So..What Was Judge Knowles Verdict This Week?😌

[Robittybob1]

It tells you in the attached how it came about.

Was the Bible close to an opening door?

[Holly Goodhead]

Was the Bible close to an opening door?

Please refer to the doc I uploaded along with the layout of WHF to draw your own conclusion.  Other relevant material includes the wit stats of A/PS Woodcock and PC's Collins and Delgado.

There's also a note from A/PS Adams re movement of soc.

[Robittybob1]

Was the Bible close to an opening door?

Lookingthrough the case related photos again I see this photo with Sheila obscured but the Bible is still visible and the door that may have pushed the Bible up against Sheila's arm.

The fact that the Bible is partly on top of Sheila's arm has no evidentiary value IMO.

[Holly Goodhead]

Lookingthrough the case related photos again I see this photo with Sheila obscured but the Bible is still visible and the door that may have pushed the Bible up against Sheila's arm.

The fact that the Bible is partly on top of Sheila's arm has no evidentiary value IMO.

Exactly.

The bible might well have contained a lot of evidential value if we knew whose blood stained the pages.

[Robittybob1]

Exactly.

The bible might well have contained a lot of evidential value if we knew whose blood stained the pages.

Well I will agree with you there especially if there was blood from some 3rd party on the Bible

[Holly Goodhead]

Well I will agree with you there especially if there was blood from some 3rd party on the Bible

The blood either originated from SC or June.  The latter imo.

There's no evidence of any 3rd party involvement. 

[Robittybob1]

The blood either originated from SC or June.  The latter imo.

There's no evidence of any 3rd party involvement.

So how did the Bible get on Sheila's side of the room?  Did Sheila throw it?  The owner of a Bible doesn't normally throw it around, so I wouldn't think June would throw it at Sheila.

[Caroline]

Exactly.

The bible might well have contained a lot of evidential value if we knew whose blood stained the pages.

 

[Nicholas]

Latest from Mark Newby

Posted on June 5, 2020

‘The High Court has today declined to grant an order requiring the Director of Prosecution to make disclosure but in doing so significantly left the door open for Jeremy Bamber to now pursue his application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission . Jeremy's Solicitor , Mark Newby has made this statement :

‘Today the High Court declined a request by the those representing Jeremy Bamber to order disclosure which would have answered a very material aspect of this case namely prima facie conclusions reached by an eminent Ballistics Expert that there may have been two Silencers examined in this investigation . The issue could have been answered by disclosing just 27 documents out of an overall case file running to several million pages.

It remains our view that this would have been the most expedient and resource sensitive way to address this important issue , however the High Court has concluded that the high water mark imposed in the case of Nunn R (Nunn) v Chief Constable of Suffolk [2015] AC 225 has not in this case been crossed . Indeed The Honourable Mr Justice Knowles who decided the case considered that this case was so uniquely complex that the Court could simply not itself do justice to a determination one way or the other of whether Jeremy Bamber could establish in the end whether he had the required evidence to demonstrate to the Court that he and his expert are correct and that accordingly the material would make a decisive difference .

Counsel for Jeremy Bamber said that the existence of a second moderator would potentially undermine the safety of the convictions. Whilst the prosecution also relied on other evidence, the question of whether Ms Caffell could have shot herself with the moderator affixed to the rifle inevitably became a prominent one.   He said there were questions surrounding the correctness of the attribution of the blood to Ms Caffell, and the attribution of the paint to a struggle with Nevill Bamber. Jeremy Bamber had advanced a detailed assessment of why this would make a material difference to the safety of the conviction.

The essence was that Jeremy Bamber was very sure that the conclusion with the 27 documents seen would have supported his case, however we could not say for certainty without seeing the documents and this remained the problem.

The argument was strongly contested by the Crown, but, the real thrust of the argument was that it was only the CCRC who could consider this uniquely complex case.

His Lordship significantly summarised the position as it stands as this:
“55.     I have carefully considered the arguments of the parties and have read and considered all of the material that has been lodged.   I have carefully considered the decision of Saini J and for the reasons that he gave, with which I agree, and for the following reasons, I have concluded that permission should be refused.   This does not leave the Claimant without a remedy.   Much work has already been done and he has the makings of a fresh submission to the CCRC including an unqualified report from Mr Boyce in support of his case that there was a second moderator recovered from the farm.  That provides him with the necessary basis for arguing that his convictions are unsafe.”

Whilst the decision is disappointing, we agree with his Lordships assessment that  Jeremy Bamber certainly does have the makings of a fresh submission to the CCRC. Indeed there is material which still simply cannot be put into the public domain and a significant amount of further material which will now be added to the application to now be put to the Commission which we consider will require a thorough investigation by the Commission .

The net consequence of what is about to be delivered in the months ahead is to afford the commission an opportunity to be able to look at key areas of this uniquely complex case again,  but with the benefit of fresh material which we submit raises the required possibility that the Court would not now uphold the conviction if the case was referred .

As part of the run into this case there was criticism that Jeremy Bamber was advancing a narrative of misconduct by Essex Police which was unsubstantiated , yet it was revealed just 24 hours before the hearing , following concerns that had been raised by Jeremy Bamber ,  that a former senior investigating officer in the case Michael Ainsley had not only taken sensitive material from the investigation home ,  but he had passed documents to the author of the Book , Carol Ann Lee , which led to the ITV Drama and then taken it upon himself to destroy evidence .

This is a deeply concerning chain of events, which is subject to an ongoing investigation. 

Accordingly despite the overall outcome to this review , it is our view that the Jeremy Bamber’s case has moved forward as result of these proceedings and the team look forward to the now pivotal next step of being able to start to  engage with the commission over this case in the months ahead .

