An Appeal Courts Function

[scipio_usmc]

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.     

 

[Holly Goodhead]

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. 

 

[scipio_usmc]

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.

 

[John]

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.

[scipio_usmc]

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.

[John]

As my signature line recalls, the truth never changes with the passage of time!

[Holly Goodhead]

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

[Holly Goodhead]

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?

[Holly Goodhead]

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   

[Myster]

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

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.

[scipio_usmc]

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..."


 

[Holly Goodhead]

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?

[Myster]

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 

What retrial!!!?

[Holly Goodhead]

What retrial!!!?

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! 

[scipio_usmc]

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.