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

[david1819]

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.

It is quiet clear by reading the CCRCs own words on their justifications for referring the case in 2001 was that they believed the presence of Junes DNA discovered in the sound moderator the previous year was a result of blood being in the sound moderator from 1985.

The appeal in 2002 was a case of the CCRCs poorly thought out reasoning thus seemingly supporting Rivlins defence strategy. MT QC had no choice but to argue for it - FACT 

Ironically the Judges were correct in dissmissing gound 15 and correct in critising the CCRC for not thinking it through. Its rather obvious why MT QC brought up 14 auxiliary grounds leaving the CCRCs main gound till last. It all rested on gound 15.

Incidentally I noticed the other day that it was actually Edmund Lawson AKA "brightest of the bright" that mentioned the police swapping the kitchen phone at the appeal hearing not MT. (See attached)

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 

Lol seems you have.

So the question is not why was MT QC  grossly negligent. The question is why was the CCRC grossly negligent in the way it reffered the case to the COA in the first place. They got a grilling last time (rightly so) and are now too overly cautious to reffer the case again.

So if you would please direct your catty crusade in the direction of the CCRC rather than elsewhere. Thanks.

[Nicholas]

It is quiet clear by reading the CCRCs own words on their justifications for referring the case in 2001 was that they believed the presence of Junes DNA discovered in the sound moderator the previous year was a result of blood being in the sound moderator from 1985.

The appeal in 2002 was a case of the CCRCs poorly thought out reasoning thus seemingly supporting Rivlins defence strategy. MT QC had no choice but to argue for it - FACT 

Ironically the Judges were correct in dissmissing gound 15 and correct in critising the CCRC for not thinking it through. Its rather obvious why MT QC brought up 14 auxiliary grounds leaving the CCRCs main gound till last. It all rested on gound 15.

Incidentally I noticed the other day that it was actually Edmund Lawson AKA "brightest of the bright" that mentioned the police swapping the kitchen phone at the appeal hearing not MT. (See attached)

Lol seems you have.

So the question is not why was MT QC  grossly negligent. The question is why was the CCRC grossly negligent in the way it reffered the case to the COA in the first place. They got a grilling last time (rightly so) and are now too overly cautious to reffer the case again.

So if you would please direct your catty crusade in the direction of the CCRC rather than elsewhere. Thanks.

The ONLY person at fault here is Jeremy Bamber. It is he who has manufactured these stories in the hope of getting away with murder and being labelled as wrongly convicted as opposed a mass murderer.

When you are dealing with a cunning and manipulative individual like this, it's all too easy to blame ever one else. The pair of you should be looking at the mountain of evidence which clearly shows his guilt, not blaming everyone else for Bambers blatent BS.

You aren't the oracle on this David. Whilst you are all too consumed with critiquing legal papers you are missing what is starring you in the face.

There will NOT be a third appeal because the Criminal Justice System and the CCRC KNOW Bamber is attempting to con his way out of jail on a manufactured technicality. The prison and parole board and all other agencies know Bamber is too dangerous to be released back into society.

Oh and David, you stated the following in response to Steve_UK re Neville phoning his son

"I believe so not because I take Jeremy's word for it, but because the forensic evidence indirectly shows it took place
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7966.msg377926.html#msg377926

You then went on to say:
"I can prove the fight in the kitchen never happened. I will create a threat on it later when I have time.

The forensic evidence shows no such thing! Your forensic evidence theories are flawed!

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7861.msg372798.html#msg372798

No amount of conspiracy theories will overturn Bambers conviction because it's solid. JM's evidence was and is crucial!

Bamber has engineered his campaign for freedom but in the process of his 30 year claims, he's given away many clues as to his guilt.

As I said to LM previously, there is the moral imperative to consider, not just legal arguments over technicalities of law.

You are using the wrong case in which to attempt to score points David!

[Holly Goodhead]

It is quiet clear by reading the CCRCs own words on their justifications for referring the case in 2001 was that they believed the presence of Junes DNA discovered in the sound moderator the previous year was a result of blood being in the sound moderator from 1985.

