Analysis of CoA Hearing 2002

[Nicholas]

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)

You are a fantasist

[Holly Goodhead]

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)

David please stop trying to make out you're some legal hot shot when you're anything but.

You misunderstand "fresh evidence".  If new tests on a different theme produce different results this equates to fresh evidence. 

The "cleverest of the clever" was clearly incompetent and negligent in the same way the one who can "secure a result like no others" was.  The worrying thing is how many other innocent people have gone down and how many guilty got off if/when they were prosecuting? 

This is my point about poor ideas and decisions emanating from homogenous groups.  MT QC making the fatal mistake of not challenging his peers:  "cleverest of the clever", Ewan Smith et al. 

[Nicholas]

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

I don't agree with you Holly, but you are entitled to your opinion. Surely though if, as you say, JB's past defence teams have been planks, wouldn't that make Bamber even more of a plank for allowing them to defend him in the first place?

[Nicholas]

This is my point about poor ideas and decisions emanating from homogenous groups.  MT QC making the fatal mistake of not challenging his peers:  "cleverest of the clever", Ewan Smith et al.

What do you mean by this Holly? Michael Turner QC went above and beyond the call of duty, according to the COA judgement, especially if you take into consideration the judges general comments.

[Holly Goodhead]

I don't agree with you Holly, but you are entitled to your opinion. Surely though if, as you say, JB's past defence teams have been planks, wouldn't that make Bamber even more of a plank for allowing them to defend him in the first place?

WHF is the only peacetime mass shooting in UK unwitnessed by others.  The soc was complex for UK as we have low rates of crimes involving firearms.  I would like to think had I been involved in JB's trial I would seek expertise from US where mass shooting are a regular feature of everyday life. 

There's no evidence JB was particularly academic at school.  Apart from low paid work his only work experience was on the farm so what would he know about ballistics, blood serology etc.  He doesn't have access to the Internet and I doubt the prison library contains forensic textbooks.  In the main he surrounds himself with idiots like Mike Tesko and people like Trudi who might be well intentioned but are seriously misguided IMO: graveside reading, vlogs etc.

[Nicholas]

WHF is the only peacetime mass shooting in UK unwitnessed by others.  The soc was complex for UK as we have low rates of crimes involving firearms.  I would like to think had I been involved in JB's trial I would seek expertise from US where mass shooting are a regular feature of everyday life. 

There's no evidence JB was particularly academic at school.  Apart from low paid work his only work experience was on the farm so what would he know about ballistics, blood serology etc.  He doesn't have access to the Internet and I doubt the prison library contains forensic textbooks.  In the main he surrounds himself with idiots like Mike Tesko and people like Trudi who might be well intentioned but are seriously misguided IMO: graveside reading, vlogs etc.

If Bamber thought you might have been an asset to him, why do you think he ignored your letters of advice?

I'm presuming you gave him advice, or at the very least your opinions of his case, I might be wrong?

[Nicholas]

WHF is the only peacetime mass shooting in UK unwitnessed by others. The soc was complex for UK as we have low rates of crimes involving firearms. I would like to think had I been involved in JB's trial I would seek expertise from US where mass shooting are a regular feature of everyday life.  .

What do you mean by "complex?"

The internet wasn't around at the time of the murders.

What "expertise" was available back then?

You appear to be judging this case based on what is available now as opposed to back then?

The facts policing has changed over the years doesn't make Jeremy Bamber less guilty Holly. These past 3 decades have only but further solidified his guilt.

[Nicholas]

There's no evidence JB was particularly academic at school.  Apart from low paid work his only work experience was on the farm so what would he know about ballistics, blood serology etc.  He doesn't have access to the Internet and I doubt the prison library contains forensic textbooks.  In the main he surrounds himself with idiots like Mike Tesko and people like Trudi who might be well intentioned but are seriously misguided IMO: graveside reading, vlogs etc.

I really think you should do some research on psychopathy and personality disorders.

[david1819]

David please stop trying to make out you're some legal hot shot when you're anything but.

You misunderstand "fresh evidence".  If new tests on a different theme produce different results this equates to fresh evidence. 

The "cleverest of the clever" was clearly incompetent and negligent in the same way the one who can "secure a result like no others" was.  The worrying thing is how many other innocent people have gone down and how many guilty got off if/when they were prosecuting? 

