Scene Of Crime Reconstruction

[Holly Goodhead]

In the following Michael Turner QC explains the basics of how the judicial system works ie take instructions from a client and give it your best shot in attempting to defend even if you think the case is a dead duck. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9716069/Devils-advocate-Michael-Turner-prepares-for-his-toughest-case.html

In JB's WS of 7th Aug he states:

"She [SC] would make all night phone calls to my father saying she was the Virgin Mary, leader of the CND and Joan of Arc". 

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5631.0;attach=4560

We obviously have no way of knowing whether or not this statement is true.  But surely if you were looking to test JB's case and defend him you would start off by considering his claims that SC communicated with NB during "all night" phone calls.  Therefore when she was under the same roof she wouldn't need to communicate via phone when she could do so face-to-face.  This would surely start the defence thinking about the possibility of SC and NB up and about communicating? 

Is there any evidence anywhere of the defence challenging the prosecution case over NB sustaining his upstairs gsw's in the main bedroom?

It doesn't make any sense to me that the defence appear to have overlooked this?

- JB claims SC communicated with NB during the night
- JB claims he received NB's phone call circa 3.15 am - 3.30am
- The ivory phone, usually kept in the bedroom, was found off the cradle on the kitchen worktop
- PC West confirmed via a BT op that the line was open circa 3.45am
- None of NB's blood was found in the bedroom.  Two tiny spots on the landing were inconclusive when tested.  The substantial blood trail started on the stairs
- Casings support NB sustaining gsw's on landing
- Distance of shots are difficult to reconcile with the bedroom
- Trajectories are impossible to reconcile with the bedroom
- Wound tracks are difficult to reconcile with the bedroom
- No blood was found on the ivory phone
- The pathological evidence shows NB was incapable of puropseful speech having sustained the lip and jaw gsw

And yet we are told that Michael Turner QC is “a barrister who can secure results no others could”.   &%+((£

I'm struggling to think of any other profession where individuals receive these sorts of accolades?  Especially when it is difficult to measure success and/or failures.  When a defendent is found guilty it is assumed they are in fact guilty rather than the defence was poor. 

As previously mentioned at JB's 2002 appeal Michael Turner QC attempted to justify the lack of blood on the ivory phone by attempting to show that an officer had used the phone thus disturbing any evidence eg blood!  Point 12:

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

[Holly Goodhead]

I actually wrote to SL on this subject a few years ago, just checked my email and it's still there. This is what he said but it's not very convincing ..... By the way, I have left the time and date stamp but have not included email addresses.

"Sent: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:54 Subject:
Re: Bamber Case (Shotgun Finger Prints)
Hi Caroline, Thank you for your email. You are probably best contacting the Bamber campaign as they have greater access to the documents. I have seen the relevant document but don't have a copy. I am not convinced it is strictly relevant to what happened that night. I am not sure what the document reference is - I wrote the book in 2004 which is when I saw the document, so I can't recall its contents. There will be references to it in my notes but I don't have time to go through them all. So it is best you get in touch with the campaign."

Thanks.  Interesting.  Had SL created a notes and ref section as CAL did we would know the source.  Its clear none of the victims, incl SC, sustained any gsw's from a shotgun.  Someone thought they heard the sound of gunshot much earlier but this isn't out of the ordinary for the countryside.  Even if SC's fingerprint(s) were on the shotgun it could mean anything from she held it at some stage and it was entirely unconnected to 6th/7th Aug to she moved it to access the rifle or the shotgun was her first choice but she decided against for whatever reason(s). 

[APRIL]

In the following Michael Turner QC explains the basics of how the judicial system works ie take instructions from a client and give it your best shot in attempting to defend even if you think the case is a dead duck. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9716069/Devils-advocate-Michael-Turner-prepares-for-his-toughest-case.html

In JB's WS of 7th Aug he states:

"She [SC] would make all night phone calls to my father saying she was the Virgin Mary, leader of the CND and Joan of Arc". 

