The Bambers: Murder at the farm - Sky Crime documentary

[Myster]

The ‘gravy train’ still being milked by Brett Collins

Got a polished Porsche out of it and a little extra to pay of his debts.

[Nicholas]

Got a polished Porsche out of it and a little extra to pay of his debts.

Was he cleaning his Porsche when the film crew turned up or did he suggest they film him cleaning it so he could gloat to Bamber?

[colsville]

Here's something from episode 3 that didn't make sense to me:

Patrick O'connor QC was interviewed regarding the judges summing up, he said there was 10 pages of summing up regarding Julie mugfords evidence, but Jeremy Bambers evidence was non-existent.  He then described the omission using several superlatives.

I always get suspicious when people start using superlatives willy nilly.

In the Court of Appeal notes from 2002 there is a whole section outlining Jeremy Bambers evidence as presented at trial, and it says something very different to that of Patrick O'connor QC.

From the CoA notes 2002:

The Appellant's Evidence at Trial

Paragraph 137

No transcript has survived as to the appellant's evidence in chief, although it seems clear from the summing up that it was entirely consistent with that which he had told the police.

The above quote from the CoA notes makes it clear that Jeremy Bambers evidence was summarised in the judges summing up.

After paragraph 137 there are another 7 paragraphs outlining Jeremy Bambers evidence at trial, and due to the wording,  it can only have come from the judges summing up.

So why did Patrick O'connor QC say that Bambers evidence was 'non-existent' in the judges summing up?

Anthony Arlidge QC who was the prosecution lawyer at the time, said in the doc that the judge heavily favoured the prosecution case, which can annoy juries, leading them to issue a not guilty verdict just to annoy the judge (or words to that effect).  Arlidge said he was worried about that.

But Arlidge never said that Bambers evidence was non-existent in the summing up.

I wonder if Patrick O'connor had the full transcript of the judges summary? And if so, how did he not notice?

[Myster]

Was he cleaning his Porsche when the film crew turned up or did he suggest they film him cleaning it so he could gloat to Bamber?

Obviously the latter, a set-up.

[Myster]

I wonder if Patrick O'connor had the full transcript of the judges summary? And if so, how did he not notice?

I think this is the fullest set in existence. The page numbering is consistent...

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12240.msg667324#new

[Nicholas]

I wonder if Patrick O'connor had the full transcript of the judges summary? And if so, how did he not notice?

Patrick O’Connor was the barrister of the convicted/exonerated killer of 14 year old Judith Roberts

Interestingly Andrew Evans, who confessed to murdering Judith Roberts is listed by Dr GudJonsson as having ‘memory problems, confabulation & false internalised belief”

But could Andrew Evans have committed innocence fraud?

According to the Guardian in 2000 he was reported to have received nearly one million pounds in compensation
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/jun/09/jeevanvasagar

Gudjonsson ⬇️

https://commentary.canlii.org/w/canlii/2006CanLIIDocs133.pdf

‘..Patrick O’Connor QC, argued that the conviction was unsafe because the case against him rested on his uncorroborated confession..’ 🙄
https://www.innertemplelibrary.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/MiscarriagesofJustice2017.pdf

Looks like another example of innocence fraud to me 🙄

[Nicholas]

Obviously the latter, a set-up.

And the combing of his hair whilst looking in one of the cars rear windows? 

[Nicholas]

https://twitter.com/CouldMurderAPod/status/1444249341355507713  🙄

[Nicholas]

He arrived here some day after the 17th June, I think... but definitely left for three weeks in Greece on the 19th July.

Brett Collins did state during episode 3 of the docuseries

‘I bought a ticket to London from New Zealand a couple of months before the murders - Jeremy was very excited to have a friend that he could go out clubbing with’

Hmm

This appears to be around the same time Barbara Wilson refers to ‘arguments’ between Bamber and his father Nevill

Barbara Wilson
‘There was tension between Jeremy and Mr Bamber - you could sense it  - the arguments were quite fierce at times

Brett Collins
’When they were together his father was in charge but when they were apart Jeremy’s gone with his own delusion of his future life to be - erm I think it culminated after many years of festering with his parents who at that point they don’t mean anything to him (Brett makes another swooshing/whistling type noise at this point) and he err thought that he would get a clear run of a wonderful life and he’d be the boss not his dad

[colsville]

I think this is the fullest set in existence. The page numbering is consistent...

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12240.msg667324#new

And the pages are numbered, so it would be hard to not notice something missing.

But the Appeal Court Judges in 2002 make it clear that they got details of the evidence that Bamber personally gave at trial, from the judges summing up.  And they had official access to all of the original evidence.

Patrick O'connor does not have any access whatsoever to any of Bambers evidence.  Only Bamber and his legal representative has that. Organisations representing the Crown, like the prison services, or the CCRC, will also have access which they presumably have to apply for and give valid reasons for access.

What Patrick O'Connor saw was a leaked version of it, possibly from a retired police officer, who all seem to have their own little stashes of evidence tucked away.

