Author Topic: Guardian article  (Read 806 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Caroline

Re: Guardian article
« Reply #15 on: September 28, 2018, 10:37:18 AM »
Yes advances are made all of the time and JB has been deprived of the opportunity to carry out further tests eg fingerprinting technique known as CERA LT (fingerprints from cartridges) since all exhibits excl rifle and silencer have been destroyed against all protocols.  Conversely if JB is guilty we could end the whole circus and seal his fate using 21st century technology.  Anyway shall we agree on undermine?

I believe David has misunderstood the CCRC/Judicial Appeal judgement from circa 2012.  David has interpreted the CCRC's decision on the basis it has accepted the evidence of Dr Caruso (marks (burns?) to NB's back) and Dr Fowler SC's abrasion rings inconsistent with a silencer but rejected overall on the basis this evidence doesn't overcome the paint/scratches.   This is not my interpretation.  My interpretation is that the CCRC highlighted the brevity of Dr Caruso's evidence which by his own admission required further testing.  In respect of Dr Fowler's evidence the CCRC relied upon the lack of residue found in the rifle and the blood flake found in the silencer.  The judges at judicial review were prepared to accept there may have been a problem with the blood flake but in reaching their overall decision relied upon the lack of residue in the rifle (not sure what they mean by residue (blood?) and the paint/scratches.  The judges refer to evidence at trial provided by Malcolm Fletcher and Dr Vanezis.  I think they are referring to Malcolm Fletcher's testimony where he told the court that he would expect to find blood inside the barrel if a silencer had not been used.  In any event the CCRC application/judicial review did not result in any concessions about the blood/silencer which can assist JB going forward.

On your first point, I very much doubt that Bamber is the only one to have had evidence destroyed. However, as that is now gone, you can't presume A. that he's innocent and such evidence would have shown it or B. there were sinister reasons for the destruction. He has had other research undertaken but should have gone further with it. The stuff carried out in the USA was rendered useless because it was incomplete or just didn't go far enough.

Oh I agree that David misunderstood the 2012 CCRC Judicial Revue judgement.

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6393
  • Total likes: 128
  • "They think it's all over"....
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #16 on: September 28, 2018, 01:59:55 PM »
On your first point, I very much doubt that Bamber is the only one to have had evidence destroyed. However, as that is now gone, you can't presume A. that he's innocent and such evidence would have shown it or B. there were sinister reasons for the destruction. He has had other research undertaken but should have gone further with it. The stuff carried out in the USA was rendered useless because it was incomplete or just didn't go far enough.

Oh I agree that David misunderstood the 2012 CCRC Judicial Revue judgement.

I have no idea what % of cases have exhibits destroyed?  My understanding is that it is the prosecutions (police) responsibility to maintain exhibits indefinitely regardless of whether or not any appeals are pending? I haven't made any assumptions about the destroyed exhibits that's why I said if they hadn't been destroyed they may have ended the circus and sealed his fate.  However it was something the appeal court judges took a dim view of to the extent they agreed to rule in JB's favour in the absence of exhibits:

165. In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives. It might have been necessary for this court to examine the circumstances in which this had happened. The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciating that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits. However, during argument it was agreed that the court could protect the appellant's position by making assumptions in his favour and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resolve precisely how this came about.

I agree he should have progressed the work carried out by Dr Fowler (silencer/SC's wounds) and Peter Sutherest (scratches/paint).  Instead it appears the CT have been spending donations on windows, a fragmented bullet and so-called suicide notes whilst at the same time making a lot of noise about 2 silencers, RB's blood groups and non-disclosure of this, that and the other none of which have a cat in hells chance of assisting JB. 
« Last Edit: September 28, 2018, 02:06:33 PM by Holly Goodhead »
Justice 4 Sheila and Jeremy: victims of poorly arranged 'Baby Scoop Era' adoptions.  Australia has apologised
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg time for UK to do the same https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/04/baby-adoption-practices-of-past-demand-inquiry-say-law-firms

Offline Caroline

Re: Guardian article
« Reply #17 on: September 28, 2018, 03:33:33 PM »
I have no idea what % of cases have exhibits destroyed?  My understanding is that it is the prosecutions (police) responsibility to maintain exhibits indefinitely regardless of whether or not any appeals are pending? I haven't made any assumptions about the destroyed exhibits that's why I said if they hadn't been destroyed they may have ended the circus and sealed his fate.  However it was something the appeal court judges took a dim view of to the extent they agreed to rule in JB's favour in the absence of exhibits:

165. In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives. It might have been necessary for this court to examine the circumstances in which this had happened. The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciating that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits. However, during argument it was agreed that the court could protect the appellant's position by making assumptions in his favour and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resolve precisely how this came about.

