Failed CCRC Submission 2011 and Failed Appeal 2002

[Holly Goodhead]

Andrea I just clocked your post on Blue re the reasons for the failed CCRC submission and as it happens I was reading some back posts recently (as one does  ) and stumbled across the following from Hartley:

The CCRC have issued their grounds for not referring Jeremy Bamber’s case back to the appeal court these are the main points stated in their documentation.

• Fragmented bullet swapped from Sheila Caffell’s body – CCRC said this was available at trial and therefore cannot be used.

• Photographs showing Sheila Caffell’s body had been moved were not accurate as the police officers on the scene all made statements saying that they didn’t touch or move anything and this is stronger evidence than the photographs.

• Photographs showing that the gun was moved on Sheila Caffell’s body were also inaccurate as the police officers on the scene all made statements saying that they didn’t touch or move anything and this is stronger evidence than the photographs.

• No response to the documentation still held under Public Interest Immunity, 340,000 documents.

• No response to negatives still not released to the defence now totalling over 211.

• No mention of the evidence showing that Peter Eaton, Ann Eaton, David Boutflour and Robert Boutflour’s statements conflict with contemporaneous dates showing when the sound moderator was found which was 34 days after the killings and not 3 days after as they said in court.

• No mention of the nail polish chipped from Sheila Caffell appearing at the ‘alleged’ struggle in the kitchen

• No mention about the two sound moderators and how these were merged together by police officers.

• The CCRC found another photometry expert who questioned Peter Sutherst’s methodology in establishing that the scratch marks were not present in the original crime scene photographs. (Jeremy Bamber intends to use Amped 5 software to further support Peter Sutherst’s findings) Nevertheless, Peter Sutherst is one of the UK’s most eminent specialists in this field with over 50 years experience.

I've just put the link if for the failed CoA 2002 appeal so posters can see both together!

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

Am I right in thinking that the only add-on to the failed ccrc submission was the hog roast? 

[scipio_usmc]

What you cited had to have come from the defense since only the defense has access to the CCRC decision and could have been the source of such claims.

The defense greatly harmed their own credibility on this issue by refusing to publish both their application- where they present their legal arguments (along with all supporting exhibits) and the CCRC written decision.

The defense stated they would do so after the written decision came out and then changed to claiming they would do so after all court appeals related to the submission were over. 

So there was a preliminary ruling from the CCRC.  A very detailed 89 page written ruling and then finally a court decision upholding the CCRC decision.  The appeal to the Court was only on select grounds the defense did not challenge the dismissial of all claims before the court so conceded some of their arguments. 

Even while the appeal was ongoing they should have had no problem publishing their own application including the exhibits in support of their positions.  Even during the appeal it made little sense to hide the 89 page decision but now that the appeal failed they should reveal it.  They said they would but changed their mind and won't.

There is onylo 1 reason they would not release it, they got smacked down hard and they don't want anyone to see the crap arguments they made that got rejected and the basis for the rejection of the claims. 

If the press published such then it would likely be the end of any public support for Jeremy.  So it is considered not in Bamber's best interest to release it.  For it to be not in his interest to be released it must be harmful.

[Holly Goodhead]

It is obvious from the points Hartley highlighted that the arguments were weak and do not meet the CCRC's criteria. It is not necessary to be legally trained to see this.  See page 2 "What is new evidence or legal argument"?

https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/about/criminal-cases-review/policies-and-procedures/ccrc-q-and-a.pdf

The CCRC gave their provisional decision for not referring.  As I understand it the burns testing was added. Again the CCRC rejected.  It then went to judicial review.  Again rejected.  To my mind it is not at all clear that the burn marks were inflicted on NB during the tragedy. See my posts on relevant thread. The final outcome was more testing required to further the argument re the burns.

To date the only potential evidence strong enough to overturn the conviction was the DNA evidence.  This was successful in making a CCRC referral and getting to CoA but when fully evaluated was useless due to contamination.  Had exhibits have been protected as they are today then this would have provided conclusive evidence in terms of was SC's blood in the silencer.  That's now history.