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5631.0;attach=4560

We obviously have no way of knowing whether or not this statement is true.  But surely if you were looking to test JB's case and defend him you would start off by considering his claims that SC communicated with NB during "all night" phone calls.  Therefore when she was under the same roof she wouldn't need to communicate via phone when she could do so face-to-face.  This would surely start the defence thinking about the possibility of SC and NB up and about communicating? 

Is there any evidence anywhere of the defence challenging the prosecution case over NB sustaining his upstairs gsw's in the main bedroom?

It doesn't make any sense to me that the defence appear to have overlooked this?

- JB claims SC communicated with NB during the night
- JB claims he received NB's phone call circa 3.15 am - 3.30am
- The ivory phone, usually kept in the bedroom, was found off the cradle on the kitchen worktop
- PC West confirmed via a BT op that the line was open circa 3.45am
- None of NB's blood was found in the bedroom.  Two tiny spots on the landing were inconclusive when tested.  The substantial blood trail started on the stairs
- Casings support NB sustaining gsw's on landing
- Distance of shots are difficult to reconcile with the bedroom
- Trajectories are impossible to reconcile with the bedroom
- Wound tracks are difficult to reconcile with the bedroom
- No blood was found on the ivory phone
- The pathological evidence shows NB was incapable of puropseful speech having sustained the lip and jaw gsw

And yet we are told that Michael Turner QC is “a barrister who can secure results no others could”.   &%+((£

I'm struggling to think of any other profession where individuals receive these sorts of accolades?  Especially when it is difficult to measure success and/or failures.  When a defendent is found guilty it is assumed they are in fact guilty rather than the defence was poor. 

As previously mentioned at JB's 2002 appeal Michael Turner QC attempted to justify the lack of blood on the ivory phone by attempting to show that an officer had used the phone thus disturbing any evidence eg blood!  Point 12:

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

The "all night phone calls" -to Nevill- Jeremy speaks of appear to have been around the time of/prior too? her first admission to St Andrews. I'm slightly suspicious of the "all night" description. What EXACTLY is meant by it? I have my doubts about the "all night" calls occurring after her second stay in hospital. Also of note are the conversations re the children's care/where Sheila should live. It seemed that these took place when she started going down hill a few months after her first admission. I can't help but wonder if Jeremy transferred the information from then to have it as a more recent -night of massacre- conversation.

[Samson]

Anyway back on topic.  I was wondering why JB's defence didn't try to reconstruct the soc?  Asking 12 people taken at random (jury) to take on board a lot of complex info over a short time period is asking a lot.  At one time I thought the case, like many complex trials, was perhaps beyond a jury but I think I was wrong as it is clear from the questions they posed to the judge that they arrived at the hub of the case which is the silencer and blood.  Had the defence painted some pictures, metaphorically, this could have potentially been a powerful tool.   

You really are untangling this by questioning the principles of complexity.
This Scene of crime is extremely simple, and a few key datapoints are all that are required. You can't possibly make complex something straightforward, and when you do you are applying epicycles everywhere.

The fact Sheila has gsws consistent with self delivery is the perfect place to begin.

These are fiendishly difficult to replicate, and particularly so when mum is lying with a wrecked body nearby.
Speaking for myself, I would not comply.

Would April or Caroline?

[Samson]

Let us imagine the difficulty for example of getting the angle right for one shot that is consistent with self delivery.
Then multiply the probability for shot two.
I am stunned at the difficulty your people have understanding this Holly.
Shame on all of them when you have fine scientists and invented golf.

[Holly Goodhead]

The "all night phone calls" -to Nevill- Jeremy speaks of appear to have been around the time of/prior too? her first admission to St Andrews. I'm slightly suspicious of the "all night" description. What EXACTLY is meant by it? I have my doubts about the "all night" calls occurring after her second stay in hospital. Also of note are the conversations re the children's care/where Sheila should live. It seemed that these took place when she started going down hill a few months after her first admission. I can't help but wonder if Jeremy transferred the information from then to have it as a more recent -night of massacre- conversation.