The appeal in 2002 was a case of the CCRCs poorly thought out reasoning thus seemingly supporting Rivlins defence strategy. MT QC had no choice but to argue for it - FACT 

Ironically the Judges were correct in dissmissing gound 15 and correct in critising the CCRC for not thinking it through. Its rather obvious why MT QC brought up 14 auxiliary grounds leaving the CCRCs main gound till last. It all rested on gound 15.

Incidentally I noticed the other day that it was actually Edmund Lawson AKA "brightest of the bright" that mentioned the police swapping the kitchen phone at the appeal hearing not MT. (See attached)

Lol seems you have.

So the question is not why was MT QC  grossly negligent. The question is why was the CCRC grossly negligent in the way it reffered the case to the COA in the first place. They got a grilling last time (rightly so) and are now too overly cautious to reffer the case again.

So if you would please direct your catty crusade in the direction of the CCRC rather than elsewhere. Thanks.

I've criticised all the lawyers.  It's obvious EL was hopeless:

- Allowed MF's "Small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy" to pass.
- Allowed MF to claim adult victims sustained all upstairs gsw's in main bedroom without any explanation or challenge
- Allowed MF to claim NB sustained an exit gsw to his head.  This contradicts Dr V's autopsy.  Who do you believe MF or Dr V?  Tough call 

Are you telling me barristers receive a brief and they run with it regardless?  They don't carry out any analysis or research they simply argue the brief placed before them? 

The CCRC referred the case on the basis it was unable to identify SC's DNA in the silencer.  What prevented MT QC from going down the contamination or fabrication route and knocking the mixed blood theory on the head?  I'm looking for a better answer than 'how do you explain June's DNA?'  How do you explain the absence of NB's DNA?   

I don't know enough about the 2011 CCRC application to comment on SM's input but IMO all those that I know of up until then were grossly incompetent and negligent:

- Paul Terzeon - retired
- Geoffrey Rivlin - retired
- Ed Lawson - deceased
- David Martin Sperry - still practicing - minor role in JB's case ie didn't represent at court
- Isabelle Gillard - still practicing - minor role as DMS above
- Ewan Smith - retired
- Michael Duck - still practising
- Michael Turner - still practicing

[Nicholas]

I've criticised all the lawyers.  It's obvious EL was hopeless:

- Allowed MF's "Small amount of experience with an air rifle as a small boy" to pass.
- Allowed MF to claim adult victims sustained all upstairs gsw's in main bedroom without any explanation or challenge
- Allowed MF to claim NB sustained an exit gsw to his head.  This contradicts Dr V's autopsy.  Who do you believe MF or Dr V?  Tough call 

Are you telling me barristers receive a brief and they run with it regardless?  They don't carry out any analysis or research they simply argue the brief placed before them? 

The CCRC referred the case on the basis it was unable to identify SC's DNA in the silencer.  What prevented MT QC from going down the contamination or fabrication route and knocking the mixed blood theory on the head?  I'm looking for a better answer than 'how do you explain June's DNA?'  How do you explain the absence of NB's DNA?   

I don't know enough about the 2011 CCRC application to comment on SM's input but IMO all those that I know of up until then were grossly incompetent and negligent:

- Paul Terzeon - retired
- Geoffrey Rivlin - retired
- Ed Lawson - deceased
- David Martin Sperry - still practicing - minor role in JB's case ie didn't represent at court
- Isabelle Gillard - still practicing - minor role as DMS above
- Ewan Smith - retired
- Michael Duck - still practising
- Michael Turner - still practicing




-

Jeremy Bamber was hopeless Holly. It was he who instructed his legal teams. They were working for him.

You state:
"I don't know enough about the 2011 CCRC application to comment on SM's input but IMO all those that I know of up until then were grossly incompetent and negligent

Why has Bamber never put his submission to the CCRC into the public domain for scrutiny? What is in them he doesn't want his supporters to see?

Your criticism should be directed at Bamber Holly.

[adam]

The ONLY person at fault here is Jeremy Bamber. It is he who has manufactured these stories in the hope of getting away with murder and being labelled as wrongly convicted as opposed a mass murderer.

When you are dealing with a cunning and manipulative individual like this, it's all too easy to blame ever one else. The pair of you should be looking at the mountain of evidence which clearly shows his guilt, not blaming everyone else for Bambers blatent BS.

You aren't the oracle on this David. Whilst you are all too consumed with critiquing legal papers you are missing what is starring you in the face.