To date the defense have focused on countering the prosecution's case.  Now the stategy has changed to providing further evidence to support the defense's case which the prosecution will have to counter.  I'm pleased to see a radical shift as with Louis van Gaal's tactical decision in changing the goalkeeper for the penalty shoot out 

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/killer-jeremy-bambers-bid-freedom-6981683

[Holly Goodhead]

Just thought where I've stated above:

"Had exhibits have been protected as they are today then this would have provided conclusive evidence in terms of was SC's blood in the silencer".

Actually this is incorrect as the DNA testing used LCN-DNA was not capable of identifying the source of DNA eg sweat, saliva, blood or any other biological matter.  However even if it was proven SC's blood was in the silencer it does not prove how it came to be there:

My view:  deliberate contamination by EP taking SC's blood sample from vial handed to them by Dr Vanezis.  The vials containing SC's blood were stored by EP until they were forwarded to FSS.

Prosecution: blood in silencer was caused by blood spatter/blow back while JB murdered the victims of WHF.

I'm sure Scipio will enlighten me 

[Tim Invictus]

Just thought where I've stated above:

"Had exhibits have been protected as they are today then this would have provided conclusive evidence in terms of was SC's blood in the silencer".

Actually this is incorrect as the DNA testing used LCN-DNA was not capable of identifying the source of DNA eg sweat, saliva, blood or any other biological matter.  However even if it was proven SC's blood was in the silencer it does not prove how it came to be there:

My view:  deliberate contamination by EP taking SC's blood sample from vial handed to them by Dr Vanezis.  The vials containing SC's blood were stored by EP until they were forwarded to FSS.

Prosecution: blood in silencer was caused by blood spatter/blow back while JB murdered the victims of WHF.

I'm sure Scipio will enlighten me 

Holly what possible evidence do you have for 'your view'!? Is it just your guess work?

I realise you are accusing the police of very serious crimes but I am not sure if you are also accusing Dr. Vanezis too? I cannot imagine any legitimate reason for Dr. V. to hand vials of Sheila's blood to EP; therefore you are saying he too was a conspiarator in tampering with and fabricating evidence! Perverting the course of justice in the process!

Doesn't it worry you that to discredit evidence you have to accuse family members and/or the coroner/policemen of very serious crimes?

[Holly Goodhead]

Holly what possible evidence do you have for 'your view'!? Is it just your guess work?

I realise you are accusing the police of very serious crimes but I am not sure if you are also accusing Dr. Vanezis too? I cannot imagine any legitimate reason for Dr. V. to hand vials of Sheila's blood to EP; therefore you are saying he too was a conspiarator in tampering with and fabricating evidence! Perverting the course of justice in the process!

Doesn't it worry you that to discredit evidence you have to accuse family members and/or the coroner/policemen of very serious crimes?

No it's not exactly guess work  8-)(--) As far as  I am aware Dr Vanezis has never been involved in any wrongdoing.  He seems to be highly thought of and have an excellent track-record:

http://www.petervanezis.com/index.html

Dr Vanezis handed the victims' samples to DI Cook and DI Davidson.  I believe this was standard procedure at the time.  They were then stored at some EP facility and eventually taken to FSS.  See top of page:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=204.0;attach=704

Deliberate contamination from the above formed part of the COLP inquiry.  It starts about page 10:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=178.msg1787#msg1787

Yes I believe a very small number of policemen (blood and paint in silencer) and the relatives conspired against JB as they genuinely believed he was guilty.  They had no evidence and so fabricated some.  (JM I see largely as a pawn used and abused by EP).

I agree they are very serious allegations and unless I felt very confident in my assertions I wouldn't feel comfortable in posting them.  I am utterly convinced JB's conviction will be quashed in the not too distant future.

