JB's next CCRC submission/CoA hearing...

[Samson]

Well there's very little doubt in my mind JB is innocent but I like to try and keep a balance and perspective.  If it was clear cut JB wouldn't still be behind bars. 

You raise the point about JB disposing of clothing but this presupposes the perps clothes would contain incriminating evidence?  The prosecution case at trial was that SC's clothing was "relatively" clean. 

32 years ago forensic science wasn't what it is today.  By the UK Gov's own admission the forensic science service (fss) failed to deliver on quality during the 1980's. This can be evidenced by the fss's so-called ballistics expert, Malcolm Fletcher, who advised the court at trial his relevant experience included a small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy.  This is the numpty who advised the court:

- all shots fired upstairs were within  the main bedroom (excl twins) ie victims sustained gsw's within main bedroom only. 

- he would expect to find gun oil on SC's nightdress

- loading the cartridges into the magazine produced a black discolouration on his hands - SC's were found to be clean

I think you and I (and many others) agree NB was first shot on the landing as he approached the main bedroom.  I doubt Malcolm Fletcher had any idea about the trajectories. 

The rifle was found resting on SC's person/nightdress so if any gun oil was present on the rifle then it was going to deposit/transfer whether SC was victim or perp assuming gun oil was present to deposit/transfer.  Gun oil doesn't feature as a routine test in forensic textbooks.  Why would farmers/hunters slather firearms with gun oil to the point transfer was possible to clothes/hands? 

I visited a gun shop and loaded the exact same cartridges into the exact same mag.  My hands were perfectly clean to the naked eye. 

It's clear Malcolm Fletcher was grossly incompetent.  Question is was he just incompetent?   

Bearing in mind this was also the guy who dismantled the silencer before it was passed to the biologist for blood testing and advised the court on 'drawback'!

It is wrong to say to garner sufficient evidence must lead to release. Here is a good book to read after Trial by Ambush to show this. There are countless cases worldwide continuing. JB is routine in a global sense.

https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Injustice-Prosecutor-Psychology-Convictions-ebook/dp/B074CW4WQL/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1516052614&sr=1-1&keywords=Blind+Justice%22+by+Mark+Godsey.

Try reading this intro where he answers 7 questions

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/11/26/1717395/-Seven-questions-for-Mark-Godsey-author-of-Blind-Injustice


"4. People tend to have a Perry Mason view of our justice system: When evidence of innocence is found, we believe the defendant is immediately freed. You write that the reality is that the justice system tends to instead fight back even in the face of conclusive evidence of innocence"

[Samson]

Also watch episode 1 (and the other 5) of The Confession Tapes on netflix.

Sebastian Burns and Atif Rafay

And then see what you think about proof. These guys are out of circulation forever, yet proof of innocence is straightforward. Or watch it with an open mind.

[Holly Goodhead]

It is wrong to say to garner sufficient evidence must lead to release. Here is a good book to read after Trial by Ambush to show this. There are countless cases worldwide continuing. JB is routine in a global sense.

https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Injustice-Prosecutor-Psychology-Convictions-ebook/dp/B074CW4WQL/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1516052614&sr=1-1&keywords=Blind+Justice%22+by+Mark+Godsey.

Try reading this intro where he answers 7 questions

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/11/26/1717395/-Seven-questions-for-Mark-Godsey-author-of-Blind-Injustice


"4. People tend to have a Perry Mason view of our justice system: When evidence of innocence is found, we believe the defendant is immediately freed. You write that the reality is that the justice system tends to instead fight back even in the face of conclusive evidence of innocence"

Well I don't know enough about other cases to comment but in terms of JB's case I don't believe previous appeals have garnered sufficient evidence to lead to release.   

I look at the case holistically and see problems from the off which no doubt are similar in other cases:

- Poor recruitment practices/induction training within police force.  Every day I read about police wrongdoing on a grand scale.

- Poor supervision and management within police force.  DCI Jones' name is bandied about as though he was the most senior officer involved in the case.  He wasn't.  It was Chief Sup Harris who was at the soc long before DCI Jones and wrote it off as murder/suicide.  We rarely hear of Chief Sup Harris.  WHF is UK's only peacetime mass shooting where the perp was not observed by numerous witnesses.  Why would Chief Sup Harris not take ownership of such a case?  Why was a junior (by rank) officer such as DS Jones single handedly dealing with all the important aspects:

    - Picking up silencer from relatives and easily circumventing processes and systems by entering the silencer into the incorrect property book meaning it wouldn't undergo the sort of scrutiny such an exhibit would normally undergo.
    - Taking casts of scratches on Aga
    - Undertaking all JB/JM's interviews

- Poor training within the police force:

   - Even recently DC Cook told CAL had SC fired rifle 25/26 times he would have expected to find more of her fingerprints on firearm.  DI Cook being the "fingerprint" expert!  And yet it is notoriously difficult to recover latent fingerprints from firearms due to the coating known as 'bluing'.  Hence we have all the garbage about JB wearing gloves.  

