Which Window?

[david1819]

Well I keep asking because I get no response! 

That's because there is no definitive answer to your question. Unless you ask Rivlin himself.

Talking of no response are you going to respond here?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8956.msg448211#msg448211

LOL. You are grilling the poor guy on the basis of a sugar coated appeal summary for public consumption and not actual appeal transcripts of the hearing itself. More or less judging a book by its cover.

The Judges wont accept the police moved the body unless the police admit to such. A single discrepancy is not direct proof of anything. The prosecution had Vanezis look into this back in 1985/6 and never brought it forward at trial. Thus its not admissible for the prosecution to submit it into evidence and thus Ismali was not brought forward to testify at the appeal for the same reason Dr Lloyd was not called to testify either.

Likewise MTQC did not dispute that Cooks statement was hearsay. The reasoning MTQC put forward was that since DI Cook could not remember who reported that information to him come the time of his 2001 statements. And that Ainsley also documented police causing the mess back in 1985. Not disclosing this information back in 1986 deprived the defence counsel of persuing the matter and thus could not cross examine Cook on the issue or ascertain the identification of the officer who reported that information to him with memory fresh in his mind. 
The point was that If the authorities had played fair and disclosed this information the argument put in-front of the Jury would have been very different.
Make sense?

[Angelo222]

That's because there is no definitive answer to your question. Unless you ask Rivlin himself.

LOL. You are grilling the poor guy on the basis of a sugar coated appeal summary for public consumption and not actual appeal transcripts of the hearing itself. More or less judging a book by its cover.

The Judges wont accept the police moved the body unless the police admit to such. A single discrepancy is not direct proof of anything. The prosecution had Vanezis look into this back in 1985/6 and never brought it forward at trial. Thus its not admissible for the prosecution to submit it into evidence and thus Ismali was not brought forward to testify at the appeal for the same reason Dr Lloyd was not called to testify either.

Likewise MTQC did not dispute that Cooks statement was hearsay. The reasoning MTQC put forward was that since DI Cook could not remember who reported that information to him come the time of his 2001 statements. And that Ainsley also documented police causing the mess back in 1985. Not disclosing this information back in 1986 deprived the defence counsel of persuing the matter and thus could not cross examine Cook on the issue or ascertain the identification of the officer who reported that information to him with memory fresh in his mind. 
The point was that If the authorities had played fair and disclosed this information the argument put in-front of the Jury would have been very different.
Make sense?

I doubt it very much.  The evidence is there for all to see.  Jeremy Bamber was very much involved in the murders, the only unknown is still whether he pulled the trigger or paid some low life to do it for him.  Either way he is still guilty and should rot in prison.

[Caroline]

JB confirms during his interview he didn't know a way of leaving WHF with doors/windows secure from within:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=296.0;attach=1228

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=296.0;attach=1230

JB was a farmer not Houdini.

I think for the sake of argument, that JB's word isn't much use.

[Holly Goodhead]

I think for the sake of argument, that JB's word isn't much use.

I agree but some claim JB stated during his police interviews he told officers he was able to exit windows leaving them secure from within, he doesn't.

[Holly Goodhead]

I doubt it very much.  The evidence is there for all to see.  Jeremy Bamber was very much involved in the murders, the only unknown is still whether he pulled the trigger or paid some low life to do it for him.  Either way he is still guilty and should rot in prison.

If the evidence is there for all to see the CCRC wouldn't have referred JB's case to CoA in 2002 on the back of the blood/silencer evidence.  It's only the blood/silencer keeping JB @ HMP. 

[Caroline]

I agree but some claim JB stated during his police interviews he told officers he was able to exit windows leaving them secure from within, he doesn't.

No, he has never admitted to knowing how to secure a window from the outside but he does mention the sash window rather than the kitchen window. I very much doubt he would admit to knowing how to close from the outside because he would know it would be ammunition against him.

[Caroline]

Tonight's Panorama is about two possible MOJ and their attempts to get the CCRC to refer their cases (note: neither of these cases are JB - perhaps part of the problem for real MOJ are the thousands of cases that 'claim' to be and justice is hampered by such chancers?)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09zg7l1

[Holly Goodhead]

That's because there is no definitive answer to your question. Unless you ask Rivlin himself.

Someone experienced in handling serious criminal defence cases might have some ideas such as NGB.  DCI Jones confirmed WHF was secured from within apart from the dairy window covered by an undisturbed wire mesh and the upstairs main bedroom open about 3" at the top.  JB told police he could easily enter by opening up closed windows but didn't know of way to exit and leave windows in a closed position.  JM's testimony states JB told her he told MM how to leave the house so it appeared locked.  If the prosecution want to run with this at trial I say spell it out.  Take a trip to WHF and show jurors how this is possible.  Call in security experts, locksmiths and such like.  Was the defence trying to cut corners and save money?
   

LOL. You are grilling the poor guy on the basis of a sugar coated appeal summary for public consumption and not actual appeal transcripts of the hearing itself. More or less judging a book by its cover.

The Judges wont accept the police moved the body unless the police admit to such. A single discrepancy is not direct proof of anything. The prosecution had Vanezis look into this back in 1985/6 and never brought it forward at trial. Thus its not admissible for the prosecution to submit it into evidence and thus Ismali was not brought forward to testify at the appeal for the same reason Dr Lloyd was not called to testify either.