I agree he should have progressed the work carried out by Dr Fowler (silencer/SC's wounds) and Peter Sutherest (scratches/paint).  Instead it appears the CT have been spending donations on windows, a fragmented bullet and so-called suicide notes whilst at the same time making a lot of noise about 2 silencers, RB's blood groups and non-disclosure of this, that and the other none of which have a cat in hells chance of assisting JB.

I'm not sure that they are obliged to keep 'ALL' exhibits indefinitely? Key exhibits maybe, but I doubt all. If this were the case they would quickly run out of room.

Offline APRIL

Re: Guardian article
« Reply #18 on: September 28, 2018, 04:42:04 PM »
I'm not sure that they are obliged to keep 'ALL' exhibits indefinitely? Key exhibits maybe, but I doubt all. If this were the case they would quickly run out of room.

I wonder, is the keeping and/or disposing of exhibits pertinent only to the Jeremy Bamber case? It occurs to me that if every piece of information, from every case, was kept indefinitely, a storage facility the size of a village would be necessary. I also question EP's refusal to release what they allegedly still have. Surely, by now, a court order could have been procured and sheriffs sent in to retrieve them.

Offline Caroline

Re: Guardian article
« Reply #19 on: September 28, 2018, 06:53:18 PM »
Some useful information on the destruction of exhibits;

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/exhibits

Offline John

Re: Guardian article
« Reply #20 on: September 29, 2018, 01:22:23 PM »
Does it really matter if no silencer was used or even two or more were used?  The fact that a silencer was used at all and that that silencer had human blood in it points yet again to Jeremy Bamber having committed the crime and not Sheila Caffell.

The logistics involved in the killings clearly points to Jeremy Bamber as being the perpetrator as does the first hand undisputed evidence of Julie Mugford. He also had a motive, the means and the opportunity to carry out the killings. His story of what happened that night is inconsistent and riddled with contradictions while that of Miss Mugford has been consistent throughout the entire period.

The fact that the Guardian article was co written by Eric Allison is enough to ignore it completely IMO.

« Last Edit: September 29, 2018, 01:30:05 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Caroline

Re: Guardian article
« Reply #21 on: September 29, 2018, 02:21:04 PM »
Does it really matter if no silencer was used or even two or more were used?  The fact that a silencer was used at all and that that silencer had human blood in it points yet again to Jeremy Bamber having committed the crime and not Sheila Caffell.

The logistics involved in the killings clearly points to Jeremy Bamber as being the perpetrator as does the first hand undisputed evidence of Julie Mugford. He also had a motive, the means and the opportunity to carry out the killings. His story of what happened that night is inconsistent and riddled with contradictions while that of Miss Mugford has been consistent throughout the entire period.

The fact that the Guardian article was co written by Eric Allison is enough to ignore it completely IMO.


100% agree!

Offline Myster

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2715
  • Total likes: 108
  • Look at that brilliant post, Meg!!!
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #22 on: September 29, 2018, 05:18:48 PM »

The fact that the Guardian article was co written by Eric Allison is enough to ignore it completely IMO.
See what happens when you kowtow to a murderer!... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20J-xZrhArs
« Last Edit: September 29, 2018, 05:24:46 PM by Myster »
Ranz des Vaches (Call to the Cows), followed by a rip-roaring stampede... https://youtu.be/S5Pk9CCkkvk?t=319

Offline APRIL

Re: Guardian article
« Reply #23 on: September 29, 2018, 06:07:44 PM »
See what happens when you kowtow to a murderer!... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20J-xZrhArs

Sissel is far to good for them!!!!

