ability to pull apart the evidence, then put an argument with a combination of tact, charm and brutal directness is one reason why thousands of criminal lawyers have chosen him as their own advocate. The newly elected chairman of the Criminal Bar Association promises to lead a battle against the proposed reform of Legal Aid."
.
I've no idea what the score is between you and David but if I were you, I would stop doing Jeremy Bambers bidding. It could land you in a whole heap of trouble.
I'm presuming MT QC blocked you because you were harassing him? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
If Bambers thinks the things you think then let Bamber deal with it. Don't go getting involved with something you do not have the full picture on. You have no idea of what went on between MT QC and Bamber around the time of his trial.
I think you should read up on dyslexia. In the past, many gifted students were let down due to schools and teachers lack of knowledge and understanding of the needs of their pupils, especially those with with dyslexia.
-
Done
As is the case of Jeremy Bamber!
"Lord Justice Kay said that for a number of reasons the court had concluded "that the jury's verdicts were safe". He pointed out that it was not the function of the court to decide whether or not the appellant committed the murders. The judge said: "We do not doubt the safety of the verdicts and we have recorded in our judgment the fact that the more we examined the detail of the case, the more likely we thought it to be that the jury were right, although as explained we can never go further than that." https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/dec/12/ukcrimel
Defence counsel, Michael Turner QC, told the judges during the hearing that there had been "many compelling points" in his favour at trial supporting his case that he did not "assassinate" his entire adoptive family, but that they were killed by his sister before she committed suicide.
It was also argued that evidence was "deliberately withheld so as to unfairly bolster the prosecution's case and secure a conviction".
But Victor Temple QC, opposing the appeal, told the judges that the Crown's principal submission was "that there has been no evidence placed before your lordships to enable this court to doubt the safety of these convictions".
Mr Temple told the judges: "At the end of the day nought plus nought equals nought and if that is right ... these convictions for murder remain safe and we would invite you to uphold these convictions."
-
Put aside your theories and focus on Bambers. Focus on the people he persuaded to hear his manufactured version of events. Go back to the beginning and look at the times and dates of those people he slowly started to hook in with his lies.
Whether you like it or not Holly, Bamber was responsible for his 2002 appeal. His legal team were working for him. You can make all the excuses you like and blame his legal teams for failing to put forward certain points, same applies with the CCRC.
I recall when the CCRC referred Simon Hall's case back in 2009. There was a disputes between Campbell Malone and Michael Naughton. I was in the middle of it all, wrongly believing Hall was innocent. The dispute came up again at the COA in 2010. It was about the knife evidence, which the CCRC hadn't referred on.
Bottom line Holly, sometimes all is not as it seems. I'm not suggesting you are clueless btw but without Bamber being open, honest and as transparent as he expect all other parties to be, ultimately you are only working with part of the story.
"Private Eye in November 2009, made public that other evidence which could positively prove Simon Hall’s innocence was uncovered by the University of Bristol Innocence Project investigation. This relates to another burglary which occurred on the night of Joan Albert’s murder, just ten minutes away from where she lived.
"Crucially, students uncovered a statement by a witness, who did not give evidence at trial, who identified the murder weapon as similar, if not identical, to the one that had gone missing from the burgled house: it had the same colour handle, length of blade and rivets on the knife handle. Simon Hall, who has evidence that he was out all night with his friends on the night/morning of Joan Albert’s murder could not have committed the burglary and obtain the knife which could have been used to kill her.
"In addition, the schedule of unused material made reference to DNA profile(s) belonging to ‘more than one person’ that were found on the handle of the knife. This DNA evidence has never been disclosed, despite requests from Simon Hall’s original defence solicitor. It is our contention that if it incriminated Simon Hall the DNA profile(s) would have been disclosed and used at trial by the prosecution.
"However, within weeks of the University of Bristol Innocence Project highlighting the existence of this evidence, the Criminal Cases Review Commission announced that it was referring his case back to the Court of Appeal on grounds of the possible unreliability of the fibre evidence.
"But, the Criminal Cases Review Commission did not fully investigate the possible evidential value of the DNA profile(s) and the witness who identified the murder weapon prior to referring Mr Hall’s case.
"This undoubtedly diminished the possible impact that the evidence could have had on the appeal had it been fully explored. As such, although the evidence of the knife and burglary was included as a supplementary ground of appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, it is perhaps not surprising that it did not feature at all in Simon Hall’s appeal.
