New Evidence - the loophole that the CCRC can apply almost in every case...

[mike tesko]

New Evidence - the loophole that the CCRC can apply almost in every case...

It's the easiest thing in the world to reject new evidence on the basis that it was available at the time of the trial, but in reality in most cases the reason it was not pursued during trial, is because a defendant, or applicant was poorly represented, and those responsible for representing a person on trial did not do a good enough job for their client, because they feared having their fees stopped by order of the trial judge for wasting court time, or going on a fishing expedition?

When this happens, why should a defendant, or an applicant be penalized again, because of his legal teams mishandling of the case?

[nugnug]

well as the defendant and his lawer are not the same person there is no reason.

[mike tesko]

well as the defendant and his lawer are not the same person there is no reason.

Exactly...

Yet, CCRC frequently rely on the suggestion that the new evidence put forward on behalf of an applicant could have been obtained or raised at the time of trial, but if you have ever had the misfortune to be on trial, and be represented by people who do not appear to know what they are doing, you haven't got much chance of getting across all that needs to be said, or which needs to be done - so in those circumstances, why at a later date, should you be penalized again because those who represented you in the first instance did not do their job properly?

Perhaps every application should have the automatic option of relying upon the argument that they were misrepresented during the trial, to get around this loophole which the CCRC keep relying on to reject cases for referral?

[mike tesko]

Exactly...

Yet, CCRC frequently rely on the suggestion that the new evidence put forward on behalf of an applicant could have been obtained or raised at the time of trial, but if you have ever had the misfortune to be on trial, and be represented by people who do not appear to know what they are doing, you haven't got much chance of getting across all that needs to be said, or which needs to be done - so in those circumstantces, why at a later date, should you be penalized again because those who represented you in the first instance did not do their job properly?

Perhaps every application should have the automatic option of relying upon the argument that they were misrepresented during the trial, to get around this loophole which the CCRC keep relying on to reject cases for referral?

CCRC need to be stopped in their tracks from adopting this tactic to refuse referral...

[grahameb]

So Mike, it seems that Jeremy is dependent upon your picture of Sheila on the bed with one bullet wound? For that was definitely not available at the trial. On the contrary everyone has sneered at the suggestion that it ever existed or exists. So the surprise finish may be down to you alone then Mike. That'll not only silence the mockers. It may well be the one piece of evidence that will free Jeremy?

[Newbury1]

So Mike, it seems that Jeremy is dependent upon your picture of Sheila on the bed with one bullet wound? For that was definitely not available at the trial. On the contrary everyone has sneered at the suggestion that it ever existed or exists. So the surprise finish may be down to you alone then Mike. That'll not only silence the mockers. It may well be the one piece of evidence that will free Jeremy?

Grahame please excuse my frustrated comment in relation to this so called picture but...... Talk about stating the bleeding obvious!!

Should I prepare to be silenced 

[grahameb]

Grahame please excuse my frustrated comment in relation to this so called picture but...... Talk about stating the bleeding obvious!!

Should I prepare to be silenced 

Nick. Don't forget that I have mocked this as well as most other people. To tell the truth I still doubt the existence of Z. But I must, in spite of my feelings to the contrary trust in Mike's honesty. To mock something is not necessarily a bad thing. And if you are to be silenced, then so must I.

[mike tesko]

So Mike, it seems that Jeremy is dependent upon your picture of Sheila on the bed with one bullet wound? For that was definitely not available at the trial. On the contrary everyone has sneered at the suggestion that it ever existed or exists. So the surprise finish may be down to you alone then Mike. That'll not only silence the mockers. It may well be the one piece of evidence that will free Jeremy?

I would be willing and prepared to make a sworn affidavit to the effect that when I visited Ewen Smiths office, (1). I saw a photograph of Sheila on the bed in the main bedroom at whf. This particular photograph was part of an album that Eesex police allowed Ewen to see on a strictly confidential basis, and none to be copied. I am able to say that the photographer who took this picture was stood between two to three feet from the base of the bed at time he took picture...

Sheila's body was laid atop the bed. There was no rifle on her body. or on the bed. No bible on her chest, no bible on bed. She was wearing a blue coloured nightdress, with a bloodstain in the region of the top right hand side, no blood running from the corners of her mouth, and none running back into her left eye socket at all. I can also confirm that there was no blood running from her nose. Her arms were laid either side of her body, there were no bloodied fingermarks on the front lower right hand side of her nightdress. The hem of her nightdress had been raised up to a position near to the top of both thighs, so that her vaginal hair was visible. She was not wearing any socks or any kind of footwear. You could see most parts of her body even though the view included a metal foot board which was fitted at foot of the bed...

