UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: scipio_usmc on January 19, 2016, 05:03:56 PM
-
An Appeal Court doesn't substitute its own opinion of guilt or evidence in place of the jury's decision. Rather a court
tests the sufficiency of a conviction by determining:
1) whether the evidence used at trial was objectively sufficient to support a conviction.
2) Whether the proper law was applied and if not whether the law applied improperly affected the outcome
3) Whether the defendant received a fair trial
The record is the trial proceedings and the evidence and arguments presented at trial are what an appeal court will review. The only way new arguments or new evidence can be presented is if the evidence was not available at the time of the trial and could not have been available even with due diligence of the counsel.
In the 2002 Appeal one of the contentions made by the defense was that police concealed the pages that the Bible had been opened to and that had they known the pages they would have argued the contents of the pages constituted a suicide note. The Appeal Court rejected this holding that the Bible was submitted as a Court Exhibit and thus defense had the ability to examine it and learn the pages if it so chose thus due diligence would have resulted in them finding the blood covered pages. The Court also held that even if it had been new evidence it still would fail to establish anything.
"For the sake of completeness, we should record that those acting for the appellant had obtained a statement from Dr Gillingham, a theologian, dealing with the theological significance of the pages at which the Bible was open. No application was made to us to admit this evidence. If it had been, we would have rejected the application. Such evidence could have been obtained for the trial because we are satisfied that the relevant passages could have been obtained by those acting for the appellant. In any event we do not consider that this evidence would have been admissible at trial because there was no evidence to suggest that Sheila Caffell had any particular theological training or expertise which would have enabled her to read more into the passages than would have been apparent to the jury from looking at the passages themselves. Further we have no doubt at all that even if admissible, this evidence could not have had any impact on the jury's verdict."
New evidence must be admissible and also sufficient to permit a reasonable juror to vote to acquit in order for it to rise to the level of an appeal being decided in the favor of an appellant. In order to assess whether evidence would rise to that level the court looks at the evidence used to convict and looks at whether any major planks of the case is objectively undermined to such a degree by the new evidence that a reasonable juror could acquit.
Suppose a defendant contended they had an alibi at the time of the crime because they were shopping but the store denied having any evidence to support it. After being convicted the store admitted it had video surveillance of the defendant and thus an appeal is filed. The new evidence is sufficient to result in an acquittal because it proves the defendant was somewhere else at the time of the crime and thus a reasonable juror could acquit based on such evidence. If the jury didn't hear admissible evidence that is so important it could cause a reasonable person to acquit then there is a right to a retrial. If new evidence is not able to cause a reasonable person to acquit then it doesn't warrant a new trial. Appeal Court judges make the call of whether evidence objectively has the ability to cause a reasonable person to acquit by deciding whether a major plank of the case is undermined sufficiently.
-
The appeal courts have many different functions not just upholding or overturning criminal convictions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Appeal_of_England_and_Wales
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28016033
https://www.supremecourt.uk/
-
An Appeal Court doesn't substitute its own opinion of guilt or evidence in place of the jury's decision. Rather a court
tests the sufficiency of a conviction by determining:
1) whether the evidence used at trial was objectively sufficient to support a conviction.
2) Whether the proper law was applied and if not whether the law applied improperly affected the outcome
3) Whether the defendant received a fair trial
The record is the trial proceedings and the evidence and arguments presented at trial are what an appeal court will review. The only way new arguments or new evidence can be presented is if the evidence was not available at the time of the trial and could not have been available even with due diligence of the counsel.
In the 2002 Appeal one of the contentions made by the defense was that police concealed the pages that the Bible had been opened to and that had they known the pages they would have argued the contents of the pages constituted a suicide note. The Appeal Court rejected this holding that the Bible was submitted as a Court Exhibit and thus defense had the ability to examine it and learn the pages if it so chose thus due diligence would have resulted in them finding the blood covered pages. The Court also held that even if it had been new evidence it still would fail to establish anything.
"For the sake of completeness, we should record that those acting for the appellant had obtained a statement from Dr Gillingham, a theologian, dealing with the theological significance of the pages at which the Bible was open. No application was made to us to admit this evidence. If it had been, we would have rejected the application. Such evidence could have been obtained for the trial because we are satisfied that the relevant passages could have been obtained by those acting for the appellant. In any event we do not consider that this evidence would have been admissible at trial because there was no evidence to suggest that Sheila Caffell had any particular theological training or expertise which would have enabled her to read more into the passages than would have been apparent to the jury from looking at the passages themselves. Further we have no doubt at all that even if admissible, this evidence could not have had any impact on the jury's verdict."
New evidence must be admissible and also sufficient to permit a reasonable juror to vote to acquit in order for it to rise to the level of an appeal being decided in the favor of an appellant. In order to assess whether evidence would rise to that level the court looks at the evidence used to convict and looks at whether any major planks of the case is objectively undermined to such a degree by the new evidence that a reasonable juror could acquit.
Suppose a defendant contended they had an alibi at the time of the crime because they were shopping but the store denied having any evidence to support it. After being convicted the store admitted it had video surveillance of the defendant and thus an appeal is filed. The new evidence is sufficient to result in an acquittal because it proves the defendant was somewhere else at the time of the crime and thus a reasonable juror could acquit based on such evidence. If the jury didn't hear admissible evidence that is so important it could cause a reasonable person to acquit then there is a right to a retrial. If new evidence is not able to cause a reasonable person to acquit then it doesn't warrant a new trial. Appeal Court judges make the call of whether evidence objectively has the ability to cause a reasonable person to acquit by deciding whether a major plank of the case is undermined sufficiently.
The only reason I am suggesting a retrial may be ordered is that JB's defence will argue had the casings been available JB would be in a position to demonstrate his innocence (which may or may not be true). The technology was only given Home Office approval in the last couple of years of so. It's the prosecutions responsibility to maintain court exhibits which in 1996 they destroyed.
I agree the argument re the bible above had no chance of getting anywhere. There was no evidence SC was religious until maybe the last few weeks of her life. She never attended bible classes or even church on a regular basis. CC said SC showed no interest in religion during their marriage.
Perhaps when a case gets to CoA lawyers attempt to throw the kitchen sink at it! You can see here where the prosecution attempted to advance the theory that SC had been moved post death and pre SoC photo. However the appeal court judges rejected this as it was potentially evidence that could have been advanced at trial. So it's sort of use it or lose it! Ie if it was evidence that could of been advanced at trial use it as there's no second opportunity down the road.
518. To decide whether we considered that the interests of justice required that we heard Mr Ismail's evidence, we first had regard to the evidence that it was said that he could give. From the blood staining he concluded that following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet. For her then to slide to be found in the position depicted in the photographs would have required the downward force to be greater than the friction of her body against the floor. In his opinion this simply was not possible as there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force. Therefore he concluded that an additional force would have been necessary. It could not have come from Sheila Caffell since the second shot would have been instantly fatal and thus she must have been moved by someone else, for example with her legs being pulled. He also considered that the weight and the friction between her skin and her nightdress was likely to have been less than the weight and friction between the nightdress and the carpet. Therefore, he would expect movement of the body within the nightdress rather than the body and clothing sliding together across the carpet. He pointed out that the photographs demonstrated this effect at the back of the nightdress with the nightdress staying rucked up in its original position. However the front of the nightdress had not demonstrated this effect. Accordingly Mr Ismail concluded that the nightdress had been pulled down after Sheila Caffell slid into her final position. Since on the evidence, she was dead by this stage, Mr Ismail concluded that some one else had arranged her nightdress.
519. Having studied with care the statement of Mr Ismail, we concluded that this was expert evidence capable of belief. Indeed if it had been given and if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it. That evidence in itself could have led to a conclusion of guilt quite apart from the many other matters relied upon by the prosecution at trial. However, we were not satisfied that evidence of this kind was not available at the date of trial if the prosecution had sought to explore these matters and more importantly we thought that Mr Turner was right in his submission that it was very difficult to gauge with sufficient certainty the reaction of a jury to it particularly when we could not judge it against all the related evidence in the trial, which we had not heard.
I've previously posted the CCRC criteria for a referral to the CoA:
http://ccrc.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/ccrc-q-and-a.pdf
"What is “new evidence or legal argument”?
If we are going to be able to refer your case for an appeal we will
usually need to find some importan
t new evidence or legal argument.
