Louis Theroux

[Roch]

Ron Cook told the jury that he took the rifle off the body and moved her arm. If the TFG came into the witness box saying her head and bible were moved. It wouldn't make any difference to how things played out.

The TFG expressed the rifle and bible was at her side, a short distance away from her body. The TFG witnessed her crime scene first, and protested regarding it, when later shown images of the scene. So I think it's safe to say that a TFG officer could stand in the witness box and play havoc with the convictions.

[David1819]

The TFG expressed the rifle and bible was at her side, a short distance away from her body.

No, they didn't.

The TFG witnessed her crime scene first, and protested regarding it, when later shown images of the scene. So I think it's safe to say that a TFG officer could stand in the witness box and play havoc with the convictions.

None of that has any bearings on Julie Mugford or the sound moderator evidence, which is what the prosecution rested on.

[killingeve]

We don't, because Jeremy's Campaign Team are not his lawyers.

That's the opinion of one barrister who has had no involvement whatsoever in the case.  He is an experienced criminal counsel, so his opinion is of note, but what he says is not the be-all and end-all.  Repeatedly quoting him, as you do, as if he is some sort of authority on this particular case, is coming over as rather dull and tiresome. 

It remains the position that Jeremy does not have to prove he is innocent, he only has to demonstrate that the convictions are unsafe.  That is the position in all criminal appeals.

Everything the CCRC looks at is a 'may be'.  The CCRC is not a court and the Commissioners cannot deliver a verdict on the evidence in front of them.  All they can do is decide whether the defence submissions warrant further inquiries and investigations and whether there is a real prospect of the convictions being overturned that may justify a referral to the Court of Appeal.

If you listen to the podcast you will hear that his support group are working with the lawyer.  In any event I can assure you lawyers get it horribly wrong at times.  Unfortunately for Bamber I think between them, support group and lawyer, they have got it horribly wrong and the submission will go absolutely nowhere.

Please refer me to the text you are relying on when you say all Jeremy has to show is that the convictions are unsafe.  I think you are quite wrong in this regard.  If you care to look at the review commission's website you will find the criteria.

Who we are

We were set up to look at criminal cases where people believe they have been wrongly convicted or wrongly sentenced. These cases are for those who have already lost their appeal.

If we do find something wrong with a conviction or sentence, we can send the case back to the Court of Appeal.

To launch a fresh appeal, we need something important like strong new evidence or an argument that makes the case look different now.

Since this can be very hard to find many cases cannot be referred for appeal.

Significant new evidence or legal argument

This means it needs to be something not covered at your trial or appeal. For example, new evidence not known about at the time, or a new scientific development.

We cannot revisit things already known by the jury, the judge, or the magistrates.

Information known at your trial even if you believe that they made the wrong decision will not be looked at again.

We need to find something new that makes your case look very different now. Repeating the
same points to us from your trial or appeal will not be helpful.

What we need is something new and important which will make the appeal court think
differently about your case. You need to tell us anything new in your application form which you know is new and could make a difference in your case.

[guest29835]

If you listen to the podcast you will hear that his support group are working with the lawyer.

And?  They can say all sorts of things.  They are not Jeremy's lawyers.  They are not responsible for the submissions.

In any event I can assure you lawyers get it horribly wrong at times. 

I know quite a bit about the way the law works and lawyers.  I know more about it than a lot of solicitors.

[Roch]

If you listen to the podcast you will hear that his support group are working with the lawyer.  In any event I can assure you lawyers get it horribly wrong at times.  Unfortunately for Bamber I think between them, support group and lawyer, they have got it horribly wrong and the submission will go absolutely nowhere.

Please refer me to the text you are relying on when you say all Jeremy has to show is that the convictions are unsafe.  I think you are quite wrong in this regard.  If you care to look at the review commission's website you will find the criteria.

Who we are

We were set up to look at criminal cases where people believe they have been wrongly convicted or wrongly sentenced. These cases are for those who have already lost their appeal.

If we do find something wrong with a conviction or sentence, we can send the case back to the Court of Appeal.

To launch a fresh appeal, we need something important like strong new evidence or an argument that makes the case look different now.