"The failure to fully investigate the DNA profile(s) and the identification of the murder weapon as stolen from the other burglary highlights the extent to which the criminal justice system is not concerned with innocence or guilt.
"The Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Court of Appeal generally only consider evidence that was not available or adduced at the time of the trial or in previous appeals. Under the existing system the evidence relating to the other burglary will not be able to be used in any subsequent applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission or feature in any future appeals.
"Until such time as the criminal justice system takes claims of innocence seriously and seeks the truth of whether alleged victims of wrongful convictions are innocent or not, it seems that the door is closed on the evidence which could exonerate Simon Hall entirely and potentially even lead to the conviction of the real perpetrator(s) of Joan Albert’s murder." https://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2010/7432.html
The innocent project were wrong.
Michael Naughton was wrong.
The CCRC were wrong.
Tiernan Coyle was wrong.
I was wrong.
Private Eye were wrong
Ray Hollinswoth was wrong.
Many people were wrong.
Simon Hall was guilty. He wasn't involved in the Higham burglary because he was too busy with his mate elsewhere burgling Zenith. What many of us had presumed regarding the knife evidence was wrong. The knife found at the murder scene had not been stolen. It came from the kitchen drawer of Hall's victim.
And as I've said numerous times before, until such time that Michael Naughton and all those others who were conned admit to having been conned and go back and revise their public claims, Jeremy Bambers supporters and many other supporters of many other claims of innocence will be working on the misleading (factually wrong) statements of others.
I ask again what does Jeremy Bamber say about the bible? I'm not interested in hearing from those people he has persuaded to come up with theories relating to it. What did he say when he was facing a murder charge. What did he say during his trial. What did his defence team at trial out forward?
I should have added the following; taken from the 2002 COA judgement
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html
"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.
"General observations
We would finally wish to make two general observations before leaving the case. The first is to pay tribute to the industry and efficiency of all concerned with the presentation to the court of this appeal. There is now a mountain of paperwork that relates to these matters but as a result of co-operation between the two sides the relevant documentation was marshalled together in a way that provided us with the maximum assistance in understanding the points to be made by each side. For that we are very grateful just as we are for way in which argument was presented orally by both Mr Turner and Mr Temple. Without these advantages this case would have taken up more of the court's time than it did.
In this regard there is one further observation that we feel compelled to make. That is that it seems to us that there is a significant deficiency in the statutory framework that provides for a reference by the CCRC to this court of a matter. We have no difficulty at all with the concept that there should be a machinery to review potential miscarriages of justice, where no other avenue of appeal remains. Once a matter has been referred to this court it is clearly right that the court should fully consider those matters that have caused the case to be referred by the CCRC. However, it does seem remarkable to us that the appellant, following a referral to the court, is then entitled to raise any matter he wishes as a ground of appeal without either it having been deemed worthy of consideration by the CCRC or the leave of the court having first been obtained. We have no doubt that some of the matters that occupied the time of the court raised on behalf of the appellant were of such little merit that the court would, if it had power, have refused leave to argue them. As a result notwithstanding the economical advocacy of counsel and the efficient preparation of the case, the case lasted some days longer than could be justified by some of the points that were taken. We would not want to see an appellant shut out from trying to raise a point following a referral but we can see no justification for not having the filter present in such circumstances of requiring leave to raise additional matters to those referred by the CCRC that is present in all other appeals brought by a convicted person. The Court of Appeal Criminal Division is pressed to deal sufficiently expeditiously with the caseload that it has and time unnecessarily wasted means that cases where the court subsequently determines that someone is wrongly detained in prison are delayed. We hope that thought will be given to making this relatively modest change to the legislation that would enable the court to make more efficient use of its time.
-
Further:
Serious allegations of impropriety, dishonesty and conspiracy against police involved in the Jeremy Bamber case had "no substance whatever" to back them up, the Court of Appeal heard today.
Victor Temple QC, for the Crown, told three judges hearing Bamber's appeal against conviction for the murders of five members of his adoptive family, that once the court looked closely at the allegations "the entire edifice crumbles to nothing".
Bamber, now 41, who is serving life for the murders at White House Farm, Tolleshunt D'Arcy, Essex, in August 1985, is urging the judges to overturn his convictions as "unsafe".
He claims that the case against him was built on a series of "deceits" by police and that certain evidence was withheld in order to unfairly bolster the prosecution case.
Mr Temple, rejecting the allegations on the 11th day of the hearing before Lord Justice Kay, Mr Justice Wright and Mr Justice Henriques in London, said that Bamber's counsel, Michael Turner QC "was seeking to swim in an empty sea".
