Author Topic: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence  (Read 737 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« on: July 13, 2020, 08:53:PM »
Here's something that been knocking about in my mind and I keep meaning to ask:

Was a video made of the crime scene?  If there is such a video, was it exhibited at trial?  If not, why?

I believe there may have been a video montage made of the crime scene photographs.  Is that true?

On the photographs, were any photographs taken by anybody other than David Bird, the crime scene photographer?  If so, have these been catalogued and disclosed?

Is there any evidence to suggest that any of David Bird's photographs have been held back?

Do we know what cameras David Bird used and what type of film and what procedures he followed for storage and production of the film?

Do we have David Bird's pocketbook?

Audio evidence - If the police lines were being recorded during the incident, then where is the audio?  Has it been disclosed?

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11280
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2020, 10:07:PM »
Here's something that been knocking about in my mind and I keep meaning to ask:

Was a video made of the crime scene?  If there is such a video, was it exhibited at trial?  If not, why?


I believe there may have been a video montage made of the crime scene photographs.  Is that true?

Mike Tesko used to claim there was a video of the crime scene, however, he was criticised for doing so.  Perhaps there was a video made up of crime scene stills instead. 

On the photographs, were any photographs taken by anybody other than David Bird, the crime scene photographer?  If so, have these been catalogued and disclosed?

Is there any evidence to suggest that any of David Bird's photographs have been held back??

I think I have read before there are crime scene photographs taken by another officer.  Did somebody take a polaroid?  There are a lot of crime scene photographs not disclosed.  For the ones that have been disclosed, there was a gruelling slog for the defence to obtain them, over a number of years.  The CCRC always accept the police explanations that are provided, regarding any anomalies.

Do we know what cameras David Bird used and what type of film and what procedures he followed for storage and production of the film?

Somebody will know.

Do we have David Bird's pocketbook?

I cant answer that - don't know.

Audio evidence - If the police lines were being recorded during the incident, then where is the audio?  Has it been disclosed?

Audio recordings were made and copied. The TFG had open mics.  However, the police ignore requests to disclose these copies.  The police also claimed the original telephone conversation recordings were taped over, as a matter of course.

This alleged non-disclosure booklet has more info:

https://simplebooklet.com/disclosurebookletjeremybamber

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2020, 10:09:PM »
Thanks - do you know for sure if that disclosure booklet is up-to-date in representing the current position on disclosure so far as Jeremy is concerned?

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11280
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2020, 10:16:PM »
Thanks - do you know for sure if that disclosure booklet is up-to-date in representing the current position on disclosure so far as Jeremy is concerned?

I'm afraid I unable confirm that.  There may have been developments I am unaware of and I'm not sure if the booklet has been kept up to date.  If I would hazard a guess, my hunch would be it hasn't been updated.   If anyone from the CT is reading, they may be able to confirm.  I'm not even sure whether the CT is now defunct or whether it has metemorphosised in to something else.

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #4 on: July 13, 2020, 10:18:PM »
I'm afraid I unable confirm that.  There may have been developments I am unaware of and I'm not sure if the booklet has been kept up to date.  If I would hazard a guess, my hunch would be it hasn't been updated.   If anyone from the CT is reading, they may be able to confirm.  I'm not even sure whether the CT is now defunct or whether it has metemorphosised in to something else.

OK, thanks anyway.

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #5 on: July 17, 2020, 01:49:PM »
Back to David Bird - It seems to me that the original film negatives are evidence in their own right.  I assume they were exhibited at court?  It also seems to me that the chain of custody of the negatives and resultant photographs, the camera equipment used at the scene (including the camera make and model and flash equipment) and the specification of the film roll and the development techniques used and type of paper, etc. are all relevant considerations, simply because they affect how the end result will appear.

Do the original photographs and negatives still exist somewhere?

Online ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5107
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #6 on: July 17, 2020, 04:12:PM »
Back to David Bird - It seems to me that the original film negatives are evidence in their own right.  I assume they were exhibited at court?  It also seems to me that the chain of custody of the negatives and resultant photographs, the camera equipment used at the scene (including the camera make and model and flash equipment) and the specification of the film roll and the development techniques used and type of paper, etc. are all relevant considerations, simply because they affect how the end result will appear.

Do the original photographs and negatives still exist somewhere?

The negatives were not produced in court.  Some of the photographic prints (not all) were included in a bound bundle and presented in court.  Some of the negatives have since the trial been destroyed by Essex Police, contrary to their own guidelines.  We do not know what the missing negatives show.  The surviving negatives were provided to the defence in 2011 on instruction of the CCRC.


Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #7 on: July 17, 2020, 04:44:PM »
The negatives were not produced in court.  Some of the photographic prints (not all) were included in a bound bundle and presented in court.  Some of the negatives have since the trial been destroyed by Essex Police, contrary to their own guidelines.  We do not know what the missing negatives show.  The surviving negatives were provided to the defence in 2011 on instruction of the CCRC.