Usually this means something that was
not covered at your trial or your
appeal. For example it may be new
evidence not known about at the
time, or something that has chan
ged since your trial, like the
appearance of a new witness or a new development in science. We
can’t usually look again at things that were known about by the jury,
the judge or the magistrates, even
if you believe that they made the
wrong decision in your case. We need to identify something new that
wasn’t raised back then, and that
the judges at your appeal didn’t
know either, that makes your case
look significantly different now."
It's not necessary to take apart all or any of the prosecutions case at trial. It's simply a case of new evidence (or legal argument) that the jury were unaware of at trial that if known about might have altered the verdict. As I've said previously no one knows what weight the jury attributed to the various aspects of the prosecutions case or even if there were aspects they dismissed altogether. Not forgetting two members of the jury rejected all of it or certainly didn't find it compelling enough to return a guilty verdict.
-
When the CCRC refers a case to the CoA the defence is then allowed to put forward other points that alone would be insufficent of a referral to CoA.
-
The only reason I am suggesting a retrial may be ordered is that JB's defence will argue had the casings been available JB would be in a position to demonstrate his innocence (which may or may not be true). The technology was only given Home Office approval in the last couple of years of so. It's the prosecutions responsibility to maintain court exhibits which in 1996 they destroyed.
I agree the argument re the bible above had no chance of getting anywhere. There was no evidence SC was religious until maybe the last few weeks of her life. She never attended bible classes or even church on a regular basis. CC said SC showed no interest in religion during their marriage.
Perhaps when a case gets to CoA lawyers attempt to throw the kitchen sink at it! You can see here where the prosecution attempted to advance the theory that SC had been moved post death and pre SoC photo. However the appeal court judges rejected this as it was potentially evidence that could have been advanced at trial. So it's sort of use it or lose it! Ie if it was evidence that could of been advanced at trial use it as there's no second opportunity down the road.
518. To decide whether we considered that the interests of justice required that we heard Mr Ismail's evidence, we first had regard to the evidence that it was said that he could give. From the blood staining he concluded that following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet. For her then to slide to be found in the position depicted in the photographs would have required the downward force to be greater than the friction of her body against the floor. In his opinion this simply was not possible as there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force. Therefore he concluded that an additional force would have been necessary. It could not have come from Sheila Caffell since the second shot would have been instantly fatal and thus she must have been moved by someone else, for example with her legs being pulled. He also considered that the weight and the friction between her skin and her nightdress was likely to have been less than the weight and friction between the nightdress and the carpet. Therefore, he would expect movement of the body within the nightdress rather than the body and clothing sliding together across the carpet. He pointed out that the photographs demonstrated this effect at the back of the nightdress with the nightdress staying rucked up in its original position. However the front of the nightdress had not demonstrated this effect. Accordingly Mr Ismail concluded that the nightdress had been pulled down after Sheila Caffell slid into her final position. Since on the evidence, she was dead by this stage, Mr Ismail concluded that some one else had arranged her nightdress.
519. Having studied with care the statement of Mr Ismail, we concluded that this was expert evidence capable of belief. Indeed if it had been given and if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it. That evidence in itself could have led to a conclusion of guilt quite apart from the many other matters relied upon by the prosecution at trial. However, we were not satisfied that evidence of this kind was not available at the date of trial if the prosecution had sought to explore these matters and more importantly we thought that Mr Turner was right in his submission that it was very difficult to gauge with sufficient certainty the reaction of a jury to it particularly when we could not judge it against all the related evidence in the trial, which we had not heard.
I've previously posted the CCRC criteria for a referral to the CoA:
http://ccrc.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/ccrc-q-and-a.pdf
"What is “new evidence or legal argument”?
If we are going to be able to refer your case for an appeal we will
usually need to find some importan
t new evidence or legal argument.
Usually this means something that was
not covered at your trial or your
appeal. For example it may be new
evidence not known about at the
time, or something that has chan
ged since your trial, like the
appearance of a new witness or a new development in science. We
can’t usually look again at things that were known about by the jury,
the judge or the magistrates, even
if you believe that they made the
wrong decision in your case. We need to identify something new that
wasn’t raised back then, and that
the judges at your appeal didn’t
know either, that makes your case
look significantly different now."
It's not necessary to take apart all or any of the prosecutions case at trial. It's simply a case of new evidence (or legal argument) that the jury were unaware of at trial that if known about might have altered the verdict. As I've said previously no one knows what weight the jury attributed to the various aspects of the prosecutions case or even if there were aspects they dismissed altogether. Not forgetting two members of the jury rejected all of it or certainly didn't find it compelling enough to return a guilty verdict.
You are conflating two distinct issues: 1) whether evidence is admissible before the Court of Appeal; 2) whether the evidence is so important that a jury needs to have heard it and thus a new trial is warranted (or is so powerful that there is no need for a new trial even because it establishes as a matter of law the innocence of the person)
In general the only evidence an appeal court can weigh is the evidence presented at trial. By special rule they can consider new evidence that was not available at the time of the trial with the exercise of due diligence. Establishing evidence as new is a threshold requirement to getting the COA to consider evidence other than what was presented at trial.
If the COA decides that evidence does qualify as new and thus is able to be considered that doesn't mean it will warrant a new trial. In order to warrant a new trial the COA must be convinced that the new evidence is so significant that it would permit a reasonable juror to acquit. Only if the evidence permits a reasonable juror to acquit is there a need to have a new trial with such additional evidence presented. The way they assess the significance of the new evidence is by looking at the evidence and theory presented used to convict and see whether the new evidence seriously undermines it.
In a case where someone is convicted on the basis of 1) a witness saying the defendant committed murder and staged the scene to make it appear someone else did it then committed suicide and 2) evidence that establishes the victim can't have shot herself thus was murdered and it was staged a suicide; evidence of the victim's prints on casings means nothing because it doesn't in any way undermine the claims of the witness or undermine the evidence that says the victim can't have killed herself. Thus the COA would determine the evidence is insufficient to establish innocence as a matter of law and also insufficient to cause a reasonable jury to acquit thus no need to hold a new trial where a jury considers the new evidence.
If you have a case where 2 people each blame the other and that is the only evidence and one is tried and convicted but then evidence is turned up proving the fingerprints of the non-convicted person was on the casings but not the person convicted then that would be in that case new evidence sufficient to change the mind of a jury because all the jury had to go on was the word of one against the word of the other and the fingerprints could help them decide which one was telling the truth. The individual circumstances of a case determine whether new evidence is significant enough to warrant vacating a conviction. When a witness who gave testimony that could have influenced a reasonable juror to convict, recants that is something new that warrants a new trial because the jury should not have heard such testimony. It has to be a change about some significant issue to warrant a new trial. For instance suppose the witness testified at trial the defendant left his house at 8 but says he subsequently found evidence proving he left at 9. If the person can't have committed the crime if he left at 9 then this is significant and could have caused the jury to acquit. If the defendant still could have committed the crime if he left at 9 then the change in testimony is of no legal consequence. You have to look at the impact it has on the case and whether the evidence could cause a reasonable jury to acquit. Regardless of whether sheila's prints were on the casings she can't have killed herself and likewise such doesn't impact Julie's testimony. That is how the COA would view it if the casings were tested and Sheila's prints found. They would say her prints could have been planted and also she could have innocently handled the ammunition and that neither makes it possible for her to have killed herself nor undermines the evidence establishing she didn't load or fire a weapon.
It is not some accident the defense keeps trying to think up ways to go after Julie and the moderator. The only way to get a new trial is by by finding a way to impeach Julie's testimony or impeach the blood evidence. Nothing else is significant enough to undermine the conviction. They went after both in 1989, in 2002 and in the most recent appeal attempt. They threw in other red herring crap as well in sheer desperation but it of course failed and never had any chance of success so was a waste of time. Weak arguments just take time away from the main considerations they never help.
-
You are conflating two distinct issues: 1) whether evidence is admissible before the Court of Appeal; 2) whether the evidence is so important that a jury needs to have heard it and thus a new trial is warranted (or is so powerful that there is no need for a new trial even because it establishes as a matter of law the innocence of the person)
In general the only evidence an appeal court can weigh is the evidence presented at trial. By special rule they can consider new evidence that was not available at the time of the trial with the exercise of due diligence. Establishing evidence as new is a threshold requirement to getting the COA to consider evidence other than what was presented at trial.
If the COA decides that evidence does qualify as new and thus is able to be considered that doesn't mean it will warrant a new trial. In order to warrant a new trial the COA must be convinced that the new evidence is so significant that it would permit a reasonable juror to acquit. Only if the evidence permits a reasonable juror to acquit is there a need to have a new trial with such additional evidence presented. The way they assess the significance of the new evidence is by looking at the evidence and theory presented used to convict and see whether the new evidence seriously undermines it.
