Would June have instantly disarmed Sheila?

[Roch]

Where's the expert evidence the negatives support Sheila sustaining "fight injuries"?

Where's the expert evidence that Vanezis was anything other than truthful and competent?  Why would Vanezis risk his career by lying? 

How would CAL know on what basis the jury found Bamber guilty?

With the CCRC.

On the negatives. That's for Vanezis to explain.

One of the former officers relayed to her what the foreman of the jury had told him.

[Roch]

I know he had a list of things that wasn't available Roch, but i haven't seen the one about Neville's arm?

Yes I'm wracking my brains out. I was certain I had seen something about it.

[Hardy Boy]

Bearing in mind also both pathologists at trial: HO and defence were unable to conclude what caused the marks and when.  As such the jury could not possibly have used against/for since this aspect of the case was inconclusive.  Surely Bamber/his supporters can see pursuing this is useless?

I don't think Knight thought they was Burns?

[Hardy Boy]

Yes I'm wracking my brains out. I was certain I had seen something about it.

I know the feeling Roch   

[snow66!]

'Course they can't! They've found themselves a new cheerleader called Snow. Whatever has previously been said/proved -albeit by those more knowledgeable- such is his confidence in JB's innocence, he just sticks his fingers in his ears and proclaims "La, La, La"............although, in the case of a cheerleader, I think it should be "Ra, Ra, Ra". I doubt they could have anyone better cheering them on.

Not sure if this is some sort of compliment or a severe insult Jane?

Anyway,haven't time to chat at the moment,off to try on my new tutu!

[killingeve]

With the CCRC.

CCRC receive all sorts of material from all sorts of appellants.  Only relevant if CCRC refer to CoA.

On the negatives. That's for Vanezis to explain.

At this stage what you and others claim to be "fight injuries" amounts to your perception only.  I doubt Vanezis will have any explaining to do. 

If Nevill sustained "fight injuries" from Sheila's nails (think that's the proposition?) it begs the question why blood and tissue did not transfer to her nails?  Or was this cleared up by the 'ritual washing'?   

One of the former officers relayed to her what the foreman of the jury had told him.

Hearsay/Chinese whispers.

[Zoso]

With the CCRC.

On the negatives. That's for Vanezis to explain.

One of the former officers relayed to her what the foreman of the jury had told him.

You as you have told me, the jury are not allowed to talk about their deliberations - so this would be contempt. Why don't the CT use this to get a new trial?   

[snow66!]

Bearing in mind also both pathologists at trial: HO and defence were unable to conclude what caused the marks and when.  As such the jury could not possibly have used against/for since this aspect of the case was inconclusive.  Surely Bamber/his supporters can see pursuing this is useless?

Quite the contrary Cutie,as you have just pointed out the 'Aga ' marks are NEW evidence that the jury could not have deliberated over at the time.

[killingeve]

Quite the contrary Cutie,as you have just pointed out the 'Aga ' marks are NEW evidence that the jury could not have deliberated over at the time.

It doesn't work like that snow!  There was nothing to prevent the defence pursuing at trial.  It didn't so its lost! Ie the defence do not get another go so to speak!  The marks were not used for or against. 

Even if the system allowed such aspects to be pursued retrospectively how would it overcome the blood flake and all the other evidence against Bamber eg Sheila's fingers and nightdress showing snow signs of firearms debris?

Like Boch you're not thinking it through!

[Roch]

Like Boch you're not thinking it through!

I think 'Boch' approaches the case from a different angle. I think your angle of approach is not too dissimilar to David's.  I hope he returns to the forum.

[ILB]

It doesn't work like that snow!  There was nothing to prevent the defence pursuing at trial.  It didn't so its lost! Ie the defence do not get another go so to speak!  The marks were not used for or against. 

Even if the system allowed such aspects to be pursued retrospectively how would it overcome the blood flake and all the other evidence against Bamber eg Sheila's fingers and nightdress showing snow signs of firearms debris?

Like Boch you're not thinking it through!

Hi CC

You are wrong in this regard.

R v Kiszko is prime example

In 1976 at his murder trial Stefan kiszko who was wrongly convicted of murder, had a doctor ready to testify that due to a medical condition he was unable to produce sperm. As Kiszko had earlier confessed to the crime under duress lead defence counsel David Waddington QC ran a diminished responsibility defence. The result was Kiszko was convicted and jailed for life. The evidence that could have cleared him at that point never produced

In 1992, after research and a court of appeal procedure Kiszko conviction was quashed due to the doctor who could have helped him back in 1976 coming to fruition and been presented as evidence that he couldn't produce sperm

[Roch]

CCRC receive all sorts of material from all sorts of appellants.  Only relevant if CCRC refer to CoA.

Not sure about your reasoning here.

At this stage what you and others claim to be "fight injuries" amounts to your perception only.  I doubt Vanezis will have any explaining to do.

What colour is Sheila's hair in the crime scene images?
 

If Nevill sustained "fight injuries" from Sheila's nails (think that's the proposition?) it begs the question why blood and tissue did not transfer to her nails?

Maybe it did and they put the original results in the SC crime file?

Hearsay/Chinese whispers.

Bit of an eye opener I'd say.  It proves the jury were unimpressed by the crown's case.

[killingeve]

Hi CC

You are wrong in this regard.

R v Kiszko is prime example

In 1976 at his murder trial Stefan kiszko who was wrongly convicted of murder, had a doctor ready to testify that due to a medical condition he was unable to produce sperm. As Kiszko had earlier confessed to the crime under duress lead defence counsel David Waddington QC ran a diminished responsibility defence. The result was Kiszko was convicted and jailed for life. The evidence that could have cleared him at that point never produced

In 1992, after research and a court of appeal procedure Kiszko conviction was quashed due to the doctor who could have helped him back in 1976 coming to fruition and been presented as evidence that he couldn't produce sperm

How am I wrong?

[ILB]

How am I wrong?

Primarily by stating that the defence didnt refer to it in 1986.

Nothing stops it being used at a later date

[killingeve]

Primarily by stating that the defence didnt refer to it in 1986.

Nothing stops it being used at a later date

The defence did refer it to it during trial/1986.  Prof Knight, pathologist for the defence, told the court he did not think the marks were burns.

If evidence could have been adduced at trial but wasn't it's precluded from being adduced at a later date.  Had the defence wanted to advance at trial it could have instructed a burns expert.

Hearing new evidence
The Court of Appeal may hear new evidence that was not adduced in the original proceedings (section 23(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1968), if:

it appears capable of belief;
it may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
it would have been admissible;
it is an issue which is the subject of the appeal;
there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it.

You can read how the appeal judges view the above in Bamber's 2002 appeal where the prosecution attempted to use blood stain analysis to reinforce its position on Bamber's guilt:

519. Having studied with care the statement of Mr Ismail, we concluded that this was expert evidence capable of belief. Indeed if it had been given and if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it. That evidence in itself could have led to a conclusion of guilt quite apart from the many other matters relied upon by the prosecution at trial. However, we were not satisfied that evidence of this kind was not available at the date of trial if the prosecution had sought to explore these matters and more importantly we thought that Mr Turner was right in his submission that it was very difficult to gauge with sufficient certainty the reaction of a jury to it particularly when we could not judge it against all the related evidence in the trial, which we had not heard.

520. Our conclusion was that we should not therefore admit the evidence and we have had no regard to it in reaching our conclusion. It can, however, be said about it that if it had been called at trial, it may well have represented yet another formidable string to the prosecution's bow in a case where even without any regard to that evidence, it has to be said that the prosecution were able to put forward a very strong case pointing to guilt.