The phone call

[Holly Goodhead]

The only question put to the judge by the jury related to the blood/silencer perhaps suggesting this loomed large:

 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=273.msg4561#msg4561

[steve_trousers]

Jurors questions related to the blood/silencer.

Of course, that was the problematic evidence. One can safely presume they weighed the other 2 points and  accepted them
 

So you don't think jurors should have been taken to WHF to see what the prosecution claimed in terms of who was shot where and how JB is supposed to have exited leaving the farmhouse apparently secured from within?

 

No, those things can be covered in the courtroom. Did the experienced Mr Rivlin raise the idea of an excursion to WHF ?

What evidence do you have to support the above assertion

The fact that his 3rd appeal attempt was batted away in under an hour and he can no longer attract competent representation

[Caroline]

But we still can't be sure what weight, if any, jurors gave to those aspects.

Jurors questions related to the blood/silencer.
 

So you don't think jurors should have been taken to WHF to see what the prosecution claimed in terms of who was shot where and how JB is supposed to have exited leaving the farmhouse apparently secured from within? 

What evidence do you have to support the above assertion.

Obviously because that evidence was complicated, it doesn't mean that other aspects weren't important.

[Angelo222]

I was wondering why Nevill Bamber would ring his son and came up with the possibility that he didn't.  Maybe it was someone else who made that call, someone who wanted Jeremy Bamber to go to White House Farm?

We have already crossed that bridge more than once.  No outsider would murder a family in such a manner and still be able to cover all his tracks.  So at the end of the day only three possibilities exist and they are these...

1.  Sheila did it
2.  Jeremy did it.
3.  Jeremy had someone do it.

In my opinion, number 1 can be ruled out for several reasons which leaves only 2 and 3.  Either way, Bamber is guilty of murder regardless of whether he pulled the trigger or had some lowlife patsy do it for him.

[Holly Goodhead]

Of course, that was the problematic evidence. One can safely presume they weighed the other 2 points and  accepted them
 

Not necessarily especially when JM's testimony came with a warning from the judge.

No, those things can be covered in the courtroom. Did the experienced Mr Rivlin raise the idea of an excursion to WHF ?

Was the window JB supposedly exited whilst at the same time securing it from within exhibited at trial?  Ie removed?  Was some sort of model presented at trial showing the defence and prosecution soc reconstruction?  I don't know who/what determines whether or not jurors are taken to sites?  They were taken to shooting range to hear rifle with and without silencer.
 
Was MrvRivlin experienced with mass shootings?

The fact that his 3rd appeal attempt was batted away in under an hour and he can no longer attract competent representation

Afaik there hasn't been a third appeal?

[G-Unit]

No, there was only Jeremy's call and he spoke to PC West, West relayed Jeremy's call to a civilian call handler (Malcolm Bonnett) who was responsible for detailing the log you posted above. His statement and his testimony state clearly that the call he received came from CD1990 (entered on the log) which is PC West's call sign.

Why does it say 'daughter...has got hold of one of my guns'?

[G-Unit]

We have already crossed that bridge more than once.  No outsider would murder a family in such a manner and still be able to cover all his tracks.  So at the end of the day only three possibilities exist and they are these...

1.  Sheila did it
2.  Jeremy did it.
3.  Jeremy had someone do it.

In my opinion, number 1 can be ruled out for several reasons which leaves only 2 and 3.  Either way, Bamber is guilty of murder regardless of whether he pulled the trigger or had some lowlife patsy do it for him.

By 'cover all his tracks' do you mean hoodwink Essex police? In my opinion they were quite capable of missing the tracks of a herd of wildebeest.

[steve_trousers]

Not necessarily especially when JM's testimony came with a warning from the judge.

That is my point the jury were warned about Ms Mugford's testimony and they had no questions on that point.

Was the window JB supposedly exited whilst at the same time securing it from within exhibited at trial?  Ie removed?  Was some sort of model presented at trial showing the defence and prosecution soc reconstruction?  I don't know who/what determines whether or not jurors are taken to sites?  They were taken to shooting range to hear rifle with and without silencer.

