Who should lead JB's defence at his third appeal hearing?

[Holly Goodhead]

I dread to think.

Oh but how you would just love to know because I know how nosey and snoopy you are.

Indeed. Why do you think they have legal clerks? They cannot refuse instructions that don't get to them in the first place. If you thinks its a matter of pick up the phone and away we go, then you are as Stephanie put it naïve.

As per usual your research skills let you down.  The law surrounding access to barristers changed in 2014.

My definition of you being stubborn is as follows "dogged determination not to change one's attitude or position on something, especially in spite of good arguments or reasons to do so"

Here are some examples were I was unable to persuade you of something even though I put irrefutable evidence right in-front of you.

Once on IA you expressed the view that a picture of Sheila's feet taken at autopsy were not Sheila's and the picture was bogus. I then showed you two very clear photos of the feet at both the crime scene and the autopsy room photo in question. I also included markers showing the spots and toenail damage was identical in both photos. So being shown conclusively that the feet were indeed the same and already privy to the fact AH obtained the photo from the CCRC. You still refused to accept the authenticity of the photo. Arguing something along the lines of that I knew nothing about the "female anatomy"

Then there's the time when you argued that shell casings could not bounce off a wall or hard surface like my images depicted. I then spent a rather lengthy amount time looking for footage that would demonstrate a .22 shell casing doing just that. Having then shown you the footage clear as day, what happens?  That was not good enough. Incredibly you then asked if I had anything to further support the video (that proved my point beyond any reasonable debate). Arguing that the shell casings were actually bullets!

In fact yes I did. What I converted into a slow-mo gif was taken from a video of a girl getting a hot casing down her bra from it bouncing off the wall.

https://youtu.be/bfNC1c-9aZI?t=30s

But I cut that bit out believing it was irrelevant. With hindsight I underestimated the stubbornness I was up against. No need to bring up the debate we had about the gunshot wounds to Junes head again but thats another example.

So yes, you are stubborn and very much so. Its not my persuation skills that are the problem. You wonder why you don't always get a reply from me and that's because I simply don't see the point in doing so. Most of the time all it accomplishes is me feeling frustrated and you looking stupid. Not that you are stupid its more a case of stubbornness disabling your judgment and common sense.

Again I have already explained to you that neither MTQC or DMS or anyone else can deviate from the original defence strategy at an appeal unless they have FRESH EVIDENCE that can impetrate a FRESH ARGUMENT. They had no such thing to enable them to argue for something else. All they could do was get Webster to advance betting testing and DNA to argue the possibility of a mixture was not remote and the Jury was mislead.

Rivlin had all the available evidence to construct such a defence. He had the documents showing that the relatives took bloodstained clothing from the crime scene. He had Haywards statement saying the blood in the SM could be Robert Boutflours. Rivlin could have stood in-front of jury and argue that this was a case of malicious contamination by the extended family against his client motivated by money, Whether it was true or not it could have been done. But since Rivlin didn't chose that path. Such a change of strategy cannot be done without compelling fresh evidence that shows a malicious contamination.

This "one strike and you're out" folly means you are writing them off for abiding by the legal principles and decree of their own profession which they have no option but to follow.

The only person that does not yet have a "strike" in this respect is Giovanni DeStefano lol. I rest my case.

You claim an image of SC's foot has emerged which depicts bloodstains.  I would need experts to verify the authenticity of the image.  On the assumption you're correct I would need experts to verify the marks, which you claim are bloodstains, are in fact bloodstains and not marks associated with the biological effects of post death.  Police officers at soc stated SC's feet were clean a fact which seems to tally with Dr V's pm.  You are asking me to believe your interpretation of an image over numerous police officers at soc and the pathologist.  Moreover if the image is authentic and depicts bloodstains as you claim at most it will show police officers and the pathologist provided misleading info.  SC was found on the carpeted floor which was heavily bloodstained with June's blood so unless SC was carried to the location (as Adam has proposed) then what does it prove?  She either walked there of her own accord or was marched there by JB either way she potentially walked on wet blood.  Dr V told CAL he believed the blood drips from June would quickly absorb into the carpet hence he found SC's feet clean.

