Photograph of Shiela on the bed

[Kaldin]

I don't honestly think you live in the real world, sometimes with some of the comments you keep coming out with - something is a fact if it is documented in witness statements, or police radio messages, or lab' documents, or any other document, linked to the police investigation, into these five deaths - it does not only become a fact, if and when it suits your purpose...

Details contained in witness statements, police radio message logs, and other records, are (unfortunately for you) facts, upon which arguments can and may be based, in law...

Each side, in any legal proceedings is entitled to rely upon any fact, in existence, contained in such material, outlined...

So, there is absolutely no basis or foundation to the arguments you appear to be putting forward...

I'm not the one claiming there was a massive stitch up involving a lot of police officers, several relatives, a doctor, and an ex girlfriend.. I'm not the one claiming that Robert Boutflour blackmailed the police. I'm not the one claiming that a rug was moved just because there's a photo of one on June's side of the bed. I'm not the one claiming that David Boutflour found a silencer in the garage when it's clear he might not have meant that.

I don't think you have any grounds for saying that I'm not in the real world.

David Boutflour said in statements that he found the silencer in the gun cupboard in August, so according to your logic, that is a fact, and yet you say it's not a fact.

Dr Craig made a statement to say that the blood on Sheila's face was dried, and yet you say that's not a fact.

I don't think I need to give any more examples.

You need to make up your mind what a "fact" consists of.

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

Your examples, only serve to highlight why one party to these proceedings are saying one thing, whilst the other party may be saying something completely the opposite...

Each Party relies or relates, or refers to facts that support their argument. It does not mean that either party has to agree to a fact, which is relied upon by the other party, just because it exists and is referred to in a witness statement, police radio message, or crime scene picture...

When you and others keep saying that there is no evidence to support the things I have been saying, or you imply that what I am saying is speculation, or just a theory, your opinion may not be true, particularly if some evidence is recorded in some witness statement, police radio message log or crime scene photograph, to support the views I hold...

Information contained in such material is open to interpretation...

in my opinion...

I suppose it's not so much that the evidence isn't there, it's the interpretation of that evidence which is the issue. For example, you are convinced that Malcolm Bonnet's log means that Nevill called the police, but to me it does no such thing. I didn't start off being cynical about that log you know. When I read in the paper that a phone call from Nevill had occurred, I was very interested, and it was only on detailed inspection of the document that I realised that the log didn't state that.

Another example is you saying that David Boutflour found a silencer in the garage. You posted the document in question and once again, I interpreted it differently - or at least I decided that it didn't necessarily state that he found a silencer in the garage.

Another one is you stating that June was on her stomach because she had white bits on her legs. I've looked at the photo and to me it just doesn't show that.

Re this "re-enactment" (a word I dislike), you haven't produced any evidence for reasons which I respect. Of course, that doesn't mean there isn't any, but considering the way you have interpreted the evidence which you have produced, I'm a bit sceptical unless I see that evidence for myself.

Does that make sense?

[TheBrilliantMistake]

And, you hear this "police were in communication with someone inside the house"...

then go on to discover the wonderful 'no response received'  which adds a hugely different angle to it and puts the first line in context.

It's the same with the log... call from Nevill, daughter's got a hold of my gun etc.... only to see the additional text "call received from son"

Now I can see that some can believe the 'call received from son' part was a secondary event, but let US be the judge of that... rather than conveniently leave it out of the details.

[Janet (Formerly known as Takeshi)]

Can I just ask, is everything contained in a document, memo, police log, statement or photograph necessarily a fact?

I don't think that it is safe to say that it is. Otherwise a lie could then be called a fact and that cannot be possible.

Can it? 

[Roch]

And, you hear this "police were in communication with someone inside the house"...

then go on to discover the wonderful 'no response received'  which adds a hugely different angle to it and puts the first line in context.

It's the same with the log... call from Nevill, daughter's got a hold of my gun etc.... only to see the additional text "call received from son"

Now I can see that some can believe the 'call received from son' part was a secondary event, but let US be the judge of that... rather than conveniently leave it out of the details.

Has anybody dug up anything regarding the long delay leading up to TFU breaking in to the premises? Hasn't it been alleged by JB that a loud hailer was used for two hours?  That's a lot of none reposnses 

[mike tesko]

Can I just ask, is everything contained in a document, memo, police log, statement or photograph necessarily a fact?

I don't think that it is safe to say that it is. Otherwise a lie could then be called a fact and that cannot be possible.

Can it? 

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

My take on this, is that if such information is contained in these documents, or photographs, etc... they can be treated as fact, but it may well be that they end up being interpreted, as true facts, or as the case may be misleading facts...

[Jackiepreece]

A couple of things I would like information on.  I read somewhere on here that after Jeremy's conviction certain evidence was destroyed even though someone was pacifically told not to destroy evidence as Jeremy was always going to appeal.  Is that true and what items were destroyed.  If that happened as a member of the public I cannot see any excuse for this.

