The Arizona tests:

[Patti]

I understand your desire to defend the tests and New York report  since you were working as part of the defence at the time or shortly before the tests were carried out. But a strong "suggestion" is just an expert opinion - and most experts have different opinions.

The ITV documentary didn't  feel clear, didn't feel finished or convincing. 

CCRC rejected - JR found the CCRC acted lawfully in their decision.  I think that says it all about the tests, opinons and not conclusions.

Hi Mat


I think you might be getting mixed up a little here, if I might say so., The ITV documentary that you saw here was done by MWT and the scientist was Philip Boyce.  The tests in Arazona we have not seen the conclusions of that test.

The ITV documentary demonstrated that in his opinion the marks on NB'S back were done without the silencer on, but this test needed further testing because the end of the muzzle on the rifle did not get hot enough to make cause the burn wounds on his back and further tests would be needed.

Philip then examined the wounds on Sheila and compared them with and without the silencer and it was his opinion that the wounds were done without the silencer on.

He also went on to say that a child could use the rifle because it was light and the recoil was so small.

I would like to see the Arozona results. I do believe they were part of the last submission to the CCRC....
Maybe NGB would confirm this. 

[ngb1066]

You'd think that this would be happening, if the tests were begining to prove the kind of things they are made out to have been you'd think they would now be being completed.

I agree that ideally the additional tests should have been completed and further reports prepared.  There are also other areas where expert evidence could and should be obtained.  However, the situation is not simple and there are serious financial implications. 

[mike tesko]

Jeremy was never questioned in any police interview about use of a silencer in the shootings, and Julie Mugford never suggested that a silencer played any role whatsoever in a variety of different scenarios she may have invenred to help the prodecutinf aurhofities convict Jeremy as the killer...

[ngb1066]

Hi Mat


I think you might be getting mixed up a little here, if I might say so., The ITV documentary that you saw here was done by MWT and the scientist was Philip Boyce.  The tests in Arazona we have not seen the conclusions of that test.

The ITV documentary demonstrated that in his opinion the marks on NB'S back were done without the silencer on, but this test needed further testing because the end of the muzzle on the rifle did not get hot enough to make cause the burn wounds on his back and further tests would be needed.

Philip then examined the wounds on Sheila and compared them with and without the silencer and it was his opinion that the wounds were done without the silencer on.

He also went on to say that a child could use the rifle because it was light and the recoil was so small.

I would like to see the Arozona results. I do believe they were part of the last submission to the CCRC....
Maybe NGB would confirm this. 

Yes they were Patti.

 

[Neil]

The CCRC were very flexible with the Bamber case and gave him extensions.

That's why I found it surprising that they suddenly set a deadline, when they were well aware that tests were well underway and seemingly, nearing a conclusion.  Unless they were of the opinion that the results of the American tests would be irrelevant, whatever they concluded. 

[ngb1066]

The CCRC were very flexible with the Bamber case and gave him extensions.

They did give extensions but after Simon McKay took over he had a real battle to get a further extension and when he finally persuaded them to give further time they gave very little.  Simon did his best but it was impossible to get everything finished.

[guest154]

Hi Mat


I think you might be getting mixed up a little here, if I might say so., The ITV documentary that you saw here was done by MWT and the scientist was Philip Boyce.  The tests in Arazona we have not seen the conclusions of that test.

The ITV documentary demonstrated that in his opinion the marks on NB'S back were done without the silencer on, but this test needed further testing because the end of the muzzle on the rifle did not get hot enough to make cause the burn wounds on his back and further tests would be needed.

Philip then examined the wounds on Sheila and compared them with and without the silencer and it was his opinion that the wounds were done without the silencer on.

He also went on to say that a child could use the rifle because it was light and the recoil was so small.

I would like to see the Arozona results. I do believe they were part of the last submission to the CCRC....
Maybe NGB would confirm this. 

Hi Patti - not confused. Adam's posts talks about the Arizona tests and the ITV documentary. Arizona tests were part of the submissions Patti. I'm certainly not confused.