There will NOT be a third appeal because the Criminal Justice System and the CCRC KNOW Bamber is attempting to con his way out of jail on a manufactured technicality. The prison and parole board and all other agencies know Bamber is too dangerous to be released back into society.

Oh and David, you stated the following in response to Steve_UK re Neville phoning his son

"I believe so not because I take Jeremy's word for it, but because the forensic evidence indirectly shows it took place
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7966.msg377926.html#msg377926

You then went on to say:
"I can prove the fight in the kitchen never happened. I will create a threat on it later when I have time.

The forensic evidence shows no such thing! Your forensic evidence theories are flawed!

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7861.msg372798.html#msg372798

No amount of conspiracy theories will overturn Bambers conviction because it's solid. JM's evidence was and is crucial!

Bamber has engineered his campaign for freedom but in the process of his 30 year claims, he's given away many clues as to his guilt.

As I said to LM previously, there is the moral imperative to consider, not just legal arguments over technicalities of law.

You are using the wrong case in which to attempt to score points David!

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8470.msg402874.html#msg402874

David did say he was going to create a 3D reconstruction of events in the kitchen. Which he said was 'almost done'.

Bit of a waste of thread really. Better to just create the 3D reconstruction.

Anyway the thread was never created. I suspect because for it to be accurrate, it would highlight a huge kitchen fight, which supporters have to claim didn't happen. 

I did chase David up, but he said he had never promised the reconstruction.

[Nicholas]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8470.msg402874.html#msg402874

David did say he was going to create a 3D reconstruction of events in the kitchen. Which he said was 'almost done'.

Bit of a waste of thread really. Better to just create the 3D reconstruction.

Anyway the thread was never created. I suspect because for it to be accurrate, it would highlight a huge kitchen fight, which supporters have to claim didn't happen. 

I did chase David up, but he said he had never promised the reconstruction.

I remember and you could well be right.

David appears to be ignoring many of Holly's questions as well, along with many questions raised by others.

Isn't this behaviour Bambers preferred method when caught out. Doesn't Bamber pretend to play dumb and claims  things never happened or comes up with numerous excuses, like for example, when he played ignorant over Caroline's letters?

[Holly Goodhead]

Jeremy Bamber was hopeless Holly. It was he who instructed his legal teams. They were working for him.

You state:
"I don't know enough about the 2011 CCRC application to comment on SM's input but IMO all those that I know of up until then were grossly incompetent and negligent

Why has Bamber never put his submission to the CCRC into the public domain for scrutiny? What is in them he doesn't want his supporters to see?

Your criticism should be directed at Bamber Holly.

As I've said many times IMO JB's understanding of his case is poor so if JB was leading maybe that explains the outcomes.

I understand JB wanted Rivlin to argue the silencer was contaminated or fabricated but Rivlin said it was too far fetched. 

Maybe JB doesn't want to put his 2011/12 into the public domain as it contains some points he want going into a future appeal.

[Nicholas]

The ONLY person at fault here is Jeremy Bamber. It is he who has manufactured these stories in the hope of getting away with murder and being labelled as wrongly convicted as opposed a mass murderer.

When you are dealing with a cunning and manipulative individual like this, it's all too easy to blame ever one else. The pair of you should be looking at the mountain of evidence which clearly shows his guilt, not blaming everyone else for Bambers blatent BS.

You aren't the oracle on this David. Whilst you are all too consumed with critiquing legal papers you are missing what is starring you in the face.

There will NOT be a third appeal because the Criminal Justice System and the CCRC KNOW Bamber is attempting to con his way out of jail on a manufactured technicality. The prison and parole board and all other agencies know Bamber is too dangerous to be released back into society.

Oh and David, you stated the following in response to Steve_UK re Neville phoning his son

"I believe so not because I take Jeremy's word for it, but because the forensic evidence indirectly shows it took place
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7966.msg377926.html#msg377926

You then went on to say:
"I can prove the fight in the kitchen never happened. I will create a threat on it later when I have time.

The forensic evidence shows no such thing! Your forensic evidence theories are flawed!

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7861.msg372798.html#msg372798

No amount of conspiracy theories will overturn Bambers conviction because it's solid. JM's evidence was and is crucial!

Bamber has engineered his campaign for freedom but in the process of his 30 year claims, he's given away many clues as to his guilt.

