An interesting quote from Ewan Smith

[curiousessex]

Ewan Smith, former chair of the Serious Fraud Association and vice-chair of the Criminal Appeals Lawyers Assocation, feels a similar frustration. "In the four and a half years I've been on the Commission, I have only come across two people I believed to be absolutely innocent. In all the other cases I've sent back to the Court of Appeal, I've only been able to say I thought their conviction was unsafe," he says. "I have certainly referred people back who I personally believed were guilty."....

Back in the tower block, the case committee is still trying to decide about the 14-year-old boy. The complexities of sister's accusation at the time of the trial, her later retraction and subsequent re-accusation has been put to one side, still undecided. Now the panel is trying to establish whether guidelines on the physical signs of rape updated by the Royal College of Pediatricians since the original trial, suggest that perhaps no crime took place after all.

"These knotty problems are very much par for the course in our work," said Foster. "A case where there are powerfully conflicting views, with one person repeatedly changing their evidence, and medical evidence that was unambiguous at the time of the original trial but which is now in doubt: it's all part of a usual day's work."

After three hours of deliberation, they refer. Not all members of the panel are happy but, says Foster, that is not unusual. "By their very nature, the cases that come before us are complex, controversial and contentious. They evoke strong passions," he says. "If there was clear proof of innocence or guilt, the case would not have reached our doors in the first place. Our remit may not please everyone but we confront the system and keep it honest. But if the system cannot safely prove someone is guilty, they must be considered innocent.

"That is our raison d'être. We believe it to our core."

The above extracts can be found by following the link below.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/mar/30/criminal-cases-review-commission-inside?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

[grahameb]

Ewan Smith, former chair of the Serious Fraud Association and vice-chair of the Criminal Appeals Lawyers Assocation, feels a similar frustration. "In the four and a half years I've been on the Commission, I have only come across two people I believed to be absolutely innocent. In all the other cases I've sent back to the Court of Appeal, I've only been able to say I thought their conviction was unsafe," he says. "I have certainly referred people back who I personally believed were guilty."....

Back in the tower block, the case committee is still trying to decide about the 14-year-old boy. The complexities of sister's accusation at the time of the trial, her later retraction and subsequent re-accusation has been put to one side, still undecided. Now the panel is trying to establish whether guidelines on the physical signs of rape updated by the Royal College of Pediatricians since the original trial, suggest that perhaps no crime took place after all.

"These knotty problems are very much par for the course in our work," said Foster. "A case where there are powerfully conflicting views, with one person repeatedly changing their evidence, and medical evidence that was unambiguous at the time of the original trial but which is now in doubt: it's all part of a usual day's work."

After three hours of deliberation, they refer. Not all members of the panel are happy but, says Foster, that is not unusual. "By their very nature, the cases that come before us are complex, controversial and contentious. They evoke strong passions," he says. "If there was clear proof of innocence or guilt, the case would not have reached our doors in the first place. Our remit may not please everyone but we confront the system and keep it honest. But if the system cannot safely prove someone is guilty, they must be considered innocent.

"That is our raison d'être. We believe it to our core."

The above extracts can be found by following the link below.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/mar/30/criminal-cases-review-commission-inside?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

Avery intersting quote.

[Roch]

It is only the first paragraph linked to Ewen Smith.  The part of the article linked to the Chairman (Foster) is of interest.  'The man who keeps changing his evidence'.  I would hope that if this is a reference to Jeremy Bamber, then the issue of evidence arising from previously withheld sources could be an underpinning reason for these evidence changes.  It could of course relate to a completely different case or it could relate to no case whatsoever and simply be a generic example of the issues they face.  But the added reference regarding former unambiguous medical evidence which is now in doubt could also hint at the bamber case.

[grahameb]

Bamber doesn't keep changing his evidence. He keeps getting new evidence from those bandits who witheld it in the first place.

[Alex]

I read it as a reference to the case they had just mentioned.

[Hartley]

Bamber doesn't keep changing his evidence. He keeps getting new evidence from those bandits who witheld it in the first place.

Just my opinion, but I think it's more the fact that his or his defence teams theories have changed over the course of time, due in part to new evidence or re-examination of old evidence and also due to different defence teams looking at things in a different way.

Other than a few discrepancies in his witness statements and interviews about phone call timings, rifle location and magazine loading/emptying (which is all a completely different topic), he hasn't really changed his description of what happened at all.

[chochokeira]

Bamber doesn't keep changing his evidence. He keeps getting new evidence from those bandits who witheld it in the first place.

Just my opinion, but I think it's more the fact that his or his defence teams theories have changed over the course of time, due in part to new evidence or re-examination of old evidence and also due to different defence teams looking at things in a different way.