I'm just curious as to why the defence never asked for access for their own photographic experts to those negatives (assuming they didn't)?  I'd be screaming for them.  It's absolutely fundamental and I'm surprised there wasn't a big legal battle over disclosure before trial.

To me, photography is a pivotal element of the whole case because a lot of the glib-sounding conclusions of the pro-guilt side are based on what we see of Sheila in those crime scene photographs, which seem on their face to be consistent with the forensic and autopsy findings: i.e. that Sheila had minimal or no injuries other than the gunshot wounds and nothing on her hands or feet.  For all we know, she might have had bruises and cuts up her arms and we would be oblivious because of the way the photographs came out of development.

I suppose those were different times with a certain amount of deference to the authorities, and maybe even defence lawyers didn't question things like that.

As for the police destroying crime scene photographs in a case where it is known the convicted offender protests his innocence, I'm astonished.  Surely that should be illegal?  Surely the conviction is, potentially, legally unsatisfactory on that basis alone?

And how can they withhold photographs from a trial?  I could understand it if they said that the withheld photographs are non-material and in the interests of trial efficiency are not disclosed for that reason, but can be examined by the defence on request; but didn't the defence ask about them?

Online ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5107
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #8 on: July 17, 2020, 05:20:PM »
I'm just curious as to why the defence never asked for access for their own photographic experts to those negatives (assuming they didn't)?  I'd be screaming for them.  It's absolutely fundamental and I'm surprised there wasn't a big legal battle over disclosure before trial.

To me, photography is a pivotal element of the whole case because a lot of the glib-sounding conclusions of the pro-guilt side are based on what we see of Sheila in those crime scene photographs, which seem on their face to be consistent with the forensic and autopsy findings: i.e. that Sheila had minimal or no injuries other than the gunshot wounds and nothing on her hands or feet.  For all we know, she might have had bruises and cuts up her arms and we would be oblivious because of the way the photographs came out of development.

I suppose those were different times with a certain amount of deference to the authorities, and maybe even defence lawyers didn't question things like that.

As for the police destroying crime scene photographs in a case where it is known the convicted offender protests his innocence, I'm astonished.  Surely that should be illegal?  Surely the conviction is, potentially, legally unsatisfactory on that basis alone?

And how can they withhold photographs from a trial?  I could understand it if they said that the withheld photographs are non-material and in the interests of trial efficiency are not disclosed for that reason, but can be examined by the defence on request; but didn't the defence ask about them?

I do not believe that before trial the defence asked to inspect the negatives and they did not instruct a photographic expert.  I think this is one of several areas where the original defence team could be criticised.  There were two contributing factors.  The solicitors were Kingsley Napley and this was the first case they had conducted on legal aid.  It is possible to get legal approval to instruct experts but Kingsley Napley were not adept at this.  Their use of experts in the run up to trial and at trial was weak.
The second problem was that although the defence leading counsel, Geoffrey Rivlin QC, was very experienced he was a prosecutor.  This was the first defence case he had undertaken. 

I agree that destruction of negatives by Essex Police, together with the destruction of other trial exhibits was wrong and very suspicious.  Unfortunately the CCRC have not been very helpful.

 

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #9 on: July 17, 2020, 06:21:PM »
I do not believe that before trial the defence asked to inspect the negatives and they did not instruct a photographic expert.

??  I really don't know what to say to that.  I'm speechless.

It is possible to get legal approval to instruct experts but Kingsley Napley were not adept at this.  Their use of experts in the run up to trial and at trial was weak.

This is one thing I've already independently noted myself.  It stands out when I read the transcripts - the weakness of the defence expert evidence and the lack of depth and scope.  It's almost like they just couldn't be bothered.

The second problem was that although the defence leading counsel, Geoffrey Rivlin QC, was very experienced he was a prosecutor.  This was the first defence case he had undertaken.

You mean, this was the first major defence case he had led?  Surely he'd led the defence in less serious cases and sat as a defence junior in at least one or two serious/major cases and at least one homicide trial?  Please tell me that is so.  I'd hate to think the defence solicitors appointed a barrister with no relevant defence experience.  That's just asking for it.  I realise most of the criminal bar tend to verge towards one side or the other, but he must have had substantial defence experience to become a Queen's Counsel, surely? 

I also note that at the time of the trial, he was a part-time judge: it's quite common, I understand, for barristers in practice to also accept appointment as recorders and sit as judge in Crown Court hearings.  Nothing wrong with that - in fact, the experience and kudos it gave him must have helped with his trial work for both prosecution and defence - but it also suggests somebody who was hedging his bets career-wise and perhaps wasn't fully committed.  I can't imagine George Carmen doing the same, and I gather than Anthony Arlidge never took up a recordership or served as a deputy master, though I could be wrong.

