Beyond reasonable doubt.

[grahameb]

The trouble is, lawyers put their own respectable position first. Sollecito’s lawyers apparently advised him to return to Italy. Well, I suppose you would expect lawyers to advise their client to turn up. But look where it’s got him!

Bamber’s defence have allowed the CCRC to get away with rejecting scientific evidence without giving an explanation. In fact, by not disclosing the response to a submission they have helped cover up it's lack of logic. A few hints here and there does not allow an expert to comment. The guilters can always just say  "But you haven't seen it!" The effect is that the scientific community is being kept out of the case.

Saying that photographic evidence is unreliable is just bunkum. That wasn’t the opinion of the pathologists themselves.

To accuse them of misconduct is just not the way lawyers who anticipate future employment are likely to operate. What I suggest is that a group of Bamber's supporters prepare the script of such a documentary with people on this forum making suggestions as to what they would like to see put in it. Certain facts stand out

You can prove actual innocence.

Pathologists and ballistics experts invited to take part would unequivocally support the view that photographs of the victims prove certain things:

1 That Sheila’s time of death was hours later than that of the other victims, giving Jeremy a solid alibi.

2 That the silencer was not on the rifle when Sheila was shot

3 That Nevill Bamber’s body must have already been in rigor mortis when his head was put in the coal bucket, implying that he must have died hours before.

There are certain things which can be proven or virtually proven such as

1 That Julie Mugford got the description of Sheila on the bed with the bible on her chest from Ann Eaton and not from Jeremy. Who but a halfwit would believe that it was just a coincidence that Jeremy made up the same description when telling the story
of Matthew McDonald’s involvement? 

2 That the silencer evidence was deliberately faked as corroboration in support of Julie Mugford’s testimony.

3 That two bodies were found on entry

4 That Nevill Bamber phoned the police

I’m pretty sure that, otherwise, a “respectable” documentary made in the future would not include most of those things.

Treat the case as a historical subject.

Let the specialists have their say on television as they would on some other subject like Scott’s expedition to the Antarctic .

What I suggest is a Timewatch style documentary where experts give their professional opinion on the evidence and the CCRC are frankly accused of judicial misconduct for rejecting evidence without giving an explanation worthy of the name.

Bamber’s lawyers will never make such an accusation and will probably oppose the idea saying that it will only be counter productive, making the CCRC even less sympathetic to Jeremy. They would say that a more professional approach is required, one which has proven in the past to be completely ineffective.

My advice is to stick with american experts who don’t know much about the case and who are impartial and who can’t be got at.

People who hear them come to conclusions which rule out Jeremy as a suspect will tell others. Word gets around.

Here’s an example of what I think is required.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wNSdqys9Tc



There can be a big gulf between professional opinion and popular opinion, but it’s not all that difficult to get the scientific view across to the general public. If people get to know that the pathologists view rules out Jeremy, some of them will believe it.

Not everyone is stupid.

In fact that is what happened at the first appeal. They ruled that the police testimonies were the greater evidence than the photos. So in fact they say one thing one day and another thing another day. Our appeal system is a sham and a lie. A lie because of the effect their decisions have on the public mind. Joe public has such blind faith in these numpties that they believe every word they say, even if they are wrong.

[maggie]

Great post Martin. Grabbing the imagination of the publicbl is so important imo. The stablishment always works within itself and it grinds slowly.

[bigdaveglasgow75]

hooray i just got my passport through this morning.but back to the case how of what you are all saying can be proven like time of death.of sheila being hours after the rest.im not saying there are not indescrepincies.i beleive he never got a fair trial.and with hinssight wich we never had then.he would be found innocent.but hes guilty.how do you get a retrial.

[maggie]

In fact that is what happened at the first appeal. They ruled that the police testimonies were the greater evidence than the photos. So in fact they say one thing one day and another thing another day. Our appeal system is a sham and a lie. A lie because of the effect their decisions have on the public mind. Joe public has such blind faith in these numpties that they believe every word they say, even if they are wrong.

Hi Grahame, it's hard to believe that such rulings are acceptable and that no one within the system speaks up against it.