Offline Caroline

Re: Guardian article
« Reply #24 on: September 29, 2018, 10:26:19 PM »
See what happens when you kowtow to a murderer!... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20J-xZrhArs

Not the old 'Sheila was alive' routine!  %56&

Offline Nicholas

Re: Guardian article
« Reply #25 on: September 30, 2018, 11:41:23 AM »
Also in the Guardian (July 2018):

"They Walk Among Us
This British true-crime podcast has been so successful that it is hard to believe it started life as a hobby in the spare room of its mysterious creators, Ben and Rosie. Season three opens with more juicy investigations, forensically examined and delivered by Ben in his flat but intriguing style and promises an in-depth look at unsolved crimes. New episodes will drop every week this time around, including the cases of Jeremy Bamber, Donald “the Black Panther” Neilson and the Hungerford massacre. The first episode takes on the Kray twins.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/jul/13/juicy-true-crime-series-recorded-spare-room-podcasts-of-the-week-they-walk-among-us
« Last Edit: September 30, 2018, 12:00:13 PM by Stephanie »

Offline Caroline

Re: Guardian article
« Reply #26 on: September 30, 2018, 02:01:44 PM »
Also in the Guardian (July 2018):

"They Walk Among Us
This British true-crime podcast has been so successful that it is hard to believe it started life as a hobby in the spare room of its mysterious creators, Ben and Rosie. Season three opens with more juicy investigations, forensically examined and delivered by Ben in his flat but intriguing style and promises an in-depth look at unsolved crimes. New episodes will drop every week this time around, including the cases of Jeremy Bamber, Donald “the Black Panther” Neilson and the Hungerford massacre. The first episode takes on the Kray twins.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/jul/13/juicy-true-crime-series-recorded-spare-room-podcasts-of-the-week-they-walk-among-us

Unsolved? Epic fail already!  @)(++(*

Offline John

Re: Guardian article
« Reply #27 on: September 30, 2018, 04:32:32 PM »
See what happens when you kowtow to a murderer!... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20J-xZrhArs

Listened to the first two minutes of it to where Allison claimed it was impossible for Jeremy Bamber to have killed his family and then I knew he was taking the piss!
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline John

Re: Guardian article
« Reply #28 on: September 30, 2018, 04:35:10 PM »
Not the old 'Sheila was alive' routine!  %56&

Agreed, he's absolutely bonkers  %56&
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6393
  • Total likes: 128
  • "They think it's all over"....
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #29 on: October 02, 2018, 08:02:50 AM »
Some useful information on the destruction of exhibits;

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/exhibits

Thanks.  I've copied the relevant section:

General Guidance: After Production In Court

Once an exhibit is produced in court, or treated as being produced in accordance with section 5B(5) Magistrates Courts Act 1980 (Archbold 10-16), the court has a responsibility to preserve or retain it. Normally the court entrusts the exhibits to the prosecution, usually the police.

The court can impose restrictions on the prosecution. Where it imposes no restrictions, it is for the prosecution to deal with the exhibits in whatever way appears best for the purposes of justice. If the prosecution has doubts as to how to deal with an exhibit it may, but is not obliged to, apply to the court for directions (R v Stipendiary Magistrates at Lambeth and Another, ex p McComb 1983) All ER 321).


I think the key words are:... it is for the prosecution to deal with the exhibits in whatever way appears best for the purposes of justice.

Once convicted the appellant has the legal right to challenge the conviction through the appeals process at any stage of his/her sentence.  He/she could be deprived of the opportunity for doing so if the prosecution was able to destroy trial exhibits.  But we know from JB's case where trial exhibits have been destroyed the appeal court judges will find in favour of the appellant which obviously isn't best for the purposes of justice. 

If JB's case is referred back to CoA it will almost certainly be on the back of the blood/silencer evidence given this underpins his conviction.  2 additional grounds of appeal could be fingerprints on casings and the blood stained bible all of which have been destroyed.  The defence could argue SC's fingerprints were on the casings and June's blood stained the pages of the bible.  Unless the blood/silencer evidence is upheld it would seem the CoA would have to rule in JB's favour over casings and bible given since they have been destroyed.
Justice 4 Sheila and Jeremy: victims of poorly arranged 'Baby Scoop Era' adoptions.  Australia has apologised
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg time for UK to do the same https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/04/baby-adoption-practices-of-past-demand-inquiry-say-law-firms