The casings are not an exact science.  Extensive testing shows 25% deviation based on many factors.  The totality of the soc shows the position of victims/perp: bloodstains, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks.

The only way JB has a fighting chance of a successful appeal is to undermine the silencer evidence to the point the only explanation is fabrication.  I believe this is possible.  If I'm right this renders previous defence strategies of the mixed blood theory defunct and defence counsel at what will be JB's third appeal will be in a position to argue such. 

How can I apply my one strike and you're out policy to GDS when the guy isn't and never has been qualified to act in the UK? 
 

[Nicholas]

Oh but how you would just love to know because I know how nosey and snoopy you are.

As per usual your research skills let you down.  The law surrounding access to barristers changed in 2014.

You claim an image of SC's foot has emerged which depicts bloodstains.  I would need experts to verify the authenticity of the image.  On the assumption you're correct I would need experts to verify the marks, which you claim are bloodstains, are in fact bloodstains and not marks associated with the biological effects of post death.  Police officers at soc stated SC's feet were clean a fact which seems to tally with Dr V's pm.  You are asking me to believe your interpretation of an image over numerous police officers at soc and the pathologist.  Moreover if the image is authentic and depicts bloodstains as you claim at most it will show police officers and the pathologist provided misleading info.  SC was found on the carpeted floor which was heavily bloodstained with June's blood so unless SC was carried to the location (as Adam has proposed) then what does it prove?  She either walked there of her own accord or was marched there by JB either way she potentially walked on wet blood.  Dr V told CAL he believed the blood drips from June would quickly absorb into the carpet hence he found SC's feet clean.

The casings are not an exact science.  Extensive testing shows 25% deviation based on many factors.  The totality of the soc shows the position of victims/perp: bloodstains, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks.

The only way JB has a fighting chance of a successful appeal is to undermine the silencer evidence to the point the only explanation is fabrication.  I believe this is possible.  If I'm right this renders previous defence strategies of the mixed blood theory defunct and defence counsel at what will be JB's third appeal will be in a position to argue such.

How can I apply my one strike and you're out policy to GDS when the guy isn't and never has been qualified to act in the UK? 
 

Where does JM's evidence fit in to your theory?

You may find the following book of interest Holly

Privilege or Punish
Criminal Justice and the Challenge of Family Ties
Dan Markel, Jennifer M Collins, and Ethan J Leib
"Provides a new and sweeping analysis of the broad range of rules, doctrines and practices in criminal law that are driven by concerns about familial relationships
Argues for the abolition or reduction of widespread and long-established family tie practices and is sure to be regarded as a provocative approach to the topic
Co written from the perspective of three scholars with three different areas of scholarly expertise: criminal law; political theory; and family law and criminal law https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=CUxRDAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=incestuous+amplification+criminal+justice+system&ots=AogWRvGOgq&sig=u8Ca74O0qD0knHYFgxC1MGUTjOg#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Samson]

No not at all. I am simply explaining the reasons why the lawyers in question have worked in the way they have done.

The work we are talking about here took place in 1993 and 2002. The quote from Lord Kerr was not until 2013. So such precedent was not in existence.

Over the last 30 years the lawyers have actually shown the jury would have come to a different verdict. Its the Judges that wont uphold thier end of the deal.

The Jury were deadlocked. They then asked the Judge to go over haywards evidence on what was the chances of the blood being a mixture of Nevills and Junes. The Judge remineded them that it was a match Sheila's blood and the possibility of the blood in the silencer being a mixture of Nevills and June's was a remote one. On hearing this they convicted 10-2.

Justice Drake at trial 1986

"The sound moderator is clearly of very great importance, and the evidence relating to the sound moderator could, on its own, lead you to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty."

Lord Lane C.J in the Court of Appeal 1989

"The question of the silencer, quite apart from where it was found and how it got there in the cupboard, loomed very large first in the view of the Judge, certainly in the view of this Court and plainly in the view of the jury, because when they came back to ask a question it was a question directed to this very point".

