As I said Scipio you misunderstand how the CCRC/CoA appeals process works in the English courts.
Saying something doesn't make you right. Your track record is constantly insisting you are right but in fact always being wrong like when I referred to COLP asking Cook about records from the lab indicating on 8/14/85 that they notified police that human blood had been found on the moderator but you said I was wrong and that it was blood on the rifle and then posted a paragraph from the 2002 Appeal Decision stating blood was found on the rifle to try to pretend that is what COLP was talking about.
As plain as day it states blood found in the moderator not rifle.
Your understanding of Appellate law is as poor as your understanding of the above COLP questioning.
In 2002 the CCRC referred JB's case to the CoA in respect of testing of the silencer for DNA. See point 452/Ground 15:
"Ground 15 is the sole ground upon which this case was referred to the Court by the CCRC. It is based upon the testing of the sound moderator for DNA, a technique that was not available at trial."
The fact the CCRC referred JB's case to the CoA based on ground 15 affords him the benefit of raising other grounds without them being deemed worthy of consideration by the CCRC or the leave of the court having first been obtained. JB took advantage of this by raising grounds 1 - 16 (excl 15 above). See point 522:
"Once a matter has been referred to this court it is clearly right that the court should fully consider those matters that have caused the case to be referred by the CCRC. However, it does seem remarkable to us that the appellant, following a referral to the court, is then entitled to raise any matter he wishes as a ground of appeal without either it having been deemed worthy of consideration by the CCRC or the leave of the court having first been obtained. We have no doubt that some of the matters that occupied the time of the court raised on behalf of the appellant were of such little merit that the court would, if it had power, have refused leave to argue them".
All that says in laymen terms is that at the time of the decision that absurd, meritless claims can reach the court if they are in the company of a potentially plausible appeal ground and recommends Court rules be changed sto exclude such waste of time. Did you research whether that rule was changed as the court suggested?
In any event if that is still the case today, his is from the statute authorizing the CCRC:
"Conditions for making of references..
(1)A reference of a conviction, verdict, finding or sentence shall not be made under any of sections 9 to 12 unless— .
(a)the Commission consider that
there is a real possibility that the conviction, verdict, finding or sentence would not be upheld were the reference to be made,"
So if there were some ground that actually convinced the CCRC that the Court of Appeals might reverse the verdict and your worthless quackery accompanied it then the court would have to actually take the time to reject your quackery the way they rejected all the other nonsense that accompanied the DNA claims in 2002.
Someone who cares about substance wants to make arguments that will convince the Court of Appeals to reverse the conviction. That requires providing credible evidence that eats at the prosecution's case.
How would your quackery result in reversing the conviction? It can't because it doesn't refute the prosecution's case. So even if you managed to find an appeal ground that actually swayed the CCRC and piggbacked your quackery to such claim to get it before the Court of Appeals they would reject your quackery as meaningless at minimum by saying it would not have any ability to sway a rational juror to acquit but also could have shredded your quackery on the basis of a lack of scientifically reliability.
In order for an appeal to be successful the evidence must be sufficient to be able to sway a rational jury to acquit and in order to do that it must eat away at one of the pillars of the case.
It is not necessary to counter the prosecution's case. I have already set out the criteria used by the CCRC and CoA.
You didn't discuss the criteria used by the Court of Appeals. You discussed a trick used to get worthless nonsense before the Court of Appeals which was then thoroughly rejected as meritless nonsense tha tnever should have reached it.
The Court of Appeals will not reverse a conviction based on additional evidence unless the evidence is truly new, could not have been raised below and eats away at a pillar of the prosecution's case so that the Court determines a reasonably juror could have acquitted on such basis.
Your quackery is bad enough you know zilch about science but your misrperesentation of the law concerning appeals is even worse.
As it happens the new evidence relating to neurobiology and neurochemistry does counter the prosecution's case at point 151 v) a):
Although seriously mentally ill, there had been no indication of any deterioration in her mental health in the days before the killings. Neither had she expressed any recent suicidal thoughts and the expert evidence was that she would not have harmed her children or her father;
Your supposed new evidence doesn't counter the prosecution's case. You are reading from a section of the Court of Appeals decision concerning the failed defense efforts not the prosecution's case. The prosecution's case was that Jeremy told Julie he was planning to kill his family, that they were killed without any physical evidence to establish Sheila loaded a gun let alone shot anyone and that physical evidence proves it was impossible for her to shoot herself. Jeremy then told Julie he was responsible for their deaths. He knew about the murders and tried to frame Sheila thus he indeed is the one who did it.
Your quackery doesn't affect their case at all let alone rebut any of it.
The Defense tried to claiming the letter from Colin about taking custody was new and that such warranted new testimony from Ferguson. The Court looked down upon evidence from people who didn't actually treat Sheila and provided simply basic mumbo jumbo like you are trying to do. It actually considered Ferguson's claims in higher esteem because he actually treated her. They still rejected his new assessment though holding:
"No new issue is raised which was not already fully before the jury, and in the circumstances it did not seem to us necessary or expedient in the interests of justice that further evidence on this topic should now be admitted before this court and we declined to hear such evidence. There is thus nothing of any substance in this ground and we reject it."
You have no evidence at all to establish her health was deteriorating the days prior to the murders and they don't give a rats ass about your quackery where you try to add more evidence of mental problems. SUch can't possibly convince a rational juror that she did it when there is unrebutted evidence that she cna't have shot herself.