In a case where someone is convicted on the basis of 1) a witness saying the defendant committed murder and staged the scene to make it appear someone else did it then committed suicide and 2) evidence that establishes the victim can't have shot herself thus was murdered and it was staged a suicide; evidence of the victim's prints on casings means nothing because it doesn't in any way undermine the claims of the witness or undermine the evidence that says the victim can't have killed herself. Thus the COA would determine the evidence is insufficient to establish innocence as a matter of law and also insufficient to cause a reasonable jury to acquit thus no need to hold a new trial where a jury considers the new evidence.
If you have a case where 2 people each blame the other and that is the only evidence and one is tried and convicted but then evidence is turned up proving the fingerprints of the non-convicted person was on the casings but not the person convicted then that would be in that case new evidence sufficient to change the mind of a jury because all the jury had to go on was the word of one against the word of the other and the fingerprints could help them decide which one was telling the truth. The individual circumstances of a case determine whether new evidence is significant enough to warrant vacating a conviction. When a witness who gave testimony that could have influenced a reasonable juror to convict, recants that is something new that warrants a new trial because the jury should not have heard such testimony. It has to be a change about some significant issue to warrant a new trial. For instance suppose the witness testified at trial the defendant left his house at 8 but says he subsequently found evidence proving he left at 9. If the person can't have committed the crime if he left at 9 then this is significant and could have caused the jury to acquit. If the defendant still could have committed the crime if he left at 9 then the change in testimony is of no legal consequence. You have to look at the impact it has on the case and whether the evidence could cause a reasonable jury to acquit. Regardless of whether sheila's prints were on the casings she can't have killed herself and likewise such doesn't impact Julie's testimony. That is how the COA would view it if the casings were tested and Sheila's prints found. They would say her prints could have been planted and also she could have innocently handled the ammunition and that neither makes it possible for her to have killed herself nor undermines the evidence establishing she didn't load or fire a weapon.
It is not some accident the defense keeps trying to think up ways to go after Julie and the moderator. The only way to get a new trial is by by finding a way to impeach Julie's testimony or impeach the blood evidence. Nothing else is significant enough to undermine the conviction. They went after both in 1989, in 2002 and in the most recent appeal attempt. They threw in other red herring crap as well in sheer desperation but it of course failed and never had any chance of success so was a waste of time. Weak arguments just take time away from the main considerations they never help.
Lets take for example the casings. At the time of the investigation/trial it was virtually impossible to obtain fingerprints from casings. Roll on 2014:
"The corrosion and electrochromic polymer technologies have been incorporated in the 2014 UK Home Office Fingermark Visualisation Manual, making them available to police forces across the UK".
http://www2.le.ac.uk/research/challenges/safe/fingerprint
It's unclear if the perp loaded all the cartridges into the magazine shortly before the murders or whether the magazine already contained some cartridges. However it's certain the perp must have loaded at least 14 further cartridges (assuming the mag was already full 10 and 1 in the breach). The new technology above is capable of yielding fingerprints. I dont think any reasonable person would suggest that JB somehow coerced SC into handling 14 cartridges or she just happened to innocently handle 14 of her own accord. That's too far fetched for most including judge and jury. Had the casings existed they would have shown one of the following outcomes:
- Too many fingerprints for any conclusions eg from previous reloads plus police officers and lab staff not handling correctly.
- No prints - guilty JB wore gloves
- JB's fingerprints - guilty
- SC's fingerprints - responsible
If the latter JB would submit an application to CCRC and its almost certain they would refer to CoA who undoubtedly would quash the conviction.
The above is a perfect example of the type of 'new evidence' the CCRC is looking for to enable a case to be referred to CoA:
"We cannot perform a ‘re-run’ of a trial just because the evidence of the defence was not accepted by the jury and the evidence of the prosecution was. We have to be able to present to the appeal court a new piece of evidence or new legal argument, not identified at the time of the trial, that might have changed the whole outcome of the trial if the jury had been given a chance to consider it."
http://www.ccrc.gov.uk/about-us/what-we-do/
It is absoultely not necessary to counter JM's testimony or the silencer/blood evidence or any aspect of the prosecutions case.
If you're unable or unwilling to accept the CCRC's criteria then that's up to you.
However we now know, based on Trudi's vlog of yesterday, that all trial exhibits other than the rifle and silencer were destroyed in 1996 thus potentially depriving JB of the opportunity for a CoA referral. This is despite the CPS making it clear it's the prosecutions case to maintain trial exhibits post trial:
General Guidance: After Production In Court
Once an exhibit is produced in court, or treated as being produced in accordance with section 5B(5) Magistrates Courts Act 1980 (Archbold 10-16), the court has a responsibility to preserve or retain it. Normally the court entrusts the exhibits to the prosecution, usually the police.
The court can impose restrictions on the prosecution. Where it imposes no restrictions, it is for the prosecution to deal with the exhibits in whatever way appears best for the purposes of justice. If the prosecution has doubts as to how to deal with an exhibit it may, but is not obliged to, apply to the court for directions (R v Stipendiary Magistrates at Lambeth and Another, ex p McComb 1983) All ER 321).
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/exhibits/#after
As I pointed out previously the CoA took a dim view that exhibits had been destroyed at JB's last appeal. They were able to make concessions so as not to disadvantage justice/JB but with the casings this isn't possible unless they assume that SC's fingerprints were on the casings and I think most would agree that would be a step too far. So what's the alternative?
165. In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives. It might have been necessary for this court to examine the circumstances in which this had happened. The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciating that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits. However, during argument it was agreed that the court could protect the appellant's position by making assumptions in his favour and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resolve precisely how this came about.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
Ordinarily a retrial would not come into the equation in a case like this. The route would be CCRC - COA - uphold or overturn. But JB will argue that he has been unable to take that route as the police destroyed all exhibits.
-
Lets take for example the casings. At the time of the investigation/trial it was virtually impossible to obtain fingerprints from casings. Roll on 2014:
"The corrosion and electrochromic polymer technologies have been incorporated in the 2014 UK Home Office Fingermark Visualisation Manual, making them available to police forces across the UK".
http://www2.le.ac.uk/research/challenges/safe/fingerprint
It's unclear if the perp loaded all the cartridges into the magazine shortly before the murders or whether the magazine already contained some cartridges. However it's certain the perp must have loaded at least 14 further cartridges (assuming the mag was already full 10 and 1 in the breach). The new technology above is capable of yielding fingerprints. I dont think any reasonable person would suggest that JB somehow coerced SC into handling 14 cartridges or she just happened to innocently handle 14 of her own accord. That's too far fetched for most including judge and jury. Had the casings existed they would have shown one of the following outcomes:
- Too many fingerprints for any conclusions eg from previous reloads plus police officers and lab staff not handling correctly.
- No prints - guilty JB wore gloves
- JB's fingerprints - guilty
- SC's fingerprints - responsible
If the latter JB would submit an application to CCRC and its almost certain they would refer to CoA who undoubtedly would quash the conviction.
The above is a perfect example of the type of 'new evidence' the CCRC is looking for to enable a case to be referred to CoA:
"We cannot perform a ‘re-run’ of a trial just because the evidence of the defence was not accepted by the jury and the evidence of the prosecution was. We have to be able to present to the appeal court a new piece of evidence or new legal argument, not identified at the time of the trial, that might have changed the whole outcome of the trial if the jury had been given a chance to consider it."
http://www.ccrc.gov.uk/about-us/what-we-do/
It is absoultely not necessary to counter JM's testimony or the silencer/blood evidence or any aspect of the prosecutions case.
If you're unable or unwilling to accept the CCRC's criteria then that's up to you.
However we now know, based on Trudi's vlog of yesterday, that all trial exhibits other than the rifle and silencer were destroyed in 1996 thus potentially depriving JB of the opportunity for a CoA referral. This is despite the CPS making it clear it's the prosecutions case to maintain trial exhibits post trial:
General Guidance: After Production In Court
Once an exhibit is produced in court, or treated as being produced in accordance with section 5B(5) Magistrates Courts Act 1980 (Archbold 10-16), the court has a responsibility to preserve or retain it. Normally the court entrusts the exhibits to the prosecution, usually the police.