"We need to hear blood expert's evidence regarding the blood in the silencer, (a) a perfect match of Sheila's blood, (b) what was the chance of the blood group being June and Ralph's mixing together"

"That of course was fatal, the jury accepted it"

And so, had the jury heard Websters testimony from 2002 that the possibility was good and not remote. Had the jury been shown the ballistic evidence produced in 2011 showing no silencer was on the weapon when Sheila was shot. You cannot reasonably argue that the verdict would be the same. To my mind the lawyers have done there job its the Judges that have moved the goal post.

Had Lord Lane C.J ruling at the 1989 appeal been a binding factor in the second appeal the conviction would have been ruled unsafe. The Judges in 2002 made clear it was not binding.

I will refer your post to the Lundy defence, who never agreed that Lord Kerr was breaking ground that the plebescite always assumed aligned with a common sense view of the world and the people they understood.
Sorry to be circumloquacious, but this is incredibly important to Jeremy Bamber.

[Holly Goodhead]

Where does JM's evidence fit in to your theory?

If JM's evidence underpins JB's conviction why did CCRC refer JB's case to CoA on the back of the silencer? 

Ground 15 is the sole ground upon which this case was referred to the Court by the CCRC. It is based upon the testing of the sound moderator for DNA, a technique that was not available at trial.

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

I believe the new evidence will be devastating to the prosecution case against JB.  Time will tell.

[Nicholas]

If JM's evidence underpins JB's conviction why did CCRC refer JB's case to CoA on the back of the silencer? 

Ground 15 is the sole ground upon which this case was referred to the Court by the CCRC. It is based upon the testing of the sound moderator for DNA, a technique that was not available at trial.

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

I believe the new evidence will be devastating to the prosecution case against JB.  Time will tell.

Why did the CCRC refer Simon Hall's case on the fibre evidence?

I know the grounds of appeal in Bambers case and Hall's case and I know why both convictions were upheld.

Time will tell his supporters that Jeremy Bamber is a con artist. His case won't make it back to the COA Holly.

[david1819]

I will refer your post to the Lundy defence, who never agreed that Lord Kerr was breaking ground that the plebescite always assumed aligned with a common sense view of the world and the people they understood.
Sorry to be circumloquacious, but this is incredibly important to Jeremy Bamber.

That statement by Lord Kerr does not effect the criminal appeals act. I am not disagreeing with what Lord Kerr said but simply pointing out it does not effect this case or any appeal for that matter.

This is from a failed appeal that took place less than two years ago - "It would require a compelling piece of fresh evidence or line of argument to persuade us to re-tread well-trodden ground. In the appellant's case, there is in truth very little by the way of fresh evidence or fresh argument"

Previous legal representatives of Jeremy are being criticized for advancing the blood mixing theory, when anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the adversarial justice system would understand they had no other option. In the Netherlands, at their appeal courts the case is tried de novo, meaning that in principle the case is tried anew. Everything can be reconsidered and all evidence looked over again. That's the inquisitorial system whereby the appeal is more or less an inquisitorial tribunal. If that was our system then the criticism of MTQC and DMS would be more than justified. But that's not the system in this case.

The reality is that any future appeal by JB will be presented in very narrow circumstances (narrower than prior) in fact. And it will not make a huge amount of difference who leads it.

I am not here to argue for or against adversarial-inquisitorial Justice or how crappy our legal system is. That's another debate for another time.

[Holly Goodhead]

That statement by Lord Kerr does not effect the criminal appeals act. I am not disagreeing with what Lord Kerr said but simply pointing out it does not effect this case or any appeal for that matter.

This is from a failed appeal that took place less than two years ago - "It would require a compelling piece of fresh evidence or line of argument to persuade us to re-tread well-trodden ground. In the appellant's case, there is in truth very little by the way of fresh evidence or fresh argument"

Previous legal representatives of Jeremy are being criticized for advancing the blood mixing theory, when anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the adversarial justice system would understand they had no other option. In the Netherlands, at their appeal courts the case is tried de novo, meaning that in principle the case is tried anew. Everything can be reconsidered and all evidence looked over again. That's the inquisitorial system whereby the appeal is more or less an inquisitorial tribunal. If that was our system then the criticism of MTQC and DMS would be more than justified. But that's not the system in this case.