He said that Mr Turner was seeking to base "very serious allegations of impropriety, dishonesty and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice" on no more than slack paperwork, double hearsay and strained constructions on documentary evidence.
Mr Temple added: "There is no substance whatever to back these allegations up."
Bamber, who is present in the dock for the hearing, regularly passed notes to his legal team.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-145437/No-substance-Bamber-case-claims-says-QC.html#ixzz5CxWyRpST
-
Or this:
But Mr Temple said that Bamber's counsel, Michael Turner QC, "was seeking to swim in an empty sea".
He said Mr Turner was seeking to base "very serious allegations of impropriety, dishonesty and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice" on no more than slack paperwork, double hearsay and strained constructions on documentary evidence.
Mr Temple added: "There is no substance whatever to back these allegations up."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2381707.stm
If you're an incompetent and negligent defence lawyer at appeal you will get severely drubbed as MT QC was.
Despite every aspect of the appeal failing miserably David still holds dear with most of it and thinks MT QC put up a good defence. David thinks MT QC should represent JB at a third appeal.
David I think there's a new member on IA by the name of Pussy Catty Galore who has recently responded to your last post.
-
David re your claim MT QC simply run with EL's theory DCI Ainsley used the kitchen tel thus inadvertently removing blood from NB. I have posted up on the other thread that barristers are duty bound to put up the best defence case for the lay person (client) irrespective of any other person(s) or organisation. Your excuses for MT that he was taking up the mantle and acting on instructions from others simply don't hold.
Ground 12, point 429:
MT QC claims DCI Ainsley inadvertently removed blood from the kitchen phone are nonsense:
- NB sustained 8 gsw's. The 4 to his head individually or collectively immobilised him meaning he must have sustained the upstairs gsw's first. We know he sustained 4 gsw's upstairs based on casings. The two gsw's he sustained to his lip and jaw meant he was unable to engage in purposeful speech thereafter. How did he then call and speak to JB having sustained the gsw's upstairs? There was no trace of blood found on the phone. A careful read of the pathology reports, casing layout diagram, layout of WHF and bloodstain test results makes clear:
- NB was first shot on landing approaching main bedroom probably having come from kitchen cutting short the call to JB.
so why did MT argue point 12 as he did?
Ask Bamber Holly. I guarantee you Michael Turner QC will have a note stored away somewhere in his archives with Bambers written instructions relating not only to this point but all other points.
It's Jeremy Bambers nonsense, no one else's!
You do not appear to understand how these things work?
-
Or this:
But Mr Temple said that Bamber's counsel, Michael Turner QC, "was seeking to swim in an empty sea".
He said Mr Turner was seeking to base "very serious allegations of impropriety, dishonesty and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice" on no more than slack paperwork, double hearsay and strained constructions on documentary evidence.
Mr Temple added: "There is no substance whatever to back these allegations up."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2381707.stm
If you're an incompetent and negligent defence lawyer at appeal you will get severely drubbed as MT QC was.
Despite every aspect of the appeal failing miserably David still holds dear with most of it and thinks MT QC put up a good defence. David thinks MT QC should represent JB at a third appeal.
Michael Turner QC appears to have gone above and beyond the call of duty for his client Holly.
The incompetence and negligence to which you refer lay squarely at the feet of Jeremy Bamber. He was represented by one of the best Holly.
Again, you come across as extremely naive and gullible and quite clearly do not have a basic understanding of the workings of the criminal justice system.
There won't be a third appeal!
And if you bothered to read and absorb the "General Observarions" of the judgement, you will recognise the bar was set high; sky high I'd say. Bamber, as usual, took the pi*s!
-
This just goes to show how futile any appeal is in this case imo. I have seen nothing revealed since the last appeal which has changed that situation so I find the possibility of any further hearing extremely remote.
Do you have any view as to Holly's contention Nevill was shot coming up the stairs?
If this can be proved to be the only forensic solution would this be new evidence?
I have read the official crime reconstruction by the police claiming he was shot in the bedroom.
Maybe there is a crime solution having JB shooting Nevill coming up the stairs.
I had never heard of the case in 2002, but if I had, I would be mystified why the COA were not obliged to address such a basic logistical matter in denying the appeal.
-
Do you have any view as to Holly's contention Nevill was shot coming up the stairs?
If this can be proved to be the only forensic solution would this be new evidence?
I have read the official crime reconstruction by the police claiming he was shot in the bedroom.
