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

[Myster]

Remind me please. 

I gave a friend my copy of CAL and threw out the others. Waiting for the 'Final Analysis' by Prudence Winnalot.

I backed my CAL book prezzy (from you know who?) with thick polythene... to match my others on the case. Looks really good!!!

[APRIL]

I backed my CAL book prezzy (from you know who?) with thick polythene... to match my others on the case. Looks really good!!!

Yeah! Books always seem to adopt a sensual "came hither" look when they're lined up, enticingly on a shelf

[Myster]

Yeah! Books always seem to adopt a sensual "came hither" look when they're lined up, enticingly on a shelf

Sure... but don't mention "Deviant" when Holly's about... or she'l have a fit of the heeby-jeebies!

[APRIL]

Sure... but don't mention "Deviant" when Holly's about... or she'l have a fit of the heeby-jeebies!

Mum's the word...................although in these days of stricktest PC, I'm not sure if it's the correct one

[Caroline]

I think the print belongs to June as she was attempting to get out of bed and placed her bloodied right hand on the opened pages as she forced herself up after being shot and feeling at her neck wounds. Then after all the shooting was over JB placed it on Sheila to give the impression she was reading it prior to "committing suicide".  QED

According to CAL the bible was handed back to the relatives in 2002 or 2006?, or so I've read.

Yes, so did I but I doubt they have it now - It's not something I would want to keep

[Caroline]

Sure... but don't mention "Deviant" when Holly's about... or she'l have a fit of the heeby-jeebies!

Deviant! Deviant DEVIANT!!!!!! 

[Holly Goodhead]

Haha I don't have anytime for anything deviant.  All my spare time is taken up here mass debating! 

[Holly Goodhead]

JB has long since exhausted every possible avenue open to him. Blood on the bible or any of the above won't be enough, 33 years later now and we're still waiting. Short of a perjury admission I can't see him proving his innocence in a court.

The best course of action is a full confession now, for some hope of seeing the light of day a la Harry Roberts in 20 years time.

The system isn't exhaustive.  The likes of JB can make any number of submissions to CCRC and the case can be heard any number of times in CoA.

The system isn't based on innocence.  No one has to prove his/her innocence at any stage.  At this stage all JB needs to do is find some evidence leads appeal court judges to conclude that had jurors known about it at trial might have caused them to return a different verdict. 

You cant blame JB for incompetent and negligent lawyers. 

A different QC at trial with a different strategy and not making silly oversights may have resulted in jurors returning a different verdict. 

[APRIL]

The system isn't exhaustive.  The likes of JB can make any number of submissions to CCRC and the case can be heard any number of times in CoA.

The system isn't based on innocence.  No one has to prove his/her innocence at any stage.  At this stage all JB needs to do is find some evidence leads appeal court judges to conclude that had jurors known about it at trial might have caused them to return a different verdict. 

You cant blame JB for incompetent and negligent lawyers. 

A different QC at trial with a different strategy and not making silly oversights may have resulted in jurors returning a different verdict.

So a competent trial lawyer might get a guilty person off? Where's the justice in that?

[steve_trousers]

The system isn't exhaustive.  The likes of JB can make any number of submissions to CCRC and the case can be heard any number of times in CoA.

The system isn't based on innocence.  No one has to prove his/her innocence at any stage.  At this stage all JB needs to do is find some evidence leads appeal court judges to conclude that had jurors known about it at trial might have caused them to return a different verdict. 

You cant blame JB for incompetent and negligent lawyers. 

A different QC at trial with a different strategy and not making silly oversights may have resulted in jurors returning a different verdict.

No, but his supporters believe in his innocence otherwise why are they campaigning for him ? not because you believe he's guilty and are trying to get him off on a technicality.

His QC was at original trial was excellent and so nearly got him off the hook, in the face of a sea of evidence proving he was the perpetrator.

Going into 2018, It's good to pop in here occasionally to see his grubby campaign deader in the water than ever 

[Holly Goodhead]

No, but his supporters believe in his innocence otherwise why are they campaigning for him ? not because you believe he's guilty and are trying to get him off on a technicality.

His QC was at original trial was excellent and so nearly got him off the hook, in the face of a sea of evidence proving he was the perpetrator.

Going into 2018, It's good to pop in here occasionally to see his grubby campaign deader in the water than ever 

The only living person in the world who knows whether or not JB is guilty is JB.  I believe JB innocent but I'm not such a zealot that my mind isn't open to the fact I might be wrong!  I've seen one poster state she knows JB is innocent.  This can't possibly be true.  If the person knew she would have evidence of such and JB wouldn't still be behind bars.  Believing and thinking are different from knowing! 

On what basis do you believe Rivlin was excellent at trial?  I disagree.  JB claims he handled the rifle towards the end of the day sans silencer.  The rifle was found on SC sans silencer.  It is claimed JB discussed with Rivlin the possibility the silencer was contaminated either accidentally or deliberately.  Appreciating the importance of the bloodstained exhibits the defence instructed Dr Lincoln, a blood serologist, to visit the lab and carry out his own tests.  Dr Lincoln then forwarded a report to the defence which one wonders if they bothered reading!  I've extracted the bloodstain results for each exhibit:



Surely any half decent defence lawyer would be all over this:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg315135#msg315135

Extracted from pages 12 - 17:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=276.0

- How come the blood supposedly found inside the silencer was capable of yielding bloodstain test results in excess of other exhibits especially given:

  - other exhibits contained a greater quantity of stain?
  - other exhibits were tested a month earlier than the blood inside the silencer eg rifle externally
  - blood on other exhibits weren't subjected to environments which had the potential to degrade the blood prior to being tested notably the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber

- Also where are the bloodstain test results for the bible? 