Likewise MTQC did not dispute that Cooks statement was hearsay. The reasoning MTQC put forward was that since DI Cook could not remember who reported that information to him come the time of his 2001 statements. And that Ainsley also documented police causing the mess back in 1985. Not disclosing this information back in 1986 deprived the defence counsel of persuing the matter and thus could not cross examine Cook on the issue or ascertain the identification of the officer who reported that information to him with memory fresh in his mind. 
The point was that If the authorities had played fair and disclosed this information the argument put in-front of the Jury would have been very different.
Make sense?

You're not on Blue now you know.  We stick to threads here.  I will respond in the appropriate thread here:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8956.msg451222#msg451222

[Nicholas]

Tonight's Panorama is about two possible MOJ and their attempts to get the CCRC to refer their cases (note: neither of these cases are JB - perhaps part of the problem for real MOJ are the thousands of cases that 'claim' to be and justice is hampered by such chancers?)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09zg7l1

I agree with you Caroline!

I've just seen from a post on blue that one of these cases is Kevin Lane

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-33050737

He was fitted up!

Kevin's case was highlighted on the Guardian's justice on trial page here https://www.theguardian.com/uk/series/justice-on-trial+kevin-lane

[LuminousWanderer]

As usual LuminousWanderer wrote a huge 7 paragraph post on this.

Basically saying Bamber said himself he could enter/exit WHF through windows & a window could be banged shut. Which I have just said in a line & a bit. But everyone is different.

I skim read his posts, usually just looking at sub headings. Not sure why he says there is no direct evidence linking Bamber to the crime. The mountain of evidence showing it was not Sheila, directly links Bamber to the crime.

I have said that there is no direct forensic evidence linking Bamber to the crime, which there isn't.  If you don't have time to read my posts, then don't comment on them.

[Caroline]

I agree with you Caroline!

I've just seen from a post on blue that one of these cases is Kevin Lane

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-33050737

He was fitted up!

Kevin's case was highlighted on the Guardian's justice on trial page here https://www.theguardian.com/uk/series/justice-on-trial+kevin-lane

Thanks Steph - seems he's gone from the frying pan into the fire - is this the same guy who was/is seeing Kerry Katona?

[Nicholas]

Thanks Steph - seems he's gone from the frying pan into the fire - is this the same guy who was/is seeing Kerry Katona?

In one of his interviews, Kevin talks about those pictures and he says there was nothing in it "nonsense" I didn't know about that story until last night when I read the guardian article. I didn't actually realise he'd been released.

"Kevin Lane is wearing a blue Italian suit. His white shirt is ironed, his shoes polished and his handshake firm. At this smart London restaurant, he seems out of place among the businessmen and women – but only because he has the physique of a bodybuilder, and a deep voice that draws attention when he raises it.

Which he does, very occasionally, when he’s animated – as he is now, talking about his new businesses and how he has just bought a new Mercedes. He’s doing OK. But there’s something nagging at him, and when he is upset, his voice drops. Days earlier, Lane was pictured in a newspaper outside a nightclub with the former Atomic Kitten singer Kerry Katona. A source quoted by the Daily Mail said the pair were “all over each other”, and there was talk of them dating. The story, he says, is nonsense.

He had been introduced to Katona, and they had gone for a night out with friends: “The rest of it is just not true.” But it is the headline that troubles him most. “Kerry Katona pictured kissing convicted murderer.”https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/30/kevin-lane-robert-magill-charlie-wilson-interview-nick-hopkins

There's a short video with Duncan Campbell highlighting the case here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R2Nq7tHs6Sk

I posted this link recently - worth a read https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/02/rough-justice-who-looking-out-wrongfully-convicted

I get a sense from the material I've read, there's a real chance he could overturn his conviction in the near future and expose the truth

[Caroline]

Haven't been able to test the string theory on an actual sash window yet but I bought a vintage style sash window catch and it works like a dream. I am convinced that Bamber both entered and left WHF through the bathroom window!

[Myster]

Haven't been able to test the string theory on an actual sash window yet but I bought a vintage style sash window catch and it works like a dream. I am convinced that Bamber both entered and left WHF through the bathroom window!

Only on a flying visit...

... but your string is wrapped around the wrong knob (i.e.the pivot) to work properly!  It should be around the snail-shaped knob in your photo or around the arrowed beehive-shaped knob in mine, so that, viewing the window from outside, the operator would pull both ends of the string simultaneously and towards his or her right to close the pre-opened catch, then release one strand of the string and pull it free with the other.

Correct me if wrong and I'll comment when I'm next online

[Caroline]

Only on a flying visit...

... but your string is wrapped around the wrong knob (i.e.the pivot) to work properly!  It should be around the snail-shaped knob in your photo or around the arrowed beehive-shaped knob in mine, so that, viewing the window from outside, the operator would pull both ends of the string simultaneously and towards his or her right to close the pre-opened catch, then release one strand of the string and pull it free with the other.

Correct me if wrong and I'll comment when I'm next online

You are correct, I posted the picture before I bought the catch. My knob isn't snail shaped (oo err mrs) but it's the same otherwise. However, you don't have to pull to the right if the string goes over the top of the moveable pane - you just need to make sure the string is long enough in order to leave enough room to climb out of the window. Just pull the string straight once the window is closed and the frame acts as a lever.

Point is ...... it works!