Mysterious. Was the judge right ?

[adam]

Difficult or impossible to understand, explain or identify'.

This is the Oxford dictionary definition of mysterious. 

The judge certainly did not believe Neville called Bamber. Was he right to believe this ?

Well not even Bamber's supporters can explain what Sheila was doing when Neville phoned. Answers ranging from marching around the house, shooting people upstairs and running upstairs with a loaded rifle.

There are at least 40 reasons why Neville would not call Bamber. Nearly all are facts. Such as Bamber may not answer. Even the assumptions are backed up with facts. Such as Neville may not believe Bamber would rush over. He didn't !

There was a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence highlighting Bamber's guilt. Together with a motive, opportunity and no alibi. My recent thread shows everything fits. A guilty Bamber makes Neville's phone call even more impossible to understand or explain.

The judge in his summing up criticised Bamber over his conflicting accounts of how Neville sounded. Saying Bamber should surely remember.

If the call did happen it is still mysterious/hard to understand why Neville called him at 3.10am/3.26am/3.36am. He was a 6.4 farmer, head of the family and former army officer. He also had another adult available in the house. I do not recall any other instances of early morning phone calls to relatives just before a serious crime.

It seems the judge was correct in calling the call 'mysterious'. It hss never been proved to have taken place.

It is 'difficult' to understand or explain. Only Neville could do this.  Sadly he was found dead,  slumped over in the kitchen, having been shot and brutally beaten.

But is the 'mysterious' call 'impossible to understand and explain' ? You choose.

[Holly Goodhead]

Difficult or impossible to understand, explain or identify'.

This is the Oxford dictionary definition of mysterious. 

The judge certainly did not believe Neville called Bamber. Was he right to believe this ?

Well not even Bamber's supporters can explain what Sheila was doing when Neville phoned. Answers ranging from marching around the house, shooting people upstairs and running upstairs with a loaded rifle.

There are at least 40 reasons why Neville would not call Bamber. Nearly all are facts. Such as Bamber may not answer. Even the assumptions are backed up with facts. Such as Neville may not believe Bamber would rush over. He didn't !

There was a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence highlighting Bamber's guilt. Together with a motive, opportunity and no alibi. My recent thread shows everything fits. A guilty Bamber makes Neville's phone call even more impossible to understand or explain.

The judge in his summing up criticised Bamber over his conflicting accounts of how Neville sounded. Saying Bamber should surely remember.

If the call did happen it is still mysterious/hard to understand why Neville called him at 3.10am/3.26am/3.36am. He was a 6.4 farmer, head of the family and former army officer. He also had another adult available in the house. I do not recall any other instances of early morning phone calls to relatives just before a serious crime.

It seems the judge was correct in calling the call 'mysterious'. It hss never been proved to have taken place.

It is 'difficult' to understand or explain. Only Neville could do this.  Sadly he was found dead,  slumped over in the kitchen, having been shot and brutally beaten.

But is the 'mysterious' call 'impossible to understand and explain' ? You choose.

No imo he was not right at all.  JB's first appeal was based on an unfair summing up by the judge albeit this was dismissed but how independent are judges judging another judge?

Judges' summing up is often a key feature of MoJ's.  Sir Maurice Drake (Justice Drake) presided over the Bridgwater Four trial.

As far as I can see we have no way of measuring how competent these people were ie judges and barristers.  Did they receive ongoing training and have to demonstrate their competence in some way including the ability to remain impartial and not allow any prejudices to affect their decision making/summing up?  Or was it a case of if your face doesn't fit puff your gone (up in smoke) as happened with myself on The Jeremy Bamber Forum 

[John]

The evidence is clear, Nevill never telephoned anyone and he most certainly never telephoned the police or Jeremy at Goldhanger.

[scipio_usmc]

No imo he was not right at all.  JB's first appeal was based on an unfair summing up by the judge albeit this was dismissed but how independent are judges judging another judge?

Judges' summing up is often a key feature of MoJ's.  Sir Maurice Drake (Justice Drake) presided over the Bridgwater Four trial.