My reference to the "all night" phone calls was to illustrate that it was something for the defence to use and track back on.  Not the phone calls per se but the fact events unfolded as per the physical evidence eg NB was shot on the landing stairs and/or main stairs not in the bedroom.   Everyone, including the defence, seems to have been swept along by the assumption that the perp burst in and shot NB and June in the main bedroom bedroom despite all the physical evidence suggesting otherwise.  Sometimes something relatively simple can easily be overlooked by even the most capable but here the defence had something to go on ie JB's claims that SC was in the habit of being up and about during the night and wanting contact with NB.  Whether it was true or not is irrelevant.  If you're looking to defend a client then surely you're seeking out info to prove what he or she is claiming.  This would surely get the defence thinking ok maybe NB wasn't shot in the bedroom but was already up and about and elsewhere?  Maybe I'm not explaining this very well!   

[Holly Goodhead]

You really are untangling this by questioning the principles of complexity.
This Scene of crime is extremely simple, and a few key datapoints are all that are required. You can't possibly make complex something straightforward, and when you do you are applying epicycles everywhere.

The fact Sheila has gsws consistent with self delivery is the perfect place to begin.

These are fiendishly difficult to replicate, and particularly so when mum is lying with a wrecked body nearby.
Speaking for myself, I would not comply.

Would April or Caroline?

Well if the defence didn't present the scenario you and I see how can we expect a jury to go for it? 

JB has had years to figure it out but hadn't about this time last year. 

[Holly Goodhead]

Let us imagine the difficulty for example of getting the angle right for one shot that is consistent with self delivery.
Then multiply the probability for shot two.
I am stunned at the difficulty your people have understanding this Holly.
Shame on all of them when you have fine scientists and invented golf.

The Scots have probably produced more notable scientists per population than the English and invented the game of golf as we know it today. 

Who do you blame for this sorry saga?  The police, relatives, JM, experts, prosecution or defence?  I blame the defence entirely. 

[APRIL]

My reference to the "all night" phone calls was to illustrate that it was something for the defence to use and track back on.  Not the phone calls per se but the fact events unfolded as per the physical evidence eg NB was shot on the landing stairs and/or main stairs not in the bedroom.   Everyone, including the defence, seems to have been swept along by the assumption that the perp burst in and shot NB and June in the main bedroom bedroom despite all the physical evidence suggesting otherwise.  Sometimes something relatively simple can easily be overlooked by even the most capable but here the defence had something to go on ie JB's claims that SC was in the habit of being up and about during the night and wanting contact with NB.  Whether it was true or not is irrelevant.  If you're looking to defend a client then surely you're seeking out info to prove what he or she is claiming.  This would surely get the defence thinking ok maybe NB wasn't shot in the bedroom but was already up and about and elsewhere?  Maybe I'm not explaining this very well!   

You're explaining just fine................certainly clearly enough to bring back this nagging doubt. SO much of what supporters say seems to centre around "Whether it was true or not is irrelevant". This seems to suggest that if something MAY have happened in any other way, it doesn't need to be proved but it's good enough to get Jeremy released, which is EXACTLY what the prosecution were accused of doing ie showing it was possible for something to have happened without proving it DID happen, when Jeremy was convicted.

[Myster]

The Scots have probably produced more notable scientists per population than the English and invented the game of golf as we know it today. 

Who do you blame for this sorry saga?  The police, relatives, JM, experts, prosecution or defence?  I blame the defence entirely.

Jeremy Bamber obviously.

History about to repeat itself with another family slaughtered because of a son's greed?... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4439476/Son-accused-killing-parents-axe-murder-testify.html

[Samson]

Well if the defence didn't present the scenario you and I see how can we expect a jury to go for it? 

JB has had years to figure it out but hadn't about this time last year.

This is bigger than Jeremy Bamber, it is a march for science, a requirement for accountability amongst the prosecutors, police, judges and so on.
This is a situation that can be changed forever with concerted effort.
Look at Richard Glossip, he just came within a despatch error of being executed, and will be freed within a year if the forensic accountant is taken at face value.
Blaming JB is slightly missing the point.
Change is due.