The court can impose restrictions on the prosecution. Where it imposes no restrictions, it is for the prosecution to deal with the exhibits in whatever way appears best for the purposes of justice. If the prosecution has doubts as to how to deal with an exhibit it may, but is not obliged to, apply to the court for directions (R v Stipendiary Magistrates at Lambeth and Another, ex p McComb 1983) All ER 321).
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/exhibits/#after
As I pointed out previously the CoA took a dim view that exhibits had been destroyed at JB's last appeal. They were able to make concessions so as not to disadvantage justice/JB but with the casings this isn't possible unless they assume that SC's fingerprints were on the casings and I think most would agree that would be a step too far. So what's the alternative?
165. In February 1996, the Essex police destroyed many of the original trial exhibits without reference to the appellant or his legal representatives. It might have been necessary for this court to examine the circumstances in which this had happened. The police officer responsible contended that it was done without his appreciating that there was any on-going legal process that might require the further use of the exhibits. However, during argument it was agreed that the court could protect the appellant's position by making assumptions in his favour and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to resolve precisely how this came about.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
Ordinarily a retrial would not come into the equation in a case like this. The route would be CCRC - COA - uphold or overturn. But JB will argue that he has been unable to take that route as the police destroyed all exhibits.
You keep incorrectly assuming the Court of Appeal would view Sheila's fingerprints on the casings as warranting a reversal. I already explained why they would not view such as being able to cause a reasonable jury to acquit and you have failed to address that fundamental flaw in your claims.
Moreover you grossly overstate their concern about evidence being destroyed. All they said in 2002 was that they ordinarily would have to take a look into why the blood samples were destroyed but had no need to do so since they were able to get DNA via a different route.
Identify a case where the COA quashed a conviction because evidence was not retained to be DNA tested and DNA testing could theoretically clear the defendant. It hasn't happened. The police didn't know that the defense was communicating with the Home Office let alone that such sporadic written correspondence constituted the appeal still being alive. There is nothing to latch onto to suggest they were destroying evidence to conceal that Jeremy was innocent.
Once again finding her prints on the casings would not be viewed as rebutting any of the prosecution contentions int he case that caused the jury to convict. It doesn't prove she loaded a gun, or fired a gun let alone refute the evidence that proves she could have killed herself. Lead deposits left on one's fingers proves one loaded a gun and GSR that one fired a gun. She lacked both and worse could not have killed herself someone had to have killed her. The judges would view her prints on the casings as being as meaningless as the DNA evidence in evaluating whether the evidence warrants vacating the verdict.
-
We can all bang on about this for as long as we like. The CCRC made it perfectly clear, the last time they poured over this case. They announced, 'this is the end of the road for Bamber'.
The CCRC, in Bambers lifetime, won't consider this case again, never mind a court of appeal!
-
We can all bang on about this for as long as we like. The CCRC made it perfectly clear, the last time they poured over this case. They announced, 'this is the end of the road for Bamber'.
The CCRC, in Bambers lifetime, won't consider this case again, never mind a court of appeal!
There's no limit to the number of applications a convict can submit to CCRC or CoA hearings. And given the fact many high profile miscarriages of justice have a long history of failed appeals that can only be a good thing!
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3394.msg129016#msg129016
-
You keep incorrectly assuming the Court of Appeal would view Sheila's fingerprints on the casings as warranting a reversal. I already explained why they would not view such as being able to cause a reasonable jury to acquit and you have failed to address that fundamental flaw in your claims.
Moreover you grossly overstate their concern about evidence being destroyed. All they said in 2002 was that they ordinarily would have to take a look into why the blood samples were destroyed but had no need to do so since they were able to get DNA via a different route.
Identify a case where the COA quashed a conviction because evidence was not retained to be DNA tested and DNA testing could theoretically clear the defendant. It hasn't happened. The police didn't know that the defense was communicating with the Home Office let alone that such sporadic written correspondence constituted the appeal still being alive. There is nothing to latch onto to suggest they were destroying evidence to conceal that Jeremy was innocent.
Once again finding her prints on the casings would not be viewed as rebutting any of the prosecution contentions int he case that caused the jury to convict. It doesn't prove she loaded a gun, or fired a gun let alone refute the evidence that proves she could have killed herself. Lead deposits left on one's fingers proves one loaded a gun and GSR that one fired a gun. She lacked both and worse could not have killed herself someone had to have killed her. The judges would view her prints on the casings as being as meaningless as the DNA evidence in evaluating whether the evidence warrants vacating the verdict.
I disagree entirely. Perhaps the system is different in the US but the UK system simply requires some fresh evidence that had the jury known about at trial might have caused them to return a different verdict. It's absolutely not necessary to take apart all or any of the prosecutions case at trial. Why would SC's fingerprints be on the casings if she hadn't loaded them into the mag?
Fingerprints are stronger evidence than DNA. Fingerprints alone are enough for a conviction whereas DNA requires further supporting evidence.
-
We can all bang on about this for as long as we like. The CCRC made it perfectly clear, the last time they poured over this case. They announced, 'this is the end of the road for Bamber'.
The CCRC, in Bambers lifetime, won't consider this case again, never mind a court of appeal!
I think you're right, sika. The CCRC have covered all possible arses. They've actually given Bamber more leeway than he deserves, just to make sure. It's possible that the information that supporters insist is hidden tells a different story and compounds his guilt.
-
I disagree entirely. Perhaps the system is different in the US but the UK system simply requires some fresh evidence that had the jury known about at trial might have caused them to return a different verdict. It's absolutely not necessary to take apart all or any of the prosecutions case at trial. Why would SC's fingerprints be on the casings if she hadn't loaded them into the mag?
Fingerprints are stronger evidence than DNA. Fingerprints alone are enough for a conviction whereas DNA requires further supporting evidence.
All fingerprints can prove is that she handled ammunition at some point in time not that she loaded it into the weapon let alone fired the weapon. The conviction was based upon evidence that she did not load the gun did not fire the gun did not beat Nevill and could not have killed herself as well as Julie's testimony that Jeremy did it and framed Sheila. The main evidence presented at trial was:
1) that if she loaded the ammunition in the magazine she would have had visible deposit on her hands and elevated lead levels would have been detected
2) that if she fired the weapon GSR would have been found
3) that if she beat Nevill his spatter would have gotten on her
4) that it was not possible for her to have killed herself
5) that prior to the murders Jeremy plotted to kill them and to frame Sheila and admitted afterwards to Julie that he was responsible
While you choose to believe that fingerprints on the casings is a game changer and refutes the above the reality is that it does not and the Court of Appeals would not find it a basis upon which to vacate the conviction.
The only major difference between the US and UK on appeals based on new evidence is procedural. In the US there is no body like the CCRC to go through an appeal is filed directly with a court. In state actions it will usually be filed with the original trial court subject to appeal to an intermediate level appeal court and then the highest state court. When such is exhausted an action for Habeas corpus can be filed in the federal courts as well depending on the facts. In a federal case it will go to an appeals court and can be appealed to the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court and highest court in each state don't have to hear such appeals they decide whether to hear the appeal or simply let the lower decision stand without hearing it. So in the US there are much more layers of court action and more opportunities to try appealing. This is why cases last so long they can bounce around among appeals courts for a long time. A favorite argument for a new trial is saying the trial counsel was ineffective. The theory is that it was not a fair trial because the trial counsel did such a poor job below the acceptable standards. That is much more commonly used to try to secure an appeal than other grounds.
In both the US and UK if evidence got before the jury that should not have either because it was not legally admissible and the judge screwed up in admitting it or because the person admits they lied the conviction will be vacated ONLY IF the court decides that a reasonable person could have convicted on the basis of such evidence that should not have been before the jury. If they could not have convicted on such basis it is harmless error. Sometimes it is hard assess whether testimony is so damning as to warrant a reversal. Here it is not, the judge expressly told the jury they could convict solely on her testimony if they believed it. It's not a close call quite clearly if she lied that warrants a reversal even though the other evidence is still enough to convict because they might have convicted in part or whole on the basis of her explosive testimony.
In both the US and UK new evidence has to be of such a nature that it results in proving innocence or at the very least the new evidence must be sufficient that a reasonable juror could acquit on the basis of such evidence. In order for evidence to have the ability to cause a reasonable person to acquit it must undermine the evidence that formed the basis of the conviction.