What are your views of Rivlin as an advocate?  I've read about him and listened to a recording of him in the spy trial, and my impression is that he was very good but the quiet type of counsel.  That can be apt in some situations and I have to say, I'm quite impressed with his cross-examination of Dr Vanezis.  However, I can't help but think that his under-stated style was more suited to a prosecutor and perhaps only really works for the defence in 'technical' trials involving major fraud or where the evidence is very specialist and complicated, such as medical cases.  The Bamber case needed somebody a bit more extrovert: yet the defence solicitors thought the opposite and selected Rivlin for the very qualities I have just outlined.

Then there's Lawson.  I have found at least one newspaper article where he is quoted as bad-mouthing Jeremy.  Was he indiscreet?
« Last Edit: July 17, 2020, 06:27:PM by QCChevalier »

Online ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5107
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #10 on: July 18, 2020, 11:55:AM »
??  I really don't know what to say to that.  I'm speechless.


You mean, this was the first major defence case he had led?  Surely he'd led the defence in less serious cases and sat as a defence junior in at least one or two serious/major cases and at least one homicide trial?  Please tell me that is so.  I'd hate to think the defence solicitors appointed a barrister with no relevant defence experience.  That's just asking for it.  I realise most of the criminal bar tend to verge towards one side or the other, but he must have had substantial defence experience to become a Queen's Counsel, surely? 


What are your views of Rivlin as an advocate?  I've read about him and listened to a recording of him in the spy trial, and my impression is that he was very good but the quiet type of counsel.  That can be apt in some situations and I have to say, I'm quite impressed with his cross-examination of Dr Vanezis.  However, I can't help but think that his under-stated style was more suited to a prosecutor and perhaps only really works for the defence in 'technical' trials involving major fraud or where the evidence is very specialist and complicated, such as medical cases.  The Bamber case needed somebody a bit more extrovert: yet the defence solicitors thought the opposite and selected Rivlin for the very qualities I have just outlined.



There is no need to have conducted any defence cases to become a QC.  Some barristers take prosecution and defence work, others only prosecute or defend.  Whether Rivlin had ever conducted a defence case as a junior barrister I am not sure, but he had not undertaken any defence work as a QC before the Bamber case. 

Rivlin was well regarded but I am not sure he was the ideal choice for this case.
 

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2031
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #11 on: July 18, 2020, 02:23:PM »
That just sums about sums up the whole bloody mess ???
From Colin Caffells
His relationship with Sheila was one of brotherly love. He was very proud of having a beautiful sister who was a photographic model

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 43708
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #12 on: July 18, 2020, 05:03:PM »
Mr Rivlin was sadly lacking I'm afraid, unless perhaps after a quick study of the case he may have thought he'd sail through without the need for much fighting on his part. I don't know what he was thinking on that day but he certainly allowed the prosecution to win the case without putting up much of a fight. Very disappointing.
I wonder what he said to Jeremy in the aftermath before he, Jeremy, was taken to the cell as seemingly a conversation between the two had taken place.

Online Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12614
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #13 on: July 18, 2020, 07:19:PM »
Mr Rivlin was sadly lacking I'm afraid, unless perhaps after a quick study of the case he may have thought he'd sail through without the need for much fighting on his part. I don't know what he was thinking on that day but he certainly allowed the prosecution to win the case without putting up much of a fight. Very disappointing.
I wonder what he said to Jeremy in the aftermath before he, Jeremy, was taken to the cell as seemingly a conversation between the two had taken place.
What else could he have done, faced with the overwhelming evidence that Jeremy was guilty? As it was the latter wanted not only a £436000 inheritance, he wanted a £100000 newspaper deal, a large sum for nude photographs of his dead sister, and Anji Greaves in his bed to boot.

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 43708
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #14 on: July 19, 2020, 06:48:PM »
What else could he have done, faced with the overwhelming evidence that Jeremy was guilty? As it was the latter wanted not only a £436000 inheritance, he wanted a £100000 newspaper deal, a large sum for nude photographs of his dead sister, and Anji Greaves in his bed to boot.





Steve I'm sure that nude pics and another woman in JB's bed would have been the least to have worried about during such a large murder case. No pics were ever sold, so no case anyway.
There was never any proof that Jeremy was in any kind of debt to have found himself wanting £436,000 inheritance, as is usually the case when a family member opens fire.

The last case being a man who shot his whole family including the dog because he was deeply in debt and couldn't tell the family.

I'm beginning to think it was a drug debt but nothing to do with Jeremy. There were some ruthless people around Essex during that time. Rettendon and the murder of John Palmer. Diane Jones, the doctor's wife before any of that. Sheila, I believe had mixed with the wrong crowd.