My feeling is that Patrick O'Connor may have sympathies with Bamber given O'Connors history of representing MoJ cases, and his comments may be exaggerated.  So it might be that Julie Mugford got 10 pages of summing up, and Jeremy Bamber got 2 or 3 pages of summing up, exaggerated by O'Connor to 'non-existent'.

In the doc, Arlidge never mentioned the lack of Jeremy Bambers evidence in the judges summing up, he only said that it favoured the prosecution case.

So either the 3 judges in the 2002 CoA are wrong, or Patrick O'Connor QC is wrong.

[Nicholas]

My feeling is that Patrick O'Connor may have sympathies with Bamber given O'Connors history of representing MoJ cases, and his comments may be exaggerated.  So it might be that Julie Mugford got 10 pages of summing up, and Jeremy Bamber got 2 or 3 pages of summing up, exaggerated by O'Connor to 'non-existent'.

In the doc, Arlidge never mentioned the lack of Jeremy Bambers evidence in the judges summing up, he only said that it favoured the prosecution case.

So either the 3 judges in the 2002 CoA are wrong, or Patrick O'Connor QC is wrong.

Patrick O’Connor was also involved in the ‘Birmingham 6’ and ‘Guildford 4’ cases and was Michael Mansfield’s deputy in relation to the appeals of Reginald Dudley and Robert Maynard - both of whom were convicted of murdering William Moseley and Michael Cornwall ⬇️

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2131783.stm

‘Mending our ‘safety net.’ was written by Patrick O’Connor ⬇️

https://doughty-street-chambers.newsweaver.com/Appeals/5nlr330255r

I wonder if Ngb1066 from the blue forum knows Patrick O’Connor ?

[Nicholas]

And the pages are numbered, so it would be hard to not notice something missing.

But the Appeal Court Judges in 2002 make it clear that they got details of the evidence that Bamber personally gave at trial, from the judges summing up.  And they had official access to all of the original evidence.

Patrick O'connor does not have any access whatsoever to any of Bambers evidence.  Only Bamber and his legal representative has that. Organisations representing the Crown, like the prison services, or the CCRC, will also have access which they presumably have to apply for and give valid reasons for access.

What Patrick O'Connor saw was a leaked version of it, possibly from a retired police officer, who all seem to have their own little stashes of evidence tucked away.

Why ‘possibly from a retired police officer’ - why not an ex CCRC employee for example or someone else who’s had access to it at some point or another?

[Nicholas]

Brett Collins
’When they were together his father was in charge but when they were apart Jeremy’s gone with his own delusion of his future life to be - erm I think it culminated after many years of festering with his parents who at that point they don’t mean anything to him (Brett makes another swooshing/whistling type noise at this point) and he err thought that he would get a clear run of a wonderful life and he’d be the boss not his dad

Brett Collins recent statement ⬆️  supports what others have said about Bamber’s behaviour prior to the murders

[Nicholas]

Here's something from episode 3 that didn't make sense to me:

Patrick O'connor QC was interviewed regarding the judges summing up, he said there was 10 pages of summing up regarding Julie mugfords evidence, but Jeremy Bambers evidence was non-existent.  He then described the omission using several superlatives.

I always get suspicious when people start using superlatives willy nilly.

In the Court of Appeal notes from 2002 there is a whole section outlining Jeremy Bambers evidence as presented at trial, and it says something very different to that of Patrick O'connor QC.

From the CoA notes 2002:

The Appellant's Evidence at Trial

Paragraph 137

No transcript has survived as to the appellant's evidence in chief, although it seems clear from the summing up that it was entirely consistent with that which he had told the police.

The above quote from the CoA notes makes it clear that Jeremy Bambers evidence was summarised in the judges summing up.

After paragraph 137 there are another 7 paragraphs outlining Jeremy Bambers evidence at trial, and due to the wording,  it can only have come from the judges summing up.

So why did Patrick O'connor QC say that Bambers evidence was 'non-existent' in the judges summing up?

  Tut tut tut tut tut

[Nicholas]

Here's something from episode 3 that didn't make sense to me:

Patrick O'connor QC was interviewed regarding the judges summing up, he said there was 10 pages of summing up regarding Julie mugfords evidence, but Jeremy Bambers evidence was non-existent.  He then described the omission using several superlatives.

I always get suspicious when people start using superlatives willy nilly.

In the Court of Appeal notes from 2002 there is a whole section outlining Jeremy Bambers evidence as presented at trial, and it says something very different to that of Patrick O'connor QC.

From the CoA notes 2002:

The Appellant's Evidence at Trial

Paragraph 137

No transcript has survived as to the appellant's evidence in chief, although it seems clear from the summing up that it was entirely consistent with that which he had told the police.

The above quote from the CoA notes makes it clear that Jeremy Bambers evidence was summarised in the judges summing up.

After paragraph 137 there are another 7 paragraphs outlining Jeremy Bambers evidence at trial, and due to the wording,  it can only have come from the judges summing up.

So why did Patrick O'connor QC say that Bambers evidence was 'non-existent' in the judges summing up?

Why was Patrick O’Connor in the Mindhouse docuseries?

Did he contact them or did they contact him?