The reality is that any future appeal by JB will be presented in very narrow circumstances (narrower than prior) in fact. And it will not make a huge amount of difference who leads it.

I am not here to argue for or against adversarial-inquisitorial Justice or how crappy our legal system is. That's another debate for another time.

I disagree.  In the fullness of time JB's defence at trial and appeal hearings 89'and 02 will be shown to be incompetent and negligent.

I would like to see fresh faces at appeal.

[John]

I disagree.  In the fullness of time JB's defence at trial and appeal hearings 89'and 02 will be shown to be incompetent and negligent.

I would like to see fresh faces at appeal.

I can't ever see there being a referral by the CCRC let alone an appeal requiring the appointment of junior and senior counsel.  There just isn't any new evidence which could support a referral. The Campaign Team are grasping at every decreasing straws and what's more, I believe they have now come to realise it.  Bambers only hope now is to bite the bullet, come clean and pray the parole board is feeling generous.

[david1819]

I disagree.  In the fullness of time JB's defence at trial and appeal hearings 89'and 02 will be shown to be incompetent and negligent.

Will this happen before or after Maurice Drake gets stripped of his knighthood? lol

On a serious note you have accused everything and everyone of incompetence. The FSS, CCRC, Judges and Lawyers the lot. So its not really fair to single people out people here, because their own results or success/ failure depends on the competency of all the others involved.

But on the issue of DMS and MTQC what do you think they should have done instead of advance the blood mixture theory? The CCRC decided to refer the case in 2000 on the possibility of fresh DNA evidence supporting the mixture theory at trial. This was before MTQC was even involved. It was a card that Ewen Smith and MTQC had to play regardless. The only way MTQC could avoid advancing the mixture theory is by refusing to take the case.

As for DMS what could he have done? The only option I can think of is to find a scientist that would be prepared to come up with fresh evidence that suggests the blood was rabbit blood misinterpreted as human. And I dont think that would work.

I would like to see fresh faces at appeal.

Based on my own observations, they are not much to look at.

[Holly Goodhead]

Will this happen before or after Maurice Drake gets stripped of his knighthood? lol

I don't believe it is possible to remove a knighthood posthumously.  In fairness to the judges they can only be as good as the lawyers before them.  Judges rely on the lawyers to tease out, if you will, the salient points from expert witnesses.  However I do believe the appeal judges over stepped the mark with regard to Mark Webster's testimony ie providing opinion about how wet blood might behave upon unscrewing and removing the silencer etc.  This sort of thing will come back to haunt them.  It's extremely complex subject matter falling under fluid mechanics and certainly not for the judges to provide opinion on.   

On a serious note you have accused everything and everyone of incompetence. The FSS, CCRC, Judges and Lawyers the lot. So its not really fair to single people out people here, because their own results or success/ failure depends on the competency of all the others involved.

If you believe JB innocent then by definition one must believe there are faults in the judicial process and system?  The processes and system need to cater for the worst case scenario where the truth still triumphs.  By this I mean unreliable lay witnesses and incompetence, negligence and wrongdoing by police, experts and lawyers.  IMO singling out JM and the relatives is akin to buying rotten eggs from Waitrose and then berating the checkout person for scanning them thru the till.  The problem is much higher up the chain.  In an ideal world all lay witnesses would be reliable and all police officers, experts and lawyers would be reliable but that isn't the real world and defence counsel need to be alert to this.

The CT single out JM and the relatives.  You single out Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight.  Mike singles out the police.  I single out the lawyers.

Where have I criticised the CCRC?  If you want to accuse a fellow poster of something David you need to back it up.  You have no difficulty in retrieving posts from April and Caroline so please provide mine where I have criticised CCRC.  If you're unable to I trust you will withdraw your comment and apologise?

I'm not alone in criticising FSS.  Parliament did so long before me:

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

My criticism is very much directed at the lawyers who represented JB at trial and appeals.  DMS has to date played a minor role. 

