Sheila returned the silencer scenario

[Cambridgecutie]

This is silly.

What is silly about factually correct statements?

[Roch]

I find your posts the stuff of fantasies.

His post isn't bad actually.  Especially given what you recently posted about defence strategies.

Bill and Roch are not experts.

Neither are the CCRC (except at desk top reviewing).

Try reading Vanezis' autopsy and you will see he notes a small graze to Sheila's abdomen in the left lumbar region covered by a dressing.

So what? 

[Roch]

What is silly about factually correct statements?

The bloke who used the phrase 'slam dunk' that you sometimes refer to yourself, is the same bloke who advised MOJ-Drake's summing up was one-sided.  Thanks to CAL, we now know that this one-sided summing up was interpreted by the jury as an instruction to convict.

[Cambridgecutie]

His post isn't bad actually.  Especially given what you recently posted about defence strategies.

Bamber's defence strategy at trial is rooted in fact.  Snow's scenario is not.

Neither are the CCRC (except at desk top reviewing).

Those who review cases at the CCRC will have passed some competency criteria.  If experts are required they will instruct. 

So what?

Snow said Sheila only had two gunshot wounds.  This is incorrect.  I have provided the evidence to the contrary.

[Cambridgecutie]

The bloke who used the phrase 'slam dunk' that you sometimes refer to yourself, is the same bloke who advised MOJ-Drake's summing up was one-sided.  Thanks to CAL, we now know that this one-sided summing up was interpreted by the jury as an instruction to convict.

Drake's summing up:

The summing up 153. When Drake J. summed up to the jury, he suggested that there were three "crucial questions". The first, and he made clear that they were not in any order of importance, was whether they believed Julie Mugford? If they were sure that she had told the truth it meant the appellant had planned and carried out the killings. The second was whether they were sure that Sheila Caffell did not kill the members of her family and then commit suicide? The third was whether there was a telephone call in the middle of the night from Nevill Bamber to his son? If there was no such call then it inevitably undermined the whole of the appellant's story and he could have had no reason to have invented it, save to cover up his responsibility for the murders.

154. In dealing with the second question, whether Sheila Caffell may have killed the others and then committed suicide, the judge made clear that answering this question involved a number of different considerations. He suggested that one was "clearly of paramount importance", namely whether the second and fatal shot to Sheila Caffell was fired with the silencer on. If it was, she could not have fired that shot. He made clear that there were other considerations and the jury could come to the conclusion that Sheila Caffell did not carry out the killings "even without reference to the sound moderator". He added that the evidence relating to the sound moderator could, however, "on its own" lead them to conclude that the appellant was guilty.

Bamber's first appeal was based on claims of an unfair summing up:

The application for leave to appeal 155. The appellant sought leave to appeal against his convictions on grounds drawn by those who represented him at trial. The grounds upon which leave was sought related to the judge's summing up, alleging (a) that he had inaccurately assessed significant aspects of the prosecution case and omitted to refer to crucial aspects of the defence case, and (b) that he had with persistence and strength expressed opinions adverse to the defence.

156. Following rejection of the grounds by the single judge, the matter was heard by the full court. The Court rejected the criticisms of the summing up and refused leave. Lord Lane, LCJ giving the judgment observed:

"What is sometimes overlooked is that a direction to the jury reflects the sort of case with which the Judge was dealing. A strong prosecution case will inevitably result in what may be strong comments. Exactly the same with a strong defence case, that may justify strong comments."

157. It seems clear from the judgment as a whole, that the Court were of the opinion that this was a strong prosecution case that merited the comments about which complaint was made. The court, therefore, rejected the proposed grounds and concluded that there was "nothing unsafe or unsatisfactory about this conviction",

[Roch]

Bamber's defence strategy at trial is rooted in fact.  Snow's scenario is not.

In your world perhaps.  Are you suggesting that Robert Boutflour was covered in nicks, cuts, grazes when he handle the SM?

Those who review cases at the CCRC will have passed some competency criteria.  If experts are required they will instruct.

What does passing a degree of competency criteria mean?  Where are the experts who challenged the findings regarding the burns matrix to Sheila's throat?

Snow said Sheila only had two gunshot wounds.  This is incorrect.  I have provided the evidence to the contrary.

Not sure what this means?

[Roch]

Drake's summing up:

The summing up 153. When Drake J. summed up to the jury, he suggested that there were three "crucial questions". The first, and he made clear that they were not in any order of importance, was whether they believed Julie Mugford? If they were sure that she had told the truth it meant the appellant had planned and carried out the killings. The second was whether they were sure that Sheila Caffell did not kill the members of her family and then commit suicide? The third was whether there was a telephone call in the middle of the night from Nevill Bamber to his son? If there was no such call then it inevitably undermined the whole of the appellant's story and he could have had no reason to have invented it, save to cover up his responsibility for the murders.

154. In dealing with the second question, whether Sheila Caffell may have killed the others and then committed suicide, the judge made clear that answering this question involved a number of different considerations. He suggested that one was "clearly of paramount importance", namely whether the second and fatal shot to Sheila Caffell was fired with the silencer on. If it was, she could not have fired that shot. He made clear that there were other considerations and the jury could come to the conclusion that Sheila Caffell did not carry out the killings "even without reference to the sound moderator". He added that the evidence relating to the sound moderator could, however, "on its own" lead them to conclude that the appellant was guilty.

Bamber's first appeal was based on claims of an unfair summing up:

The application for leave to appeal 155. The appellant sought leave to appeal against his convictions on grounds drawn by those who represented him at trial. The grounds upon which leave was sought related to the judge's summing up, alleging (a) that he had inaccurately assessed significant aspects of the prosecution case and omitted to refer to crucial aspects of the defence case, and (b) that he had with persistence and strength expressed opinions adverse to the defence.