[scipio_usmc]

No it's not exactly guess work  8-)(--) As far as  I am aware Dr Vanezis has never been involved in any wrongdoing.  He seems to be highly thought of and have an excellent track-record:

http://www.petervanezis.com/index.html

Dr Vanezis handed the victims' samples to DI Cook and DI Davidson.  I believe this was standard procedure at the time.  They were then stored at some EP facility and eventually taken to FSS.  See top of page:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=204.0;attach=704

Deliberate contamination from the above formed part of the COLP inquiry.  It starts about page 10:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=178.msg1787#msg1787

Yes I believe a very small number of policemen (blood and paint in silencer) and the relatives conspired against JB as they genuinely believed he was guilty.  They had no evidence and so fabricated some.  (JM I see largely as a pawn used and abused by EP).

I agree they are very serious allegations and unless I felt very confident in my assertions I wouldn't feel comfortable in posting them.  I am utterly convinced JB's conviction will be quashed in the not too distant future.

What evidence do you have to support your assertions? None! You don't have a high threshold to be certain of things but your certainy and that required by courts and even people like me are very different.

There are in fact procedures in place to make sure that if tampering occurs that it is detected and they were in place during this case as well.  Vanezis placed the blood samples in bottles then put seals on the bottles.  The bottles were then sealed in bags and seals were placed on the bags.  In order to get at a sample required breaking the seal on the bag and then seal on the bottle. Seals like these are still used today.  Upon arrival lab personnel check to make sure seals are not broken and if they are broken then the personnel note such because it means the evidence has been compromised.

The 3 samples were received by the lab without any evidence of tampering, the seals were not noted as damaged.  The lab did not find any blood missing from the samples.  Therefore, you have no evidentiary basis at all to suggest EP tampered with the blood in any way before sending it to the lab.

The best you can say is you suspect they somehow were able to obtain blood to plant in the moderator but have no evidence at all to back up your suspicions.  Suggesting you have evidence because they were part of the chain of custody as far as transferring the blood to the lab is a crock since there were 2 signed seals on each sample that would have to be broken for a sample to have been tampered with and thus there would have been evidence of tampering yet there was no such evidence.

 

[Holly Goodhead]

What evidence do you have to support your assertions? None! You don't have a high threshold to be certain of things but your certainy and that required by courts and even people like me are very different.

There are in fact procedures in place to make sure that if tampering occurs that it is detected and they were in place during this case as well.  Vanezis placed the blood samples in bottles then put seals on the bottles.  The bottles were then sealed in bags and seals were placed on the bags.  In order to get at a sample required breaking the seal on the bag and then seal on the bottle. Seals like these are still used today.  Upon arrival lab personnel check to make sure seals are not broken and if they are broken then the personnel note such because it means the evidence has been compromised.

The 3 samples were received by the lab without any evidence of tampering, the seals were not noted as damaged.  The lab did not find any blood missing from the samples.  Therefore, you have no evidentiary basis at all to suggest EP tampered with the blood in any way before sending it to the lab.

The best you can say is you suspect they somehow were able to obtain blood to plant in the moderator but have no evidence at all to back up your suspicions.  Suggesting you have evidence because they were part of the chain of custody as far as transferring the blood to the lab is a crock since there were 2 signed seals on each sample that would have to be broken for a sample to have been tampered with and thus there would have been evidence of tampering yet there was no such evidence.

If you say so 

[scipio_usmc]

If you say so 

COLP says so.  You use the COLP investigation as a source for your allegations but ignore that they found no evidence of wrongdoing.  They investigated whether there was any evidence planted and found no evidence at all of any wrongdoing.  You seem to hold up the fact they investigated as proof of wrongdoing though they found nothing.  You would be better off if they had never investigated rather than an investigation that found no evidence of any tampering.   

COLP developed no evidence at all to suggest blood was diverted from any of the 3 samples before reaching the lab.  The lab reported nothing amiss with the samples.  Not only did the lab sign and return the Holab form conveying the 3 samples to the lab, there are documents from the lab confirming all 3 samples arrived and discussing the testing results and no where does it not mention any problems at all with them so far as having been tampered with or missing blood. For instance, Alexander Richard Allan's statement where page 1 notes all 3 blood samples arrived safe and sound.





You got your idea from Caroline.  I challenged her in the same manner I did you but she was unable to respond in any meaningful way.

