... It is not hearsay that Ann Eaton was told by a police officer where Sheila's body was found...
Well actually that's exactly what it is.
You can't trace any supporting corroborating evidence, in fact police officers witness statements contradict Ann's notes.
Your opinion that the body was found on the bed is indeed possible, but this is not the evidence which proves it.
... CCRC have made a fundamental / elimentary mistake, by choosing to rely on the suggestion that these edited witness statements, are more reliable than the photographs - in view of the fact that the original unedited versions, may contain the very same evidence, to prove and establish, the exact opposite. It would be a traversty of justice, and bring the criminal justice system into disrepute, if the CCRC don't fully review this matter, in my opinion. A defendant, or appellant, is fully entitled to have sight of any original document, photograph, negative, and so my point would be this, how can it be lawful and legitimate, for the CCRC to rely on these police statements, without first of all having had sight of the original, or the original?
I don't think so Mike. I'm pretty sure the way it works is that you need to find some evidence to warrant being awarded leave to appeal. The absolute fact is that this evidence either hasn't been found, or doesn't exist, depending on which side of the fence you want to lean.
You have no idea what is contained within these so called withheld files, and it is therefore beyond comprehension that you can use them to infer guilt or innocence.
I've asked you a few times now but haven't had any response (probably got lost in amongst other posts), what efforts has JB's legal team gone to in order to obtain these files?
If so much weight is being given to them potentially containing the smoking gun which would lead to proving JB's innocence, then why on earth are his team messing around with all these little tidbits of speculative evidence which doesn't even stand up to the scrutiny of lay people on these boards. Surely they should be spending every waking second to attempting to obtain these files?
I'm trying to be as open minded as I can.
... I have a copy of a DPP memo, which clearly states that 'everything' has to be disclosed, except for the witness statement of, Mrs Mary Mugford - which was deceptive and misleading, because Essex police, and the DPP, between them, went on to deliberately withhold thousands and thousands of documents, most of which had been gathered when police believed Sheilb had killed herself - most of this withheld material, could have gone a very long way, toward helping to convince the jury, but for the police and DPP, deception...
Unless I'm being a bit thick (which is highly possible), you don't appear to have answered my question.
Okay, just for my benefit, lets take this one piece at a time.
1. You have a memo from the DPP stating the requirement for full disclosure of evidence. Who is the recipient of this memo, Essex Police I assume? When was this dated 1991?
2. Essex Police have given full disclosure of all evidence contained in the file relating to the charge of five murders, thus fulfilling the requirements of the memo from DPP.
3. What they have not disclosed (rightly or wrongly) is anything contained in the file relating to what they consider to be a different case of four murders and a suicide.
4. You have no idea what is contained in the file relating to the four murders and a suicide, yet you keep referring to it as potentially containing a smoking gun piece of evidence which would result in proving the innocence of JB.
5. What has been done by JB's team to release the files relating to the four murders and a suicide case?
6. Refer to my previous post above.
I'm pretty sure the way it works is that you need to find some evidence to warrant being awarded leave to appeal. The absolute fact is that this evidence either hasn't been found, or doesn't exist, depending on which side of the fence you want to lean.
-------------------------------------------------
Steps have already been taken to get control of the missing documents as far as I am aware, so I hope that answers your query on that point?
I would now like to take the opportunity to set the record straight about the misuse of these two files, SC/688/85 and SC/786/85, by the police, DPP and the criminal Justice system, in general...
The trial Judge, Mr Justice Drake, summed up Jeremy's trial when he spoke to the jury in his summing up speech, where he reminded them, that there was no suggestion that any as yet unidentified third party was or could have been responsible for killing everyone, and that the jury had to decide if, Sheila killed the others, and then herself, of ii Jeremy killed everyone...
This is what the trial was all about - was it Sheila, or Jeremy?
It was therefore inappropriate, and totally unfair for the police, and the prosecution (DPP), to select parts of the first case (SC/688/85), which the DPP edited, and retyped, for inclusion into the second file (SC/786/85), and then deny the defendant and his legal team, and the court which tried Bamber for these offences, any opportunity to see the other parts of the evidence contained in the original file, that might show or support the fact that Sheila took her own life in the bedroom?
In order for Jeremy Bamber to have received a fair trial, it was necessary, to provide access to him, and his legal team, before he even set foot inside any courthouse, so that he could extract from the original file, anything which might tend to prove or show Sheila's culpability...
The jury had to decide whether Sheila killed herself after killing the others, or if Jeremy killed everyone?
I do not see how there can have been anything fair about his trial if the police and the DPP took anything or everything they could lay their hands upon from the original file, (SC/688/85) and re-hashed it, so that they could put it into the new file, (SC/786/85), then seek to ban Bamber and his legal team, and the jury from seeing all the other material which had been obtained during the original investigation, which tended to prove and show that Sheila was responsible...
You cannot allow one party to take something from the original file (SC/688/85) and include it in the new file (SC/786/85) and then seek to block any attempt that the defendant and his legal team, may want to get their hands on all the material which would tend to establish Bambers innocence to these allegations, by claiming that Bamber was not entitled to see any of it, because that was a different case altogether?
What a load of nonsense...
The deaths of these five people was common to both cases, (SC/688/85 and SC/786/85) and where their bodies were found, how many times they were shot, which guns were used to kill each and everyone of them, How the different silencers came to be in the possession of the police, who moved the bodies, why there were 581 photographs in the SC/688/85 file, yet only 223 in the new file, SC/786/85, on and on the list of features which are common to both files, etc...
Fact is, that Jeremy Bamber did not receive a fair trial because the police and the DPP adopted these tactics to prevent the jury hearing about any evidence which the police gathered as part of SC/688/85 to prove beyond a shadow of doubt, that Sheila Caffell took her own life in the bedroom, at whf...
The police used information at the opening of the inquest into these five deaths, on 14th August 1985, that Jeremy Bamber was on trial for, from the original file (SC/688/85), and they convinced the deputy Coroner Mr Thompkin, to accept that Sheila killed the others and that she then took her own life, and as a result of this information being imparted from the original file (SC/688/85) the bodies of the five victims were authorized for release...
Police and DPP conspired to pervert the course of justice by adopting these tactics in my opinion, resulting in the jury being denied access to information, material and evidence which the police gathered during the early part of the investigation, under SC/688/85, which the jury were entitled to hear considering that they were there on the pretense of trying to decide if Sheila killed the others and then herself, or if Jeremy killed everyone...
Read the judges summing up, Drake puts the case to the jury on the basis that there could only be two possible outcomes, (1) Sheila killed herself, or (2) Jeremy did?
If the court was denied all this evidence contained in the original file (SC/688/85) that tended to show or prove that Sheila took her own life in the bedroom...
In view of all this - please explain to me how Jeremy Bamber got a fair trial?
He did not get a fair trial at all, it was akin to a kangaroo court, where the police and the DPP, conspired together with its witnesses to pervert the course of justice, by claiming the jury made a just decision based upon all the available evidence, but the Truth is that all the crucial evidence that tended to prove or show Sheila's culpability was denied to the court, and to Jeremy...
Everyone is entitled o receive a fair trial, and to know the case alleged against them, and to have access to all the information available so that he / she can prepare a proper defense...
Bambers convictions are not safe, and he did not get a fair trial, if anything he got an unfair trial...
