The Official Jeremy Bamber and White House Farm Podcast Series - Season 1

[guest29835]

Bill Robertson showed me how his trial testimony was ridiculous. I don't know how Fletcher came away unscathed from it.

Apparently, he didn't.  He was given a hard time and I've read somewhere (can't remember the source) that he left court virtually in tears.

[lookout]

Think I would put it differently. Fletcher's evidence was probably suspect, so he may well have been towing the line, 'and some'. I think some of PV's evidence is suspect, so possibly a similar situation for him.  But I think police just knew every trick in the book.  How to handle professionals. When to get their point across and how to do it. I can't quite fathom Rivlin.  He seems to have done Jeremy a great disservice. As for the judge, he put away the Bridgewater Four and he was also the prosecutor against Ricky Tomlinson & co in the 70's. I think the police went in to the trial, plying all the tricks of the trade, with their fingers crossed, half believing the case against JB would collapse. Some of them must have felt elation at the conviction, purely because they managed to manipulate a winning result against the odds, after having pulled out all the stops to do so. It must have felt a bit like winning a tournament by cheating.

I think Rivlin forgot that he wasn't in his his " prosecuting hat ". It certainly looked that way to me. Someone else who can't multi-task 

[Roch]

I was very tired when I listened to podcast last night. Am I correct in asserting that in the podcast, the order of shots inflicted upon SC is reversed?

[Roch]

Just listened to it again.  They are claiming that an expert's ballistics report from 2010 was not mentioned by the CCRC in their provisional rejection statement.  Not mentioned, not countered.  That is very worrying for me.  It suggests that the CCRC have already been given the opportunity to explore a huge anomaly within the prosecution ballistics evidence, a decade ago -  but chose simply to ignore it. 

[Roch]

Apparently, he didn't.  He was given a hard time and I've read somewhere (can't remember the source) that he left court virtually in tears.

Well he's certainly been given a mauling in the podcast. Somebody called MD Fletcher wrote a review of CAL's book. Not sure if it's a wind up. If genuine, it seems to me that what he did was done to order... and it was done on the basis of 'you mustn't let this guilty man get away with what he's done'.

[guest29835]

Well he's certainly been given a mauling in the podcast. Somebody called MD Fletcher wrote a review of CAL's book. Not sure if it's a wind up. If genuine, it seems to me that what he did was done to order... and it was done on the basis of 'you mustn't let this guilty man get away with what he's done'.

Any chance you have a link to that review?

[Roch]

Any chance you have a link to that review?

Think it's just one sentence. On Amazon.

[David1819]

Bill Robertson showed me how his trial testimony was ridiculous. I don't know how Fletcher came away unscathed from it.

It was primarily due to Rivlins defence narrative. That being Sheila put the silencer on and took off later.

[Roch]

It was primarily due to Rivlins defence narrative. That being Sheila put the silencer on and took off later.

OK, I interpret that as your tacit agreement, that Fletcher's testimony was 'ridiculous'. Is it a pure coincidence, and nothing untoward or sinister, that he managed to present evidence of a whole bullet in place of what should actually have been a fragmented bullet?

[lookout]

Fletcher was contradictory about the silencer wasn't he ? ( used and not used  ) His WS.

[Roch]

Fletcher was contradictory about the silencer wasn't he ? ( used and not used  ) His WS.

Not sure Lookout.

[lookout]

Not sure Lookout.

Yes he was Roch. One minute he said that the silencer had been in use on the rifle to have got blood on it, the next he said the silencer hadn't been used because of the lack of markings on the bullets----which they have when they've been fired using a silencer. Two different pages of evidence/ WS.

[David1819]

OK, I interpret that as your tacit agreement, that Fletcher's testimony was 'ridiculous'. Is it a pure coincidence, and nothing untoward or sinister, that he managed to present evidence of a whole bullet in place of what should actually have been a fragmented bullet?

No, PV20 was whole as in one piece of fragment. Vanezis never recovered the other fragments. It was a whole fragment not a whole bullet.

[guest29835]

Was the projectile in question a .22 hollow point subsonic bullet?

[Roch]

No, PV20 was whole as in one piece of fragment. Vanezis never recovered the other fragments. It was a whole fragment not a whole bullet.

A whole fragment, as opposed to a part fragment?