I'm not sure why you would be pressing for that, when it would only reinforce how easy it is to sneak in unnoticed in the dead of night without waking anybody.
There are other reasons why a defence/prosecution might object to an excursion to the scene, for example the impressions it could make on the more suggestible members of the jury. They get to see first hand how relatively remote WHF is by essex standards and how Jeremy might have arrived undetected and carried out his diabolical plan.
This is similar to what happened in the trial I mentioned yesterday, Noye's first trial in the 80's for stabbing a police officer in his garden. On that occasion it backfired on the defence, the jury saw how remote Noye's garden was and understood how he might be frightened.
Take a look into that one, it became notable for reasons you may be interested in.

Was MrvRivlin experienced with mass shootings?

probably only of ducks and pheasants on his estate

Afaik there hasn't been a third appeal?

attempt for a 3rd appeal in 2012.

[Angelo222]

Holly makes excuses for Bamber but never provides any evidence to support his innocence. Hardly surprising though given none exists.

[Holly Goodhead]

Holly makes excuses for Bamber but never provides any evidence to support his innocence. Hardly surprising though given none exists.

The UK system is based on not guilty or guilty beyond reasonable doubt.   

The case wouldn't even get to court today let alone be found guilty.

[Holly Goodhead]

That is my point the jury were warned about Ms Mugford's testimony and they had no questions on that point.

I'm not sure why you would be pressing for that, when it would only reinforce how easy it is to sneak in unnoticed in the dead of night without waking anybody.
There are other reasons why a defence/prosecution might object to an excursion to the scene, for example the impressions it could make on the more suggestible members of the jury. They get to see first hand how relatively remote WHF is by essex standards and how Jeremy might have arrived undetected and carried out his diabolical plan.
This is similar to what happened in the trial I mentioned yesterday, Noye's first trial in the 80's for stabbing a police officer in his garden. On that occasion it backfired on the defence, the jury saw how remote Noye's garden was and understood how he might be frightened.
Take a look into that one, it became notable for reasons you may be interested in.

probably only of ducks and pheasants on his estate
attempt for a 3rd appeal in 2012.

The fact jurors didn't question JM's testimony doesn't mean they swallowed it whole or at all.  2/12 didn't swallow it for sure.

At trial jurors were told by the judge:

how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case"

The prosecution did not even have to identify the window let alone demonstrate it was possible to exit a window and secure it from within.

Then we come to all the physical evidence which was collected and recorded by way of blood stains, casings, distance of shots, trajectories of shots and wound tracks.  All of this data needed going into a shooting reconstruction with jurors taken to WHF to see for themselves:

- did the perp burst into the main bedroom and open fire on June and NB

Or

- did the perp open fire on June in bed and was NB shot as he came up the stairs

In the case you mention of Kenneth Noye jurors were taken to soc and found Noye not guilty.

WHF to this day remains the only criminal case involving a mass shooting unwitnessed by others so the lawyers were inexperienced and completely out of their depths.

I believe the last CCRC application was comprehensively reviewed by CCRC over a lengthy period of time but I remain confident that JB will win a 3rd appeal with his conviction quashed.

[Myster]

All the above is repetitive pie in the sky and your usual forlorn hope.  Bamber will never be released, of that I'm certain.

[Holly Goodhead]

All the above is repetitive pie in the sky and your usual forlorn hope.  Bamber will never be released, of that I'm certain.

Which aspects of the case do you think are so strong they are incapable of being undermined? 

[barrier]

@ Holly seeing as the thread is about the phone call is about the phone call,correct if I'm wrong but is your stance that it was made before he (Nevill) was shot.If this is so,what do use for evidence of it?

[Myster]

Which aspects of the case do you think are so strong they are incapable of being undermined?

All of them!  Sorry Holly, I've no intention of spending the rest of this morning or even the day reading and countering your incessant repetition about what should have taken place in court 34 years ago.