As I said to LM previously, there is the moral imperative to consider, not just legal arguments over technicalities of law.

You are using the wrong case in which to attempt to score points David!

I cannot emphasise this enough!

The moral imperative of Jeremy Bamber's case will weigh heavy on any possible future appeal.

Bambers campaign, like Simon Hall's, has been played out in the public arena. His surviving relatives and their relatives, Julie Mugford and Colin Caffell, and others, have had their past lives scutinised by all and sundry. They have faced public ridicule and criticism and have been subjected to malicious smear campaigns and their characters assassinated.

Any future defence team will need to consider this when going forward with this case.

[Nicholas]

As I've said many times IMO JB's understanding of his case is poor so if JB was leading maybe that explains the outcomes.

I understand JB wanted Rivlin to argue the silencer was contaminated or fabricated but Rivlin said it was too far fetched. 

Maybe JB doesn't want to put his 2011/12 into the public domain as it contains some points he want going into a future appeal.

I don't know how you've come to the conclusion you have Holly but it's not the conclusion of the majority.

I once wrongly thought this of Simon Hall, because he too played a blinder. He even convinced me once I learned of the Zenith burglary that he'd omitted this fact as he said it would have given the police motive. He blogged about it.

Holly if you were innocent and in prison after 30 years, would you sit on something that could help clear your name? Come on, let's be realistic here. Bamber has nothing to lose by being completely transparent. Nothing. He's serving a full life tariff.

This isn't a game.

But Bamber is playing it like a game because that's exactly what it is to him. One big fat game. He knows he's guilty. He knows he has no hope of release. What's he got to lose by keeping people like you going round in circles year after year? He doesn't care about any of his supporters, regardless what he may say to them. He doesn't care about anyone other than Jeremy Bamber.

Have you ever met a psychopath Holly? Would you know what signs to look out for if you did?

He hasn't put his past submissions into the public domain because he is dishonest Holly.

You don't go around publicly requesting from Essex police full disclosure if you are not prepared to be as equally transpararent.

Anyway, it appears Bamber has had disclosure but he's again not been open and honest about what he's had and what he hasn't had. Because he's a conman!

[david1819]

The CCRC referred the case on the basis it was unable to identify SC's DNA in the silencer.  What prevented MT QC from going down the contamination or fabrication route and knocking the mixed blood theory on the head? I'm looking for a better answer than 'how do you explain June's DNA?'  How do you explain the absence of NB's DNA?   

I cannot believe you are asking such a stupid question.

Did the CCRC find any fresh evidence not avaliable at trial to justify sending the case the COA on the basis the blood was a fabrication? NO

Did the CCRC reffer the case for reasons they thought the blood was a fabrication? NO

Did the CCRC reffer the case because they thought Junes DNA was the result of blood from 1985? YES

Was there any fresh evidence not avaliable at trial to enable MT QC to argue for a fabrication? NO

Would it have been possible for MT QC to raise a ground of fabrication without contradicting the very reason the case came to the appeal? NO

Was MT instucted by Ewen Smith and CCRC to argue ground 15? YES

Would it have been possible for MT to ignore the sole reason the case came to the COA and come up with an argument for fabrication without any fresh evidence for it? NO

Was fabrication a fresh argument not avaliable at trial? NO

And so

Did the CCRCs incompetance ultimatley sent JB to the right place for the wrong reasons? YES




 
 

[Nicholas]

I cannot believe you are asking such a stupid question.

Did the CCRC find any fresh evidence not avaliable at trial to justify sending the case the COA on the basis the blood was a fabrication? NO

Did the CCRC reffer the case for reasons they thought the blood was a fabrication? NO

Did the CCRC reffer the case because they thought Junes DNA was the result of blood from 1985? YES

Was there any fresh evidence not avaliable at trial to enable MT QC to argue for a fabrication? NO

Would it have been possible for MT QC to raise a ground of fabrication without contradicting the very reason the case came to the appeal? NO

Was MT instucted by Ewen Smith and CCRC to argue ground 15? YES

Would it have been possible for MT to ignore the sole reason the case came to the COA and come up with an argument for fabrication without any fresh evidence for it? NO

Was fabrication a fresh argument not avaliable at trial? NO

And so

Did the CCRCs incompetance ultimatley sent JB to the right place for the wrong reasons? YES

You cannot possibly know the answers to these questions David without first having seen all submissions made by Bamber prior to the referral by the CCRC and following on from its referral.