This is my point about poor ideas and decisions emanating from homogenous groups.  MT QC making the fatal mistake of not challenging his peers:  "cleverest of the clever", Ewan Smith et al.

I don't pretend to be a legal hotshot because I can read an appeal judgment.

166. In April 1997, responsibility for reviewing alleged miscarriages of justice passed to the CCRC. The appellant's case was treated as still live, and was effectively transferred to the Commission to complete the review.

167. After receiving representations on behalf of the appellant and making investigations of its own, the CCRC referred the matter to this Court. The sole basis of referral related to fresh evidence in the form of DNA testing of the sound moderator. It expressed its decision in the following terms:

"In the Commission's view, the new DNA evidence undermines a key aspect of the Crown's case as presented to the jury and to which the trial judge gave considerable emphasis in his summing up. The new evidence is admissible, is capable of belief and affords a possible ground for allowing the appeal. There is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce this evidence at trial, in that the DNA techniques used were not available at that time."

220. In a number of cases this court has made clear that it will not readily admit expert evidence as fresh evidence where the necessary expertise was available at the time of trial (see e.g. Lomas, 53 Cr. App. R. 256 & Jones (Steven) [1997] 1 Cr. App. R. 56). To do otherwise would permit an appellant to shop around for an expert after conviction and upon finding one favourable to his case mount an appeal based on the views of that expert. To allow that would subvert the trial process and generally speaking the time for advancing expert evidence is before the jury and not after conviction.


232. We concluded in such circumstances that there was no valid reason why this evidence could not have been put before the jury by seeking to call an appropriate expert unless it was the case that Dr Lloyd's views were not ones shared by others and, even more importantly, that even if the evidence had been given at trial, it could not have altered the outcome of the trial. Accordingly we declined to admit this fresh evidence and any other evidence consequent upon it and this aspect of ground 1 fails as a result.

[Holly Goodhead]

I don't pretend to be a legal hotshot because I can read an appeal judgment.

166. In April 1997, responsibility for reviewing alleged miscarriages of justice passed to the CCRC. The appellant's case was treated as still live, and was effectively transferred to the Commission to complete the review.

167. After receiving representations on behalf of the appellant and making investigations of its own, the CCRC referred the matter to this Court. The sole basis of referral related to fresh evidence in the form of DNA testing of the sound moderator. It expressed its decision in the following terms:

"In the Commission's view, the new DNA evidence undermines a key aspect of the Crown's case as presented to the jury and to which the trial judge gave considerable emphasis in his summing up. The new evidence is admissible, is capable of belief and affords a possible ground for allowing the appeal. There is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce this evidence at trial, in that the DNA techniques used were not available at that time."

220. In a number of cases this court has made clear that it will not readily admit expert evidence as fresh evidence where the necessary expertise was available at the time of trial (see e.g. Lomas, 53 Cr. App. R. 256 & Jones (Steven) [1997] 1 Cr. App. R. 56). To do otherwise would permit an appellant to shop around for an expert after conviction and upon finding one favourable to his case mount an appeal based on the views of that expert. To allow that would subvert the trial process and generally speaking the time for advancing expert evidence is before the jury and not after conviction.


232. We concluded in such circumstances that there was no valid reason why this evidence could not have been put before the jury by seeking to call an appropriate expert unless it was the case that Dr Lloyd's views were not ones shared by others and, even more importantly, that even if the evidence had been given at trial, it could not have altered the outcome of the trial. Accordingly we declined to admit this fresh evidence and any other evidence consequent upon it and this aspect of ground 1 fails as a result.

It's not your ability to read that concerns me.  It's your ability to interpret correctly.

Do some research on the definition of fresh evidence.

Assuming you don't think SM and NGB are numpties you can surely see expert opinion on abrasion wounds and powder tattooing was available at trial?  The CCRC rejected for other reasons. 

[Nicholas]

It's not your ability to read that concerns me.  It's your ability to interpret correctly.

Do some research on the definition of fresh evidence.

Assuming you don't think SM and NGB are numpties you can surely see expert opinion on abrasion wounds and powder tattooing was available at trial?  The CCRC rejected for other reasons.

Not sure where this is going but found this http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=6856.0

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=9064.45

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=8526.1020

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=6681.195