Since this can be very hard to find many cases cannot be referred for appeal.

Significant new evidence or legal argument

This means it needs to be something not covered at your trial or appeal. For example, new evidence not known about at the time, or a new scientific development.

We cannot revisit things already known by the jury, the judge, or the magistrates.

Information known at your trial even if you believe that they made the wrong decision will not be looked at again.

We need to find something new that makes your case look very different now. Repeating the
same points to us from your trial or appeal will not be helpful.

What we need is something new and important which will make the appeal court think
differently about your case. You need to tell us anything new in your application form which you know is new and could make a difference in your case.

Why worry? Nobody is under any illusion that JB's team and supporters have always had on arm tied behind their back. The crown always wins because throughout its many agencies dealing with courts and law enforcement, it tacitly supports that police officers can withhold or destroy evidence without any real censure. The same for statement editing and a whole host of other practices. Given the long drawn out process of how the undestroyed evidence has been released, we are under no illusions as to how JB has used up his chances in a rigged system. I mean, it might have been handy to know some things in 85/86, for example, burns and ballistics evidence casting doubt on the use of a silencer in the killings. Unfortunately, we had to wait until 2012 for that. But like I say, why worry? If you think the crown has it sewn up that why stress about a JB appeal?

Take it easy - we're used to the other side winning by cheating. So if it happens again and JB dies in prison, then we'll just have to hope that posthumously, history will have shown us to be on the right side. Maybe we'll find out in 2054?

[Roch]

No, they didn't.

None of that has any bearings on Julie Mugford or the sound moderator evidence, which is what the prosecution rested on.

Yes... they did... to their superiors.. who quashed their concerns. Years later it was relayed to COLP by the same officers. COLP then did not publish it in their findings.



The prosecution allege that Jeremy Bamber staged his sister's crime scene. The jury were shown images of Sheila with a rifle atop her body and a Bible resting against her arm

[guest29835]

Now you sound like me. I hate all that legal twaddle. What matters is what happened. If anyone uses legal twaddle in an attempt to prevent what actually happened from being discovered, explored, exposed etc, I can't help but feel my regard for them is diminished.

The law is the going currency in this situation.  You can scream and shout about truth and justice all you want, but it boils down to whether you can convince the Commissioners and then three appeal judges.

However, you never know.

[lookout]

How refreshing to hear/read that at least someone lives in the real world, Roch. Well done for your posts.

[Roch]

How refreshing to hear/read that at least someone lives in the real world, Roch. Well done for your posts.

The thing is Lookout, if they have these so called 'tests' and other jumping through hoops measurements before considering a referral, isn't it a bit subjective as to what's classed as 'new' evidence or evidence sufficient enough to warrant that the original jury would have decided differently. Who in their right mind would believe that the original jury would convict, given everything that's come to light since 1986?. Rivlin would have been armed to the teeth and would have no excuse to not defend JB properly (instead of as a '2nd prosecutor' as he was recently labelled).

But somebody can just say, no - we do not believe it would have made any difference.

Instead, we should get the original jury members or their descendants and present them with the material and guide them through it and then ask them - 'do you believe this would have made a difference in you or your relative reaching your / their verdict'? 

[guest29835]

Yes... they did... to their superiors.. who quashed their concerns. Years later it was relayed to COLP by the same officers. COLP then did not publish it in their findings.



The prosecution allege that Jeremy Bamber staged his sister's crime scene. The jury were shown images of Sheila with a rifle atop her body and a Bible resting against her arm

On the other side of the ledger, some of the firearms officers - apparently - did express concerns about the conclusion of murder/suicide, and the meeting later that day between the firearms officers and the investigating team was partly to address those concerns.

A facet of this was that some of the firearms officers wondered why there was no silencer at the crime scene or near the body.  I suppose a firearms officer would easily spot this because of the threads visible at the end of the rifle.  However, that does make me all the more confused about what they were doing when other officers checked the gun cupboard.  Why would you check a gun cupboard except to check for weapons, ammunition and paraphernalia?  The police want us to buy into the idea that it was just a cursory check. They saw a few cardboard boxes, and ignored it, but is that a plausible account?

