For Those That Believe JB Guilty...

[John]

In other words. You have no evidence. Just saying it exists is a hollow argument.

Guiltards often try to make it sound like a mountain of evidence exists. If one insists they see the 'mountain'. Half a dozen very flimsy anecdotal pieces of evidence are put forward as this damning mountain, when careful consideration of it will establish that it really amounts to nothing at all.

Obviously reality is somewhat different.  There is a mountain of evidence against Bamber.

[Holly Goodhead]

Oh yes indeed dear Holly, you are engaging in the craft of pattern observing.
No one of sound mind should ever take any comfort from these direct appeals. They magnify the problem, and the abject fear the common citizenry should have of these evil b......s at the appellate level.
I can't say it more kindly, but I do hope to be repudiated.

The following CoA transcript is very telling.  It involves the 3 appeal court judges along with Michael Turner QC for the defence, Victor Temple QC for the prosecution and expert witness Mark Webster who is a biologist.

[Holly Goodhead]

Oh yes indeed dear Holly, you are engaging in the craft of pattern observing.
No one of sound mind should ever take any comfort from these direct appeals. They magnify the problem, and the abject fear the common citizenry should have of these evil b......s at the appellate level.
I can't say it more kindly, but I do hope to be repudiated.

Many criticise and level all sorts of accusations at the police, relatives, JM, experts and other prosecution witnesses.  My criticism is mainly with JB's defence at trial and CoA hearing, trial judge and appeal court judges:

- There's no evidence that JB's defence at trial or coa hearing had any experience of mass shootings.
- There's no evidence expert witnesses called at trial or coa hearing had any experience of mass shootings.
- There's no evidence JB's defence at anytime looked to procure expert testimony from elsewhere where mass shootings are a regular occurrence eg US.  Is there any reason Terzeon and Rivlin didn't get their butts on a plane out to the US to meet with ballistics and pathologists experienced in gsw's.

- Red flags:
  - An adoptive family ie no shared genes and yet a mentally ill mother and daughter with the son standing
    accused of murder!
  - Many blood stained exhibits were examined and yet the only one capable of producing a full set of blood groups
    was the 1/4" flake inside the silencer!
  - Many blood stained exhibits were examined and yet the bible escaped examination with the defence failing to
    track it down!
  - No attempt to reconstruct the soc.  It is clear from cross-examination of expert witnesses at trial and points put   
    forward at appeal that the defence failed to understand the soc despite all the data staring them in the face!   

It appears we have no way of tracking the performance of these people.

[John]

Many criticise and level all sorts of accusations at the police, relatives, JM, experts and other prosecution witnesses.  My criticism is mainly with JB's defence at trial and CoA hearing, trial judge and appeal court judges:

- There's no evidence that JB's defence at trial or coa hearing had any experience of mass shootings.
- There's no evidence expert witnesses called at trial or coa hearing had any experience of mass shootings.
- There's no evidence JB's defence at anytime looked to procure expert testimony from elsewhere where mass shootings are a regular occurrence eg US.  Is there any reason Terzeon and Rivlin didn't get their butts on a plane out to the US to meet with ballistics and pathologists experienced in gsw's.

- Red flags:
  - An adoptive family ie no shared genes and yet a mentally ill mother and daughter with the son standing
    accused of murder!
  - Many blood stained exhibits were examined and yet the only one capable of producing a full set of blood groups
    was the 1/4" flake inside the silencer!
  - Many blood stained exhibits were examined and yet the bible escaped examination with the defence failing to
    track it down!
  - No attempt to reconstruct the soc.  It is clear from cross-examination of expert witnesses at trial and points put   
    forward at appeal that the defence failed to understand the soc despite all the data staring them in the face!   

It appears we have no way of tracking the performance of these people.

Quite often in a case the defence will not drag things out if they are of the opinion that their client appears to be in fact guilty or has even confessed.  The other case being showcased here at the moment, the trial and conviction of Vincent Tabak being a classic example.

Could this have been the case with Jeremy Bamber, was Julie's evidence the final nail in his defence?

[APRIL]

Quite often in a case the defence will not drag things out if they are of the opinion that their client appears to be in fact guilty or has even confessed.  The other case being showcased here at the moment, the trial and conviction of Vincent Tabak being a classic example.

Could this have been the case with Jeremy Bamber, was Julie's evidence the final nail in his defence?

I've often wondered if Jeremy's defence thought he was guilty.

[Holly Goodhead]

Quite often in a case the defence will not drag things out if they are of the opinion that their client appears to be in fact guilty or has even confessed.  The other case being showcased here at the moment, the trial and conviction of Vincent Tabak being a classic example.

Could this have been the case with Jeremy Bamber, was Julie's evidence the final nail in his defence?

