"Evil killer Jeremy Bamber posts bizarre apology..."

[anglolawyer]

I am indebted to you, Myster, for linking me to PC West's trial transcript which I am reading now.   I see he told another outrageous lie in the witness box when he claimed Bamber said Nevill had sounded 'terrified' on the phone.   'I don't think he is kidding about.   I think he is really frightened'.

Fortunately, we have Holly here to put this in context for us.   I imagine she will say: first, this is an obvious lie and we can tell that because PC West got the time wrong in his notes.   Second, even if Nevill had seemed frightened it could, after all, have been a joke and that would have fully justified Jeremy not only doing nothing about it for half an hour but in doing nothing at all.   If Nevill wanted to fool around then let him face the consequences.   After all, he had not asked Jeremy to 'come over' - as we established yesterday, that is just another malicious lie manufactured by PC West and written down on his note even before he knew how important it would become later.   A clairvoyant conspiracy.   

If I come across any more nuggets, I'll post them here.

ETA: here's one, well, two - during his cross examination it emerged PC West had made a statement as early as the 9th of August.   He was sent from the witness box to fetch a copy as neither counsel nor the judge had one.   It turns it that it records  the 'please come over' thing as well as the time of the call as being 3.26, rather than 3.36.   {some conspiracy this - the conspirators fabricate a statement and then almost forget to use it)

Btw. counsel for the defence had a duty to confront PC West with all those parts of his client's case which were not in agreement with West's evidence.   Thus, for example, it was put to West that Bamber had asked that the police pick him up and take him to WHF.   West strongly denied this but the point is that Bamber's counsel was obliged to bring it up as a matter of professional duty.   He would not be able to lead evidence from Bamber about this request otherwise.   He did not confront West on the 'please come over' phrase that Holly disputes and this, to me, affords strong confirmation that his client did not deny saying it (whatever he and his supporters claim now).

[Myster]

I've tried my best with Holly, as others also have but without success. Maybe you'll have better luck, although I don't think she will ever change her mind. I read somewhere that you didn't place much importance on Colin Caffell's opinion (concerning Sheila and her knowledge of weapons?), but there's a revealing passage in his book, 'In Search of the Rainbow's End' which tallies with PC West's 'terrified' written note, when Colin, Ann Eaton, DC Mick Clark and possibly one or two others were gathered together at Bourtree cottage on the morning of 7th August...



However, in recent correspondence with Paul Harrison, Bamber has done a complete volte-face and said that his "dad certainly wasn't injured when he spoke to me" (p.57).

Make of that what you will!

[Holly Goodhead]

Your concession is insufficient.   Me freaking out because someone pinched my parking space at the supermarket is embarrasing and mildly amusing.   My doing so with a gun means total lockdown for a radius of a couple of miles and headlines on the 6 o'clock news.   The two situations are totally different.   People might die.   It's obvious and you know it.   To overcome the clear and strong inference that Bamber acted as only a guilty man would you need an 'impossible' as in, 'it's impossible he did it because [insert reason here]'.   Without that, your whole position is bankrupt.

I've no idea of the point you are attempting to make? 

In terms of English law it is not necessary to demonstrate that it is "impossible" JB did it.  At trial it is based on not guilty or guilty beyond reasonable doubt.  "Impossible" doesn't come into it.

Once convicted if evidence comes to light that renders the conviction unsafe then potentially the conviction could be quashed if the CoA deem the conviction unsafe.  "Impossible" doesn't come into it.

No jury would acquit or convict on the sort of stuff any of us post re the tel calls as its too subjective. 

[Holly Goodhead]

I am indebted to you, Myster, for linking me to PC West's trial transcript which I am reading now.   I see he told another outrageous lie in the witness box when he claimed Bamber said Nevill had sounded 'terrified' on the phone.   'I don't think he is kidding about.   I think he is really frightened'.

Fortunately, we have Holly here to put this in context for us.   I imagine she will say: first, this is an obvious lie and we can tell that because PC West got the time wrong in his notes.   Second, even if Nevill had seemed frightened it could, after all, have been a joke and that would have fully justified Jeremy not only doing nothing about it for half an hour but in doing nothing at all.   If Nevill wanted to fool around then let him face the consequences.   After all, he had not asked Jeremy to 'come over' - as we established yesterday, that is just another malicious lie manufactured by PC West and written down on his note even before he knew how important it would become later.   A clairvoyant conspiracy.   