But on the issue of DMS and MTQC what do you think they should have done instead of advance the blood mixture theory? The CCRC decided to refer the case in 2000 on the possibility of fresh DNA evidence supporting the mixture theory at trial. This was before MTQC was even involved. It was a card that Ewen Smith and MTQC had to play regardless. The only way MTQC could avoid advancing the mixture theory is by refusing to take the case.

As for DMS what could he have done? The only option I can think of is to find a scientist that would be prepared to come up with fresh evidence that suggests the blood was rabbit blood misinterpreted as human. And I dont think that would work.

Based on my own observations, they are not much to look at.

If JB accepts my proposals I believe all will be revealed at a third successful appeal.

[Angelo222]

I don't understand how anyone can believe that JB is innocent given what occurred.  To do so is nothing more than semantics imo.  I don't believe any of Bamber's legal teams have ever believed him to be innocent and that includes the more recent efforts by a lawyer who couldn't distance himself quickly enough from him in the end.  In his own words, he didn't want his own children reading on the internet that their father was a supporter of a double child murderer.

[Holly Goodhead]

I don't understand how anyone can believe that JB is innocent given what occurred.  To do so is nothing more than semantics imo.  I don't believe any of Bamber's legal teams have ever believed him to be innocent and that includes the more recent efforts by a lawyer who couldn't distance himself quickly enough from him in the end.  In his own words, he didn't want his own children reading on the internet that their father was a supporter of a double child murderer.

MT QC is on record saying he believes passionately JB is innocent.

JB has a some rather odd supporters or perhaps I should say supporters who IMO go about supporting him in odd ways.  Nonetheless he does have many supporters who seem ordinary sensible people eg former Tory MP Andrew Hunter and NGB putting aside his extreme left of centre politics.   

[Angelo222]

MT QC is on record saying he believes passionately JB is innocent.

JB has a some rather odd supporters or perhaps I should say supporters who IMO go about supporting him in odd ways.  Nonetheless he does have many supporters who seem ordinary sensible people eg former Tory MP Andrew Hunter and NGB putting aside his extreme left of centre politics.

Ordinary and sensible are not descriptions I recognise in either of those individuals you named.  Many people have attempted to piggyback on the Jeremy Bamber case for one reason or another but none of them have ever provided any evidence which could be considered compelling.

[david1819]

Where have I criticised the CCRC?  If you want to accuse a fellow poster of something David you need to back it up.  You have no difficulty in retrieving posts from April and Caroline so please provide mine where I have criticised CCRC.  If you're unable to I trust you will withdraw your comment and apologise?

I don't expect folk at the ccrc sit around discussing this and finding ways to reject JB's submissions but it will be lurking.  You only get to be in the ccrc and all the rest of it if you're a certain type.

I am pessimistic for a referral to the court of appeal for political reasons and the ruling elite closing ranks.

You have made it clear on many occasions that you believe the prevalence of men is part to blame for JBs current situation. Thus the following is binding.

Those assessing JB's case at CCRC and CoA are again all male as far as I can see?

I cant help but mention, the only organisation in this case that is predominantly female. Is the official campaign team. Need I say more?

I rest my case.

If JB accepts my proposals I believe all will be revealed at a third successful appeal.

This?

The only realistic chance JB has is if Nelly Red Belly gets readmitted to the bar and takes the case on with moi as his research asst and you as boy friday aka 3 muskateeers.

Anyway back to the question that I asked. How could MTQC have not possibly argued for the blood mixture theory when it was the CCRCs sole reason for referring the case to the COA in the first place? I quote -

Ground 15 is the sole ground upon which this case was referred to the Court by the CCRC. It is based upon the testing of the sound moderator for DNA, a technique that was not available at trial.