Evidence Sheila touched the ammunition at some point in the past fails to establish she loaded the weapon, fired the weapon and could have killed herself. It doesn't undermine any of the following prosecution arguments:
1) that if she loaded the ammunition in the magazine she would have had visible deposit on her hands and elevated lead levels would have been detected
2) that if she fired the weapon GSR would have been found
3) that if she beat Nevill his spatter would have gotten on her
4) that it was not possible for her to have killed herself
5) that prior to the murders Jeremy plotted to kill them and to frame Sheila and admitted afterwards to Julie that he was responsible
Evidence has to undermine several of these not just 1 in order to rise to a level sufficient to support an acquittal and fingerprints on casings would not even undermine 1 of them.
The only ones capable individually of warranting vacating the conviction would be to establish Julie lied (for the reasons mentioned above) or evidence that she could not have killed herself because each of these individually were so significant in terms of the overall case.
-
There's no limit to the number of applications a convict can submit to CCRC or CoA hearings. And given the fact many high profile miscarriages of justice have a long history of failed appeals that can only be a good thing!
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3394.msg129016#msg129016
The CCRC is different from a court because parties bring evidence before a court yet the CCRC has a quasi investigative function. They said they were closing the matter because they saw no possibility of any line of argument that could be further investigated that would be capable of warranting overturning his conviction. it would take something Earth shattering like Julie recanting or concrete evidence of planting of evidence to get them to do anything for Jeremy.
You can disagree with them all you like but the problem is that they make the decision and you are stuck with their view of things.
-
The CCRC is different from a court because parties bring evidence before a court yet the CCRC has a quasi investigative function. They said they were closing the matter because they saw no possibility of any line of argument that could be further investigated that would be capable of warranting overturning his conviction. it would take something Earth shattering like Julie recanting or concrete evidence of planting of evidence to get them to do anything for Jeremy.
You can disagree with them all you like but the problem is that they make the decision and you are stuck with their view of things.
I think you might have misunderstood. The CCRC said they were closing the last application as in the opinion of the CCRC it didn't contain anything capable of a referral to CoA. If you recall the CCRC gave a provisional decision and allowed JB further time to carry out additional tests. I think JB had a couple of time extensions. in the end the CCRC gave JB a final deadline. At this point the CCRC said nothing was forthcoming and they closed the application. JB is as entitled as any prisoner is to submit a further application to CCRC. Every application is treated on its own merit.
Prisoners are only allowed to submit an application to the CCRC after a failed appeal at CoA other than in exceptional circumstances.
-
The CCRC is different from a court because parties bring evidence before a court yet the CCRC has a quasi investigative function. They said they were closing the matter because they saw no possibility of any line of argument that could be further investigated that would be capable of warranting overturning his conviction. it would take something Earth shattering like Julie recanting or concrete evidence of planting of evidence to get them to do anything for Jeremy.
You can disagree with them all you like but the problem is that they make the decision and you are stuck with their view of things.
That is spot on. They bent over backwards to accommodate Bamber, giving him ample time and opportunity to present his case.
-
I think you might have misunderstood. The CCRC said they were closing the last application as in the opinion of the CCRC it didn't contain anything capable of a referral to CoA. If you recall the CCRC gave a provisional decision and allowed JB further time to carry out additional tests. I think JB had a couple of time extensions. in the end the CCRC gave JB a final deadline. At this point the CCRC said nothing was forthcoming and they closed the application. JB is as entitled as any prisoner is to submit a further application to CCRC. Every application is treated on its own merit.
Prisoners are only allowed to submit an application to the CCRC after a failed appeal at CoA other than in exceptional circumstances.
I don't misunderstand anything. The CCRC decided to close their own investigation because they see nothing Jeremy can raise that would be capable of securing his freedom. The defense is free to try conjuring things up but the CCRC will not buy anything unless it undermines the pillars of the case. There are only a handful of things that could do that and prints on casings would fail to do so. If some new test found a significant amount of GSR on her hair sample that would be indicative of having fired a weapon that would be significant because it undermines significant testimony in the case saying she lacked GSR and thus didn't fire a weapon. But you are talking about evidence of simply handling cartridge cases. Loading them requires touching the bullets not simply touching the cases and the evidence presented at trial was that she lacked the indicia that would be present from touching the bullet portion had she loaded them. You have to find something that undermines the evidence presented at trial and this would not.
The CCRC doesn't view anything out there as having the potential to undermine the evidence used to convict so won't investigate anymore and closed its file and while they can't stop the defense from making murder applications they can and will simply dismiss them like they did the last one unless something Earth shattering were to occur like Julie changing her testimony or some lab worker coming forward to say he doctored the evidence relied upon at trial.
-
I don't misunderstand anything. The CCRC decided to close their own investigation because they see nothing Jeremy can raise that would be capable of securing his freedom. The defense is free to try conjuring things up but the CCRC will not buy anything unless it undermines the pillars of the case. There are only a handful of things that could do that and prints on casings would fail to do so. If some new test found a significant amount of GSR on her hair sample that would be indicative of having fired a weapon that would be significant because it undermines significant testimony in the case saying she lacked GSR and thus didn't fire a weapon. But you are talking about evidence of simply handling cartridge cases. Loading them requires touching the bullets not simply touching the cases and the evidence presented at trial was that she lacked the indicia that would be present from touching the bullet portion had she loaded them. You have to find something that undermines the evidence presented at trial and this would not.
The CCRC doesn't view anything out there as having the potential to undermine the evidence used to convict so won't investigate anymore and closed its file and while they can't stop the defense from making murder applications they can and will simply dismiss them like they did the last one unless something Earth shattering were to occur like Julie changing her testimony or some lab worker coming forward to say he doctored the evidence relied upon at trial.
The CCRC made the decision to close the last application but this doesn't preclude JB submitting a further application. Statistically very few applications to the CCRC are referred to the CoA:
http://www.ccrc.gov.uk/case-statistics/
As far as I am aware SC's hair was not tested for GSR. Swabs were taken from her hands and forehead only at PM not at SoC.
Fingerprints on casings would probably be the strongest evidence of identifying the perp.
Appeal court judges will not be so presumptuous as to second guess the jury. For all any of us know the jury may have regarded JM as an unreliable witness and disregarded her testimony. JM's testimony is far from insurmountable. It is simply one aspect of the prosecutions case. I've posted the CCRC's criteria for a referral to the CoA ie simply something new that had the jurors have known about at trial might have caused them to reach a different verdict. You saying there's nothing new and never will be rather sounds like wishful thinking on your part.
-
The CCRC made the decision to close the last application but this doesn't preclude JB submitting a further application. Statistically very few applications to the CCRC are referred to the CoA:
http://www.ccrc.gov.uk/case-statistics/
As far as I am aware SC's hair was not tested for GSR. Swabs were taken from her hands and forehead only at PM not at SoC.
Fingerprints on casings would probably be the strongest evidence of identifying the perp.
Appeal court judges will not be so presumptuous as to second guess the jury. For all any of us know the jury may have regarded JM as an unreliable witness and disregarded her testimony. JM's testimony is far from insurmountable. It is simply one aspect of the prosecutions case. I've posted the CCRC's criteria for a referral to the CoA ie simply something new that had the jurors have known about at trial might have caused them to reach a different verdict. You saying there's nothing new and never will be rather sounds like wishful thinking on your part.
We are going in circles where you ignore the points made because you don't want to face them.
Prints simply indicate the casings were handled not that they were loaded by the person who handled them. The test for loading is the visible black marks and elevated lead levels which at trial were discussed as lacking from Sheila's hands. GSR is the test for firing a weapon. Backspatter would have been present on the person who beat Nevill. Sheila can't have shot herself based on the evidence presented at trial. Her prints on the casings would undermine none of these. You can say you don't care and that you personally consider the prints on the casings important all you like but how you look at it and how the courts and experts would look at it are two very different things. Her prints on the casings would not be legally significant. The COA would view such as incapable of disturbing the verdict and thus the CCRC would recognize this so not even bother referring it because they only refer on issues where they think the CCRC will be persuaded.
The CCRC grossly misunderstood the DNA evidence, that is the only reason they referred the matter in 2002. If they had been told the same thing that the defense expert ended up telling the COA (that DNA was not blood based, likely was the result of contamination and that it would not be able to help assess whose blood was present and removed in 1985 and 1986 by the experts) then the CCRC would have recognized the DNA evidence was meaningless. They were not told any of this though this only came out when the COA was questioning the defense.
Tests showed that loading the bullets used in the murders resulted in the loaded having visible black marks on their hands and elevate lead levels. Does prints on cases make it possible to load without getting black marks and elevated lead levels? No! Only wearing gloves would make such not possible. If she loaded the gun while wearing gloves she would not get her prints on the cases at that point so they would have to have gotten there from being handled at some previous point in time. This is what a gun expert would assert to the court. You don't want to face this and choose to ignore it but the COA will not because the COA goes by the exact testimony from the trial below and looks at whether such is undermined and they will not view it as undermined.
