Author Topic: Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020  (Read 539 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8463
Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020
« on: June 05, 2020, 04:12:PM »
Unsurprisingly, disclosure was denied.

Here is the ruling.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/1391.pdf

Have not had a chance to read it all yet, but I will comment on it once I have read through it.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8463
Re: Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020
« Reply #1 on: June 05, 2020, 04:49:PM »
Mr Justice Julian Knowles said.

"I am not on the material I have seen readily able to accept the premise that the existence of a second sound moderator is capable of affecting the safety of the Claimant’s convictions in any meaningful way, notwithstanding what Mr Ferguson said in May 2018. The facts are that the moderator which was found had Ms Caffell’s blood in it, and she could not have shot herself when the sound moderator was attached to the rifle."

Understandably any Judge is going to express that view unless an argument of contamination is put forward.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21479
Re: Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020
« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2020, 05:25:PM »
Will they appeal?
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21479
Re: Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020
« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2020, 05:31:PM »
There may have been 5 silencers at WHF. Only one was used and submitted to Huntingdon.

Needs to focus on getting a submission to the CCRC now. It will soon be 10 years since the last CCRC application.

Maybe the new directors will get the ball rolling.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8463
Re: Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020
« Reply #4 on: June 05, 2020, 05:42:PM »
There may have been 5 silencers at WHF. Only one was used and submitted to Huntingdon.

Needs to focus on getting a submission to the CCRC now. It will soon be 10 years since the last CCRC application.

Maybe the new directors will get the ball rolling.

Only two parker hale silencers were known to ever be at WHF. The other three belonged to Robert and David Boutflour and kept at their place.

If one was to allege the latter three was one that had the blood, it would be a futile argument. As they they are all indistinguishable and do not have serial numbers.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2020, 05:42:PM by David1819 »

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 43606
Re: Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020
« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2020, 05:45:PM »
That's that then.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12398
Re: Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020
« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2020, 08:24:PM »
I wonder if Louise Floate has ever examined the so-called suicide letter? https://keithborer.co.uk/team/louise-floate

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 43606
Re: Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020
« Reply #7 on: June 05, 2020, 10:53:PM »
I don't know how they've got the nerve to have re-written that. Qualified people ? I beg to differ !

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11145
Re: Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020
« Reply #8 on: June 06, 2020, 11:10:PM »

Online mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48707
Re: Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020
« Reply #9 on: June 07, 2020, 07:31:AM »
Unsurprisingly, disclosure was denied.

Here is the ruling.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2020/1391.pdf

Have not had a chance to read it all yet, but I will comment on it once I have read through it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-52940026
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline grahameb

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11830
Re: Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020
« Reply #10 on: June 08, 2020, 10:22:AM »
Seeing this case is over 25 years old could it not be demanded that these documents be released under the freedom of information act?

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 43606
Re: Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020
« Reply #11 on: June 08, 2020, 11:42:AM »
There'd be some way of getting out of that too ! Always a new " act " to suit at the time.

Online mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48707
Re: Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020
« Reply #12 on: June 08, 2020, 12:05:PM »
Despite the so called 'rule of law' issues in this and many other cases -  God did not ordain those who have been voted into power, to make up universal laws of their own...

« Last Edit: June 08, 2020, 12:06:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Online mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48707
Re: Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020
« Reply #13 on: June 08, 2020, 12:16:PM »
Despite the so called 'rule of law' issues in this and many other cases -  God did not ordain those who have been voted into power, to make up universal laws of their own...

Which part in the 10 commandments does it say, state, or imply, that it is lawful, and legal (get out of jail free) that it is OK, and justifiable, to make false allegations, and fabricate or invent evidence etc, in order to maliciously prosecute another human being by a reliance upon false information / evidence?
« Last Edit: June 08, 2020, 12:18:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12398
Re: Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020
« Reply #14 on: June 08, 2020, 01:23:PM »
Which part in the 10 commandments does it say, state, or imply, that it is lawful, and legal (get out of jail free) that it is OK, and justifiable, to make false allegations, and fabricate or invent evidence etc, in order to maliciously prosecute another human being by a reliance upon false information / evidence?
It doesn't: it says the opposite..https://biblehub.com/exodus/20-16.htm