How can anyone think JB's lawyers at trial and appeal were even half decent when the answers from their own expert were staring them in the face? 

The bloodstain test results inside the silencer were fabricated and the bloodstain test results for the bible were withheld from the defence as they were helpful to the defence case and unhelpful to the prosecution. 

Rivlin's crazy strategy of SC using the silencer and removing and tidying up before taking her own life with the blood representing an intimate mix of NB's and June's was/is madness. 

Michael Turner repeating the same mistake along with his crazy theories that the open pages of the bible represented SC's state of mind and a police officer removed NB's blood from the mouthpiece of the kitchen phone.  Lol you couldn't make it up 

[Samson]

The only living person in the world who knows whether or not JB is guilty is JB.  I believe JB innocent but I'm not such a zealot that my mind isn't open to the fact I might be wrong!  I've seen one poster state she knows JB is innocent.  This can't possibly be true.  If the person knew she would have evidence of such and JB wouldn't still be behind bars.  Believing and thinking are different from knowing! 

On what basis do you believe Rivlin was excellent at trial?  I disagree.  JB claims he handled the rifle towards the end of the day sans silencer.  The rifle was found on SC sans silencer.  It is claimed JB discussed with Rivlin the possibility the silencer was contaminated either accidentally or deliberately.  Appreciating the importance of the bloodstained exhibits the defence instructed Dr Lincoln, a blood serologist, to visit the lab and carry out his own tests.  Dr Lincoln then forwarded a report to the defence which one wonders if they bothered reading!  I've extracted the bloodstain results for each exhibit:



Surely any half decent defence lawyer would be all over this:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7083.msg315135#msg315135

Extracted from pages 12 - 17:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=276.0

- How come the blood supposedly found inside the silencer was capable of yielding bloodstain test results in excess of other exhibits especially given:

  - other exhibits contained a greater quantity of stain?
  - other exhibits were tested a month earlier than the blood inside the silencer eg rifle externally
  - blood on other exhibits weren't subjected to environments which had the potential to degrade the blood prior to being tested notably the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber

- Also where are the bloodstain test results for the bible? 

How can anyone think JB's lawyers at trial and appeal were even half decent when the answers from their own expert were staring them in the face? 

The bloodstain test results inside the silencer were fabricated and the bloodstain test results for the bible were withheld from the defence as they were helpful to the defence case and unhelpful to the prosecution. 

Rivlin's crazy strategy of SC using the silencer and removing and tidying up before taking her own life with the blood representing an intimate mix of NB's and June's was/is madness. 

Michael Turner repeating the same mistake along with his crazy theories that the open pages of the bible represented SC's state of mind and a police officer removed NB's blood from the mouthpiece of the kitchen phone.  Lol you couldn't make it up 

A very conservative view Holly. I don't feel like a zealot in saying it was impossible for JB to pull off this crime with the scene as found. One of the key things people forget to discuss is the nature of the plan, and paraphernalia disposal. It happens they neglected to search JB's route and home, yet any plan would assume this search. The prosecution cutely suggest he had plenty of time after to dispose the wetsuit (lol) and clothing.
This is barking hindsight. Think about it. His time was completely limited to that available between the crime and the phone calls. It is all so obvious.

[APRIL]

A very conservative view Holly. I don't feel like a zealot in saying it was impossible for JB to pull off this crime with the scene as found. One of the key things people forget to discuss is the nature of the plan, and paraphernalia disposal. It happens they neglected to search JB's route and home, yet any plan would assume this search. The prosecution cutely suggest he had plenty of time after to dispose the wetsuit (lol) and clothing.
This is barking hindsight. Think about it. His time was completely limited to that available between the crime and the phone calls. It is all so obvious.

WHY would they search his home? He was -allegedly- the grieving and only remaining member of a murdered family. They were hardly going to break into his home an strip it down to look for evidence a few hours after the crime when he wasn't a suspect. WHY would they his route home when he wasn't a suspect? It was nearly a month before they started to seriously investigate him. Ample time to dispose of anything necessary.

[Holly Goodhead]

A very conservative view Holly. I don't feel like a zealot in saying it was impossible for JB to pull off this crime with the scene as found. One of the key things people forget to discuss is the nature of the plan, and paraphernalia disposal. It happens they neglected to search JB's route and home, yet any plan would assume this search. The prosecution cutely suggest he had plenty of time after to dispose the wetsuit (lol) and clothing.
This is barking hindsight. Think about it. His time was completely limited to that available between the crime and the phone calls. It is all so obvious.

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'!

[Samson]

WHY would they search his home? He was -allegedly- the grieving and only remaining member of a murdered family. They were hardly going to break into his home an strip it down to look for evidence a few hours after the crime when he wasn't a suspect. WHY would they his route home when he wasn't a suspect? It was nearly a month before they started to seriously investigate him. Ample time to dispose of anything necessary.

You are arguing backwards April. It is universally agreed by both sides there are two suspects. JB's alleged plan is to create Sheila Caffel as a suspect, and be so careful he is quickly eliminated as a suspect. Thus he could embark only when he was sure his paraphernalia could be permanently disappeared very quickly.
However, there was no time or opportunity to do so.
This is true in Bain and our running case, Mark Lundy. He and his car were seized immediately, and an exhaustive search of the crime environs executed. Of course nothing was found as he did not do it. JB is bound to consider his cottage might become a place of interest IMMEDIATELY.
Do you see what I am getting at? Forensic purity after a crime is a powerful signature of a miscarriage of justice.
Kirsten Lobato has just been released after 20 years, a very bloody violent crime, no trace on her, excellent alibi. These are the hallmarks. Trust me JB is in the same category, he did not do the crime, the "plan" does not stack up, right through to the forced suicide simulation.
Another keyboard pointlessly gone, but we can't help ourself.