Grounds for not referring Jeremy Bamber’s case back to the appeal court.

[Kaldin]

The document was submitted and court-stamped as evidence.

If submitting a stapled ten page document as evidence, one page would be stamped, not all ten pages or 20 sides. Yet the document in its entirety would still be evidence.

This document was available to the defence, is not new evidence and cannot be used for appeal purposes.

For those of you who think there were two phone calls - one from Neville and one from Jeremy - please consider this.

What you're basically saying is that Neville rang Chelmsford at about 3.26 and told PC West that Sheila had got hold of one of his guns. You're saying that PC West phoned that information through to Malcolm Bonnet, and Malcolm Bonnet sent a car to the scene at 3.35.

You're then saying that Jeremy called PC West at 3.36. If that happened they why didn't PC West tell Jeremy that his father had already phoned?

+1

Precisely. He would have used this information to reassure JB.

PC West would have told Jeremy that he'd already received a call about it from Neville, and he would have told him that it was being dealt with. He wouldn't have needed to keep Jeremy hanging on the phone whilst he spoke to Malcolm Bonnet either - because he would already have contacted Malcolm Bonnet.

Those who think that Malcolm Bonnet's log refers to a call from Neville are clutching at straws in my opinion.

[Pete0001]

The document was submitted and court-stamped as evidence.

If submitting a stapled ten page document as evidence, one page would be stamped, not all ten pages or 20 sides. Yet the document in its entirety would still be evidence.

This document was available to the defence, is not new evidence and cannot be used for appeal purposes.

For those of you who think there were two phone calls - one from Neville and one from Jeremy - please consider this.

What you're basically saying is that Neville rang Chelmsford at about 3.26 and told PC West that Sheila had got hold of one of his guns. You're saying that PC West phoned that information through to Malcolm Bonnet, and Malcolm Bonnet sent a car to the scene at 3.35.

You're then saying that Jeremy called PC West at 3.36. If that happened they why didn't PC West tell Jeremy that his father had already phoned?

+1

Precisely. He would have used this information to reassure JB.

PC West would have told Jeremy that he'd already received a call about it from Neville, and he would have told him that it was being dealt with. He wouldn't have needed to keep Jeremy hanging on the phone whilst he spoke to Malcolm Bonnet either - because he would already have contacted Malcolm Bonnet.

Those who think that Malcolm Bonnet's log refers to a call from Neville are clutching at straws in my opinion.

+1

Again.. very good points.

[curiousessex]

In my opinion these are very important points.

This the point in time when
(i) an alibi is created
(ii) the 'outside world' first becomes aware of there being anything wrong at White House Farm.

[Kaldin]

Is the CCRC going to make some kind of public statement about why they've refused to refer the case back to the appeal court? It would be useful to know why they didn't.

[bb2010]

Yes, I think in the interests of openness, a statement should be made. Jeremy's media team do an excellent job, but i'd like to see something from the CCRC perspective

[Hartley]

Well the CCRC have given this 89 page dossier to JB's legal team explaining their reasons, is there any legal reason why JB's legal team can't make that dossier public.

It would be nice to hear a press statement from the CCRC, but as it's only a preliminary decision I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't one until a full decision is made after the 90 day rebuff period.

[bb2010]

Well the CCRC have given this 89 page dossier to JB's legal team explaining their reasons, is there any legal reason why JB's legal team can't make that dossier public.

It would be nice to hear a press statement from the CCRC, but as it's only a preliminary decision I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't one until a full decision is made after the 90 day rebuff period.

This is an interesting point. Jeremy's team have released half a dozen bullet points already so could they release more if they chose to?

I agree though, we're unlikely to hear anything from CCRC until they make a full decision which may be 6 to 9 months away. (The 3 months takes us to May/June), the CCRC will probably take 10 or 12 weeks to look at the submissions, maybe longer.

[haughton]

Why was the fact that Sheila was bleeding fresh blood at aprox 0800 not taken  as evidence?

[mike tesko]

Why was the fact that Sheila was bleeding fresh blood at aprox 0800 not taken  as evidence?

---------------------------------------

Let us put things into perspective - police did not produce the photograph which shows fresh blood leaking and running and pouring from the wound and the corner of Sheila's mouth, at 10am...

These pictures were not included, as part of the court album, which Essex police, and the DPP, produced for the attention of the court...

Lets get the facts right, so that there can be no mistake, or misunderstanding, the court album only consisted of 50, of the 581 pictures, taken by the police, in connection with these (SC/688/85 and SC/786/85) investigations, there were 531 other pictures which the jury did not get an opportunity to see, or consider...

531 picyures that the court did not get to see, some of which showed fresh blood leaking, pouring and running, from the wound upon Sheila's neck, and the corners of her mouth. If these had been viewed, by the court they would have sent alarm bells ringing, about the claim that Sheila had died at the scene, at around 3am, that morning...

A wicked evil deception in my opinion

[mb1]

Direct quote from the findings of the 2002 Appeal:

"... a stark contrast between the allegations made on behalf od the appellant in the opening of this appeal by the full glare of media publicity, and the case that Mr Turner QC on behalf of the appellant felt able to advance when the evidence had been examined..."

Headlines over substance.

[mike tesko]

Direct quote from the findings of the 2002 Appeal:

"... a stark contrast between the allegations made on behalf od the appellant in the opening of this appeal by the full glare of media publicity, and the case that Mr Turner QC on behalf of the appellant felt able to advance when the evidence had been examined..."

Headlines over substance.

-------------------------------------------------------

I think these comments were unjustified - unjustified because a vast amount of evidence was by that stage, being withheld, and to the present date, continues to be withheld, under pii rules...