Her argument which you adopted can be summarized as follows:

There were 3 blood samples taken from Sheila and transferred to the lab by police and then courier.  The blood sat at the police station evidence room for less than 24 hours before being transferred to HQ on August 8 and then on Aug 9 a courier service delivered it to the lab.

The police could have taken blood from the samples and saved it to plant at a later date on something when the opportunity arose.  The moderator was not found yet so blood could not have been taken specifically to plant on it. 

You have what evidence to suggest this happened?  None.  No evidence of any broken seals or missing blood.  You just have naked suspicion nothing more.

In the meantime you not only ignore the lack of evidence and choose to believe this anyway, you ignore that it makes little sense.  Stealing blood to plant at a later date in case it is needed makes no sense.

Who did it?  When did they do it since the window to take the blood was small.  How did they manage to get into the evidence room to do it?  How did they do it without breaking the various seals?  How come the lab didn't notice?  You apparently don't get far enough to answer any of these questions.

You just want to believe Jeremy is innocent and want to believe the evidence was planted so believe it despite not a shred of evidence to support your claims.

In the meantime these questions are about the blood being stolen merely not the mechanics of who planted it in the moderator and how that was accomplished. 

 

[Tim Invictus]

No it's not exactly guess work  8-)(--) As far as  I am aware Dr Vanezis has never been involved in any wrongdoing.  He seems to be highly thought of and have an excellent track-record:

http://www.petervanezis.com/index.html

Dr Vanezis handed the victims' samples to DI Cook and DI Davidson.  I believe this was standard procedure at the time.  They were then stored at some EP facility and eventually taken to FSS.  See top of page:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=204.0;attach=704

Deliberate contamination from the above formed part of the COLP inquiry.  It starts about page 10:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=178.msg1787#msg1787

Yes I believe a very small number of policemen (blood and paint in silencer) and the relatives conspired against JB as they genuinely believed he was guilty.  They had no evidence and so fabricated some.  (JM I see largely as a pawn used and abused by EP).

I agree they are very serious allegations and unless I felt very confident in my assertions I wouldn't feel comfortable in posting them.  I am utterly convinced JB's conviction will be quashed in the not too distant future.

Fair nuff Hols; nice to see your totally unfounded allegations are put in a decent manner! 

So your theory is it was a case of 'noble cause' corruption by the family and cops because they believed Jeremy to be guilty? I must admit this is the only commonly quoted allegation that might just be true; the parties involved being utterly (and correctly) convinced Jeremy was guilty!

As for Bamber being freed in the not too distant!      There's more chance of you beating me in our forthcoming ski race wearing ice skates than Bamber ever getting released!

[scipio_usmc]

Fair nuff Hols; nice to see your totally unfounded allegations are put in a decent manner! 

So your theory is it was a case of 'noble cause' corruption by the family and cops because they believed Jeremy to be guilty? I must admit this is the only commonly quoted allegation that might just be true; the parties involved being utterly (and correctly) convinced Jeremy was guilty!

Holly, for this to be true they had to genuinely believe on August 7, 1985 that Jeremy was guilty so when Sheila's blood was sitting in the evidence fridge for around 15 hours waiting to be conveyed to HQ (or while transporting it from the morgue to the evidence fridge) they ran inside the evidence room, broke the seals and stole Sheila's blood to plant at a later date or while making the drive back to the station they already had their own vial or bottle waiting to store some of her blood in or found something at the station to store it in. 

This requires them immediately believing he is guilty (the blood could only have been taken by police late August 7 or early August 8 because it left their possession already by mid to late August 8), immediately taking blood (including breaking the seals without anyone ever noticing) and saving the blood for a rainy day to plant. 

It makes no sense in addition to there being zero evidence at all of the seals being broken or any blood being missing.

Moreover, who were these police who knew immediately he was guilty?  Even Stanley Jones was not sure of his guilt that early.

