Whose Bloodied right hand palm print was left on pages of bible?

[ngb1066]

It may? If there were proof that Hammersley's statements are complete fiction and Bird, Davison and (I think) Cook had lied in theirs surely that would be a definite.

I was simply being accurate.  It is not my decision what is included in the next submissions so I am unable to be definite. 

 

[Bridget]

I was simply being accurate.  It is not my decision what is included in the next submissions so I am unable to be definite.

Ok, I'll put it another way, as a lawyer, can you think of any reason why you would not use strong evidence that a police officer giving evidence on what was an important part of the case against your client, had completely fabricated it with the support of other officers including his superiors?

[jim ignatowski]

Ok, I'll put it another way, as a lawyer, can you think of any reason why you would not use strong evidence that a police officer giving evidence on what was an important part of the case against your client, had completely fabricated it with the support of other officers including his superiors?

Hi ngb
can you please (with the particularity with which the crown will be met at trial) set out the evidence in support of the contention that hammersley was not present at whf?
jim

[ngb1066]

Ok, I'll put it another way, as a lawyer, can you think of any reason why you would not use strong evidence that a police officer giving evidence on what was an important part of the case against your client, had completely fabricated it with the support of other officers including his superiors?

This is a difficult question to answer.  You have to remember that the evidence given about what was found at the scene was not challenged by the defence at trial.  The fact that a police officer was involved in an overtime fiddle and lied in connection with that is potentially very serious for the police officer concerned, but it does not go directly to any key issue in the case. It damages the credibilty of the police officer concerned and any others involved, but since their evidence was not challenged their credibility was not in fact an issue at trial.  This is something I would try to include in grounds of appeal if I could find a way to do it as it is generally indicative of a lack of honesty on the part of some prosecution witnesses, but I doubt whether the Court of Appeal would regard it as a genuine ground of appeal in itself.

   

[ngb1066]

Hi ngb
can you please (with the particularity with which the crown will be met at trial) set out the evidence in support of the contention that hammersley was not present at whf?
jim

I am not saying he was never at WHF but he was not there at a time when he claimed he had been.  He admitted it to COLP.

[Bridget]

I am not saying he was never at WHF but he was not there at a time when he claimed he had been.  He admitted it to COLP.

Maybe this is where my confusion has arisen, are you saying that he was at WHF on the 7th of August, but not necessarily for all of the time he claimed to be?

[ngb1066]

Maybe this is where my confusion has arisen, are you saying that he was at WHF on the 7th of August, but not necessarily for all of the time he claimed to be?

I am saying that he may have been at WHF at some stage on 7th August (although I am not entirely sure about that) but he was certainly not there for all the time he claimed to be and he did not take all of the actions he claimed to have taken in his witness statement.

 

[Bridget]

I am saying that he may have been at WHF at some stage on 7th August (although I am not entirely sure about that) but he was certainly not there for all the time he claimed to be and he did not take all of the actions he claimed to have taken in his witness statement.

 

Did he bag Sheila's hands?

[ngb1066]

Did he bag Sheila's hands?

I do not know.

[Bridget]

I do not know.

Fair enough. What does he say he did that he didn't do then?

[Caroline R]

It may? If there were proof that Hammersley's statements are complete fiction and Bird, Davison and (I think) Cook had lied in theirs surely that would be a definite.

I would think it will be but also appreciate that 'definitives' cannot be bandied about willy nilly on an internet forum.

[Caroline R]

Fair enough. What does he say he did that he didn't do then?

Perhaps you should just wait and see.

[lookout]

Anyone else would be charged with obstruction and thrown into prison,,for falsifying notes during a trial such at it was. Good grief.

[Bridget]

Perhaps you should just wait and see.

Well I would, except that..

This is a difficult question to answer.  You have to remember that the evidence given about what was found at the scene was not challenged by the defence at trial.  The fact that a police officer was involved in an overtime fiddle and lied in connection with that is potentially very serious for the police officer concerned, but it does not go directly to any key issue in the case. It damages the credibilty of the police officer concerned and any others involved, but since their evidence was not challenged their credibility was not in fact an issue at trial.  This is something I would try to include in grounds of appeal if I could find a way to do it as it is generally indicative of a lack of honesty on the part of some prosecution witnesses, but I doubt whether the Court of Appeal would regard it as a genuine ground of appeal in itself.

   

..the part in red appears to indicate that the only dishonesty involved was in relation to fiddling his overtime, and that the evidence Hammersley gave otherwise is not in issue, so I think it's a legitimate question to ask.

[ngb1066]

Fair enough. What does he say he did that he didn't do then?

I understand that you want me to post all I know about this but I have gone as far as I feel able to go at this stage.  Frankly I would be inclined to publish everything because I do not believe it would do any harm to the prospects of securing a further appeal.  However, others take a different view.