[Myster]

My reference to the "all night" phone calls was to illustrate that it was something for the defence to use and track back on.  Not the phone calls per se but the fact events unfolded as per the physical evidence eg NB was shot on the landing stairs and/or main stairs not in the bedroom.   Everyone, including the defence, seems to have been swept along by the assumption that the perp burst in and shot NB and June in the main bedroom bedroom despite all the physical evidence suggesting otherwise. Sometimes something relatively simple can easily be overlooked by even the most capable but here the defence had something to go on ie JB's claims that SC was in the habit of being up and about during the night and wanting contact with NB.  Whether it was true or not is irrelevant.  If you're looking to defend a client then surely you're seeking out info to prove what he or she is claiming.  This would surely get the defence thinking ok maybe NB wasn't shot in the bedroom but was already up and about and elsewhere?  Maybe I'm not explaining this very well!

No matter how many times you go on repeating that, it won't make it come true.   

[Samson]

Jeremy Bamber obviously.

History about to repeat itself with another family slaughtered because of a son's greed?... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4439476/Son-accused-killing-parents-axe-murder-testify.html

You might note a singular difference Myster. Henri van Braeda was always at the crime scene. This is resolutely different to the Bain or Bamber cases where the accused were remote, and the found scenes were not just consistent with suicide following murder, but explicable only by suicide following murder.

[Myster]

You might note a singular difference Myster. Henri van Braeda was always at the crime scene. This is resolutely different to the Bain or Bamber cases where the accused were remote, and the found scenes were not just consistent with suicide, but explicable only by suicide.

You're blinkered by the idea that Jeremy Bamber was incapable of cycling four miles, and gaining access via a window which he'd done several times before.

Stephen Seddon, another inheritance killer, claimed he was a hundred miles away, but the police and jury saw through him too...

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1048.0

[Holly Goodhead]

You're explaining just fine................certainly clearly enough to bring back this nagging doubt. SO much of what supporters say seems to centre around "Whether it was true or not is irrelevant". This seems to suggest that if something MAY have happened in any other way, it doesn't need to be proved but it's good enough to get Jeremy released, which is EXACTLY what the prosecution were accused of doing ie showing it was possible for something to have happened without proving it DID happen, when Jeremy was convicted.

I don't think I'm explaining myself very well.  In the absence of digital/satellite technology the phone calls are a complete unknown and will remain so.  The physical evidence at soc: bloodstaining and lack of, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks are capable of proving NB sustained his upstairs gsw's: lip, jaw, shoulder and elbow/chest on the landing stairs and or main stairs.  This strongly suggests NB had recently been downstairs therefore lending support to JB's claim of a tel call from NB.  The fact NB was shot on the stairs is not proof that NB made the tel call as he could have been up and about for another reason(s) as puglove pointed out.  The point being JB's defence didn't advance the fact NB sustained his upstairs gsw's on the landing stairs and/or main stairs.  The downward trajectories also show the perp was elevated therefore NB was coming up the stairs as opposed to going down.

What I'm trying to say is that had Paul Terzeon, Geoffrey Rivlin and Ed Lawson pondered JB's WS of 7th Aug they would see JB's claims of all night tel calls from SC to NB.  I hear what you're saying that this may have occured before SC's last visit to St Andrews and before she was taking Haloperidol.  All I'm saying is that JB's WS should have acted as a prompt for the defence to consider what the physical evidence alone confirms ie that NB wasn't shot in the master bedroom but on the landing stairs and/or main stairs and was clearly already up and about when first shot.

We know up until and incl the 2002 CoA hearing this wasn't advanced by the defence.  Had it been then Michael Turner QC wouldn't be trying to explain away the absence of blood on the ivory phone found off the cradle on the kitchen worktop.  There was no blood on the handset as in all probability NB made the call before any shots were fired.