You theory has more holes than Alpine Lace (it is a Swiss Cheese):

http://sickoftheradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/15_chiappaswiss-17-alpine-lace-2008-mega1.jpg

[Holly Goodhead]

COLP says so.  You use the COLP investigation as a source for your allegations but ignore that they found no evidence of wrongdoing.  They investigated whether there was any evidence planted and found no evidence at all of any wrongdoing.  You seem to hold up the fact they investigated as proof of wrongdoing though they found nothing.  You would be better off if they had never investigated rather than an investigation that found no evidence of any tampering.   

COLP developed no evidence at all to suggest blood was diverted from any of the 3 samples before reaching the lab.  The lab reported nothing amiss with the samples.  Not only did the lab sign and return the Holab form conveying the 3 samples to the lab, there are documents from the lab confirming all 3 samples arrived and discussing the testing results and no where does it not mention any problems at all with them so far as having been tampered with or missing blood. For instance, Alexander Richard Allan's statement where page 1 notes all 3 blood samples arrived safe and sound.





You got your idea from Caroline.  I challenged her in the same manner I did you but she was unable to respond in any meaningful way.

Her argument which you adopted can be summarized as follows:

There were 3 blood samples taken from Sheila and transferred to the lab by police and then courier.  The blood sat at the police station evidence room for less than 24 hours before being transferred to HQ on August 8 and then on Aug 9 a courier service delivered it to the lab.

The police could have taken blood from the samples and saved it to plant at a later date on something when the opportunity arose.  The moderator was not found yet so blood could not have been taken specifically to plant on it. 

You have what evidence to suggest this happened?  None.  No evidence of any broken seals or missing blood.  You just have naked suspicion nothing more.

In the meantime you not only ignore the lack of evidence and choose to believe this anyway, you ignore that it makes little sense.  Stealing blood to plant at a later date in case it is needed makes no sense.

Who did it?  When did they do it since the window to take the blood was small.  How did they manage to get into the evidence room to do it?  How did they do it without breaking the various seals?  How come the lab didn't notice?  You apparently don't get far enough to answer any of these questions.

You just want to believe Jeremy is innocent and want to believe the evidence was planted so believe it despite not a shred of evidence to support your claims.

In the meantime these questions are about the blood being stolen merely not the mechanics of who planted it in the moderator and how that was accomplished. 

 

Holly, for this to be true they had to genuinely believe on August 7, 1985 that Jeremy was guilty so when Sheila's blood was sitting in the evidence fridge for around 15 hours waiting to be conveyed to HQ (or while transporting it from the morgue to the evidence fridge) they ran inside the evidence room, broke the seals and stole Sheila's blood to plant at a later date or while making the drive back to the station they already had their own vial or bottle waiting to store some of her blood in or found something at the station to store it in. 

This requires them immediately believing he is guilty (the blood could only have been taken by police late August 7 or early August 8 because it left their possession already by mid to late August 8), immediately taking blood (including breaking the seals without anyone ever noticing) and saving the blood for a rainy day to plant. 

It makes no sense in addition to there being zero evidence at all of the seals being broken or any blood being missing.

Moreover, who were these police who knew immediately he was guilty?  Even Stanley Jones was not sure of his guilt that early.

You theory has more holes than Alpine Lace (it is a Swiss Cheese):

http://sickoftheradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/15_chiappaswiss-17-alpine-lace-2008-mega1.jpg

Caroline may share my views on the above.  My conclusions are entirely my own and nothing whatsoever to do with Caroline or anyone else for that matter.  I am capable of independent thought.  Your thoughts seem to echo EP's! 

Thanks for providing the WS from Alexander Allan.  Do you have a signed copy please?  As it stands it is not worth the paper it is written on.  Why is it dated 12th November 1985?  I would expect to see a signed statement from FSS dated 8th/9th August when you claim the civilian driver delivered and handed over the samples to FSS? 

[Holly Goodhead]

What evidence do you have to support your assertions? None! You don't have a high threshold to be certain of things but your certainy and that required by courts and even people like me are very different.

