Re: Guardian article 27/02/26

[ngb1066]

I know there is already a reference to this on another thread but it justifies a separate thread.  It is well worth reading.  I believe there is more to come.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2026/feb/27/the-silencer-and-the-white-house-farm-murders-is-this-the-evidence-that-could-free-jeremy-bamber

[Jonathan]

will this report now be a submission to the CCRC?

[Rob_]

Thanks ngb very interesting.

[David1819]

"Now a distinguished British forensic physician has said he does not believe a silencer, also known as a moderator, was used when Caffell was shot dead. The Guardian commissioned Professor Jason Payne-James, a specialist in forensic and legal medicine, to examine the crime-scene photographs taken by Essex police. He has concluded that the bullet injuries are not consistent with a contact or close range injury caused by an Anschütz 525 rifle with a silencer attached. Payne-James, president of the European Council of Legal & Forensic Medicine, specialises in the medical recording and interpretation of injuries.

He told the Guardian: “The pattern imprint on the skin is not large enough to suggest that a silencer was used, either at very close range or in contact with her body. These are close-range bullet holes, and the nature of the moderator or silencer is such that you’d expect some form of pattern imprint equivalent to the diameter of the silencer if it was used in contact or at very close range.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2026/feb/27/the-silencer-and-the-white-house-farm-murders-is-this-the-evidence-that-could-free-jeremy-bamber?fbclid=IwY2xjawQOKuRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeglQE_DhrY1myZGDDck7kCGrIQp7s8LBHZ4wyX_PFHaujcLGl9Esyzg2uTf8_aem_ID3q5rEsSIgt8Zgx5i7xbg

[Bubo bubo]

Thanks ngb very interesting.

The Guardian’s latest report tells those who believe in JB’s innocence very little. There are however two new pieces of information.

Firstly, it uses yet another scientific report to claim the silencer/moderator was not fitted during the killings. Arguments around this aspect has already been given by three American scientists as well as PB and the CCRC has ignored this evidence.

Secondly the HB report in the New Yorker magazine adds two new facts. David Boutflour says his SM was taken away for months and BW says she felt the finding was restaged to give it authenticity.
Time will tell whether these developments alone are enough to bring about a referral to the Appeals Court.

Ngb has indicated there may be more to come. Innocence supporters wait with baited breath.

[ngb1066]

will this report now be a submission to the CCRC?

Not immediately because the CCRC are currently considering the defence response to the Provisional Statement of Reasons.  If as a result of this there is a referral to the Court of Appeal there will be no further submission to the CCRC but the new material will form part of the grounds of appeal submitted to the Court of Appeal.  Without going into detail on matters which have not yet been made public, in my view the prospects of a new appeal are far higher than they have been at any time since trial.

[Jonathan]

Not immediately because the CCRC are currently considering the defence response to the Provisional Statement of Reasons.  If as a result of this there is a referral to the Court of Appeal there will be no further submission to the CCRC but the new material will form part of the grounds of appeal submitted to the Court of Appeal.  Without going into detail on matters which have not yet been made public, in my view the prospects of a new appeal are far higher than they have been at any time since trial.

if the CCRC refer but not on this as a ground then Bamber will need to seek leave to appeal on this ground.

I'd say this is not new evidence - just a new expert saying something that's already been submitted.

The encouraging thing for Bamber is that under Vera Baird so far the CCRC has referred a couple of old cases with, on the face of it, nothing that appears to be new

[ngb1066]

if the CCRC refer but not on this as a ground then Bamber will need to seek leave to appeal on this ground.

I'd say this is not new evidence - just a new expert saying something that's already been submitted.

The encouraging thing for Bamber is that under Vera Baird so far the CCRC has referred a couple of old cases with, on the face of it, nothing that appears to be new

The 2002 appeal was the result of the CCRC referring the case on a single ground, but several additional grounds were included in the Grounds of Appeal drafted by counsel.  The same would happen here. 

[Jonathan]

The 2002 appeal was the result of the CCRC referring the case on a single ground, but several additional grounds were included in the Grounds of Appeal drafted by counsel.  The same would happen here.

The law changed after Bamber's appeal. An appellant has to seek leave for additional grounds not referred by the CCRC

[Adam]

The law changed after Bamber's appeal. An appellant has to seek leave for additional grounds not referred by the CCRC

Wonder if that was because of his 2002 appeal?

[Jonathan]

Wonder if that was because of his 2002 appeal?

Yes I think so. The Judges asked for this to be looked at after he was referred on one ground then proceeded to spam the Court with 14 more

[ngb1066]

Yes I think so. The Judges asked for this to be looked at after he was referred on one ground then proceeded to spam the Court with 14 more

Can you direct us to the relevant change in the law? 

[Adam]

Yes I think so. The Judges asked for this to be looked at after he was referred on one ground then proceeded to spam the Court with 14 more

Prisoners must love him!

[Jonathan]

Can you direct us to the relevant change in the law?

Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 315

almost certainly a response to the closing remarks in Bamber's 2002 judgment

[David1819]

Wonder if that was because of his 2002 appeal?

The Criminal Justice Bill (that became law in 2003) was introduced in the House of Commons on 21 November 2002. Bamber appeal was denied in mid December.

IIRC it was David Blunketts project.