[Adam]

There needs to be a defence based rough justice style documentary which allows some room for the prosecution argument and for prosecution witness / police commentary that is evidence related as opposed to opinion related.   What would happen is that the police would struggle to answer such points, possibly refuse to comment.  The docu would then allow the public to form an opinion on the lack of response from the police, which is likely to be negative / sceptical towards the police.  There is absolutely no way the relatives would cooperate in answering difficult evidence related questions.  They would more likely attempt to prevent the programme from happening, which would and should be interpreted as an indicator of collusion with the police stance.

Personally I believe that Jeremy's higher profile supporters should cut to the chase and publicly suggest that the silencer is a deliberately fabricated exhibit as opposed to an accidentially contaminated exhibit.

What difficult questions would the relatives have ?

The keys were given to them three days after the massacre by the police. The silencer was found while BW & Basil Cock were in the house. It was handed to Stan Jones before the 14th August. What happened afterwards is nothing to do with them.

[Adam]

I agree Roch, think Jeremy needs someone to take the fight to the public but who would be willing to do it?

He has Mike & a team managing his OS, accusing everyone connected to the case of lying.

[nugnug]

well you can do that when you have proof beyound doubt that they were lying.

[Caroline]

The trouble is, lawyers put their own respectable position first. Sollecito’s lawyers apparently advised him to return to Italy. Well, I suppose you would expect lawyers to advise their client to turn up. But look where it’s got him!

Bamber’s defence have allowed the CCRC to get away with rejecting scientific evidence without giving an explanation. In fact, by not disclosing the response to a submission they have helped cover up it's lack of logic. A few hints here and there does not allow an expert to comment. The guilters can always just say  "But you haven't seen it!" The effect is that the scientific community is being kept out of the case.

Saying that photographic evidence is unreliable is just bunkum. That wasn’t the opinion of the pathologists themselves.

To accuse them of misconduct is just not the way lawyers who anticipate future employment are likely to operate. What I suggest is that a group of Bamber's supporters prepare the script of such a documentary with people on this forum making suggestions as to what they would like to see put in it. Certain facts stand out

You can prove actual innocence.

Pathologists and ballistics experts invited to take part would unequivocally support the view that photographs of the victims prove certain things:

1 That Sheila’s time of death was hours later than that of the other victims, giving Jeremy a solid alibi.

2 That the silencer was not on the rifle when Sheila was shot

3 That Nevill Bamber’s body must have already been in rigor mortis when his head was put in the coal bucket, implying that he must have died hours before.

There are certain things which can be proven or virtually proven such as

1 That Julie Mugford got the description of Sheila on the bed with the bible on her chest from Ann Eaton and not from Jeremy. Who but a halfwit would believe that it was just a coincidence that Jeremy made up the same description when telling the story
of Matthew McDonald’s involvement? 

2 That the silencer evidence was deliberately faked as corroboration in support of Julie Mugford’s testimony.

3 That two bodies were found on entry

4 That Nevill Bamber phoned the police

I’m pretty sure that, otherwise, a “respectable” documentary made in the future would not include most of those things.

Treat the case as a historical subject.

Let the specialists have their say on television as they would on some other subject like Scott’s expedition to the Antarctic .

What I suggest is a Timewatch style documentary where experts give their professional opinion on the evidence and the CCRC are frankly accused of judicial misconduct for rejecting evidence without giving an explanation worthy of the name.

Bamber’s lawyers will never make such an accusation and will probably oppose the idea saying that it will only be counter productive, making the CCRC even less sympathetic to Jeremy. They would say that a more professional approach is required, one which has proven in the past to be completely ineffective.

My advice is to stick with american experts who don’t know much about the case and who are impartial and who can’t be got at.

People who hear them come to conclusions which rule out Jeremy as a suspect will tell others. Word gets around.

Here’s an example of what I think is required.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wNSdqys9Tc



There can be a big gulf between professional opinion and popular opinion, but it’s not all that difficult to get the scientific view across to the general public. If people get to know that the pathologists view rules out Jeremy, some of them will believe it.