The whole thing is a recipe for disaster.  

It then appears, certainly at the time of JB's case, that FSS was not run by experienced and qualified forensic scientists who operated independently of the police but was run by a bunch of numpties like Malcolm Fletcher who worked hand in glove with the police to construct a case based on the hunches of poorly recruited, trained and managed police officers. 

The nail in the coffin being incompetent and negligent defence lawyers and a biased trial judge.  

Once a jury returns a verdict it's seen as sacrosanct and a living nightmare to get it quashed in the appeal courts.    

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jvIdgW74LC

[Holly Goodhead]

The link in the above doesn't appear to be working so here it is again:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jvIdgW74LCk

Love Richard Dawkins. 

[tbl]

So Holly, what you are saying is that Jeremy Bamber is in prison due to:
- a large number of incompetent/dishonest police officers some of whom were very senior and experienced
- a large number of incompetent/dishonest civil servants including professionally qualified scientists
- a large number of incompetent/dishonest lawyers including at least 2 experienced QC's and multiple solicitors over a period of 30 years
- 7 incompetent judges (1 in the original trial, 2 x 3 Court of Appeal judges)
- a dishonest ex girlfriend
- a number of dishonest relatives

While 1 or 2 of the above features will be common to miscarriage of justice cases I think the chances of all of the above happening in a single case are remote in the extreme.

And you are right there are no limits to the number of appeals someone can make, I am not aware of any case which has been referred to the Court of Appeal on more than 2 occasions. The CCRC will need some very compelling evidence to consider this case again e.g. an admission of perjury by a witness or police officer. Until then any submission by Bamber will head straight for the shredder.

[Holly Goodhead]

So Holly, what you are saying is that Jeremy Bamber is in prison due to:
- a large number of incompetent/dishonest police officers some of whom were very senior and experienced
- a large number of incompetent/dishonest civil servants including professionally qualified scientists
- a large number of incompetent/dishonest lawyers including at least 2 experienced QC's and multiple solicitors over a period of 30 years
- 7 incompetent judges (1 in the original trial, 2 x 3 Court of Appeal judges)
- a dishonest ex girlfriend
- a number of dishonest relatives

While 1 or 2 of the above features will be common to miscarriage of justice cases I think the chances of all of the above happening in a single case are remote in the extreme.

And you are right there are no limits to the number of appeals someone can make, I am not aware of any case which has been referred to the Court of Appeal on more than 2 occasions. The CCRC will need some very compelling evidence to consider this case again e.g. an admission of perjury by a witness or police officer. Until then any submission by Bamber will head straight for the shredder.

Hang about I didn't refer to any number let alone "large number".  Nor did  I refer to anyone as "dishonest". 

I referred to:

- Police - Poor recruitment practices, induction training, ongoing training, supervision and management leading to poor outcomes for justice based on the reasons I've given above.

- FSS - Basically as the police above.  Evidenced by Malcolm Fletcher's trial testimony whereby he told the court his relevant experience included "Small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy".  Hardly sounds like a competent and credible expert witness?  The government identified   "high profile quality failures in the 1980's" at FSS:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm

Lawyers - negligent and incompetent - For the reasons I've given:

- Rivlin's trial strategy of SC using the silencer instead of repudiating it on the basis of fabrication

- Rivlin not chasing down the bloodstain test results for bible

- Rivlin allowing Fletcher with his "small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy" to run rings around the defence with all sorts of unsubstantiated nonsense covering 'drawback', SC's nightdress and NB sustaining his upstairs gsw's in the main bedroom.  

I don't believe I've ever referred to any lay witness as "dishonest"?  To my mind there's so much forensic evidence I don't concern myself with lay witness testimony.  I find it all lay witness testimony unreliable.  

If fresh compelling evidence is available the case could by-pass CCRC and go straight to DPP.  In any event an acquittal is most definitely not dependent on admission of perjury by anyone.  

The judicial system is fallible like any other system.  An analogy might be the financial system which you may recall crashed spectacularly just under a decade ago to the point a state bail-out was required to prevent the banks going bust.  How was this allowed to come about when supposedly the system is overseen by the great and the good?  As Lord Turner, former Chair of FSA said:

“I think we – as the authorities, central banks, regulators, those involved today – are the inheritors of a 50-year-long, large intellectual and policy mistake,” he says.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9934819/Adair-Turner-Bankers-no-longer-in-denial.html

The numbers of people responsible for overseeing the global financial system is huge compared with the small number of people involved in miscarriages of justice.

