Essex Police's Credibility

[campion]

  I have just been reading Mark Williams-Thomas on twitter. Very interesting, all doubters over his documentary's relevance should read what he has said about himself. The most important points for the CCRC to consider are these from the original trial judge and in this order  1    Silencer
                                                                                                                     2   Mugford
                                                                                                                      3  Phonecall

 Read what he's tweeted from the 29th March, then you will be in a position to make a more balanced
judgement on his work.  ps Think Mid April for News of CCRC decision on referall.   

[mike tesko]

Silencer

It needs to be explained how blood got into silencer, if a silencer was not used at all in the shootings, and by suggesting a silencer was not used does not cover that point - Jury accepted it was Sheila's blood found in the silencer, CCRC will have to take that into account, when dealing with the new evidence from the US...

MUGFORD

She was motivated by revenge, the promise of money from the NOTW, and with a further promise from the police /DPP that she would not be prosecuted in connection with any of the offences she had been committing. She also gave different accounts at different stages of the investigation - Facts which were kept back from the jury who were being asked to consider her testimony as truthful. Basically her evidence should not have been relied upon to help prosecute and convict Bamber of these murders, her testimony was unreliable for all the reasons given...

[jon]

Silencer

It needs to be explained how blood got into silencer, if a silencer was not used at all in the shootings, and by suggesting a silencer was not used does not cover that point - Jury accepted it was Sheila's blood found in the silencer, CCRC will have to take that into account, when dealing with the new evidence from the US...

The CCRC wont will they , the court was told the shooting's were carried out with the silencer attached , once this is proven untrue , the court was misled !!

[mike tesko]

The CCRC wont will they , the court was told the shooting's were carried out with the silencer attached , once this is proven untrue , the court was misled !!

And...

Should the CCRC refer the case back to the court of appeal on the basis that a silencer was not used in the shootings, that nobody will get investigated and prosecuted for introducing the false blood and paint evidence, which has been danced around from one silencer (SBJ/1) to the other (DRB/1)? If CCRC refer case, do you think anybody will get prosecuted?

[mike tesko]

And...

Should the CCRC refer the case back to the court of appeal on the basis that a silencer was not used in the shootings, that nobody will get investigated and prosecuted for introducing the false blood and paint evidence, which has been danced around from one silencer (SBJ/1) to the other (DRB/1)? If CCRC refer case, do you think anybody will get prosecuted?

I think there is more than enough evidence available now to prove and to show that the silencer evidence is dodgy, and that it along with the blood and paint evidence should never have been allowed to be used to support the prosecutions case to help convict Bamber for these murders, they messed around with the silencer, blood and paint evidence too much for my liking and for this reason it needs to be dismissed on the basis that it is unreliable evidence...

[jon]

And...

Should the CCRC refer the case back to the court of appeal on the basis that a silencer was not used in the shootings, that nobody will get investigated and prosecuted for introducing the false blood and paint evidence, which has been danced around from silencer (SBJ/1) to the other (DRB/1)? If CCRC refer case, do you think anybody will get prosecuted?

Totally agree with you , there should be a REAL inquiry into the conduct of all involved in the finding , examining of the silencer's !!

[mike tesko]

Totally agree with you , there should be a REAL inquiry into the conduct of all involved in the finding , examining of the silencer's !!

No matter where you look or start to probe regarding the possible use of the silencer, or the blood found inside it, or the paint from the aga surround, there are problems relating to it and exhibit references have been changed (to protect the guilty) in connection with these crucial pieces of evidence. How can a court of law allow evidence like this to remain in place to keep someone locked up for the rest of their natural life? I have no doubt at all in my mind that a silencer did play some role in the proceedings, but not in the way it has been portrayed by the prosecution. It's dodgy evidence, even if one of the silencers (which I believe was SBJ/1) was used in the shooting of Sheila to the side of the neck (bullet PV/20)?  There is too much doubt surrounding this non fatal entry wound and the way the police / ballistic expert have been allowed to get away with substituting the original fragmented bullet and replacing it with a whole bullet just so the ballistc expert could cionclude that both bullets used to shoot Sheila were fired by the same Anshulz rifle...

[mike tesko]

Phone Call

I believe such  a phone call did take place from the scene by Ralph to Jeremy, but what I am not convinced about are the actual words which Ralph used - Did he actually say to Jeremy, "Sheila has got the gun, she has gone crazy, come quickly", or did Ralph say "She has got the gun, she has gone Crazy, come quickly"? And more importantly, if Ralph did use the term "She" as opposed to "Sheila", who might Ralph have been referring to? Sheila, or June? It is easy to understand how Jeremy could have been mistaken into believing that his father had used the term "Sheila" at the time, because she had very recently been discharged from hospital, but equally with the benefit of hindsight he could have been referring to his wife, June...

