Analysis of CoA Hearing 2002

[Samson]

This just goes to show how futile any appeal is in this case imo.  I have seen nothing revealed since the last appeal which has changed that situation so I find the possibility of any further hearing extremely remote.

Do you have any view as to Holly's contention Nevill was shot coming up the stairs?
If this can be proved to be the only forensic solution would this be new evidence?
I have read the official crime reconstruction  by the police claiming he was shot in the bedroom.

Maybe there is a crime solution having JB shooting Nevill coming up the stairs.

I had never heard of the case in 2002, but if I had, I would be mystified why the COA were not obliged to address such a basic logistical matter in denying the appeal.

[david1819]

Do you have any view as to Holly's contention Nevill was shot coming up the stairs?
If this can be proved to be the only forensic solution would this be new evidence?
I have read the official crime reconstruction  by the police claiming he was shot in the bedroom.

Maybe there is a crime solution having JB shooting Nevill coming up the stairs.

I had never heard of the case in 2002, but if I had, I would be mystified why the COA were not obliged to address such a basic logistical matter in denying the appeal.

It will enable the defence to argue Nevill rang Jeremy before getting shot.

Prosecution argue that lack of blood on phone shows the phone call did not happen. 

[Samson]

It will enable the defence to argue Nevill rang Jeremy before getting shot.

Prosecution argue that lack of blood on phone shows the phone call did not happen.

There is only one thing to say  at the COA obviously, he was shot after using the phone.
It is too obvious for words what actually happened, but I am happy to be shown the true way of the prosecution.

[Holly Goodhead]

It will enable the defence to argue Nevill rang Jeremy before getting shot.

Prosecution argue that lack of blood on phone shows the phone call did not happen.

And the evidence to argue such was available at trial and 89 and 02 appeal hearings. 

All it took was someone to connect a few dots all of which can be found in the most pertinent case related docs.   

Where was the "cleverest of the clever" and the one who can "secure a result like no other"? 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/law-obituaries/5309767/Edmund-Lawson-QC.html

https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/barrister/michael-turner-qc/

David can you explain why it didn't happen please.  Thanks.  Holly. 

[Holly Goodhead]

There is only one thing to say  at the COA obviously, he was shot after using the phone.
It is too obvious for words what actually happened, but I am happy to be shown the true way of the prosecution.

To date JB hasn't had a competent defence in court fighting his corner.  If he accepts my proposals this will all change as I will be hand selecting the lawyers. 

[Nicholas]

To date JB hasn't had a competent defence in court fighting his corner.  If he accepts my proposals this will all change as I will be hand selecting the lawyers.

I disagree and as I've pointed out previously, it was Bamber who instructed his lawyers.

Out of interest, hypothetically speaking, what would you tell the lawyers once you've hand selected them?

[Nicholas]

And the evidence to argue such was available at trial and 89 and 02 appeal hearings. 

All it took was someone to connect a few dots all of which can be found in the most pertinent case related docs.   

Where was the "cleverest of the clever" and the one who can "secure a result like no other"? 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/law-obituaries/5309767/Edmund-Lawson-QC.html

https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/barrister/michael-turner-qc/

David can you explain why it didn't happen please.  Thanks.  Holly.

To date JB hasn't had a competent defence in court fighting his corner.  If he accepts my proposals this will all change as I will be hand selecting the lawyers.

Are you suggesting you are the "cleverest of the clever" and the one who can "secure a result like no other," or have I misunderstood you?

[Nicholas]

And the evidence to argue such was available at trial and 89 and 02 appeal hearings. 

All it took was someone to connect a few dots all of which can be found in the most pertinent case related docs.   

Where was the "cleverest of the clever" and the one who can "secure a result like no other"? 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/law-obituaries/5309767/Edmund-Lawson-QC.html

https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/barrister/michael-turner-qc/

David can you explain why it didn't happen please.  Thanks.  Holly.

The perceived "cleverest of the clever," the one who has banged on about being innocent and will be out of prison this year, last year, the year before that etc etc, the one who has claimed he will "secure a result like no other" was too busy passing notes to his legal team and obviously must have taken his eye off the ball?

He only has himself to blame Holly!

His grandiose sense of self has betrayed him

[Nicholas]

It will enable the defence to argue Nevill rang Jeremy before getting shot.

Prosecution argue that lack of blood on phone shows the phone call did not happen.

There is only one thing to say  at the COA obviously, he was shot after using the phone.
It is too obvious for words what actually happened, but I am happy to be shown the true way of the prosecution.

You are both cherry picking and clearly ignoring crucial facts, for example, Julie Mugfords evidence

[Holly Goodhead]

Are you suggesting you are the "cleverest of the clever" and the one who can "secure a result like no other," or have I misunderstood you?

You don't need to be any of these things to demolish the prosecution case against JB.

[Nicholas]

You don't need to be any of these things to demolish the prosecution case against JB.

So why did you say it? I'm confused?

Are you then suggesting Jeremy Bamber is a plank?

[Holly Goodhead]

So why did you say it? I'm confused?

Are you then suggesting Jeremy Bamber is a plank?

I'm saying JB's past defence teams have been planks despite all the fanfare.

[Holly Goodhead]

Done

Where?  Can you link me to the post please?

[Holly Goodhead]

You're wrong. I have already given you the reasons why, and nothing has changed since. No need to reiterate.

Please provide the link.  Thanks.

[david1819]

And the evidence to argue such was available at trial and 89 and 02 appeal hearings. 

If it was available at trial like you say then it is inadmissible for grounds of appeal at 89 and 02 as you already know.

The only way round that is to either argue "cleverest of the clever" was inept and thus fair trial impossible or wait until our legal system takes a more inquisitorial approach and widen the criteria for appeals (which it is slowly doing)