Re: Julie Mugford Trial examination/cross examination

[Cambridgecutie]

Jury should have been told.

The jury is told what the prosecution and defense choose to tell them.

None of us decide that.

Anyway the newly fitted catch is irrelevant, regardless of whether the defense knew about it or not.

The method used to get into the house does not affect the outcome of the case, as described in the CoA notes 2002.

The trial judge said the same thing in 1985.

The CoA judges said the only thing that is important is that Jeremy Bamber admitted to being able to enter and exit the house via means other than the doors.

What window he entered and exited from is not legally relevant.

So a new catch on one of the windows does not affect the case in any way.

Jeremy Bamber has a history of lying about non-disclosure of evidence.

I very much doubt any such statement was withheld by the prosecution, given Bambers history of lying on these matters.  It's just one more lie.

But if there was non-disclosure in this matter, then it will be of no consequence whatsoever, due to what the trial judge said at the time, and what the CoA judges said in 2002.

If there was non-disclosure, then it would have to break the laws that applied at the time, and there would have to be evidence that the law breaking was deliberate, rather than accidental.

Even then nothing will happen, because the catch is legally irrelevant to the case.  It is of zero consequence because the trial judge effectively set a precedent in 1985 when he said that the method by which Bamber entered the house does not affect the outcome of the case. 

[David1819]

That's a joke, right?

No. The entire conviction rests on the sound moderator. Something that was handled by witnesses who benefited financially from the conviction.

1994 - Lord Justice Simon Brown - judicial review application.

"Part of the prosecution case was that blood inside the silencer, the result of back spatter, was Sheila Caffell's. If it was, that clearly was decisive against the defendant. The point plainly loomed large in the jury's thinking because the only question they asked during the entire eight hours of their deliberation was one directly relating to it. The question was whether the blood inside the silencer "was a perfect match of Sheila's blood" and whether there was a "chance of the blood group being June and Ralph's mixing together". The answer given was that the blood grouping was consistent with it being Sheila Caffell's blood and that the possibility of it being a mixture of her parents blood was remote. That exchange followed the jury's overnight stay at a hotel; two hours later they convicted by a majority of 10 to 2."


2012: Mr Justice Globe. Judicial review Bamber vs CCRC

"If there was evidence that the silencer was on the gun when the fatal shot was fired, then there would be little doubt about the safety of the conviction. But if there was no silencer on it, then there was, for the purposes of this application, sufficient that it might be necessary to refer it to the Court of Appeal on the basis that there was a real possibility that the sister was the murderer"

[Cambridgecutie]

How do you think he got to/from WHF?

The prosecution case is he cycled on the bike that arrived at his cottage 2 days before the massacre.

Bamber probably used the bike.  The bike makes most sense.

Bamber admits to taking the bike from WHF just prior to the murders.

That would be consistent with planning to use the bike to commit the crime.

And then the other alternatives are walking or car.

Walking is way too slow, you'd eat into so much preparation time either side of the crime.

Even Bamber would not be stupid enough to use a car.  Imagine going down Pages Lane with your full beam on!?

May as well have Black Sabbath on volume 11 as well, with the windows open. 

Even with dipped headlights you are going to light up bedrooms as you drive down, not to mention engine noise, and setting off the dogs.  So you'd have to park up well away from the house.  That would mean a car being parked on a road where there is never a car parked at that time of night, which would arouse suspicion if a neighbour saw it.

So definitely not a car.

That just leaves the bicycle, which is very plausible given the known facts.

[snow66!]

Guilters never quote JB properly about entering and exiting White House Farm.
He certainly said he could enter and exit,but ALWAYS pointed out that he could not secure the windows from outside.BIG POINT!
He also said in court that when he entered the house to get his passport or whatever that as far as he was concerned the police were finished with him AND the house.And so they should have been.
Therefore,it was no business of the police how JB entered the WHF,no business at all whether he entered the house by a window for the rest of his life.
What the prosecution is claiming is that JB KNEW that being arrested again was an inevitability and deliberately used the window.

[ILB]

Seems from a source I have just found that Bamber thinks the idea of cycling down the sea wall on his mother's bike was " madness and laughable " he also claims he has never been to the sea wall in his life

[Adam]

Bamber probably used the bike.  The bike makes most sense.

Bamber admits to taking the bike from WHF just prior to the murders.

That would be consistent with planning to use the bike to commit the crime.

And then the other alternatives are walking or car.

Walking is way too slow, you'd eat into so much preparation time either side of the crime.

Even Bamber would not be stupid enough to use a car.  Imagine going down Pages Lane with your full beam on!?

May as well have Black Sabbath on volume 11 as well, with the windows open. 

Even with dipped headlights you are going to light up bedrooms as you drive down, not to mention engine noise, and setting off the dogs.  So you'd have to park up well away from the house.  That would mean a car being parked on a road where there is never a car parked at that time of night, which would arouse suspicion if a neighbour saw it.

So definitely not a car.

That just leaves the bicycle, which is very plausible given the known facts.

Agree with that. The Sea Wall is the perfect route. Providing he had a bike.

[Adam]

Seems from a source I have just found that Bamber thinks the idea of cycling down the sea wall on his mother's bike was " madness and laughable " he also claims he has never been to the sea wall in his life

He lived, worked and was brought up 5 minutes from it.

[Bubo bubo]

The jury is told what the prosecution and defense choose to tell them.

None of us decide that.

Anyway the newly fitted catch is irrelevant, regardless of whether the defense knew about it or not.

The method used to get into the house does not affect the outcome of the case, as described in the CoA notes 2002.

The trial judge said the same thing in 1985.