In view of the fact that I have since learnt that police were disrespectful to the victims whilst the bodies were still in situ, I am under an impression that this particular photograph was taken when police may have been fooling around and that this fooling around had some sort of sexual connotations linked to the reason why her body was staged like that on the bed, and photographed?

The stage managing of Ralph Bambers body in the kitchen, also appears to have some sort of sexual overtone or feature associated with it, since his pyjama bottom was pulled down around his ankles resulting in his buttocks and testicles being exposed...

Upstairs, once June Bambers body had been propped against the bedroom door, it is not beyond the realm of probability, or possibility, that someone deliberately torn the front lower part of her nightdress, in the region of her crotch, as though certain photographs of (1) Sheila, (2) Ralph, and (3) June, had all been abused by some sort of sexual predator (after police took control of the crime scene and bodies, in situ)...

[grahameb]

I would be willing and prepared to make a sworn affidavit to the effect that when I visited Ewen Smiths office, (1). I saw a photograph of Sheila on the bed in the main bedroom at whf. This particular photograph was part of an album that Eesex police allowed Ewen to see on a strictly confidential basis, and none to be copied. I am able to say that the photographer who took this picture was stood between two to three feet from the base of the bed at time he took picture...

Sheila's body was laid atop the bed. There was no rifle on her body. or on the bed. No bible on her chest, no bible on bed. She was wearing a blue coloured nightdress, with a bloodstain in the region of the top right hand side, no blood running from the corners of her mouth, and none running back into her left eye socket at all. I can also confirm that there was no blood running from her nose. Her arms were laid either side of her body, there were no bloodied fingermarks on the front lower right hand side of her nightdress. The hem of her nightdress had been raised up to a position near to the top of both thighs, so that her vaginal hair was visible. She was not wearing any socks or any kind of footwear. You could see most parts of her body even though the view included a metal foot board which was fitted at foot of the bed...

In view of the fact that I have since learnt that police were disrespectful to the victims whilst the bodies were still in situ, I am under an impression that this particular photograph was taken when police may have been fooling around and that this fooling around had some sort of sexual connotations linked to the reason why her body was staged like that on the bed, and photographed?

The stage managing of Ralph Bambers body in the kitchen, also appears to have some sort of sexual overtone or feature associated with it, since his pyjama bottom was pulled down around his ankles resulting in his buttocks and testicles being exposed...

Upstairs, once June Bambers body had been propped against the bedroom door, it is not beyond the realm of probability, or possibility, that someone deliberately torn the front lower part of her nightdress, in the region of her crotch, as though certain photographs of (1) Sheila, (2) Ralph, and (3) June, had all been abused bt some sort of sexual predator...

If all that happened Mike, then it would give a good enough reason for counting the whole thing as a mistrial as the public's confidence in Essex Police would be shaken to the core. So much so that any evidence offered up by the prosecution from them would have to be thrown out as false.

[keepers]

apologies but ive not been up to speed lately, van someone please tell me where everything stands regarding the ccrc approving a third appeal or not

[ngb1066]

apologies but ive not been up to speed lately, van someone please tell me where everything stands regarding the ccrc approving a third appeal or not

The CCRC have now received final submissions from Jeremy's solicitor Simon McKay.  The CCRC now have to consider those submissions and the supporting evidence provided and make a decision whether or not to refer the case to the Court of Appeal.  I anticipate that the CCRC will not announce their final decision until the end of March 2012 at the earliest.

[Reader]

Didn't the CCRC state that under certain circumstances relating to the current submissions they would request or accept additional information? It seems to me that if, say, some police officer, forensic scientist, pathologist, ambulance service employee, telephone operator or anyone else directly involved in the case provided the CCRC and the defence team with a statement that constituted significant new evidence in support of Jeremy, that evidence could hardly be ignored. Also, if currently available arguments strongly indicated that specific undisclosed documents exist that would support Jeremy's case, either by corroborating his evidence or by contradicting other evidence used against him, the CCRC would find it hard to justify not using their powers to demand such documents, even if that meant delaying their decision.