As far as I can see we have no way of measuring how competent these people were ie judges and barristers.  Did they receive ongoing training and have to demonstrate their competence in some way including the ability to remain impartial and not allow any prejudices to affect their decision making/summing up?  Or was it a case of if your face doesn't fit puff your gone (up in smoke) as happened with myself on The Jeremy Bamber Forum 

You never come up with any examples that are actually parallel.  The Bridgewater Four were clearly guilty.  The convictions were overturned not on the basis of a judge committing legal error during the summing up but rather because police tricked a defendant into confessing.  The Court of Appeals decided that such confession should have been withheld from the jury and that they could be retried.  The decision even noted a different confession from a different defendant which was not obtained by crook and thus could be used in a new prosecution.  The state chose not to prosecute them again though for some reason.  They lucked out at not being retried and got off easy though they were guilty.



     

[Holly Goodhead]

You never come up with any examples that are actually parallel.  The Bridgewater Four were clearly guilty.  The convictions were overturned not on the basis of a judge committing legal error during the summing up but rather because police tricked a defendant into confessing.  The Court of Appeals decided that such confession should have been withheld from the jury and that they could be retried.  The decision even noted a different confession from a different defendant which was not obtained by crook and thus could be used in a new prosecution.  The state chose not to prosecute them again though for some reason.  They lucked out at not being retried and got off easy though they were guilty. 

I simply pointed out that JB and the Bridgwater Four had the same trial judge. 

Two prosecution witnesses also admitted lying and misleading the jury. 

If the Bridgwater 4 are guilty and the evidence was strong enough to maintain their convictions why were they quashed?

It strikes me as a little odd that out of all the farms across England two shootings/murders took place in neighbouring farms and they were unconnected? 

"Over the years, fellow convicted murderer Hubert Spencer (born 1940) has been mentioned in the media as a possible suspect for the murder. Spencer, an ambulance driver and a neighbour of Bridgewater in Wordsley, was investigated by police in the immediate aftermath of the murder, not least because he drove a blue Vauxhall Viva - the same type of car which had been seen at the farm on the afternoon of the murder. Witnesses also said that the driver of the car was a uniformed man. However, he was eliminated from police inquiries after the arrest of the four other suspects. Shortly afterwards, 70-year-old Hubert Wilkes was shot dead on neighbouring Holloway Farm. Like Bridgewater, he had been shot dead while sitting on a sofa. Spencer was jailed for life in 1980 and served 15 years before being paroled in 1995."

[scipio_usmc]

I simply pointed out that JB and the Bridgwater Four had the same trial judge. 

Two prosecution witnesses also admitted lying and misleading the jury. 

If the Bridgwater 4 are guilty and the evidence was strong enough to maintain their convictions why were they quashed?

It strikes me as a little odd that out of all the farms across England two shootings/murders took place in neighbouring farms and they were unconnected? 

"Over the years, fellow convicted murderer Hubert Spencer (born 1940) has been mentioned in the media as a possible suspect for the murder. Spencer, an ambulance driver and a neighbour of Bridgewater in Wordsley, was investigated by police in the immediate aftermath of the murder, not least because he drove a blue Vauxhall Viva - the same type of car which had been seen at the farm on the afternoon of the murder. Witnesses also said that the driver of the car was a uniformed man. However, he was eliminated from police inquiries after the arrest of the four other suspects. Shortly afterwards, 70-year-old Hubert Wilkes was shot dead on neighbouring Holloway Farm. Like Bridgewater, he had been shot dead while sitting on a sofa. Spencer was jailed for life in 1980 and served 15 years before being paroled in 1995."

The judges didn't decide they were innocent.  The judges decided that the jury should not have heard the confession that they deceded was coerced and thus they get a new trial without that confession.  The jury makes th eultimate decision of guilt or innocence and they felt there was enough left to convict since another confession was not tossed but felt the jury should get to decide if that confession is enough without the other confession.  2 confessions are much more powerful than just 1.

1 guy already served his time in juvy and 1 died so there were only 2 guys freed by the ruling.  The state chose not to bother retrying them. 

I don't see what relevance this has to Jeremy's trial though.  You are attacking how the judge summed things up and suggested he erred in the past in summing up and that a new trial should be granted like in other cases but that is not what actually happened in other cases and his summing up was fine. Jeremy was convicted because of the evidence in the case not something the judge claimed in his summation that turned out to be false.