One school of thought says this is a firearms incident, so you would check what was in the boxes, and four police officers did look in the gun cupboard, and it seems rather unlikely they would not check the contents of the boxes. 

The failure to do so created 'structural doubt' in the case because:

(i). it opened the way for an incriminating article to be entered into evidence under highly questionable circumstances; and,

(ii). anybody who chooses to believe Jeremy is guilty then has to put complete faith and trust in the relatives, who had a direct financial interest in Jeremy's conviction and openly admitted their dislike of him (even hatred, in the case of Robert Boutflour).

The other point-of-view is that Jeremy had already told them where he left the rifle and the magazine, which was loaded, and they could see more ammunition on the kitchen worktop.  If they assumed a conclusion of murder/suicide, then why be concerned with what was in the gun cupboard?  It is therefore understandable that the silencer was missed in the initial searches and only found later by relatives who were concerned with disposing of certain house contents, including firearms.

I think the answer to this crux is in the mundanities.  We need to know what was exactly in there and ideally see a photograph.

[killingeve]

And?  They can say all sorts of things.  They are not Jeremy's lawyers.  They are not responsible for the submissions.

I know quite a bit about the way the law works and lawyers.  I know more about it than a lot of solicitors.

As I said the supporters in the podcast claim they have put together the submissions and the lawyer effectively has rubber stamped it.  They believe they are lucky in that the lawyer will work with them which has not been the case in the past with previous lawyers.  They believe they understand the issues and it works well.  The proof of the pudding will be if the review commission refers to the appeal court and I heard absolutely nothing during the entire podcast that gave me any confidence whatsoever. 

If you know quite a bit about the way the law works and lawyers then I am surprised you made the statment that Jeremy simply needs to show his conviction is unsafe. 

[guest29835]

If you know quite a bit about the way the law works and lawyers then I am surprised you made the statment that Jeremy simply needs to show his conviction is unsafe.

That is literally what he needs to do.  There should be no surprise about it.

[killingeve]

Why worry? Nobody is under any illusion that JB's team and supporters have always had on arm tied behind their back. The crown always wins because throughout its many agencies dealing with courts and law enforcement, it tacitly supports that police officers can withhold or destroy evidence without any real censure. The same for statement editing and a whole host of other practices. Given the long drawn out process of how the undestroyed evidence has been released, we are under no illusions as to how JB has used up his chances in a rigged system. I mean, it might have been handy to know some things in 85/86, for example, burns and ballistics evidence casting doubt on the use of a silencer in the killings. Unfortunately, we had to wait until 2012 for that. But like I say, why worry? If you think the crown has it sewn up that why stress about a JB appeal?

Take it easy - we're used to the other side winning by cheating. So if it happens again and JB dies in prison, then we'll just have to hope that posthumously, history will have shown us to be on the right side. Maybe we'll find out in 2054?

Please be assured that I am not unduly worried about anything at this moment in my life 

I have no idea why you appear to want to shoot the messenger.  I am simply stating how high the bar is set post trial/conviction.

I have no particular view on Bamber's guilt or innocence and I find the whole pigeonholing and taking sides here very infantile.  If those posting here wish to debate the case like adults they should expect to have their assumptions, views etc challenged and not take personal affront. 

[Roch]

That is literally what he needs to do.  There should be no surprise about it.

I think CC has an awareness that 'unsafe' is subjective. In other words, should the CCRC set an extremely high bar as to what constitutes 'unsafe', then anything that falls short of that bar could be dismissed. However, a reason lay person with common sense may well judge the very same evidence as rendering the convictions unsafe.

[killingeve]

That is literally what he needs to do.  There should be no surprise about it.

Yes and it requires strong new evidence or argument underpinning it. 

For example no matter what comes to light about the windows its already redundant as the judge told the jury "cannot affect the outcome of the case".

Some here will be up in arms about the judge's comment, and probably the mere fact I have recited it, but this is the reality of the situation. 

The support people claim to have included this in the submission, presumably rubber stamped by the lawyer, but its a complete waste of time.