Gentle reminder - you have to ask a specific question/for specific evidence.
'Just give me all the documents and photos' will always be refused.
No response can also mean no evidence found (to specific question) although nil response is more common. i.e. no hits.
So it is basically down to JB's legal team to ask the right questions in order to get the right answers.
Do you think JB's legal team are doing a good job in following this concept?
Think I've said this elsewhere.
If you ask the question, get a response you don't like, can you continually say it's a lie, you know it, but you can prove it?
or
If you don't ask the question, you can maintain the conjecture that supports your theory.
They have asked questions, and material has been disclosed from the original file.
Apologies, but I am not quite getting this.
I am referring to JB's legal team handling of the new appeal case with the CCRC.
JB' legal team put together a paper to present to the CCRC requesting an appeal based on "new evidence".
The first point (above) about the fragmented bullet was available at trial and is therefore not new evidence and has therefore been discounted by the CCRC in this appeal attempt - surely JBs legal team should have known this.
All the other points made by JB's legal team have also effectively been rejected albeit on different grounds.
Are JB's legal team asking the right questions in order to obtain the right material to put together a strong appeal case (not evidenced so far) and do you think JB's legal team are doing a good job on behalf of JB?
The problem, as you or someone else has pointed out, is that we have not seen the full submission, but I assume we are being given the 'headline' points. I will defend the team and say it would be unprofessional to release the submission at this stage.
Speculating as much as anyone else, to me it appears:
I'm led to believe that is argued whether the bullet was ever fragmented, and that the xrays show a bullet and displaced tissue. All available since the original trial.
You cannot 'not' argue certain points at a trial, to keep them in the bag for an appeal. Can you imagine the games that would be played forever more?
The photographs aren't fixed points. No-one set up a tripod, recorded images and 9am, went away, checked the tripos and camera angle hadn't been shifted etc, then took further images. Therefore, the photos can't be treated like static CCTV images. Stand over an object and photograph it, moving stance by mms and the end results are very different, yet the object has not been moved, just the photographer. Have seen this done, and the CCRC could duplicate this in an afternoon. They have gone back to, and relied upon, the court testimony. Evidence would be needed to prove the individual officers were lying. Evidence not accusation. It appears no evidence is forthcoming.
The contemporaneous material - diaries etc. Can't see these being admissable in a court. It is dangerous for the defence to claim these are ''truthful" documents as they say other things about JB. Accept these documents in their entirety, or not at all... But I believe they are the written equivalent of 'hearsay'.
Nail polish - it may be the same expert who counters the 'mantelpiece/silencer' evidence counters this as well. Or they are appointing another specialist to address this directly in the interim period. Sounds flaky to me.
Other headlines suggest 3 silencers become 1. I have gone over all the cataloguing Mike has posted here and cannot define a moment when this happened, even by accident (which I was willing to consider - to err is human.) I see evidence trails for 3 separate silencers. I ready to look at more - it's like a busman's holiday for me! If the accusation is a deliberate swap, they have to PROVE when, where and who.
Sutherst's evidence. Their expert says no, simple as that. So JB's team need additional experts, not further work by the same one. MORE experts saying the same thing. BUT even if the 'paint was discredited, it doesn't make the silencer disappear. That point alone doesn't appear strong enough to press for 'serious doubt' or 're-trial' circumstances.
That's my summary, for what it's worth Newbury 1.
The CCRC are a tougher audience than a jury! A trial allows for loser interpretation of evidence and facts (within limits). That was the time for theories.
I am not an expert on this case. My concern is that the 'conspiracy' theories seem to date not from the finding of evidence but when the whole life tariff was handed down. JB may have thought he had 3-5 years more to serve, but under the whole life ruling of 1983 he meets 2 different criteria. Since the home secretary reviewed the listing and included JB the appeals have begun.
Innocent, I would have been seeking leave to appeal the following day, not concentrating on suing relatives for money (although that is required to put together the very best teams).
JB's team has changed over the years. There are other defendants/cases in similar circumstances where the original team have worked tirelessly throughout, bringing in other legal experts for fresh perspectives and reviews etc. Teams that are convinced of their client's innocence rather than the chess game of legal argument.
Don't think I can say any more!