The CoA judges said the only thing that is important is that Jeremy Bamber admitted to being able to enter and exit the house via means other than the doors.

What window he entered and exited from is not legally relevant.

So a new catch on one of the windows does not affect the case in any way.

Jeremy Bamber has a history of lying about non-disclosure of evidence.

I very much doubt any such statement was withheld by the prosecution, given Bambers history of lying on these matters.  It's just one more lie.

But if there was non-disclosure in this matter, then it will be of no consequence whatsoever, due to what the trial judge said at the time, and what the CoA judges said in 2002.

If there was non-disclosure, then it would have to break the laws that applied at the time, and there would have to be evidence that the law breaking was deliberate, rather than accidental.

Even then nothing will happen, because the catch is legally irrelevant to the case.  It is of zero consequence because the trial judge effectively set a precedent in 1985 when he said that the method by which Bamber entered the house does not affect the outcome of the case.

I think you will find that your understanding of legal precedent in English law is incorrect.

What is the doctrine of precedent?

The doctrine of precedent comprises of several rules to which there are sometimes exceptions:

Courts are bound by the past decisions of courts of the same level. So for example the Court of Appeal is bound to follow earlier decisions of the Court of Appeal on the same point.

Courts are not bound by decisions of courts lower in the hierarchy. So for example the Court of Appeal is not bound to follow earlier decisions of the High Court on the same point.

Courts are bound by the decisions of courts that are higher in the hierarchy. So for example the Court of Appeal is bound by decisions of the Supreme Court.

Legal precedent in the WHF case would only apply to another High Court case where the facts and details were practically identical and even then the points would be argued at the time. The court of appeal did not reject the appeal on the basis of the window catches but rather on broader terms.

On the basis as the law as it currently stands the COA is perfectly entitled to overule Drakes comments.

If I am wrong perhaps NGB would care to comment.

[Cambridgecutie]

I think you will find that your understanding of legal precedent in English law is incorrect.

What is the doctrine of precedent?

The doctrine of precedent comprises of several rules to which there are sometimes exceptions:

Courts are bound by the past decisions of courts of the same level. So for example the Court of Appeal is bound to follow earlier decisions of the Court of Appeal on the same point.

Courts are not bound by decisions of courts lower in the hierarchy. So for example the Court of Appeal is not bound to follow earlier decisions of the High Court on the same point.

Courts are bound by the decisions of courts that are higher in the hierarchy. So for example the Court of Appeal is bound by decisions of the Supreme Court.

Legal precedent in the WHF case would only apply to another High Court case where the facts and details were practically identical and even then the points would be argued at the time. The court of appeal did not reject the appeal on the basis of the window catches but rather on broader terms.

On the basis as the law as it currently stands the COA is perfectly entitled to overule Drakes comments.

If I am wrong perhaps NGB would care to comment.

Nobody cares about the windows.

The idea that he's going to be granted an appeal because some chippy installed a catch on a window frame, is nonsense.   

No one cares how he got in.   The trial judge didn't care and the 3 CoA judges didn't care.

And Bamber is a liar.  He has lied constantly and consistently about non-disclosure of evidence.  This is yet another non-disclosure issue, that either doesn't exist or doesn't matter, or have any influence over anything.

Dream on, dreamers.

[ILB]

He lived, worked and was brought up 5 minutes from it.

They are not my words they are his.

[Jane]

They are not my words they are his.

I find them very hard to believe. My partner, as a child, used to cycle from Oxley Hall, between Tiptree and D'Arcy, to swim in the creek. I'd have thought it would have been paradise for JB, given that he was clearly into water related sports?

[Bubo bubo]

Nobody cares about the windows.

The idea that he's going to be granted an appeal because some chippy installed a catch on a window frame, is nonsense.   

No one cares how he got in.   The trial judge didn't care and the 3 CoA judges didn't care.

And Bamber is a liar.  He has lied constantly and consistently about non-disclosure of evidence.  This is yet another non-disclosure issue, that either doesn't exist or doesn't matter, or have any influence over anything.

Dream on, dreamers.

You clearly the one who is dreaming. It is also clear you do not understand the law of precedence.

 It did not matter because they were not considering the issue at the COA hearing and Drake's statement is non sensical. He totally misled the Jury by asking them to discount a key aspect of the case against JB.

 If the Crown cannot say how he entered or exited the property it would mean that in any case where the Crown could not show how a defendant did a particular action it would be like saying that a conjurer was capable of true magic when we know it is just a trick.

If the Crown cannot prove how he did it he is innocent. Simply saying he must have done it by some means without describing how, is complete nonsense. Why you make these stupid posts is some form of mind over matter performance on your behalf.

Try posting legally correct facts. Or are you a member of a clairvoyant coven and member of the Magic Circle

[Roch]

I see K.E. is on a wind up mission again  . I'm not falling for it this time.

[Cambridgecutie]

You clearly the one who is dreaming. It is also clear you do not understand the law of precedence.

 It did not matter because they were not considering the issue at the COA hearing and Drake's statement is non sensical. He totally misled the Jury by asking them to discount a key aspect of the case against JB.

 If the Crown cannot say how he entered or exited the property it would mean that in any case where the Crown could not show how a defendant did a particular action it would be like saying that a conjurer was capable of true magic when we know it is just a trick.

If the Crown cannot prove how he did it he is innocent. Simply saying he must have done it by some means without describing how, is complete nonsense. Why you make these stupid posts is some form of mind over matter performance on your behalf.

Try posting legally correct facts. Or are you a member of a clairvoyant coven and member of the Magic Circle

We'll find out one way or another when the CCRC submit their report. 

[Roch]

We'll find out one way or another when the CCRC submit their report.

Why should we place any value in their decision making?