Moreover they will point out the other testimony:
A) the killer would have had GSR from shooting the others
B) Sheila would have had GSR if she shot herself
C) the killer would have had backspatter from beating Nevill
D) Sheila could not have killed herself
E) everything else
Then they will say that her prints on the cartridges fails to undermine these things anymore than her print on the murder weapon did and would not have been able to cause a reasonable juror to acquit.
-
The CCRC made the decision to close the last application but this doesn't preclude JB submitting a further application. Statistically very few applications to the CCRC are referred to the CoA:
http://www.ccrc.gov.uk/case-statistics/
As far as I am aware SC's hair was not tested for GSR. Swabs were taken from her hands and forehead only at PM not at SoC.
Fingerprints on casings would probably be the strongest evidence of identifying the perp.
Appeal court judges will not be so presumptuous as to second guess the jury. For all any of us know the jury may have regarded JM as an unreliable witness and disregarded her testimony. JM's testimony is far from insurmountable. It is simply one aspect of the prosecutions case. I've posted the CCRC's criteria for a referral to the CoA ie simply something new that had the jurors have known about at trial might have caused them to reach a different verdict. You saying there's nothing new and never will be rather sounds like wishful thinking on your part.
I just don't see Julie making it all up in a thirty-page statement because it was always going to come back to bite her with a huge big perjury charge if she then lied to the Court under oath. A lot of what she stated was checkable, the visit to the doctor for sleeping pills, the fact she didn't take sleeping pills while in London etc... The fact that she opened up the whole Osea Caravan Park break-in, robbery and arson episode which exposed Bamber as gutless and uncaring towards his family. The theft of the watches and jewellery while in New Zealand which was easily checked and verified. There is so much more, I don't think anyone has ever been able to prove Julie a liar and that is where much of the case against Jeremy Bamber rests.
-
I just don't see Julie making it all up in a thirty-page statement because it was always going to come back to bite her with a huge big perjury charge if she then lied to the Court under oath. A lot of what she stated was checkable, the visit to the doctor for sleeping pills, the fact she didn't take sleeping pills while in London etc... The fact that she opened up the whole Osea Caravan Park break-in, robbery and arson episode which exposed Bamber as gutless and uncaring towards his family. The theft of the watches and jewellery while in New Zealand which was easily checked and verified. There is so much more, I don't think anyone has ever been able to prove Julie a liar and that is where much of the case against Jeremy Bamber rests.
Jeremy lied about so many things including claiming he called police before Julie though we know he called Julie first. Why did he lie? Because if he genuinely received the call he claimed from his father then he would have called police not Julie. He knew it would look bad to admit he called Julie first so he lied.
He made up the story of taking the gun out and leaving it out without the moderator and scope attached. He lied about the gun not being able to be stored with the scope and moderator attached to pretend that was how it would be usually kept. The reality is he removed the scope so he could commit the murders and used the moderator but lied to try to conceal its use.
He hid the kitchen phone and replaced it with the bedroom phone to prevent his parents from being able to call for help before he could kill them. he lied about the kitchen phone being broken to try to account for the lack of a phone in the bedroom and when the kitchen phone was found he lied saying it was just a spare because he knew it was not broken and thus would prove he lied about it being broken.
These are just some of his lies.
-
As my signature line recalls, the truth never changes with the passage of time!
-
I just don't see Julie making it all up in a thirty-page statement because it was always going to come back to bite her with a huge big perjury charge if she then lied to the Court under oath. A lot of what she stated was checkable, the visit to the doctor for sleeping pills, the fact she didn't take sleeping pills while in London etc... The fact that she opened up the whole Osea Caravan Park break-in, robbery and arson episode which exposed Bamber as gutless and uncaring towards his family. The theft of the watches and jewellery while in New Zealand which was easily checked and verified. There is so much more, I don't think anyone has ever been able to prove Julie a liar and that is where much of the case against Jeremy Bamber rests.
Four 13 year old girls lied in court under oath at Stefan Kiszko's trial:
"Also that month, the four girls involved in the court trial admitted that the evidence they had given which had led to Kiszko's arrest and conviction was false, and that they had lied for "a laugh" and because "at the time it was funny". Burke said she wished she had not said anything but refused to apologise, saying she did not think it would go as far as it did. Buckley said it was not Kiszko who had exposed himself to her and that he had not been stalking them, but they had seen a taxi driver (not Ronald Castree) urinating behind a bush on the day of Molseed's murder. She also refused to apologise. Brown refused to make a statement. Hind was the most remorseful of the four, saying that what they did was "foolish but we were young" and that, had she appeared in court, she would have told the truth about Kiszko, unlike her friends, who all had committed perjury. She herself did not think Kiszko would be convicted".
If a highly trained and experienced QC like David Waddington, who went on to become Home Secretary, was unable to get to the truth by cross examining four 13 year old girls under oath, who lied for "a laugh", what hope is there?
JM's WS's contain many inconsistencies, which I have previously posted about, not least the fact she claimed JB told her on 7th Aug at Bourtree cottage he hired a hitman. In the next breath she claimed JB said they shouldn't talk about it in the cottage in case it was bugged!
We know JB was placed under surveillance and I wouldn't mind betting EP placed listening devices in all telephones: Bourtree Cottage, Morsehead Mansions and JM's pad. JM might have innocently said to anyone, JB, friend or her mother, I'm having difficulty sleeping (who wouldn't after identifying the victims) I might get a prescription for the tablets I had before.
I think EP told JM SC could not have committed suicide because of the two gunshot wounds (not so according to the pathologist) and she believed them. DS Jones said the same to JB when interviewing him under caution. Perhaps that's why JM became visibly upset when Geoffrey Rivling cross-examined her as by this time she may have heard the pathologist give evidence and realised she had been misled.
No evidence that JB was responsible for the arson attack at OCP or any crime down under. The arson attack might have been children messing around on the camp site or a disgruntled customer. Where does the info about crime down under come from? Lousie Carr (daughter of James) was in Australia (or New Zealand) when JB arrived and apparently they rubbed shoulders whilst there. The Carrs, rightly or wrongly, didn't seem to have a good word to say about JB. It all sounds like small town folk gossiping and making something out of nothing.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=580.msg17683#msg17683
-
Jeremy lied about so many things including claiming he called police before Julie though we know he called Julie first. Why did he lie? Because if he genuinely received the call he claimed from his father then he would have called police not Julie. He knew it would look bad to admit he called Julie first so he lied.
He made up the story of taking the gun out and leaving it out without the moderator and scope attached. He lied about the gun not being able to be stored with the scope and moderator attached to pretend that was how it would be usually kept. The reality is he removed the scope so he could commit the murders and used the moderator but lied to try to conceal its use.
He hid the kitchen phone and replaced it with the bedroom phone to prevent his parents from being able to call for help before he could kill them. he lied about the kitchen phone being broken to try to account for the lack of a phone in the bedroom and when the kitchen phone was found he lied saying it was just a spare because he knew it was not broken and thus would prove he lied about it being broken.
These are just some of his lies.
There's lying and then there's forgetting, being mistaken etc, etc. Many of the WS's contain inconsistencies including JM's where she forgets who answered the calls on 7th Aug and on which occasion SB entered her bedroom.
Why did he need to hide the phone when all the phones worked off one line and all he needed to do was disable the kitchen phone by taking it off the cradle? When would he have had the opportunity to go in his parents bedroom, remove the phone and then place it under a pile of magazines in the kitchen? Surely NB would notice the phone missing when he went to bed if it was an unusual occurrence and neither he or June had moved it?
-
Apparently JB has said in no uncertain terms he doesn't want a male QC representing him at his retrial. He has specifically requested Helena Kennedy or Cherie Booth (Blair).
I understand both are awesome cross-examiners. Both have reduced hardened criminals from century old crime families to tears 8)><( ?>)()<
-
No evidence that JB was responsible for the arson attack at OCP or any crime down under. The arson attack might have been children messing around on the camp site or a disgruntled customer. Where does the info about crime down under come from? Lousie Carr (daughter of James) was in Australia (or New Zealand) when JB arrived and apparently they rubbed shoulders whilst there. The Carrs, rightly or wrongly, didn't seem to have a good word to say about JB. It all sounds like small town folk gossiping and making something out of nothing.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=580.msg17683#msg17683 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=580.msg17683#msg17683)
Essex Police confirmed that detectives in New Zealand suspected him of a scam, but he had fled the country before they caught up with him.