VT confessed whilst on remand.  JB has always denied any involvement.

JM's testimony came about on 7th Sept.  The blood flake results were made available on 12th Sept.  JB was under constant surveillance after his release from custody on 13th Sept until 1.30am 16th Sept.  He then went off on hol to S.France and was arrested and charged with the murders upon his return on 29th Sept.  Interesting timeline.   

[Holly Goodhead]

I've often wondered if Jeremy's defence thought he was guilty.

I heard from what I consider to be a reliable source that an acquittal was anticipated on the basis of 'reasonable doubt'!  Sounds somewhat optimistic! 

I think the difficulty here is that those who are legally trained look at things slightly differently from the rest of us.  As I see it we tend to look for absolutes ie innocent or guilty and go all round the houses with a lot of subjective and irrelevant stuff. 

[APRIL]

I heard from what I consider to be a reliable source that an acquittal was anticipated on the basis of 'reasonable doubt'!  Sounds somewhat optimistic! 

I think the difficulty here is that those who are legally trained look at things slightly differently from the rest of us.  As I see it we tend to look for absolutes ie innocent or guilty and go all round the houses with a lot of subjective and irrelevant stuff.

I certainly don't believe them to be as enmired in guilt/innocence in the same way that we are. It more about what a jury will believe.

[Myster]

I've often wondered if Jeremy's defence thought he was guilty.

If you want a take on Edmund Lawson's opinion about his client, read pages 137-139 of 'Deviant'.  Suffice to say that he thought Jeremy Bamber guilty before it even got to trial. There's also an illuminating part about Bamber knowing how much cash was in the farm.  Holly and perhaps others here and on blue will only pooh-pooh it because of animosity towards PH, but I think he had a genuine chat with Ed Lawson in 2002.

[Holly Goodhead]

If you want a take on Edmund Lawson's opinion about his client, read pages 137-139 of 'Deviant'.  Suffice to say that he thought Jeremy Bamber guilty before it even got to trial. There's also an illuminating part about Bamber knowing how much cash was in the farm.  Holly and perhaps others here and on blue will only pooh-pooh it because of animosity towards PH, but I think he had a genuine chat with Ed Lawson in 2002.

We only have PH's word that his 'chance' meeting with the late Ed Lawson QC actually took place.  I look at how reliable the source is and in PH's case I put him in the same category as GDS and his cronies re the wet blood photos. 

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6384.msg256612#msg256612

PH seems to contradict himself in that he claims in the above link he attended some or all (?) of the trial and spent 3 decades researching the case.  And yet in 2002, when this 'chance' meeting supposedly took place, PH claims he was unware of EL's identity up until that point. 

The following seems a more reliable source and seems to suggest JB didn't endear himself to the late EL.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/law-obituaries/5309767/Edmund-Lawson-QC.html 

[Holly Goodhead]

I'm convinced a soc reconstruction put together by experts will show NB was shot on the landing stairs/main stairs.  If I'm right on this it will show the defence at trial and 2002 were incompetent and negligent. 

Taken from the CoA:

60. Found in or just outside the bedroom were thirteen cartridge cases. Seven would account for the shots into June Bamber, two for the wounds suffered by Sheila Caffell, leaving four cartridge cases that had been fired at Nevill Bamber. Three further cartridge cases were found in the kitchen, with a further case on the stairs leading up from the kitchen. If one accepts that the four shots to the head which would have immobilised and killed Nevill Bamber were fired in the kitchen where his body was recovered, it would follow that he had received the less serious injuries upstairs in the bedroom and was then able to make his way downstairs where he was subsequently killed.

No forensic evidence underpinning this statement.  It just seems to be an assumption made by the proseuction that went unchallenged.

147. The precise sequence of the killings was unclear. June Bamber was shot whilst still lying in bed but had managed to get up and walk a few steps before she collapsed and died by the main bedroom door. Nevill Bamber was also shot in the bedroom but was able to get downstairs into the kitchen where there was a violent struggle before he was overwhelmed and then shot a number of times in the head. The children had been shot in their beds as they slept.

No forensic evidence underpinning this statement.  Again an assumption made by the prosecution that went unchallenged.

vii) The appellant's account of the telephone call from his father could be proved to be false for the following reasons:

a) His father was too badly injured to have spoken to anybody;

b) The telephone in the kitchen was not obviously blood stained;

Here it is evident that the defence's incompetence and negligence in not challenging the prosecutions assumption that NB sustained his upstairs gsw's in the bedroom was damaging to JB's case.  Where's the expert evidence?

Even at the 2002 CoA hearing Michael Turner QC still overlooks this aspect of the case.  He attempts to explain the lack of blood on the phone by asserting a police officer used it thus removing any blood!