Maybe there is a crime solution having JB shooting Nevill coming up the stairs.
I had never heard of the case in 2002, but if I had, I would be mystified why the COA were not obliged to address such a basic logistical matter in denying the appeal.
It will enable the defence to argue Nevill rang Jeremy before getting shot.
Prosecution argue that lack of blood on phone shows the phone call did not happen.
-
It will enable the defence to argue Nevill rang Jeremy before getting shot.
Prosecution argue that lack of blood on phone shows the phone call did not happen.
There is only one thing to say at the COA obviously, he was shot after using the phone.
It is too obvious for words what actually happened, but I am happy to be shown the true way of the prosecution.
-
It will enable the defence to argue Nevill rang Jeremy before getting shot.
Prosecution argue that lack of blood on phone shows the phone call did not happen.
And the evidence to argue such was available at trial and 89 and 02 appeal hearings.
All it took was someone to connect a few dots all of which can be found in the most pertinent case related docs.
Where was the "cleverest of the clever" and the one who can "secure a result like no other"?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/law-obituaries/5309767/Edmund-Lawson-QC.html
https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/barrister/michael-turner-qc/
David can you explain why it didn't happen please. Thanks. Holly.
-
There is only one thing to say at the COA obviously, he was shot after using the phone.
It is too obvious for words what actually happened, but I am happy to be shown the true way of the prosecution.
To date JB hasn't had a competent defence in court fighting his corner. If he accepts my proposals this will all change as I will be hand selecting the lawyers.
-
To date JB hasn't had a competent defence in court fighting his corner. If he accepts my proposals this will all change as I will be hand selecting the lawyers.
I disagree and as I've pointed out previously, it was Bamber who instructed his lawyers.
Out of interest, hypothetically speaking, what would you tell the lawyers once you've hand selected them?
-
And the evidence to argue such was available at trial and 89 and 02 appeal hearings.
All it took was someone to connect a few dots all of which can be found in the most pertinent case related docs.
Where was the "cleverest of the clever" and the one who can "secure a result like no other"?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/law-obituaries/5309767/Edmund-Lawson-QC.html
https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/barrister/michael-turner-qc/
David can you explain why it didn't happen please. Thanks. Holly.
To date JB hasn't had a competent defence in court fighting his corner. If he accepts my proposals this will all change as I will be hand selecting the lawyers.
Are you suggesting you are the "cleverest of the clever" and the one who can "secure a result like no other," or have I misunderstood you?
-
And the evidence to argue such was available at trial and 89 and 02 appeal hearings.
All it took was someone to connect a few dots all of which can be found in the most pertinent case related docs.
Where was the "cleverest of the clever" and the one who can "secure a result like no other"?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/law-obituaries/5309767/Edmund-Lawson-QC.html
https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/barrister/michael-turner-qc/
David can you explain why it didn't happen please. Thanks. Holly.
The perceived "cleverest of the clever," the one who has banged on about being innocent and will be out of prison this year, last year, the year before that etc etc, the one who has claimed he will "secure a result like no other" was too busy passing notes to his legal team and obviously must have taken his eye off the ball?
He only has himself to blame Holly!
His grandiose sense of self has betrayed him
-
It will enable the defence to argue Nevill rang Jeremy before getting shot.
Prosecution argue that lack of blood on phone shows the phone call did not happen.
There is only one thing to say at the COA obviously, he was shot after using the phone.
It is too obvious for words what actually happened, but I am happy to be shown the true way of the prosecution.
You are both cherry picking and clearly ignoring crucial facts, for example, Julie Mugfords evidence
-
Are you suggesting you are the "cleverest of the clever" and the one who can "secure a result like no other," or have I misunderstood you?
You don't need to be any of these things to demolish the prosecution case against JB.
-
You don't need to be any of these things to demolish the prosecution case against JB.
So why did you say it? I'm confused?
Are you then suggesting Jeremy Bamber is a plank?
-
So why did you say it? I'm confused?
Are you then suggesting Jeremy Bamber is a plank?
I'm saying JB's past defence teams have been planks despite all the fanfare.
-
Done
Where? Can you link me to the post please?
-
You're wrong. I have already given you the reasons why, and nothing has changed since. No need to reiterate.
Please provide the link. Thanks.
-
And the evidence to argue such was available at trial and 89 and 02 appeal hearings.
If it was available at trial like you say then it is inadmissible for grounds of appeal at 89 and 02 as you already know.