156. Following rejection of the grounds by the single judge, the matter was heard by the full court. The Court rejected the criticisms of the summing up and refused leave. Lord Lane, LCJ giving the judgment observed:

"What is sometimes overlooked is that a direction to the jury reflects the sort of case with which the Judge was dealing. A strong prosecution case will inevitably result in what may be strong comments. Exactly the same with a strong defence case, that may justify strong comments."

157. It seems clear from the judgment as a whole, that the Court were of the opinion that this was a strong prosecution case that merited the comments about which complaint was made. The court, therefore, rejected the proposed grounds and concluded that there was "nothing unsafe or unsatisfactory about this conviction",

Does this mean that the bloke who came up with your much lauded 'slam dunk' theory was wrong about Drake's summing up?

[Cambridgecutie]

Does this mean that the bloke who came up with your much lauded 'slam dunk' theory was wrong about Drake's summing up?

There's nothing theoretical about Bamber requiring a 'slam dunk' to open up the slammer 

If I recall correctly the comments about Drake's summing up in the LT doc related to JM's testimony?  In any event I think the KC acknowledged he did not have access to all the material he was asked to comment on.

 

[snow66!]

I find your posts the stuff of fantasies.  If you or anyone like you has played any part in Bamber's latest submission I would not mind betting the CCRC have yet to recover from 

Bill and Roch are not experts.

Try reading Vanezis' autopsy and you will see he notes a small graze to Sheila's abdomen in the left lumbar region covered by a dressing.

I have played no part in Bambers latest submission Cutie.I have never had any communication with Bamber,the campaign team or anyone else connected to the case.
I dont even agree with the CT scenario.

[Zoso]

Isn't that what your lot do all the time though? Ignore questions like how did Jeremy Shoot Sheila from that angle? How did Jeremy thrust the rifle at Nevill's arm and achieve hit after hit? Etc etc etc.

I don't see an issue with the angle, in fact it would be more difficult for her to have shot herself. I don't understand your last question? But no, that's not what 'our lot' do and over the years, I have probably answered more questions from both sides, than you have.

[Roch]

I don't see an issue with the angle, in fact it would be more difficult for her to have shot herself. I don't understand your last question? But no, that's not what 'our lot' do and over the years, I have probably answered more questions from both sides, than you have.

How does he steady himself? What position is he in?

The marks on Nevill's forearm.

[Zoso]

How does he steady himself? What position is he in?

The marks on Nevill's forearm.

Why would he need to steady himself? I have no idea what position he would be in and even if I did, how the hell would I explain that?

Without knowing what went on in the house or between those involved, it's impossible for anyone to say how something happened. I tend not to be involved in 'scenario's' - I just find them pointless and even if someone actually cracked it 100%, we still wouldn't know.

[Roch]

Why would he need to steady himself? I have no idea what position he would be in and even if I did, how the hell would I explain that?

Without knowing what went on in the house or between those involved, it's impossible for anyone to say how something happened. I tend not to be involved in 'scenario's' - I just find them pointless and even if someone actually cracked it 100%, we still wouldn't know.

2 x cop-outs there Zoso.

How does a 6'2" Bamber crouch, kneel or position himself, to be able to get the upward trajectory. How did he steady himself to be able to balance the barrel & sound moderator against Sheila's throat, while simultaneously controlling the stock and handling the trigger? 

Where were Sheila's own arms when this took place?  Remember, you and others favour her to be sitting up.  You also think that her gunshot wound/s caused the runs on her arms by spurting blood on the them.  So how and where were her arms positioned, if it was Jeremy who shot her?

No point conferring with Cambridge on this one.  She doesn't think she should use her own 🧠

[Roch]

And as for pointless scenarios - try aiming the top end of a broom shank at Jane's forearm.  See how many times you can successfully bayonet her forearm.

Good luck .. and dont forget to take the sound moderator off the broom shank first.

[Hardy Boy]

2 x cop-outs there Zoso.

How does a 6'2" Bamber crouch, kneel or position himself, to be able to get the upward trajectory. How did he steady himself to be able to balance the barrel & sound moderator against Sheila's throat, while simultaneously controlling the stock and handling the trigger? 

Where were Sheila's own arms when this took place?  Remember, you and others favour her to be sitting up.  You also think that her gunshot wound/s caused the runs on her arms by spurting blood on the them.  So how and where were her arms positioned, if it was Jeremy who shot her?

No point conferring with Cambridge on this one.  She doesn't think she should use her own 🧠

You don't think after the first shot which was across the throat and an easier shot Roch,  that Sheila would be virtually lifeless allowing Bamber to position himself and the rifle to get the more upward trajectory?   The body would be  in a more Prone position and the head would tilt back slightly anyway?  Why can't Bamber kneel at the side of the body?  Have you ever done first aid and knelt at the side of the body.  Bamber was a 25 year old not some 70 year old with movement restrictions Roch.

I honestly don't get what you mean regarding Neville's arm injuries Roch, are you saying Sheila could thrust the rifle into Neville's arm and score hit after hit but Jeremy couldn't?  Obviously it happened so one of them did, or are you saying that the height difference between Jeremy and Sheila was the problem?  Don't forget, a swing of an item [broom] doesn't always have to be downwards strike, it can be more sidewards and at an angle and we don't know what state Neville was in at the time of the beatings.  You can also shorten the strike length by moving or adjusting your hand position on the item your using.  I worked in the Coal Mines Roch, we had to swing with a 14lb hammer or pick with a shaft length of just under a metre in less than three foot high seams to break large rock falls.