If I come across any more nuggets, I'll post them here.

ETA: here's one, well, two - during his cross examination it emerged PC West had made a statement as early as the 9th of August.   He was sent from the witness box to fetch a copy as neither counsel nor the judge had one.   It turns it that it records  the 'please come over' thing as well as the time of the call as being 3.26, rather than 3.36.   {some conspiracy this - the conspirators fabricate a statement and then almost forget to use it)

Btw. counsel for the defence had a duty to confront PC West with all those parts of his client's case which were not in agreement with West's evidence.   Thus, for example, it was put to West that Bamber had asked that the police pick him up and take him to WHF.   West strongly denied this but the point is that Bamber's counsel was obliged to bring it up as a matter of professional duty.   He would not be able to lead evidence from Bamber about this request otherwise.   He did not confront West on the 'please come over' phrase that Holly disputes and this, to me, affords strong confirmation that his client did not deny saying it (whatever he and his supporters claim now).

PC West uses three different phrases in his trial testimony re the 'Please come over...'  Perhaps you would like to tell me which one is correct

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5638.msg201425#msg201425

If JB left PC West under the impression the situation was critical then perhaps you can explain why he didn't convey this to MB?  MB makes no mention of 'Please come over' in his log or NB sounding terrified or injured.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=177.msg1786#msg1786

Firearms were not called until shortly after 4am after PS Bews, PC Myall and PC Saxby attended the scene with JB.  Why send an unarmed patrol car if the incident was deemed critical?

[Holly Goodhead]

I've tried my best with Holly, as others also have but without success. Maybe you'll have better luck, although I don't think she will ever change her mind. I read somewhere that you didn't place much importance on Colin Caffell's opinion (concerning Sheila and her knowledge of weapons?), but there's a revealing passage in his book, 'In Search of the Rainbow's End' which tallies with PC West's 'terrified' written note, when Colin, Ann Eaton, DC Mick Clark and possibly one or two others were gathered together at Bourtree cottage on the morning of 7th August...



However, in recent correspondence with Paul Harrison, Bamber has done a complete volte-face and said that his "dad certainly wasn't injured when he spoke to me" (p.57).

Make of that what you will!

Will you ever change your mind? 

You say numerous witnesses were present when CC alleges JB said he thought NB sounded injured and yet it is not in any of the other WS's and in fact AE states she did not hear JB say he thought NB sounded injured:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3170.0;attach=3162

It all gets silly as posters simply post from any source bits that support their arguments. 

If JB conveyed to EP during the phone calls that NB sounded terrified or injured then why wasn't this recorded on the logs?  Why send an unarmed patrol car consisting of a sergeant and two constables. 

According to PS Bews it was PC Myall who spotted movement at the window not JB? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EDp_tqUysI&feature=youtu.be&t=4m

It is all hopelessly unreliable and no matter how many hours we pour over it nothing can ever be advanced here.  The only way this case can move in a different direction is through new forensic evidence.

[sika]

Holly, I think you're splitting hairs regarding Nevilles phone call. You can analyse it as much as you like.  Whatever transcript you believe to be true, Jeremy's reaction to the call is totally unbelievable.  Unless of course, he thought that by delaying the emergency call, it would give Sheila enough time to do the deed and in turn, do him a favour!

[Holly Goodhead]

Holly, I think you're splitting hairs regarding Nevilles phone call. You can analyse it as much as you like.  Whatever transcript you believe to be true, Jeremy's reaction to the call is totally unbelievable.  Unless of course, he thought that by delaying the emergency call, it would give Sheila enough time to do the deed and in turn, do him a favour!

But that's just it I really, really don't want to analyse the phone calls as they are too subjective. 

[anglolawyer]

I've tried my best with Holly, as others also have but without success. Maybe you'll have better luck, although I don't think she will ever change her mind. I read somewhere that you didn't place much importance on Colin Caffell's opinion (concerning Sheila and her knowledge of weapons?), but there's a revealing passage in his book, 'In Search of the Rainbow's End' which tallies with PC West's 'terrified' written note, when Colin, Ann Eaton, DC Mick Clark and possibly one or two others were gathered together at Bourtree cottage on the morning of 7th August...



However, in recent correspondence with Paul Harrison, Bamber has done a complete volte-face and said that his "dad certainly wasn't injured when he spoke to me" (p.57).

Make of that what you will!

Well, it all fits.

No, it's true I attach zero weight to Colin Caffell's opinion of what Sheila's mental illness might cause her to do.   