You appear to have blind faith in our systems and those that run them TBL?  

[John]

The only living person in the world who knows whether or not JB is guilty is JB.

I disagree Holly, I have always said that Jeremy Bamber had help.

As for the evidence against him, it was compelling back in 1986 and is even more so today IMHO.  The only hope Jeremy Bamber has of ever being released is if he comes clean and apologises for his behaviour.  He might then be given some opportunity to gain supervised parole further down the line.

[Holly Goodhead]

I disagree Holly, I have always said that Jeremy Bamber had help.

As for the evidence against him, it was compelling back in 1986 and is even more so today IMHO.  The only hope Jeremy Bamber has of ever being released is if he comes clean and apologises for his behaviour.  He might then be given some opportunity to gain supervised parole further down the line.

I appreciate those that believe JB guilty often consider he required "help".  A guilty JB = 3 awake adults to control in at least 2 different locations.

Since I'm firmly in the JB innocent camp I don't face the above dilemma.   All the forensic evidence imo by way of:

- Bloodstains
- Casings
- Distance of shots
- Gsw trajectories
- Wound tracks

shows the perp (SC IMO) in the main bedroom shooting June with NB sustaining his first gsw's: lip and jaw whilst stood on the landing stairs facing towards the main bedroom - NB on the landing stairs having just made the tel call to JB from the kitchen.

There's not a scintilla of doubt in my mind that in the 'Final Analysis' (by Prudence Cellalot) this theory will be proved correct.

At this moment in time it's:

Holly

- V -

Malcolm Fletcher - "Small amount of experience of air rifle as a small boy". 

[Caroline]

Hang about I didn't refer to any number let alone "large number".  Nor did  I refer to anyone as "dishonest".

I referred to:

- Police - Poor recruitment practices, induction training, ongoing training, supervision and management leading to poor outcomes for justice based on the reasons I've given above.

- FSS - Basically as the police above.  Evidenced by Malcolm Fletcher's trial testimony whereby he told the court his relevant experience included "Small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy".  Hardly sounds like a competent and credible expert witness?  The government identified   "high profile quality failures in the 1980's" at FSS:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm

Lawyers - negligent and incompetent - For the reasons I've given:

- Rivlin's trial strategy of SC using the silencer instead of repudiating it on the basis of fabrication

- Rivlin not chasing down the bloodstain test results for bible

- Rivlin allowing Fletcher with his "small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy" to run rings around the defence with all sorts of unsubstantiated nonsense covering 'drawback', SC's nightdress and NB sustaining his upstairs gsw's in the main bedroom. 

I don't believe I've ever referred to any lay witness as "dishonest"?  To my mind there's so much forensic evidence I don't concern myself with lay witness testimony.  I find it all lay witness testimony unreliable. 

If fresh compelling evidence is available the case could by-pass CCRC and go straight to DPP.  In any event an acquittal is most definitely not dependent on admission of perjury by anyone. 

The judicial system is fallible like any other system.  An analogy might be the financial system which you may recall crashed spectacularly just under a decade ago to the point a state bail-out was required to prevent the banks going bust.  How was this allowed to come about when supposedly the system is overseen by the great and the good?  As Lord Turner, former Chair of FSA said:

“I think we – as the authorities, central banks, regulators, those involved today – are the inheritors of a 50-year-long, large intellectual and policy mistake,” he says.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9934819/Adair-Turner-Bankers-no-longer-in-denial.html

The numbers of people responsible for overseeing the global financial system is huge compared with the small number of people involved in miscarriages of justice.

You appear to have blind faith in our systems and those that run them TBL? 

Where does it state that Fletcher's ONLY experience of firearms was using an air rifle as a small boy? I doubt whether this is true because I doubt he could have become a ballistics expert by writing that on his CV?

[Holly Goodhead]

Where does it state that Fletcher's ONLY experience of firearms was using an air rifle as a small boy? I doubt whether this is true because I doubt he could have become a ballistics expert by writing that on his CV?

At JB's trial every expert witness is asked about his/her qualifications and experience.  From the trial testimonies I've read the following witnesses outline degrees, membership of professional bodies and relevant experience:

- John Hayward
- Glynis Howard
- Prof Knight
- Dr Vanezis

Malcolm Fletcher referred to experience in the firearms dept at FSS and "a small amount of experience of an air rifle as a small boy".  What sort of 'expert witness' would consider for a minute "a small amount of experience of an air rifle as a small boy" as being remotely relevant?  I would expect the judge to ask "Who's the joker" and arrange for court ushers to point out the exit sign.

