Hearing New Evidence

[Cambridgecutie]

The CPS make it very clear what exactly constitutes the above:

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.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/appeals-court-appeal

The grounds are focused and narrow so no idea why JB keeps submitting submissions to the CCRC which simply do not come close to meeting the criteria eg the marks to NB's back?

[Adam]

The CPS make it very clear what exactly constitutes the above:

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.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/appeals-court-appeal

The grounds are focused and narrow so no idea why JB keeps submitting submissions to the CCRC which simply do not come close to meeting the criteria eg the marks to NB's back?

Because he is guilty.

It i's 39 also years later. So grounds will get weaker.

[Rob_]

If it can be proved the Aga caused the marks / burns then this is new evidence not considered at trial.

[Cambridgecutie]

If it can be proved the Aga caused the marks / burns then this is new evidence not considered at trial.

No.

What is difficult to understand about the CPS criteria for hearing new evidence?

The marks on NB's, whatever they are and whenever they were caused etc, etc, will not go anywhere:

- How do the marks exonerate JB even if the CCRC/CoA agreed?
- How do the marks overcome the blood evidence and other evidence the prosecution used showing it wasn't SC eg hand swabs, clean hands, lack of debris on nightdress?
- Failure to adduce at trial eg there was nothing to prevent the defence at trial making the claims now made. 
- Nothing was made of the marks at trial ie neither the defence or prosecution used them perhaps because the expert evidence was inconclusive and they are incapable of lending support to either side.
- The jury could not possibly have used them in coming to a verdict since they were not presented in this way and did not form part of the judge's summing up. 

[Rob_]

No.

What is difficult to understand about the CPS criteria for hearing new evidence?

The marks on NB's, whatever they are and whenever they were caused etc, etc, will not go anywhere:

- How do the marks exonerate JB even if the CCRC/CoA agreed?
- How do the marks overcome the blood evidence and other evidence the prosecution used showing it wasn't SC eg hand swabs, clean hands, lack of debris on nightdress?
- Failure to adduce at trial eg there was nothing to prevent the defence at trial making the claims now made. 
- Nothing was made of the marks at trial ie neither the defence or prosecution used them perhaps because the expert evidence was inconclusive and they are incapable of lending support to either side.
- The jury could not possibly have used them in coming to a verdict since they were not presented in this way and did not form part of the judge's summing up.

It would be new evidence, what effect it would have on the case is immaterial it would still be new evidence.

[Adam]

No.

What is difficult to understand about the CPS criteria for hearing new evidence?

The marks on NB's, whatever they are and whenever they were caused etc, etc, will not go anywhere:

- How do the marks exonerate JB even if the CCRC/CoA agreed?
- How do the marks overcome the blood evidence and other evidence the prosecution used showing it wasn't SC eg hand swabs, clean hands, lack of debris on nightdress?
- Failure to adduce at trial eg there was nothing to prevent the defence at trial making the claims now made. 
- Nothing was made of the marks at trial ie neither the defence or prosecution used them perhaps because the expert evidence was inconclusive and they are incapable of lending support to either side.
- The jury could not possibly have used them in coming to a verdict since they were not presented in this way and did not form part of the judge's summing up.

What do you think they should bring up?

Claimimg SJ threatened Julie to being an 'accessory to murder' won't work.

Firstly there is no evidence he did.

Secondly that may have been correct.

[Cambridgecutie]

What do you think they should bring up?

Claimimg SJ threatened Julie to being an 'accessory to murder' won't work.

Firstly there is no evidence he did.

Secondly that may have been correct.

I am not a lawyer.  But based on my lay person interpretation I would steer clear of anything to do with JM and other lay witnesses.  I would let the physical soc evidence do the talking. 

[Adam]

Proving the burn marks were caused by long term laying against the aga would refute the raid team WS's.

They say Nevill had his head on the coal scuttle.

[Adam]

I am not a lawyer.  But based on my lay person interpretation I would steer clear of anything to do with JM and other lay witnesses.  I would let the physical soc evidence do the talking.

The crime scene evidence does create a straight forward Bamber scenario.

Although it is unclear whether the twins were shot first. Once each.

[Cambridgecutie]

Proving the burn marks were caused by long term laying against the aga would refute the raid team WS's.

They say Nevill had his head on the coal scuttle.

This is consistent with the pathological evidence ie soc images support hypostasis:

"Hypostasis was consistent with the position in which he was found at the scene".

[Cambridgecutie]

The crime scene evidence does create a straight forward Bamber scenario.

Although it is unclear whether the twins were shot first. Once each.

Yes it does! 

And you know only too well gunshot wounds inflicted on the twins were fired in quick succession as evidenced by the pathological evidence which I uploaded a short while ago.

[Adam]

Yes it does! 

And you know only too well gunshot wounds inflicted on the twins were fired in quick succession as evidenced by the pathological evidence which I uploaded a short while ago.

I agree the twins were shot in quick succession.

This was either 6 or 8 shots.

Don't believe he would shoot the twins first, 8 times. He may have been going for an 11 shot massacre.

He would want to move onto Nevill & June quickly. One shot each does the job on the twins.

Julie said the twins were shot first.

[Cambridgecutie]

It would be new evidence, what effect it would have on the case is immaterial it would still be new evidence.

Its new yes but it isn't evidence of anything and certainly does not meet the CCRC/CoA/CPS criteria for overturning a conviction. 

Frankly its embarrassing.  Its beyond weak. 

[Adam]

Possible he shot the twins first. Eight times.

Then re loaded. Upstairs or downstairs.

The silencer would ensure silence with the 8 shots.

[Cambridgecutie]

I agree the twins were shot in quick succession.

This was either 6 or 8 shots.

Don't believe he would shoot the twins first, 8 times. He may have been going for an 11 shot massacre.

He would want to move onto Nevill & June quickly. One shot each does the job on the twins.

Julie said the twins were shot first.

The twins sustained a total of 8 gunshot wounds which were all fired in quick succession after June and NB sustained their initial gunshot wounds.

June sustained 5/6 gunshot wounds whilst she was in bed.  NB sustained 2 gunshot wounds on the landing and 2 on the main stairs.  These were the first shots fired from the magazine JB left.