If all the crime scene pictures (581) had been disclosed to the defense, (instead of a maximum of 223), by the time of the 2002 appeal, the comments could perhaps be justified, but when you consider that over 531 pictures had not been disclosed, by that stage, it was wrong for the appellate court to refer to these grounds for justifying turning the appeal down...

In my opinion...

[mb1]

Direct quote from the findings of the 2002 Appeal:

"... a stark contrast between the allegations made on behalf od the appellant in the opening of this appeal by the full glare of media publicity, and the case that Mr Turner QC on behalf of the appellant felt able to advance when the evidence had been examined..."

Headlines over substance.

-------------------------------------------------------

I think these comments were unjustified - unjustified because a vast amount of evidence was by that stage, being withheld, and to the present date, continues to be withheld, under pii rules...

If all the crime scene pictures (581) had been disclosed to the defense, (instead of a maximum of 223), by the time of the 2002 appeal, the comments could perhaps be justified, but when you consider that over 531 pictures had not been disclosed, by that stage, it was wrong for the appellate court to refer to these grounds for justifying turning the appeal down...

In my opinion...

There was also an insistence on questioning 'government agents' which was granted.
When their evidence was given, including questions specific to the appeal, Mr Turner QC (JB's silk) did not cross-examine, even when given the opportunity to do so.
The conspiracy theory disappeared before his very learned and experienced eyes/ears.

Or is Mr Turner QC a useless barrister, in your opinion? Or turned co-conspirator?

[jon]

Direct quote from the findings of the 2002 Appeal:

"... a stark contrast between the allegations made on behalf od the appellant in the opening of this appeal by the full glare of media publicity, and the case that Mr Turner QC on behalf of the appellant felt able to advance when the evidence had been examined..."

Headlines over substance.

-------------------------------------------------------

I think these comments were unjustified - unjustified because a vast amount of evidence was by that stage, being withheld, and to the present date, continues to be withheld, under pii rules...

If all the crime scene pictures (581) had been disclosed to the defense, (instead of a maximum of 223), by the time of the 2002 appeal, the comments could perhaps be justified, but when you consider that over 531 pictures had not been disclosed, by that stage, it was wrong for the appellate court to refer to these grounds for justifying turning the appeal down...

In my opinion...

There was also an insistence on questioning 'government agents' which was granted.
When their evidence was given, including questions specific to the appeal, Mr Turner QC (JB's silk) did not cross-examine, even when given the opportunity to do so.
The conspiracy theory disappeared before his very learned and experienced eyes/ears.

Or is Mr Turner QC a useless barrister, in your opinion? Or turned co-conspirator?

What innocent explanation do you have for EP withholding these photo's ?

[mike tesko]

Direct quote from the findings of the 2002 Appeal:

"... a stark contrast between the allegations made on behalf od the appellant in the opening of this appeal by the full glare of media publicity, and the case that Mr Turner QC on behalf of the appellant felt able to advance when the evidence had been examined..."

Headlines over substance.

-------------------------------------------------------

I think these comments were unjustified - unjustified because a vast amount of evidence was by that stage, being withheld, and to the present date, continues to be withheld, under pii rules...

If all the crime scene pictures (581) had been disclosed to the defense, (instead of a maximum of 223), by the time of the 2002 appeal, the comments could perhaps be justified, but when you consider that over 531 pictures had not been disclosed, by that stage, it was wrong for the appellate court to refer to these grounds for justifying turning the appeal down...

In my opinion...

There was also an insistence on questioning 'government agents' which was granted.
When their evidence was given, including questions specific to the appeal, Mr Turner QC (JB's silk) did not cross-examine, even when given the opportunity to do so.
The conspiracy theory disappeared before his very learned and experienced eyes/ears.

Or is Mr Turner QC a useless barrister, in your opinion? Or turned co-conspirator?

What innocent explanation do you have for EP withholding these photo's ?

---------------------------------

QC's like barristers, are governed by the bar council, and have to follow strict guidelines about what they can, and cannot do, in the same way that solicitors are governed, or controllable, under threat of being reported to the law society, and the legal aid board, if they step over the mark...

A trial judge can report the aforementioned, to one or other, aforementioned bodies, with a view to getting their fees stopped, or reduced...

These features can sometimes restrict the approach of counsel who represent a defendant...

My explanation to your point would be, therefore, that MIke Turner felt, or was  restricted, in what he could or could not say, or do, because of the attitude of the Judges who were sitting in Judgement at the appeal hearing (2002)...

I remember clearly as if it were yesterday, my own appeal hearing in 1995, when I was being represented, by Michael Mansfield, QC, at the beginning of the appeal, Mr Mansfield, informed me that we were up against it, because the panel of judges who were dealing with the appeal, were pro-police, and would not entertain any suggestion, that the police were corrupt...

This is what Jeremy, and his legal team, at the time of his appeal in 2002, were up against, in my opinion...

He was unfortunate, to get such a panel of appellate judges, to sit in judgement, on his case in 2002...

[mb1]

And that is exactly what he is still up against.

Silks are probably the only 'experts' who won't be 'told'. They guide their clients, and are guided by their clients wishes. But they cannot stand in court and deliberately lie.

The barristers on both sides are interpretors. They tell 'a story' that fits the evidence.

My point is, lots of 'fresh evidence' proclaimed by JB's team actually disappeared before it came before the Appeal Court. Turner could not produce the evidence to support the argument.

Ask the right question of the file...

I once sang a song to Mike Mansfield when he was leaning out a window. He threw a flower down for me. At least, I think it was for, not at... Ah, lost youth!