Other than a few discrepancies in his witness statements and interviews about phone call timings, rifle location and magazine loading/emptying (which is all a completely different topic), he hasn't really changed his description of what happened at all.

Bamber's defence team's interpretation of the evidence has certainly evolved over the past 26 years. This reinterpretation was not, however, merely due to re-examination of old evidence but was also due to the discovery of new evidence which was never presented at trial.

That such new evidence has been discovered was verified by Andrew Hunter MP during his speech in the parliamentary adjournment debate he initiated on the Bamber case:

"With the Bamber case, the key issue has been, and remains, the non-disclosure of evidence to the defence. Early in 2004, Bamber's new defence team looked at the evidence again, and exhibit 29 caught their attention in particular. It was a document listing some radio messages from the scene of the crime. The defence wondered whether it might be the first page of a longer document rather than a complete document in itself, so they sought clarification. Essex constabulary was adamant that exhibit 29 was a whole document and had been available to the defence for the trial.

Unconvinced, Bamber's defence team took the matter to court in March 2004. It was successful, and the police produced the entire document. Exhibit 29, it transpired, was not a single-page document, and Bamber's solicitors received by fax a 24-page summary of radio communications. They then took the unusual step of writing to both the trial judge and the chief prosecution counsel, inquiring if either had known at the time of the trial of the existence of the lengthier log of radio messages. Both replied that they had not.

On receiving the 24 pages, the defence immediately noticed that the first two pages had not only been re-written on different paper from the rest, but had been edited. A comparison with police witness statements revealed that several key radio messages that were made had been left out. Why? The defence therefore asked for the original document so that it could be sent for electrostatic document analysis testing, but Essex constabulary refused. The request has been repeated many times, and on each occasion the constabulary has refused."

(Debate in Parliament 2005, Mr. Andrew Hunter MP)

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=368.0

[Hartley]

Yes that's kinda what I meant but worded it badly, I used an 'or' where I should have used an 'and' or a 'but also'.

But yes Choc, I agree with what you have written.

[chochokeira]

Yes that's kinda what I meant but worded it badly, I used an 'or' where I should have used an 'and' or a 'but also'.

But yes Choc, I agree with what you have written.

Thank you for the clarification, Hartley.

[curiousessex]

I must apologise if the first post in this thread has caused confusion.

The first part of the quoted extract relates to Ewan Smith i.e. Ewan Smith, former chair of the Serious Fraud Association and vice-chair of the Criminal Appeals Lawyers Assocation, feels a similar frustration. "In the four and a half years I've been on the Commission, I have only come across two people I believed to be absolutely innocent. In all the other cases I've sent back to the Court of Appeal, I've only been able to say I thought their conviction was unsafe," he says. "I have certainly referred people back who I personally believed were guilty."

The second part of the quoted extract relates to and gives an insight into the workings of the CCRC whilst mentioning a case not related to the Jeremy Bamber application to the CCRC i.e. Back in the tower block, the case committee is still trying to decide about the 14-year-old boy. The complexities of sister's accusation at the time of the trial, her later retraction and subsequent re-accusation has been put to one side, still undecided. Now the panel is trying to establish whether guidelines on the physical signs of rape updated by the Royal College of Pediatricians since the original trial, suggest that perhaps no crime took place after all.

"These knotty problems are very much par for the course in our work," said Foster. "A case where there are powerfully conflicting views, with one person repeatedly changing their evidence, and medical evidence that was unambiguous at the time of the original trial but which is now in doubt: it's all part of a usual day's work."

After three hours of deliberation, they refer. Not all members of the panel are happy but, says Foster, that is not unusual. "By their very nature, the cases that come before us are complex, controversial and contentious. They evoke strong passions," he says. "If there was clear proof of innocence or guilt, the case would not have reached our doors in the first place. Our remit may not please everyone but we confront the system and keep it honest. But if the system cannot safely prove someone is guilty, they must be considered innocent.

"That is our raison d'être. We believe it to our core."

What is of particular interest, to me, are the following micro extracts from the above

(i) Ewan Smith states - 'In all the other cases I've sent back to the Court of Appeal, I've only been able to say I thought their conviction was unsafe," he says. "I have certainly referred people back who I personally believed were guilty.'

(ii) Foster states in general terms and with respect to the workings of the CCRC - 'But if the system cannot safely prove someone is guilty, they must be considered innocent. That is our raison d'être. We believe it to our core.'

On the surface it would appear the commissioners within the CCRC are very happy to let others decide (Court of Appeal) providing they (the CCRC) are happy with the doubt that is raised in an application that is being made to them within the parameters and existance of the law as it stands or stood at a point in time.