Furthermore the expert evidence at trial was as follows and this can now be proved wrong:
84. The defence at trial called Dr Ferguson, a Consultant Psychiatrist at St Andrew's Hospital in Northampton, who had the care of Sheila Caffell between August 1983 and her death. Mrs Caffell had been referred for treatment by her general practitioner and seen by Dr Ferguson for the first time on 2 August 1983. Then she was in a very agitated and psychotic state and he admitted her for in-patient treatment on 4 August. Dr Ferguson came initially to the diagnosis of a schizo-affective disorder characterised by disturbance of thinking and perception. She was depressed in a paranoid way, struggling with the concept of good and evil and caught up with the idea that the Devil had taken her over and given her the power to project the Devil's evil to others including her twin sons. In particular she spoke of a fear she could create in her children an ability to have sex and do violence with her. In the discharge letter Dr Ferguson made reference to her morbid thoughts, which included the idea she was capable of murdering her children or communicating an ability to them to kill. He said she had spoken of suicidal thoughts although he did not regard her as a suicide risk. Miss Caffell responded to the treatment at hospital and was discharged on 10 September 1983.
85. Dr Ferguson continued to see Sheila Caffell as an outpatient and during that period made a firm diagnosis that his patient was suffering from schizophrenia. During that period she was prescribed the anti-psychotic drug, Stelazine. Whilst she was then pre-occupied with her ability to have more children, there were less obvious signs of mental illness and no evidence of acute disturbance.
86. On 3 March 1985 Sheila Caffell was re-admitted to hospital in Northampton. Then she was agitated, very disturbed and in an anxious state. Her thinking was again very involved with the concepts of good and evil, but on this occasion more directly related to excessive religious ideas. She made no reference to any thoughts concerning her children or parents. As before she responded to treatment and was discharged on 29 March 1985.
87. Thereafter Sheila Caffell received monthly injections of Haloperidol, a drug used to treat agitated states which had anti-psychotic and tranquillising properties. It also has sedative side effects at the levels prescribed.
88. When told on 8 August 1985 that Sheila Caffell had killed her parents and children and then herself, Dr Ferguson said this did not fit "his concept" of his patient. He did not feel she was someone who would actually be violent to her children or towards her father, although she was a highly disturbed woman and had expressed disturbed feelings towards her mother.
89. In cross-examination Dr Ferguson agreed that Mrs Caffell's condition was well known to her family. There had never been manifestations of violence either when her illness was being managed or when in a highly disturbed state in hospital. In the context of what was alleged to have occurred Dr Ferguson found it possible to conceive of Sheila Caffell wanting to harm her mother or herself but "difficult to conceptualise her harming her children or her father". He had always felt Sheila loved and cared for her children and saw her father as a very secure, caring and strong support in her life.
The above fails to factor in:
- June's mental illness circa 1959
- Science of neglect
- Disorganised attachment
- Neurobiology and neurochemistry of disorganised attachment
- Propensity towards suicide and violence
In an nutshell new evidence is required that meets the CCRC criteria and section 23(2) The Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The above meets the criteria. It is concerned with new evidence that the jury were denied the benefit of at trial. It is not for me, you, the CCRC, the COA or anyone to anticipate what weight, if any, the jury may have given to the above had it have been available at trial. The appeal judges simply ask ok had the jury have known about this would it have altered their verdict? Don't forget the whole case was based on whether SC committed suicide or whether JB murdered her. Dr Ferguson told the court he did not regard SC as a suicide risk. There's now clear scientific evidence that SC was a suicide risk.
The new submissions to the CCRC are based on new medical evidence and psychiatric reports:
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/killer-jeremy-bambers-bid-freedom-6981683
Scipio if you choose to respond I will not be reciprocating unless you raise something substantially new ie I am not going round and round in circles with you arguing the toss on the above. Its now for the CCRC and CoA to decide.
You are quite delusional. Your theories do not in any way, shape or form establish that Ferguson was wrong and that in fact Sheila was in danger of committing suicide.
Your theories are no different than what the defense already tried at trial:
"The defence called another consultant psychiatrist, Dr Bradley, who had never treated nor indeed even met Sheila Caffell, and who gave the court the benefit of his opinion from the medical notes.
His evidence amounted to no more than that he had experience of cases where mentally disturbed persons who believed that it would be for the good of the victims had killed children and others. "
At best your alleged evidence would be a psychiatrist who never met Sheila testifying about how he thinks June's mental problems impacted Sheila and made her suicidal because that happens sometimes.
It doesn't disprove the claims of Ferguson in any way, shape or form it is just an assessment from someone that never met her and is no more credible than the claims already made by the defense. It is not new at all it is just more of the same things already discussed by the defense. In the meantime this quackery is not coming from experts but rather from you.
What impact would this have on the jury? None because aside from being unreliable because anyone testifying about such never met Sheila and thus a jury will disregard the claims, even if believed these claims do not eat away at the prosecution's case. All it is is more information to add to a failed defense tactic. Trying to add more evidence about her state of mind is not new evidence and the Court of Appeals didn't even bother to dismiss it as unable to sway a jury they simply declared:
"No new issue is raised which was not already fully before the jury, and in the circumstances it did not seem to us necessary or expedient in the interests of justice that further evidence on this topic should now be admitted before this court and we declined to hear such evidence."
That is all the Court of Appeals would say if your quackery were piggybacked so they were forced to deal with it.