[anglolawyer]

I've no idea of the point you are attempting to make? 

In terms of English law it is not necessary to demonstrate that it is "impossible" JB did it.  At trial it is based on not guilty or guilty beyond reasonable doubt.  "Impossible" doesn't come into it.

Once convicted if evidence comes to light that renders the conviction unsafe then potentially the conviction could be quashed if the CoA deem the conviction unsafe.  "Impossible" doesn't come into it.

No jury would acquit or convict on the sort of stuff any of us post re the tel calls as its too subjective.

You are right.   You did not get my point.   I'm not making it a third time.

If there is very strong evidence against X, enough to discharge the burden of proof, then X needs to 'trump' that evidence with something.   Showing it was impossible for X to have committed the crime is one way of doing so.   That's not a statement of law, just basic logic (which the law, being logcal, tends to follow).   The facts surrounding Bambers conduct on the 7th are very compelling.   An explanation consistent with innocence has not been forthcoming.   So something that renders all that circumstantial material redundant is required.   Not difficult.

[anglolawyer]

But that's just it I really, really don't want to analyse the phone calls as they are too subjective.

That's a good get out.   I am encountering this approach elsewhere.   It's not reasonable but then there is no obligation to be reasonable on a discussion board.   It's a little different in court of course.

[Holly Goodhead]

Well, it all fits.

No, it's true I attach zero weight to Colin Caffell's opinion of what Sheila's mental illness might cause her to do.

I have every sympathy for CC.  And as far as I'm concerned he seems a decent all round guy.  I know his behaviour towards SC at times was left wanting but that was within the normal range of domestic stuff and nothing to do with anything else.  Yet I don't believe its possible for him to be objective about JB.  Its so much easier for him to see JB was responsible for murdering his little boys than his ex wife and mother of his children.  That's human nature.

[Holly Goodhead]

That's a good get out.   I am encountering this approach elsewhere.   It's not reasonable but then there is no obligation to be reasonable on a discussion board.   It's a little different in court of course.

I've been actively posting on this forum for nearly 2 years.  I've done the phone calls to death.  You've been here five minutes.  Perhaps the polite thing for you to do is to go through my posts first and then start telling me what I've said or not said. 

[Holly Goodhead]

You are right.   You did not get my point.   I'm not making it a third time.

If there is very strong evidence against X, enough to discharge the burden of proof, then X needs to 'trump' that evidence with something.   Showing it was impossible for X to have committed the crime is one way of doing so.   That's not a statement of law, just basic logic (which the law, being logcal, tends to follow).   The facts surrounding Bambers conduct on the 7th are very compelling.   An explanation consistent with innocence has not been forthcoming.   So something that renders all that circumstantial material redundant is required.   Not difficult.

No I don't see what the relevance is between you freaking out in a supermarket car park with a gun and WHF.

The phone calls are not strong evidence.  They prove absolutely nothing.  They are entirely subjective with people saying I would have done this that and the other therefore because JB didn't do what I would have done he's guilty.

Look at the judges summing up and the jury's deliberations.  Did the jury ask for clarification about the telephone calls?  No they asked about the silencer as on the surface this appears strong evidence.

[sika]

No I don't see what the relevance is between you freaking out in a supermarket car park with a gun and WHF.

The phone calls are not strong evidence.  They prove absolutely nothing.  They are entirely subjective with people saying I would have done this that and the other therefore because JB didn't do what I would have done he's guilty.

Look at the judges summing up and the jury's deliberations.  Did the jury ask for clarification about the telephone calls?  No they asked about the silencer as on the surface this appears strong evidence.

I've never actually seen the judges summing up and am unsure whether the jury asked for clarification on other issues. 
I have to disagree with your take on the phone call.  His account of the sequence, nature and then his reaction to that call, just doesnt ring true.  If I had been on that jury I would have considered it as a powerful piece of circumstantial evidence. 

[anglolawyer]

I've been actively posting on this forum for nearly 2 years.  I've done the phone calls to death.  You've been here five minutes.  Perhaps the polite thing for you to do is to go through my posts first and then start telling me what I've said or not said.

What?   Where did I claim you said something you didn't say.   I realise you are 'senior' to me but you're still on the wrong side of this discussion.   When you start ducking out of it because you find some of it 'too subjective' its a clue there's something wrong.

Just to avoid further misunderstanding, can you say what is 'subjective' about the phone calls?