Jeremy acknowledged that he had ‘some diamonds’ in New Zealand but refused to be drawn on their origin. Then there was fraud. Julie informed police that Jeremy had arranged for a friend to cash his traveller’s cheques, then reported it as theft, but ‘the bank were suspicious and Jeremy had to stand on an ID parade’. The news filtered home, with slight embellishments and some confusion about Jeremy asking his father for funds to replace ‘a stolen wallet’. Barbara Wilson recalls: ‘We had to send money to him. I don’t know what happened but he did get into trouble. We sent quite a lot of money.’
Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm (p. 76). Pan Macmillan.
-
There's lying and then there's forgetting, being mistaken etc, etc. Many of the WS's contain inconsistencies including JM's where she forgets who answered the calls on 7th Aug and on which occasion SB entered her bedroom.
Why did he need to hide the phone when all the phones worked off one line and all he needed to do was disable the kitchen phone by taking it off the cradle? When would he have had the opportunity to go in his parents bedroom, remove the phone and then place it under a pile of magazines in the kitchen? Surely NB would notice the phone missing when he went to bed if it was an unusual occurrence and neither he or June had moved it?
1) removing the kitchen phone would not disable the other phones until several minutes passed. When you remove it from the hook after several minutes the dialtone would go away and then it could not be used until all phones were hung up.
2) if they heard him entering and called police to report someone had broken in before he could get to the kitchen phone then he would be totally screwed.
By removing the phone from the bedroom in advance he ensured they would not be able to summon police even if they heard him breaking in.
Not knowing who answered the phone while you were asleep is vastly different from not remembering whether you called Julie first or Police or changing where you supposedly left the gun and changing when he saw the rabbits or worst of all knowing whether the gun fit in the closet with the moderator and scope attached and making up it had a case that it didn't fit in with them attached. Nevill bought no guncase. People who get caught in a lie just tell more and thus make matters worse hence "Oh what a web we weave..."
-
Essex Police confirmed that detectives in New Zealand suspected him of a scam, but he had fled the country before they caught up with him.
Jeremy acknowledged that he had ‘some diamonds’ in New Zealand but refused to be drawn on their origin. Then there was fraud. Julie informed police that Jeremy had arranged for a friend to cash his traveller’s cheques, then reported it as theft, but ‘the bank were suspicious and Jeremy had to stand on an ID parade’. The news filtered home, with slight embellishments and some confusion about Jeremy asking his father for funds to replace ‘a stolen wallet’. Barbara Wilson recalls: ‘We had to send money to him. I don’t know what happened but he did get into trouble. We sent quite a lot of money.’
Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm (p. 76). Pan Macmillan.
Your cavities look like they've been filled with the 'destroyed' casings &%+((£
Still nothing concrete. If there was then surely EP/prosecution would have used as further evidence of greed as a motive? A crime/trial of that magnitude would surely be worthy of sending a couple of officers down under to investigate?
-
Apparently JB has said in no uncertain terms he doesn't want a male QC representing him at his retrial. He has specifically requested Helena Kennedy or Cherie Booth (Blair).
I understand both are awesome cross-examiners. Both have reduced hardened criminals from century old crime families to tears 8)><( ?>)()<
What retrial!!!? 8()(((@#
-
What retrial!!!? 8()(((@#
It's the only away justice can be served given that EP destroyed the casings depriving JB of the opportunity to prove his innocence!
Its already been dubbed 'Trial of the century'! Rupert Murdoch has been in touch with Theresa May wanting tv rights to broadcast live!
-
Your cavities look like they've been filled with the 'destroyed' casings &%+((£
Still nothing concrete. If there was then surely EP/prosecution would have used as further evidence of greed as a motive? A crime/trial of that magnitude would surely be worthy of sending a couple of officers down under to investigate?
You can't use such evidence it is just suspicion and is totally unrelated to the murders so simply prejudicial. His crimes with Julie were relevant in he sense of helping show he trusted her and the caravan burglary was robbing his family.
Crimes committed in New Zealand even if provable are not very probative unless you can show some habit that was consistent with what he supposedly did to his family. Most prior bad deeds are kept out as being more prejudicial than probative. There are exceptions like perjury to suggest the person is untrustworthy when they testify or habit evidence but it is only allowed for limited purposes. You can't say well he is greedy he likes to steal so that makes it more likely he would kill his family for money. Nor could you say well he beat others so that makes it or elikely he beat this alleged victim too. You could say he had a habit of beating others in a specific manner and that the beating in the case at bar fits that exact MO but not make the added leap of saying because he did it in the past that makes it likely he did so now too. It is obviously a fine line to straddle though and jurors can just decide to convict based on past behavior regardless of warnings to use evidence for limited purposes. That is why there is an attempt by the defense to keep out as uch as they can altogether.
-
It's the only away justice can be served given that EP destroyed the casings depriving JB of the opportunity to prove his innocence!
Its already been dubbed 'Trial of the century'! Rupert Murdoch has been in touch with Theresa May wanting tv rights to broadcast live!
You're too early... April 1st is a couple of months away. You'll be telling me Jeremy Corbyn Bamber will be living at no.10 next.
-
1) removing the kitchen phone would not disable the other phones until several minutes passed. When you remove it from the hook after several minutes the dialtone would go away and then it could not be used until all phones were hung up.
2) if they heard him entering and called police to report someone had broken in before he could get to the kitchen phone then he would be totally screwed.
By removing the phone from the bedroom in advance he ensured they would not be able to summon police even if they heard him breaking in.
As far as I'm aware one line = any extension picked up immediately disables others. When did he enter his parents bedroom to remove the phone and replace it under mags in kitchen? In any event a bit of a risk as June or NB might have found it and replaced it. Still think NB would notice a missing phone at the side of his bed and think it odd if it was normally there and discuss with June/investigate.
Not knowing who answered the phone while you were asleep is vastly different from not remembering whether you called Julie first or Police or changing where you supposedly left the gun and changing when he saw the rabbits or worst of all knowing whether the gun fit in the closet with the moderator and scope attached and making up it had a case that it didn't fit in with them attached. Nevill bought no guncase. People who get caught in a lie just tell more and thus make matters worse hence "Oh what a web we weave..."
Whoever answered the phone must have woken JM so surely she would recall who woke her? There were only 2/3 occupants in the property. she then forgot/became muddled whether SB entered her bedroom after the circa 3.30am call or the 5.30am call.
Rifle cases are not designed for specific rifles. Most cases aren't. I've had loads of cases over the years for various things 8(0(* and don't recall any being specific. Same as laptop bags etc. Rifle cases are sold with and without provision for a scope. Google rifle cases and you will see. I posted some links but the links didn't work when I previewed and I cant be bothered to look up more.
Did EP check out the rifle/scope/case?
You can see in AE's WS she corrects herself/changes previous statements:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3169.msg118117#msg118117
Unless people know they need to recall detail why would they bother remembering seemingly unimportant events?
-
1) removing the kitchen phone would not disable the other phones until several minutes passed. When you remove it from the hook after several minutes the dialtone would go away and then it could not be used until all phones were hung up.
That simply is not true. I grew up in Essex with the same technology in place. Multiple analogue telephones with a shared single number take one off the hook and only that phone can call out the rest get no dial tone.
It was like that until ISDN2 and ADSL splitters got introduced around 1996
-
That simply is not true. I grew up in Essex with the same technology in place. Multiple analogue telephones with a shared single number take one off the hook and only that phone can call out the rest get no dial tone.
It was like that until ISDN2 and ADSL splitters got introduced around 1996
From what I can remember, you're absolutely right. You could have multiple phones connected to one line, and any one of those phones could disable the whole line. Take one phone off the hook, and no one could call out or receive a call. "Party lines" were a whole other ball game. You could pick up the phone to make a call, and suddenly listen to the other members of it, all having conversations that were ostensibly private. Massive fun!
-
As far as I'm aware one line = any extension picked up immediately disables others. When did he enter his parents bedroom to remove the phone and replace it under mags in kitchen? In any event a bit of a risk as June or NB might have found it and replaced it. Still think NB would notice a missing phone at the side of his bed and think it odd if it was normally there and discuss with June/investigate.
Presumably he did it on Monday but maybe he did it Sunday there is no way to know for sure. We only know he did it by the time Pike collected the cordless phone and adapter because Pike saw the rotary phone in the kitchen. The cordless phone and adapter were next to the rotary phone. Jeremy was seen running from the house right before this so maybe that is when he did it. All we know for sure though is that my mid Monday it was there.