Not everyone is stupid.

Really well thought out post Martin (as always)!! However, are there enough people in the scientific community who have doubts about his conviction or who would be willing to go on record and challenge the evidence? I think the idea in principle is a good one but; I'm not convinced the program makers are that interested in Jeremy as a victim and they would need to buy into that concept - at the end of the day, their only concern is ratings. If Jeremy doesn't attract wide public sympathy and the consensus is that he's guilty anyway, who will want to make such a program? You could try pitching your idea and see if anyone is interested?

[Caroline]

What difficult questions would the relatives have ?

The keys were given to them three days after the massacre by the police. The silencer was gound while BW & Basil Cock were in the house. It was handed to Stan Jones before the 14th August. What happened afterwards is nothing to do with them.

Yeah 

[Adam]

If you have no faith in due process to rectify a wrong, what's the merit in holding back to cross the t's and dot the i's of due process? 

The silencer is a bogus exhibit and anyone with case knowledge and any common sense / lack of bias should be able to see that. 

Now ask your selves this....   

In a case with withheld police logs that describe displacement of bodies; outright lies in prosecution witness statements, never disclosed audio logs, crossed out exhibit labels; withheld bloodied palm prints and bible, handwritten pathology notes that contradict the typed report and prosecution's case; attempts to interfere in defence media projects; police pocket books with altered dates... and a star prosecution witness first arrested then given immunity from prosecution and portrayed as a voluntary witness...

HOW LIKELY IS IT THAT THE SILENCER WAS CONTAMINATED BY ACCIDENT? 

Due process will never free Bamber in a million years.  So why use a due process mindset when attempting to free Bamber?

The courts, COA & CCRC will have had evidence that the public have not seen. Both for & against Jeremy. Result, 29 years & counting.

How could the silencer be contamined with Sheila's or a combination of June & Nevilles blood ?

[Adam]

Thanks, April. It will be interesting to see what ideas people have. Incidentally, I'm not really finding fault with the lawyers. What I am saying is that you can't really expect lawyers to do otherwise.  If evidence is rejected at Appeal it can't be used again, so the lawyers can only try to find something else. But a historian need not bother with that consideration.

I think Bamber needs to go straight to the public via the scientific community. The legal position is never the last word.

Interesting that evidence rejected at an appeal cannot be used again.

Have always thought the latest silencer serial number article was weak. Must find better proof of innocence.

[Caroline]

The courts, COA & CCRC will have had evidence that the public have not seen. Both for & against Jeremy. Result, 29 years & counting.

How could the silencer be contamined with Sheila's or a combination of June & Nevilles blood ?

The blood was only of Sheila's TYPE the SAME TYPE and RWB!! However, the crime labs in 1985 were NOT independent and if 'someone' wanted to make sure there was 'solid evidence' to convict someone they could easily have done so. It certainly wouldn't have been the first time!!

[maggie]

What difficult questions would the relatives have ?

The keys were given to them three days after the massacre by the police. The silencer was found while BW & Basil Cock were in the house. It was handed to Stan Jones before the 14th August. What happened afterwards is nothing to do with them.

Your thinking is so simplistic it's unbelievable. You cannot be for real.

[Adam]

hooray i just got my passport through this morning.but back to the case how of what you are all saying can be proven like time of death.of sheila being hours after the rest.im not saying there are not indescrepincies.i beleive he never got a fair trial.and with hinssight wich we never had then.he would be found innocent.but hes guilty.how do you get a retrial.

Fair trial. It was 19 days. The police had to get the case through the DPP who would have asked questions.

Jeremy testified for 8 hours. The defence were highly paid & at the top of their field. The judge was a respected high court judge. Anything the prosecution or defence request, must be supplied.

[Caroline]

Interesting that evidence rejected at an appeal cannot be used again.

Have always thought the latest silencer serial number article was weak. Must find better proof of innocence.

Errr, if it could be proven that serial numbers didn't match and this evidence had not previously been presented before, then it could be used. Just because the word 'silencer' has been mentioned before, doesn't mean that it can't be used again!!