There are in fact procedures in place to make sure that if tampering occurs that it is detected and they were in place during this case as well.  Vanezis placed the blood samples in bottles then put seals on the bottles.  The bottles were then sealed in bags and seals were placed on the bags.  In order to get at a sample required breaking the seal on the bag and then seal on the bottle. Seals like these are still used today.  Upon arrival lab personnel check to make sure seals are not broken and if they are broken then the personnel note such because it means the evidence has been compromised.

The 3 samples were received by the lab without any evidence of tampering, the seals were not noted as damaged.  The lab did not find any blood missing from the samples.  Therefore, you have no evidentiary basis at all to suggest EP tampered with the blood in any way before sending it to the lab.

The best you can say is you suspect they somehow were able to obtain blood to plant in the moderator but have no evidence at all to back up your suspicions.  Suggesting you have evidence because they were part of the chain of custody as far as transferring the blood to the lab is a crock since there were 2 signed seals on each sample that would have to be broken for a sample to have been tampered with and thus there would have been evidence of tampering yet there was no such evidence.

 

Are you able to supply a measurement for the samples please in terns of ml or gm?

The samples were placed in small containers with identifying labels.  They were then placed in plastic bags with again identifying labels.  I believe the labels were signed by Dr Vanezis.  If someone was of a mind to tamper with one or more of SC's blood samples it is entirely feasible that blood could be removed from the containers and repackaged with Dr Vanezis' signature simply forged.  The system was weak. 

[Holly Goodhead]

I should have added that EP provided the packaging materials eg containers, bags and labels.  Had this have been provided by FSS with markings to show it was provided by FSS it would have made the system more robust.

[scipio_usmc]

Caroline may share my views on the above.  My conclusions are entirely my own and nothing whatsoever to do with Caroline or anyone else for that matter.  I am capable of independent thought.  Your thoughts seem to echo EP's! 

Thanks for providing the WS from Alexander Allan.  Do you have a signed copy please?  As it stands it is not worth the paper it is written on.  Why is it dated 12th November 1985?  I would expect to see a signed statement from FSS dated 8th/9th August when you claim the civilian driver delivered and handed over the samples to FSS?

Who are you trying to kid?  The same day Caroline made the charge to me is when you started parroting the same thing here.  Trying to pretend you came up with the idea on your own and that was just coincidence is as credible as Jeremy's claims that for the first time in his life he decided to shoot rabbits was hours before the murders and left the gun on the kitchen table.

You are also parroting Mike's nonsense with respect to the dates of statements not being immediate as if that has any bearing on the accuracy.  The various parties sign statements when they are all done with testing and their statements are needed. The Holab forms and other lab documents detail the 9th of August as the date of receipt and this statement confirms the fact further.  This is the date COLP determined to be the date of recipt as well. You like to trot out the investigation but never accept any of the findings and instead argue that the mere fact there was an investigation is proof of wrongdoing, which happens to be Mike's line.  Every single thing COLP determined Mike ignores and pretends they found wrongdoing and you seem to do the same exact thing.  They heavily investigated Cook and Davidson.  They found no evidenc eto substantiate the allegations the defense made about Cook and Davidson planting evidence or doing anything wrong.  You ignore the findings and simply seem to want to pretend they found wrongdoing and suggest the fact they were investigated means the allegation were true.  That is not how things work.

You also seem to be parroting Mike's nonsense about how unsigned forms that have been published online by the blue forum no less have no value when the statements harm Jeremy Bamber supporters.  While you consider them to be worthless that is quite meaningless because unbiased rational people disagree. 

Since Jeremy was convicted but you insist the evidence was all planted, all false and that he is innocent the proponent is you.  The burden is on the proponent to prove his/her claims when I challenges the offiical story.
Since you have zero evidence whatsoever you are trying and no rational basis for your opinions you are unable to back them up of even explain them in much detail.  Your main effort is to try to pretend the official story is not the official story at all. You are trying to pretend the official story is not that the lab received the blood evidence on August 9, 1985.  That is simply dishonesty on your part to try to avoid having to deal with a point that is fatal to your claims.

You bear the burden of proving the Holab forms and claims by the lab personnel to be wrong or lies whichechever you allege to be the case. Saying that some of the forms online are onsigned doesn't cut it by any stretch.