Another matter is Mike says he has seen a photo of Sheila on a bed there is no reason for me to believe Mike to be a liar.  Ann Eaton also mentions Sheila being on a bed.  If there are photos of Sheila on a bed what could or should the ccrc do regarding this

[Reader]

The English language is not up for redefinition here! By definition, a fact is a truth. It's therefore pointless to use the phrase "true facts", as all facts are true by definition. For much the same reason, there are no misleading facts, just misleading presentations of facts, and statements that are misleading because they are not true, or are true but so difficult to understand that they are easily misunderstood.

Of course, most statements that are used in evidence are not known to be true, and are therefore not facts.  When it can be shown that a statement is extremely likely to be true, it may be reasonable to "take it as a fact", i.e., assume that it is true.

It's therefore not a good idea to keep referring to particular assertions as facts when you know that we don't have enough information to conclude that they are extremely likely to be true, even if you do have enough information to enable you to make such a conclusion.

[mike tesko]

Newspaper articles mentioning where bodies of Victims were found by police

Note that in some instances, the body of Sheila Caffell was reported to have been found on the bed (along with June Bamber)...

Sun:- 8th August 1985 - "Mrs Bamber spread eagled across bed in master bedroom"...

Evening Echo:- 10th September 1985 - "Mrs Bamber spread eagled across her bed. Sheila next to her shot through her head under chin"...

The Star:- 11th September 1985 - "Sheila and Mrs Bamber slumped together in main bedroom"...

Maldon & Burnham Standard:- 12th September 1985 - " Mrs Bamber and Sheila in bedroom with gun lying between them"...

Evening Echo:- 18th September 1985 - Mrs Bamber found on a bed in an upstairs room with bloodstained handmarks on her body showing she was moved"...

[TheBrilliantMistake]

The English language is not up for redefinition here! By definition, a fact is a truth. It's therefore pointless to use the phrase "true facts", as all facts are true by definition. For much the same reason, there are no misleading facts, just misleading presentations of facts, and statements that are misleading because they are not true, or are true but so difficult to understand that they are easily misunderstood.

Of course, most statements that are used in evidence are not known to be true, and are therefore not facts.  When it can be shown that a statement is extremely likely to be true, it may be reasonable to "take it as a fact", i.e., assume that it is true.

It's therefore not a good idea to keep referring to particular assertions as facts when you know that we don't have enough information to conclude that they are extremely likely to be true, even if you do have enough information to enable you to make such a conclusion.

Absolutely true ;-)

Not wanting to get in a philosphical debate about fact either, but sometimes a 'fact' is a perception based on overwhelming evidence to support the perception at the time.

So it's a fact that the speed of light is constant - until the discover that it changes (which it does).
So knew evidence can change 'fact'.

Of course it's a paradox, because then we know the original fact was no such thing, and the new 'fact' is true.

The fact is dead, long live the fact eh?

[mike tesko]

The English language is not up for redefinition here! By definition, a fact is a truth. It's therefore pointless to use the phrase "true facts", as all facts are true by definition. For much the same reason, there are no misleading facts, just misleading presentations of facts, and statements that are misleading because they are not true, or are true but so difficult to understand that they are easily misunderstood.

Of course, most statements that are used in evidence are not known to be true, and are therefore not facts.  When it can be shown that a statement is extremely likely to be true, it may be reasonable to "take it as a fact", i.e., assume that it is true.

It's therefore not a good idea to keep referring to particular assertions as facts when you know that we don't have enough information to conclude that they are extremely likely to be true, even if you do have enough information to enable you to make such a conclusion.

Absolutely true ;-)

Not wanting to get in a philosphical debate about fact either, but sometimes a 'fact' is a perception based on overwhelming evidence to support the perception at the time.

So it's a fact that the speed of light is constant - until the discover that it changes (which it does).
So knew evidence can change 'fact'.

Of course it's a paradox, because then we know the original fact was no such thing, and the new 'fact' is true.

The fact is dead, long live the fact eh?

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

If some fact is recorded by a witness, as part of this investigation, someone is entitled to rely upon it, in any argument they might wish to put forward...

unless that person who provides the information / evidence, was not / is not,  connected in any way to the investigation...

In my opinion...

[Reader]

. . . sometimes a 'fact' is a perception based on overwhelming evidence to support the perception at the time.

Such perceptions are not facts, but we take minor liberties with our use of English when overwhelming evidence is available. In contrast, mike tesko has been taking liberties with the language when overwhelming evidence is not available to us, and even in cases where such evidence isn't available to him either.

If some fact is recorded by a witness, as part of this investigation, someone is entitled to rely upon it, in any argument they might wish to put forward...

Some of the evidence recorded by witnesses in this case has been highly questionable, especially the more detailed aspects of it. This isn't necessarily because the witnesses were lying or being intentionally deceptive; they may simply have been careless, or have recorded events in a way that seemed reasonable to them at the time, but now seems unclear to us. Hence you should not rely on the recorded evidence in any argument you wish to put forward without carefully considering its accuracy and completeness.