On a document dated 1st October 1986 Fletcher signs himself off as 'Senior Scientific Officer' with a BSc.  If this was so why not let the court know about his degree in science?  Why fall back on "A small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy"? 

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=271.0;attach=871

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8955.0;attach=12168

[APRIL]

At JB's trial every expert witness is asked about his/her qualifications and experience.  From the trial testimonies I've read the following witnesses outline degrees, membership of professional bodies and relevant experience:

- John Hayward
- Glynis Howard
- Prof Knight
- Dr Vanezis

Malcolm Fletcher referred to experience in the firearms dept at FSS and "a small amount of experience of an air rifle as a small boy".  What sort of 'expert witness' would consider for a minute "a small amount of experience of an air rifle as a small boy" as being remotely relevant?  I would expect the judge to ask "Who's the joker" and arrange for court ushers to point out the exit sign.

On a document dated 1st October 1986 Fletcher signs himself off as 'Senior Scientific Officer' with a BSc.  If this was so why not let the court know about his degree in science?  Why fall back on "A small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy"? 

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=271.0;attach=871

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8955.0;attach=12168

Experience in the firearms dept of FSS would imply a working knowledge of firearms. "a small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy"  implies a life long interest. Obviously I can't answer WHY he didn't list his BSc as a qualification, but it would have covered a multitude of disciplines rather than firearms in particular.

[Holly Goodhead]

Experience in the firearms dept of FSS would imply a working knowledge of firearms. "a small amount of experience of having an air rifle as a small boy"  implies a life long interest. Obviously I can't answer WHY he didn't list his BSc as a qualification, but it would have covered a multitude of disciplines rather than firearms in particular.

WHF is the UK's only peacetime mass shooting where all those who witnessed events unfold lost their lives.  I would suggest "a working knowledge of firearms" was inadequate for the complexity of the soc. 

Having a lifelong interest in something doesn't equate to an expert.

I think today a degree in forensic science includes ballistics and an MSc (post grad) in ballistics is available.  Fletcher may have had a degree in science but if this was so why not let the court know? 

[John]

I appreciate those that believe JB guilty often consider he required "help".  A guilty JB = 3 awake adults to control in at least 2 different locations.

Since I'm firmly in the JB innocent camp I don't face the above dilemma.   All the forensic evidence imo by way of:

- Bloodstains
- Casings
- Distance of shots
- Gsw trajectories
- Wound tracks

shows the perp (SC IMO) in the main bedroom shooting June with NB sustaining his first gsw's: lip and jaw whilst stood on the landing stairs facing towards the main bedroom - NB on the landing stairs having just made the tel call to JB from the kitchen.

There's not a scintilla of doubt in my mind that in the 'Final Analysis' (by Prudence Cellalot) this theory will be proved correct.

At this moment in time it's:

Holly

- V -

Malcolm Fletcher - "Small amount of experience of air rifle as a small boy".

Sorry, I should have made it clear that the help I referred to did not take place on the night of the murders.

And as already pointed out previously the bullet casings in the master bedroom would not have ended up where they were found had the shooter been in the bedroom shooting towards the landing.  For the casings to end up where they did, the shooter had to be in the bedroom or on the door threshold firing into the bedroom.

[APRIL]

WHF is the UK's only peacetime mass shooting where all those who witnessed events unfold lost their lives.  I would suggest "a working knowledge of firearms" was inadequate for the complexity of the soc. 

Having a lifelong interest in something doesn't equate to an expert.

I think today a degree in forensic science includes ballistics and an MSc (post grad) in ballistics is available.  Fletcher may have had a degree in science but if this was so why not let the court know?

I would have said that "a working knowledge of firearms" is likely to create more expert knowledge than theory alone. If nothing else, it would enhance the theory.

It may well be that his degree didn't fully cover ballistics. He MAY have had to gain experience 'on the job', in which case, personal interest would have been beneficial.

I feel certain that if we were to examine, closely, the qualifications of ALL individual professionals involved in the case, we'd find SOMETHING lacking. However, I wonder how much that would have mattered if Jeremy had got off?

[Caroline]

WHF is the UK's only peacetime mass shooting where all those who witnessed events unfold lost their lives.  I would suggest "a working knowledge of firearms" was inadequate for the complexity of the soc. 

Having a lifelong interest in something doesn't equate to an expert.

I think today a degree in forensic science includes ballistics and an MSc (post grad) in ballistics is available.  Fletcher may have had a degree in science but if this was so why not let the court know?

They didn't ALL lose their lives, Bamber survived.

I think you are doing this man a disservice and using his quote about the air rifle to define his career. I think you're better than this Holly!