The Onus is now on the Commission once it is seized of the case as His Lordship noted:

“57.     If ever there was a case where the CCRC should be approached to make a decision on what is said to be new evidence, it is this one.  This is a massively complex case which has been investigated and re-investigated by more than one police force over some 35 years.   The body of material is vast.  After so many years, and so much litigation, the CCRC is the body undoubtedly best placed to consider the Claimant’s arguments. This case is so complicated, and has so many overlapping layers, that judicial review is a hopelessly blunt tool with which to address and determine the Claimant’s arguments. Even deciding what disclosure has, or has not, been made is fraught with difficulty Even if the Claimant were right on his primary case, the Court is hardly in a position to say whether the CPS’s determination that it would not mean the convictions are unsafe, is one which was not reasonably open to it.  It simply does not have the material or understanding of all the detail of the case to be able to make that determination.”

Jeremy Bamber is represented by Mark Newby of QualitySolicitors Jordans – https://www.qualitysolicitors.com/jordans/our-people/mark-newby

His Counsel are:

Joe Stone QC https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/barristers/joe-stone-qc  http://kbgchambers.co.uk/members-Exeter-Plymouth-Truro

Matt Stanbury https://gcnchambers.co.uk/barrister/matthew-stanbury/

https://www.qualitysolicitors.com/jordans/news/2020/06/jeremy-bamber-high-court-in-declining-disclosure-leaves-door-firmly-open-to-ccrc

Dr Michael Naughton on the Jeremy Bamber case

Empowering the Innocent (ETI)
@EmpowerInnocent
This decision could exacerbate the harm of a potential wrongful conviction if Jeremy Bamber is innocent by keeping him incarcerated for longer. There will be much interest in how the
@ccrcupdate deal with his claim of innocence if and when another application is submitted.

https://mobile.twitter.com/EmpowerInnocent/status/1268970497846521857

[ISpyWithMyEye]

This is the first time I have sen this photograph, quite chilling. You can see by the way her arms are placed this was NOT a suicide using that gun. It looks like her arms can't reach (already mentioned- I know),but the left arm is really in a non natural position. The blast would have thrown her left arm up and away from the body. If she only used one arm to pull the trigger, again having been injured it this was the allegedly second shot which did caused the death.

On another observation, anyone committing suicide with a gun would put it into an open mouth, IF they were experienced in these matters which JB claimed Sheila was...This shows that story to be untrue.

Absolutely, Miss Taken.

Sheila never shot herself at all.

Anyone shooting themselves with a long rifle need to hold it with two hands; Sheila’s left arm was bent over by the side of her head, meaning it was impossible for her to have killed herself.

Furthermore, her right arm would have splayed out by her side, and the gun would have dropped onto the floor. The rifle would have jerked upwards once fired, and Sheila’s body would have twitched like she was having an epileptic fit as she died. No WAY would that rifle and her arm have been laying all relaxed on her lap, while her left arm was bent by her head.

Her feet were also pointed too (like a ballerina) where Jeremy had pulled her body downwards. He forgot that her nightdress would bunch up underneath her as he pulled her down, and so only pulled the front of it down towards her knees.

It’s there in black and white, yet some people will deny it until they’re blue in the face.

[Robittybob1]

The first shot could have been without the silencer in place.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

The first shot could have been without the silencer in place.

Impossible.

Both shots to Sheila were carried out with the moderator attached, hence why NO blood/back spatter was inside the barrel.

Like I tell you repeatedly, this has all been established almost half a century ago

[Brietta]

The first shot could have been without the silencer in place.

I think the silencer was in place throughout his killing spree and was only removed with the realisation when setting up the 'suicide' scenario that Sheila could not possibly have killed herself with it in place.

I'm a bit bemused why Bamber 'hid' it in the cupboard ... obviously it never occurred to him that it had become contaminated with the blood of his victims.

I don't know how many bullets he thought it would take to wipe out his family but even if he had initially calculated two each (although the number he used on the boys might negate my supposition) that would have been ten shots, each one increasing the potential of being heard and couldn't have been mistaken for a poacher or someone taking a pot shot at a fox.
Twenty five shots certainly increased that risk. 

I don't think he would have started shooting without the moderator being in place.

• use of the moderator lessened the risk of the shootings being heard from outside
• it may have bought him time inside the house with the confused victims not processing what was happening until too late that is if they had wakened at all ... and he nearly miscalculated that one.

[Robittybob1]

Impossible.

Both shots to Sheila were carried out with the moderator attached, hence why NO blood/back spatter was inside the barrel.

Like I tell you repeatedly, this has all been established almost half a century ago

You don't always get back spatter.

[Holly Goodhead]

I think the silencer was in place throughout his killing spree and was only removed with the realisation when setting up the 'suicide' scenario that Sheila could not possibly have killed herself with it in place.

I'm a bit bemused why Bamber 'hid' it in the cupboard ... obviously it never occurred to him that it had become contaminated with the blood of his victims.

I don't know how many bullets he thought it would take to wipe out his family but even if he had initially calculated two each (although the number he used on the boys might negate my supposition) that would have been ten shots, each one increasing the potential of being heard and couldn't have been mistaken for a poacher or someone taking a pot shot at a fox.
Twenty five shots certainly increased that risk. 

I don't think he would have started shooting without the moderator being in place.

• use of the moderator lessened the risk of the shootings being heard from outside
• it may have bought him time inside the house with the confused victims not processing what was happening until too late that is if they had wakened at all ... and he nearly miscalculated that one.

You've forgotten the hair and paint!