The Commission concluded:

"10.10 Whilst it might be arguable that the recent DNA tests do not establish that the source of the female DNA was blood, the Commission believes, as a matter of probability, that it is from blood because it was found deep within the silencer. Given the record of handling of the silencer by the scientists, the Commission does not believe that any possible contamination from them is likely to have been found that far down inside. Also, given that it is an accepted fact that blood was in the silencer in 1985, the Commission considers that it is much more likely that the DNA is from the blood found in the silencer at the time. Considering the length of time that has past and the fact that much of the blood was swabbed out for blood grouping, the Commission does not consider that the negative KM result strengthens the possibility that the DNA does not originate from blood. In any event, the Commission considers that the absence of Sheila Caffell's DNA is significant.

10.11 The Commission considers that the fresh evidence relating to the silencer severely undermines the Crown's case against Mr Bamber as it was presented to the jury. …"


Oopps... looks like the CCRC have got a strike and they are now out. 


So prehaps you should stop slagging off MTQC and instead be more critical of the CCRC who reffered JB to the right place for the wrong reasons?

[Holly Goodhead]

You have made it clear on many occasions that you believe the prevalence of men is part to blame for JBs current situation. Thus the following is binding.

I cant help but mention, the only organisation in this case that is predominantly female. Is the official campaign team. Need I say more?

I rest my case.

This?

Anyway back to the question that I asked. How could MTQC have not possibly argued for the blood mixture theory when it was the CCRCs sole reason for referring the case to the COA in the first place? I quote -

Ground 15 is the sole ground upon which this case was referred to the Court by the CCRC. It is based upon the testing of the sound moderator for DNA, a technique that was not available at trial.


The Commission concluded:

"10.10 Whilst it might be arguable that the recent DNA tests do not establish that the source of the female DNA was blood, the Commission believes, as a matter of probability, that it is from blood because it was found deep within the silencer. Given the record of handling of the silencer by the scientists, the Commission does not believe that any possible contamination from them is likely to have been found that far down inside. Also, given that it is an accepted fact that blood was in the silencer in 1985, the Commission considers that it is much more likely that the DNA is from the blood found in the silencer at the time. Considering the length of time that has past and the fact that much of the blood was swabbed out for blood grouping, the Commission does not consider that the negative KM result strengthens the possibility that the DNA does not originate from blood. In any event, the Commission considers that the absence of Sheila Caffell's DNA is significant.

10.11 The Commission considers that the fresh evidence relating to the silencer severely undermines the Crown's case against Mr Bamber as it was presented to the jury. …"


Oopps... looks like the CCRC have got a strike and they are now out. 


So prehaps you should stop slagging off MTQC and instead be more critical of the CCRC who reffered JB to the right place for the wrong reasons?

Oh come off it David they're hardly critical in the same way as I have criticised your QC crush.  I could recall one post I made criticising the CCRC but these were made when I was new to the case.  You find me some under NN, H on IA or HG here.  Let's not forget at one time you believed JB guilty.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2305.msg69761.html#msg69761

I've said many times and very recently I think the best ideas, decisions etc are made by heterogeneous groups not homogeneous groups.  I'm not some man hating strident feminist on the contrary but I think it's very unhealthy to have areas of public life overseen by people that aren't representative of society at large.  In JB's case the investigation and trial involved all males with the exception of WPC Jeapes and Glynis Howard.  It's an extremely unhealthy situation.  All the research shows where you have groups of people that are alike in terms of background, age, education, ethnicity, gender etc they will a) think similarly and b) are less likely to disagree. 

The so-called official campaign team are not working in a paid professional capacity.  In any event you are forgetting the two M's: Matt and Marty. 

Surely MT QC could see the flaws in the LCN DNA tests given it's limitations and the issues surrounding contamination?  I will accept the likes of us have the advantage of unlimited time but on the other hand surely MT QC has a lot more experience of handling criminal cases and is quickly able to identify the challenges and opportunities?  If JB accepts my proposals and things go the way I anticipate MT QC should resign or be struck off.  It shouldn't be that lay people on internet forums sort out failings by QC's. 

Your case related views are very much aligned with MT QC's 2002 appeal which I've challenged you on here

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9154.msg446977#msg446977

but so far no response. 

One of the reasons I'm more critical of MT QC than Rivlin is that MT QC had access to the Internet leading up to JB's appeal which is a fantastic research tool.