What is the risk? Even if the parents notice they will simply assume the kitchen phone was broken and that is why the bedroom phone replaced it. Jeremy could play dumb and say he has no idea if they asked him why it was there or he could lie and say the kitchen phone broke. That's even they even asked him. They could have asked others and even if they get no answer as to who moved it or why what could they do? With the kitchen phone hidden they would have to leave the rotary phone there until they could get a new phone.
Whoever answered the phone must have woken JM so surely she would recall who woke her? There were only 2/3 occupants in the property. she then forgot/became muddled whether SB entered her bedroom after the circa 3.30am call or the 5.30am call.
I think there were 4 of them there including Julie. It is possible for a different roommate to go and wake her than the one who answered. In any event she mixed up which of Jeremy's phone calls Doug had come into her room and told her about. She told police one call but changed it to the other call saying she made a mistake. That is understandable and there is no reason she needed to change her story. She just changed which phone call for the sake of accuracy.
Rifle cases are not designed for specific rifles. Most cases aren't. I've had loads of cases over the years for various things 8(0(* and don't recall any being specific. Same as laptop bags etc. Rifle cases are sold with and without provision for a scope. Google rifle cases and you will see. I posted some links but the links didn't work when I previewed and I cant be bothered to look up more.
Did EP check out the rifle/scope/case?
Some cases are custom made for specific rifles some are generic. The problem is that there was no rifle case. Jeremy lied and said the rifle didn't fit in the closet with the accessories attached. Police confronted him saying they knew it fit and that he lied to them so he told them he didn't lie they were mistaken about what he told them and insisted he had told them it didn't fit in its case. The problem with the second claim is that there was no case purchased for the Anschutz. There was no case for police to check if it could fit in. I guess he hoped they would just accept his claim and that's it. They didn't know if a case existed or not at the time of the interrogation so it had the intended effect of shutting them up at that point. If they said there was no case and pushed him further who knows what he would have said. But by the time they found out there was no case he had lawyered up and was not questioned again until on the stand. If the prosecutors were worth a dam they would have found a way to ask him why he lied about this. But Mike never posted the cross examination of Mike like he promised he would and cross is supposed to be limited to what was broached during the main questioning so maybe they didn't find a way to ask or maybe they didn't even have enough foresight to try. We don't have any way to know. In any event for our purposes it is pretty bad to lie about such. He made up a case to try to pretend that there was a reason for removing the scope and moderator. You don't make such up for the hell of it or by accident. It was calculated.
You can see in AE's WS she corrects herself/changes previous statements:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3169.msg118117#msg118117
Unless people know they need to recall detail why would they bother remembering seemingly unimportant events?
Yes but correcting minor details just for the sake of accuracy and claiming things happened that obviously never happened are two different things. Nevill never purchased a rifle case and they didn't keep it in a rifle case ever so how could he innocently misremember it was often kept in a rifle case with the accessories unattached? He told things for a specific purpose.
-
From what I can remember, you're absolutely right. You could have multiple phones connected to one line, and any one of those phones could disable the whole line. Take one phone off the hook, and no one could call out or receive a call. "Party lines" were a whole other ball game. You could pick up the phone to make a call, and suddenly listen to the other members of it, all having conversations that were ostensibly private. Massive fun!
Party Lines were shared lines by different account holders. In the early 1980s BT was forced to sell extension jacks so that people could use any phone they like not just BT brand phones and these jacks were able to use pulse dialing etc. not just analog technology. Some of the phones at WHF had newer technology. The only phone without any message history or redial function was the rotary phone which ended up in the kitchen...
Did Jeremy only change it to deny his parents the ability to call police if they heard him entering or did he also do it so that police could not check to see the last number dialed? Only he knows the answer to that.
-
Party Lines were shared lines by different account holders. In the early 1980s BT was forced to sell extension jacks so that people could use any phone they like not just BT brand phones and these jacks were able to use pulse dialing etc. not just analog technology. Some of the phones at WHF had newer technology. The only phone without any message history or redial function was the rotary phone which ended up in the kitchen...
Did Jeremy only change it to deny his parents the ability to call police if they heard him entering or did he also do it so that police could not check to see the last number dialed? Only he knows the answer to that.
The only phone in the house that could have been taken off the hook/cradle without activating the line would be the one that would probably have looked exactly like this.
(http://www.britishtelephones.com/pictures/hawk.jpg)
This was sent to be repaired as it got damaged by a storm hence not in the house while the murders took place. you have to press a talk button on the handset this wirelessly has the receiver/transmitter activate the line, only then will the other phones in the house not be able to make any calls because it not possible to engage the circuit simultaneously however once a call is connected other phones in the house can be picked up and you can hear/talk participate in the conversation because its all on one circuit.
-
I thought triall transcripts are retained indefinitely?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/justice-demands-court-records-are-kept-a6830186.html
-
I thought triall transcripts are retained indefinitely?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/justice-demands-court-records-are-kept-a6830186.html
They are not. Only if there is an appeal timely filed are they transcribed. If not transcribed in time they are destroyed and lost forever. Even if transcribed they can end up being lost. When you have multiple people going through files they lose things or put them in the wrong place even files from a different case. In the Bamber case the defense did get copies of the full transcript because they timely appealed. But they didn't retain the full transcript or at least that is what they say. Maybe they really did lose some maybe they figured why help the court by providing damaging things, who knows. I can't tell you how many times I have found documents left in copy machines among other places. Now we scan most documents and do searches of the documents looking on the computer. This reduces the chance of losing things. There is still a chance during the scanning process of things being misfiled and lost but we rarely need to go to the "originals" anymore since we can print from the computer. If properly organized you can find things much easier on the computer than searching through the documents themselves though going through he documents was in some ways more fun and easier on the eyes than looking at a screen all day long. We used to have file rooms loaded with depositions now we have them on DVD so they take up much less space. You can also search through them easier since you can search for words and phrases instead of having to read them in full. Sometimes technology is a wonderful thing. In the case of kids with cell phones or ipods glued to their hands and only caring about texting their friends all day everyday- not so much.
If someone doesn't file a timely appeal the recordings could be destroyed without ever being transcribed and provided to the government and defendant and that will indeed make things difficult in terms of many years later trying to fight the conviction. Some companies will keep them longer than they are required to but there is never a guarantee.
-
Comments from NGB re trial transcripts:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7303.msg346407.html#msg346407
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7303.msg346547.html#msg346547
If the court states exhibits must be retained indefinitely surely the same applies to transcripts?
-
Comments from NGB re trial transcripts:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7303.msg346407.html#msg346407
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7303.msg346547.html#msg346547
If the court states exhibits must be retained indefinitely surely the same applies to transcripts?
No if you lose you transcripts and the other party doesn't have them and the company that originally transcribed them no longer has anything then you are SOL.
In 2002 either the prosecution and Jeremy both lost their copies of Jeremy's testimony in chief or Jeremy didn't want to provide it to the prosecution and COA and pretended he no longer had it and thus the COA was only able to see Jeremy's cross examination. This was long after the original appeal so the company no longer kept any records. When an appeal ends the winner and loser both are less than careful about making sure all the records are stored properly they both assume they will never need them again. In general we keep client paper records for 7 years only. After 7 years boom we will have them destroyed if the client doesn't want to take possession to make room for more files otherwise you need to find even more warehouse space. Renting space is costly when you have a lot of closed files. At one point we rented space in 6 different warehouses. One warehouse was formerly an old factory built in 1900 that was actually very fun to visit and explore.
I was in charge of a giant document production there. We had to go through files to check which ones were responsive to the document requests and those we selected were to be shipped to Florida to be scanned. It probably costed the other side more money for the scanning than it was worth but insurance companies are run by stupid people...
This is a photo of the staging area where we were sticking the files that were responsive on pallets that were then shrink wrapped and ultimately sent to Florida. There were 3 rows of pallets like this when all was said and done and that was only the files that wound up being responsive. There were 10 times as many files total of ours in just this warehouse.
(http://s10.postimg.org/4ibkd9wqh/Prudent_001.jpg)
In the ultimate sense of irony these cases were about asbestos injuries and the warehouse had exposed asbestos pipe insulation that was corroded and friable.
(http://s11.postimg.org/wg387v4kj/Prudent_002.jpg)
I sent the bosses many photos and told them they better make sure they have asbestos insurance coverage, they didn't like my jokes though.