I agree that ideally the additional tests should have been completed and further reports prepared.  There are also other areas where expert evidence could and should be obtained.  However, the situation is not simple and there are serious financial implications. 

Then why aren't the Bamber supporters fundraising? If these tests were the golden goose I doubt Bamber would put them on the back burner and go off in a different direction.

That's why I found it surprising that they suddenly set a deadline, when they were well aware that tests were well underway and seemingly, nearing a conclusion.  Unless they were of the opinion that the results of the American tests would be irrelevant, whatever they concluded. 

There was a deadline that was pushed further and further back - a stop had to come at some point.

They did give extensions but after Simon McKay took over he had a real battle to get a further extension and when he finally persuaded them to give further time they gave very little.  Simon did his best but it was impossible to get everything finished.

I see that as a Bamber problem. Not a CCRC problem.

[ngb1066]

That's why I found it surprising that they suddenly set a deadline, when they were well aware that tests were well underway and seemingly, nearing a conclusion.  Unless they were of the opinion that the results of the American tests would be irrelevant, whatever they concluded.

My own opinion is that the CCRC were generally hostile towards Jeremy Bamber.  They wanted to get the case out of the way and were predisposed to reject the application.

[Neil]

My own opinion is that the CCRC were generally hostile towards Jeremy Bamber.  They wanted to get the case out of the way and were predisposed to reject the application.

Is this a figment of my imagination, or did I hear a CCRC spokesperson say, on the morning the decision was announced, that this was "the end of the road" for Bamber? If so, that sounds like quite an extraordinary thing to say. 

[ngb1066]

Is this a figment of my imagination, or did I hear a CCRC spokesperson say, on the morning the decision was announced, that this was "the end of the road" for Bamber? If so, that sounds like quite an extraordinary thing to say.

I don't remember that being said, but it certainly reflects their view I believe.

[Neil]

They did give extensions but after Simon McKay took over he had a real battle to get a further extension and when he finally persuaded them to give further time they gave very little.  Simon did his best but it was impossible to get everything finished.

Did Simon McKay have a 'difficult' relationship with the CCRC ?  Could this have influenced their decision to give such little extra time, or is it all far more professionally and ethically run, than that?

[Patti]

Hi Patti - not confused. Adam's posts talks about the Arizona tests and the ITV documentary. Arizona tests were part of the submissions Patti. I'm certainly not confused.

I never mentioned the word confused Mat. I thought you might be connecting the two test together and not separately. For both are different, that's all....

Then why aren't the Bamber supporters fundraising? If these tests were the golden goose I doubt Bamber would put them on the back burner and go off in a different direction.


There was a deadline that was pushed further and further back - a stop had to come at some point.

I see that as a Bamber problem. Not a CCRC problem.

[ngb1066]

Did Simon McKay have a 'difficult' relationship with the CCRC ?  Could this have influenced their decision to give such little extra time, or is it all far more professionally and ethically run, than that?

I do not believe there was any personal animosity between the CCRC and Simon McKay before he took on this case.  Relations certainly became a bit fractious later.  I think the animosity and resultant awkward attitude of the CCRC towards requests for more time was directed at Jeremy Bamber himself, not his legal team.

[ngb1066]

Then why aren't the Bamber supporters fundraising? If these tests were the golden goose I doubt Bamber would put them on the back burner and go off in a different direction.

How do you know they are not?

There was a deadline that was pushed further and further back - a stop had to come at some point.

Why?

I see that as a Bamber problem. Not a CCRC problem.

It was an unnecessary problem for Jeremy Bamber, caused by the CCRC.

[guest154]

Confused/mixed up - same thing, Patti? 

As for NGB.
Are you saying the tests are being further carried out? A couple of posts ago you said that you agree they should be. With what you posted the other day about the attempt to show the wounds on Sheila were without silencer you'd think that Jeremy apparent lack of funding couldn't fund those tests and further the previous ones from the last CCRC rejection.

As for a deadline, it has to come at some point. It can't just be allowed to drag on for years and years can it? Are you saying the CCRC should take on cases but have no deadline for the defence in which they need to submit their findings?