The only way round that is to either argue "cleverest of the clever" was inept and thus fair trial impossible or wait until our legal system takes a more inquisitorial approach and widen the criteria for appeals (which it is slowly doing)
-
If it was available at trial like you say then it is inadmissible for grounds of appeal at 89 and 02 as you already know.
The only way round that is to either argue "cleverest of the clever" was inept and thus fair trial impossible or wait until our legal system takes a more inquisitorial approach and widen the criteria for appeals (which it is slowly doing)
You are a fantasist
-
If it was available at trial like you say then it is inadmissible for grounds of appeal at 89 and 02 as you already know.
The only way round that is to either argue "cleverest of the clever" was inept and thus fair trial impossible or wait until our legal system takes a more inquisitorial approach and widen the criteria for appeals (which it is slowly doing)
David please stop trying to make out you're some legal hot shot when you're anything but.
You misunderstand "fresh evidence". If new tests on a different theme produce different results this equates to fresh evidence.
The "cleverest of the clever" was clearly incompetent and negligent in the same way the one who can "secure a result like no others" was. The worrying thing is how many other innocent people have gone down and how many guilty got off if/when they were prosecuting?
This is my point about poor ideas and decisions emanating from homogenous groups. MT QC making the fatal mistake of not challenging his peers: "cleverest of the clever", Ewan Smith et al.
-
I'm saying JB's past defence teams have been planks despite all the fanfare.
I don't agree with you Holly, but you are entitled to your opinion. Surely though if, as you say, JB's past defence teams have been planks, wouldn't that make Bamber even more of a plank for allowing them to defend him in the first place?
-
This is my point about poor ideas and decisions emanating from homogenous groups. MT QC making the fatal mistake of not challenging his peers: "cleverest of the clever", Ewan Smith et al.
What do you mean by this Holly? Michael Turner QC went above and beyond the call of duty, according to the COA judgement, especially if you take into consideration the judges general comments.
-
I don't agree with you Holly, but you are entitled to your opinion. Surely though if, as you say, JB's past defence teams have been planks, wouldn't that make Bamber even more of a plank for allowing them to defend him in the first place?
WHF is the only peacetime mass shooting in UK unwitnessed by others. The soc was complex for UK as we have low rates of crimes involving firearms. I would like to think had I been involved in JB's trial I would seek expertise from US where mass shooting are a regular feature of everyday life.
There's no evidence JB was particularly academic at school. Apart from low paid work his only work experience was on the farm so what would he know about ballistics, blood serology etc. He doesn't have access to the Internet and I doubt the prison library contains forensic textbooks. In the main he surrounds himself with idiots like Mike Tesko and people like Trudi who might be well intentioned but are seriously misguided IMO: graveside reading, vlogs etc.
-
WHF is the only peacetime mass shooting in UK unwitnessed by others. The soc was complex for UK as we have low rates of crimes involving firearms. I would like to think had I been involved in JB's trial I would seek expertise from US where mass shooting are a regular feature of everyday life.
There's no evidence JB was particularly academic at school. Apart from low paid work his only work experience was on the farm so what would he know about ballistics, blood serology etc. He doesn't have access to the Internet and I doubt the prison library contains forensic textbooks. In the main he surrounds himself with idiots like Mike Tesko and people like Trudi who might be well intentioned but are seriously misguided IMO: graveside reading, vlogs etc.
If Bamber thought you might have been an asset to him, why do you think he ignored your letters of advice?
I'm presuming you gave him advice, or at the very least your opinions of his case, I might be wrong?
-
WHF is the only peacetime mass shooting in UK unwitnessed by others. The soc was complex for UK as we have low rates of crimes involving firearms. I would like to think had I been involved in JB's trial I would seek expertise from US where mass shooting are a regular feature of everyday life. .
What do you mean by "complex?"
The internet wasn't around at the time of the murders.
What "expertise" was available back then?
You appear to be judging this case based on what is available now as opposed to back then?
The facts policing has changed over the years doesn't make Jeremy Bamber less guilty Holly. These past 3 decades have only but further solidified his guilt.
-
There's no evidence JB was particularly academic at school. Apart from low paid work his only work experience was on the farm so what would he know about ballistics, blood serology etc. He doesn't have access to the Internet and I doubt the prison library contains forensic textbooks. In the main he surrounds himself with idiots like Mike Tesko and people like Trudi who might be well intentioned but are seriously misguided IMO: graveside reading, vlogs etc.
I really think you should do some research on psychopathy and personality disorders.
-
David please stop trying to make out you're some legal hot shot when you're anything but.