It is still possible to consider and put forward further argument to the appeal courts judges once a case has been referred. I know because of the Hall case.

What did Bamber put forward to his legal team following referral by the CCRC and before his COA hearing?

Please post the evidence!

I cannot be bothered to highlight your 'point scoring' chart above but you are once again wrong with your assumptions.

It was Jeremy Bambers incompetence, no one else's! You are foolish to make the claims you do without having all the facts at your disposal.

You have dismissed my knowledge of psychopathy, often referring to it or me as "psychobabble/Mrs psychobabble" but in time you will come to learn the error of your ways.

[adam]

I remember and you could well be right.

David appears to be ignoring many of Holly's questions as well, along with many questions raised by others.

Isn't this behaviour Bambers preferred method when caught out. Doesn't Bamber pretend to play dumb and claims  things never happened or comes up with numerous excuses, like for example, when he played ignorant over Caroline's letters?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8470.msg402874.html#msg402874

David said in 2017 his kitchen 3D diagrams are 'almost done'.

He needs to be man enough to either -

Post the 3D diagrams even if they highlight the obvious brutal kitchen fight.

Say he won't post the 3D diagrams because he didn't like the results.

----------

At present he has not been man enough to do either.

[Nicholas]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8470.msg402874.html#msg402874

David said in 2017 his kitchen 3D diagrams are 'almost done'.

He needs to be man enough to either -

Post the 3D diagrams even if they highlight the obvious brutal kitchen fight.

Say he won't post the 3D diagrams because he didn't like the results.

----------

At present he has not been man enough to do either.

"You see, hypocrites like to believe that they belong to a certain “class,” despite their victim-playing, complaining, and outright lying. The only “class” to which these fraudsters belong is alongside all the other phonies.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8088.msg456771#msg456771

[Holly Goodhead]

I cannot believe you are asking such a stupid question.

Did the CCRC find any fresh evidence not avaliable at trial to justify sending the case the COA on the basis the blood was a fabrication? NO

Did the CCRC reffer the case for reasons they thought the blood was a fabrication? NO

Did the CCRC reffer the case because they thought Junes DNA was the result of blood from 1985? YES

Was there any fresh evidence not avaliable at trial to enable MT QC to argue for a fabrication? NO

Would it have been possible for MT QC to raise a ground of fabrication without contradicting the very reason the case came to the appeal? NO

Was MT instucted by Ewen Smith and CCRC to argue ground 15? YES

Would it have been possible for MT to ignore the sole reason the case came to the COA and come up with an argument for fabrication without any fresh evidence for it? NO

Was fabrication a fresh argument not avaliable at trial? NO

And so

Did the CCRCs incompetance ultimatley sent JB to the right place for the wrong reasons? YES

Oh but I can believe your knee-jerk, ill-thought out response which is factually wrong.

The CCRC referred the case back to CoA on the following basis:

"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. …"

It was up to your QC crush to take up the mantle and put forward the best arguments.  No requirement whatsoever to run with the mixed blood theory or be dictated to by solicitors, CCRC or indeed anyone.  According to you he doesn't have a mind of his own and nothing is his responsibility?  He just blindly takes instruction and acts almost robotic like? 

You said when you met MT you suggested the blood/silencer was fabricated and he rejected the idea out of hand.  Therein lies your answer.  If you want stubborn you need look no further than your QC crush.  It has cost JB 15 plus years and counting.  How do these people sleep at night? 

[Holly Goodhead]

David I refer you to the relevant section of the Bar Standards Board:

https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/regulatory-requirements/the-old-code-of-conduct/the-old-code-of-conduct/part-iii-fundamental-principles/

303. A barrister:
(a) must promote and protect fearlessly and by all proper and lawful means the lay client's best interests and do so without regard to his own interests or to any consequences to himself or to any other person (including any colleague, professional client or other intermediary or another barrister, the barrister's employer or any Authorised  Body of which the barrister may be an owner or manager); 
(b) owes his primary duty as between the lay client and any other person to the lay client and must not permit any other person to limit his discretion as to how the interests of the lay client can best be served;