Point 429:

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

FFS Is it that difficult to consider the phone call may have come before any shooting started and go off and look for the evidence    Or at the very least challenge the prosecutions assumption.

We are told:

Geoffrey Rivlin - "Counsel with the experience of Mr Rivlin QC, and with his acknowledged reputation for thoroughness,..." 

Ed Lawson - "the cleverest of the clever"

Michael Turner - “a barrister who can secure results no others could”,

Maybe a bit of modesty wouldn't go amiss  &%+((£   

[steve_trousers]

In other words. You have no evidence. Just saying it exists is a hollow argument.

Guiltards often try to make it sound like a mountain of evidence exists. If one insists they see the 'mountain'. Half a dozen very flimsy anecdotal pieces of evidence are put forward as this damning mountain, when careful consideration of it will establish that it really amounts to nothing at all.

David you implied I am a retard but you do not appear to be familiar with the facts from the original trial back in 1986. With respect please follow the link and read it in it's entirety, then you will understand my position. The same applies to Samson and the lady Holly.

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


Jeremy Bamber was justly convicted by a veritable mountain of forensic, physical and circumstantial evidence.

[david1819]

David you implied I am a retard but you do not appear to be familiar with the facts from the original trial back in 1986. With respect please follow the link and read it in it's entirety, then you will understand my position. The same applies to Samson and the lady Holly.

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


Jeremy Bamber was justly convicted by a veritable mountain of forensic, physical and circumstantial evidence.

I've read that already multiple times. I've also read the 240 pages of the court of appeal transcripts that produced this appalling judgement made purely for public consumption.

[david1819]

If you want a take on Edmund Lawson's opinion about his client, read pages 137-139 of 'Deviant'.  Suffice to say that he thought Jeremy Bamber guilty before it even got to trial. There's also an illuminating part about Bamber knowing how much cash was in the farm.  Holly and perhaps others here and on blue will only pooh-pooh it because of animosity towards PH, but I think he had a genuine chat with Ed Lawson in 2002.

No he didn't. If Ed Lawson was still alive today PH would find another deceased person to have a fictional conversation with.

[adam]

I'm convinced a soc reconstruction put together by experts will show NB was shot on the landing stairs/main stairs.  If I'm right on this it will show the defence at trial and 2002 were incompetent and negligent. 

Taken from the CoA:

60. Found in or just outside the bedroom were thirteen cartridge cases. Seven would account for the shots into June Bamber, two for the wounds suffered by Sheila Caffell, leaving four cartridge cases that had been fired at Nevill Bamber. Three further cartridge cases were found in the kitchen, with a further case on the stairs leading up from the kitchen. If one accepts that the four shots to the head which would have immobilised and killed Nevill Bamber were fired in the kitchen where his body was recovered, it would follow that he had received the less serious injuries upstairs in the bedroom and was then able to make his way downstairs where he was subsequently killed.

No forensic evidence underpinning this statement.  It just seems to be an assumption made by the proseuction that went unchallenged.

147. The precise sequence of the killings was unclear. June Bamber was shot whilst still lying in bed but had managed to get up and walk a few steps before she collapsed and died by the main bedroom door. Nevill Bamber was also shot in the bedroom but was able to get downstairs into the kitchen where there was a violent struggle before he was overwhelmed and then shot a number of times in the head. The children had been shot in their beds as they slept.

No forensic evidence underpinning this statement.  Again an assumption made by the prosecution that went unchallenged.

vii) The appellant's account of the telephone call from his father could be proved to be false for the following reasons:

a) His father was too badly injured to have spoken to anybody;

b) The telephone in the kitchen was not obviously blood stained;

Here it is evident that the defence's incompetence and negligence in not challenging the prosecutions assumption that NB sustained his upstairs gsw's in the bedroom was damaging to JB's case.  Where's the expert evidence?

Even at the 2002 CoA hearing Michael Turner QC still overlooks this aspect of the case.  He attempts to explain the lack of blood on the phone by asserting a police officer used it thus removing any blood!

Point 429:

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

FFS Is it that difficult to consider the phone call may have come before any shooting started and go off and look for the evidence    Or at the very least challenge the prosecutions assumption.

We are told:

Geoffrey Rivlin - "Counsel with the experience of Mr Rivlin QC, and with his acknowledged reputation for thoroughness,..." 

Ed Lawson - "the cleverest of the clever"

Michael Turner - “a barrister who can secure results no others could”,

Maybe a bit of modesty wouldn't go amiss  &%+((£

The forensic evidence that Nevill was shot in the bedroom, was that the casings were found in the bedroom.

Nevill was also found bare footed in his pyjamas. Which suggests he was shot straight after getting out of bed. Which would match a Bamber massacre attempt.