I am not convinced that Ralph was talking about Sheila at that stage, since it is just as likely that he was referring to June, who also had a history of mental illness...

You only have to look at the way Jeremy was questioned about this call when he was arrested and interviewed to see how the situation could have developed regarding what his father actually said, what he (Jeremy) thought he (his father) said, and what Jeremy told the police what he (father) said, and what the police recorded what he (Jeremy) said his father had said? For these reasons I do not think anyone can reliably say that the call did not take place, and that it was just an invention by Jeremy to try and get away with the perfect murder(s) because he had already killed everyone by the time he called the police, and because the police were now saying Sheila did not take her own life, the phone call must be made up?

[mike tesko]

Phone Call

I believe such  a phone call did take place from the scene by Ralph to Jeremy, but what I am not convinced about are the actual words which Ralph used - Did he actually say to Jeremy, "Sheila has got the gun, she has gone crazy, come quickly", or did Ralph say "She has got the gun, she has gone Crazy, come quickly"? And more importantly, if Ralph did use the term "She" as opposed to "Sheila", who might Ralph have been referring to? Sheila, or June? It is easy to understand how Jeremy could have been mistaken into believing that his father had used the term "Sheila" at the time, because she had very recently been discharged from hospital, but equally with the benefit of hindsight he could have been referring to his wife, June...

I am not convinced that Ralph was talking about Sheila at that stage, since it is just as likely that he was referring to June, who also had a history of mental illness...

You only have to look at the way Jeremy was questioned about this call when he was arrested and interviewed to see how the situation could have developed regarding what his father actually said, what he (Jeremy) thought he (his father) said, and what Jeremy told the police what he (father) said, and what the police recorded what he (Jeremy) said his father had said? For these reasons I do not think anyone can reliably say that the call did not take place, and that it was just an invention by Jeremy to try and get away with the perfect murder(s) because he had already killed everyone by the time he called the police, and because the police were now saying Sheila did not take her own life, the phone call must be made up?

Most importantly, police could not, and cannot prove that such a phone call did not take place, between Ralph at the scene, and Jeremy at his cottage...

It is no longer a case of the phone call could not have been made because the purpose of introducing the call was to throw suspicion upon Sheila to try and make it look like she was responsible, for shooting the others, and then taking her own life, because of the possible mix up with what Ralph actually had said, "She has got the gun, she has gone crazy, come quickly", rather than "Sheila has got the gun, she has gone crazy, come quickly". In any event Jeremy was released from custody after he gave the response about the call from his father, where he mentions and points out these possibilities...

[mike tesko]

Most importantly, police could not, and cannot prove that such a phone call did not take place, between Ralph at the scene, and Jeremy at his cottage...

It is no longer a case of the phone call could not have been made because the purpose of introducing the call was to throw suspicion upon Sheila to try and make it look like she was responsible, for shooting the others, and then taking her own life, because of the possible mix up with what Ralph actually had said, "She has got the gun, she has gone crazy, come quickly", rather than "Sheila has got the gun, she has gone crazy, come quickly". In any event Jeremy was released from custody after he gave the response about the call from his father, where he mentions and points out these possibilities...

And if the silencer was not used to kill Sheila, well that makes a big difference, as well...

[Gillian]

Could I ask what will happen if the CCRC do not refer to the Court of Appeal?  Will that be the end of this particular process until if and when new evidence comes to light to submit once again to the CCRC?

Thanks in anticipation. 

[mertol22]

Im sure other members will have a better answer than me Gillian but if that was the result  jeremy would be back at square one with it all to do again, but this next time he would have to go even further than before and without legal assistance thats going to be very difficult.

[grahameb]

Could I ask what will happen if the CCRC do not refer to the Court of Appeal?  Will that be the end of this particular process until if and when new evidence comes to light to submit once again to the CCRC?

Thanks in anticipation. 

Not sure? But I think ngb said his legal team could challenge their decision in some way?

[ngb1066]

Could I ask what will happen if the CCRC do not refer to the Court of Appeal?  Will that be the end of this particular process until if and when new evidence comes to light to submit once again to the CCRC?

Thanks in anticipation. 

If the CCRC do not refer the case Jeremy could either challenge that decision by making an application to the High Court for Judicial Review, or he could start all over again with a fresh application to the CCRC.

[grahameb]

If the CCRC do not refer the case Jeremy could either challenge that decision by making an application to the High Court for Judicial Review, or he could start all over again with a fresh application to the CCRC.

If that was so then if I were Jeremy I would just give up and join the local badminton team.