You misunderstand "fresh evidence". If new tests on a different theme produce different results this equates to fresh evidence.
The "cleverest of the clever" was clearly incompetent and negligent in the same way the one who can "secure a result like no others" was. The worrying thing is how many other innocent people have gone down and how many guilty got off if/when they were prosecuting?
This is my point about poor ideas and decisions emanating from homogenous groups. MT QC making the fatal mistake of not challenging his peers: "cleverest of the clever", Ewan Smith et al.
I don't pretend to be a legal hotshot because I can read an appeal judgment.
166. In April 1997, responsibility for reviewing alleged miscarriages of justice passed to the CCRC. The appellant's case was treated as still live, and was effectively transferred to the Commission to complete the review.
167. After receiving representations on behalf of the appellant and making investigations of its own, the CCRC referred the matter to this Court. The sole basis of referral related to fresh evidence in the form of DNA testing of the sound moderator. It expressed its decision in the following terms:
"In the Commission's view, the new DNA evidence undermines a key aspect of the Crown's case as presented to the jury and to which the trial judge gave considerable emphasis in his summing up. The new evidence is admissible, is capable of belief and affords a possible ground for allowing the appeal. There is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce this evidence at trial, in that the DNA techniques used were not available at that time."
220. In a number of cases this court has made clear that it will not readily admit expert evidence as fresh evidence where the necessary expertise was available at the time of trial (see e.g. Lomas, 53 Cr. App. R. 256 & Jones (Steven) [1997] 1 Cr. App. R. 56). To do otherwise would permit an appellant to shop around for an expert after conviction and upon finding one favourable to his case mount an appeal based on the views of that expert. To allow that would subvert the trial process and generally speaking the time for advancing expert evidence is before the jury and not after conviction.
232. We concluded in such circumstances that there was no valid reason why this evidence could not have been put before the jury by seeking to call an appropriate expert unless it was the case that Dr Lloyd's views were not ones shared by others and, even more importantly, that even if the evidence had been given at trial, it could not have altered the outcome of the trial. Accordingly we declined to admit this fresh evidence and any other evidence consequent upon it and this aspect of ground 1 fails as a result.
-
I don't pretend to be a legal hotshot because I can read an appeal judgment.
166. In April 1997, responsibility for reviewing alleged miscarriages of justice passed to the CCRC. The appellant's case was treated as still live, and was effectively transferred to the Commission to complete the review.
167. After receiving representations on behalf of the appellant and making investigations of its own, the CCRC referred the matter to this Court. The sole basis of referral related to fresh evidence in the form of DNA testing of the sound moderator. It expressed its decision in the following terms:
"In the Commission's view, the new DNA evidence undermines a key aspect of the Crown's case as presented to the jury and to which the trial judge gave considerable emphasis in his summing up. The new evidence is admissible, is capable of belief and affords a possible ground for allowing the appeal. There is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce this evidence at trial, in that the DNA techniques used were not available at that time."
220. In a number of cases this court has made clear that it will not readily admit expert evidence as fresh evidence where the necessary expertise was available at the time of trial (see e.g. Lomas, 53 Cr. App. R. 256 & Jones (Steven) [1997] 1 Cr. App. R. 56). To do otherwise would permit an appellant to shop around for an expert after conviction and upon finding one favourable to his case mount an appeal based on the views of that expert. To allow that would subvert the trial process and generally speaking the time for advancing expert evidence is before the jury and not after conviction.
232. We concluded in such circumstances that there was no valid reason why this evidence could not have been put before the jury by seeking to call an appropriate expert unless it was the case that Dr Lloyd's views were not ones shared by others and, even more importantly, that even if the evidence had been given at trial, it could not have altered the outcome of the trial. Accordingly we declined to admit this fresh evidence and any other evidence consequent upon it and this aspect of ground 1 fails as a result.
It's not your ability to read that concerns me. It's your ability to interpret correctly.
Do some research on the definition of fresh evidence.
Assuming you don't think SM and NGB are numpties you can surely see expert opinion on abrasion wounds and powder tattooing was available at trial? The CCRC rejected for other reasons.
-
It's not your ability to read that concerns me. It's your ability to interpret correctly.
Do some research on the definition of fresh evidence.
Assuming you don't think SM and NGB are numpties you can surely see expert opinion on abrasion wounds and powder tattooing was available at trial? The CCRC rejected for other reasons.
Not sure where this is going but found this http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=6856.0
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=9064.45
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=8526.1020
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=6681.195