[mike tesko]

. . . sometimes a 'fact' is a perception based on overwhelming evidence to support the perception at the time.

Such perceptions are not facts, but we take minor liberties with our use of English when overwhelming evidence is available. In contrast, mike tesko has been taking liberties with the language when overwhelming evidence is not available to us, and even in cases where such evidence isn't available to him either.

If some fact is recorded by a witness, as part of this investigation, someone is entitled to rely upon it, in any argument they might wish to put forward...

Some of the evidence recorded by witnesses in this case has been highly questionable, especially the more detailed aspects of it. This isn't necessarily because the witnesses were lying or being intentionally deceptive; they may simply have been careless, or have recorded events in a way that seemed reasonable to them at the time, but now seems unclear to us. Hence you should not rely on the recorded evidence in any argument you wish to put forward without carefully considering its accuracy and completeness.

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

In law, information contained in documents, such as witness statements, reports, logs and photographs, can be considered to be evidence...

in my opinion...

[mb1]

Just catching up as haven't been here for a while - some new threads, but much looks familiar... Nice to see some names I know, but also hear some new voices!

Please may we return to the photograph of Sheila on the bed?
Cannot see any PII, DPA or FIA reason to refuse disclosure of this image or negative of same.

On what date was Essex Police given a specific request to disclose any image/negative of the bed in the main bedroom?
Where is the evidence of EP's refusal to disclose?

On the subject of 'evidence' and 'fact' all trials are based on an argument drawn from evidential interpretations and conclusions. Of course the prosecution is biased! It is their job to highlight evidence supporting conviction of the appellant and find opposing arguments for contra-evidence. Ditto the defence. They are biased in favour of their client. Counsel advises, the client instructs. Counsel cannot enter into unsubstantiated speculation, but they cannot ignore their client's wishes either.

Weight must also be applied to evidence. Newspaper headlines, AE's (revise?) diary, RB's homophobic ramblings... These are hearsay and cannot be afforded the same credence as the pathologist's report or ballistics tests etc.
Even if they were accepted as evidence, their contradictions render them worthless. AE says Sheila was on the bed, must be true; so if she also infers JB is guilty of the crimes, is this also true?  If the news headline reads 'New Evidence' says Bambi murderer are both parts of that sentence true? The subjective analysis would be endless.

Over the last 25 years JB's PR has made repeated claims of stunning new evidence that evaporates like dew once subject to the rigor of Court. There has not been a single piece of evidence that
     i) Is substantive and not disclosed at the original trial and could lead to the jury having reached alternative conclusions
     ii) Is a fresh scientific analysis using advanced techniques agreed by field peers, leading to a re-interpretation of or considerably stronger support for/against evidence put to the jury
     iii) Proves anyone committed perjury.
If the CCRC was in possession of any material within the above remit it would have granted leave to Appeal. The notion that JB's team are 'holding back' their real evidence is utterly nonsensical... in my opinion...

Can anyone provide reference to the context in which EP used the term 'informatives'? Did this include the teams searching the area around WHF (who found the tampered-with bullet in the barn) or those knocking on the doors of nearby cottages?

     
 

[Dr Pal]

Where are these photos??

[mb1]

Below is the Bar Council guidance on pii as applied to material/information supplied with an apparent 'confidentiality' clause. Ewen Smith and the defence team not only could but should have disclosed the photograph's existence to JB.

If
the photograph exists or existed on a determined date and
if
EP have withheld disclosure of the image or associated catalogue documents
then this would demonstrate deliberate obstruction to the detriment of JB.
Wouldn't Mike Tesko and Ewen Smith have provided signed testimonies detailing their understanding of the image seen?
Ewen Smith had no obligation to client secrecy under pii. Surely his 'memory' would be deemed as valid as that of police officers?

 
Bar Council guidance:
Public Interest Immunity (PII) Hearings and Disclosure

The Professional Standards Committee (now the Standards Committee) has issued advice on the appropriate conduct for barristers acting in cases where they are invited to consider material on the basis that they undertake not to disclose it to their defendant client.   The PSC consulted the Criminal Bar Association and the Circuits on this point.

The PSC noted first that neither the law nor the Code of Conduct recognised any concept of "counsel to counsel" confidentiality and that when told something on this basis which would be to his client's advantage, counsel should inform his client and use it.

Failure to disclose material to a client could cause serious difficulties including an inability to take the lay client's instructions on the material, almost impossible difficulties in deciding how to conduct the defence in the client's best interests and generally a risk that disparity could develop in the practice of disclosure between counsel.

These disadvantages appeared to override any very rare advantages that might result of such a practice.  The Professional Standards Committee therefore considers that counsel should not agree to proceed on this basis and support the direction in the Attorney General's guidelines that the practice of counsel to counsel disclosure should cease:  it is inconsistent with the requirement of transparency in the prosecution process.