The proposed purchase of a Porsche by the appellant

[Patti]

Ground 11 – the proposed purchase of a Porsche by the appellant

This ground was abandoned before the hearing and nothing further need be said about it.

Why was this ground abandoned? Did it show that the police were not telling the truth when they said that Jeremy told them he would be able to buy a new Porsche with his bonus from the caravan site?

Was it that they had found evidence to support that it was Jeremy who was telling the truth about the Porsche being a kit car...and his words had been twisted.

There is a document from the suppliers of the kit car that confirms that Jeremy had indeed made enquiries about the Porsche kit car......Is this the reason it was abandoned?

Was it because the police got it wrong and Jeremy was telling the truth about what was said that night?

[scipio_usmc]

Ground 11 – the proposed purchase of a Porsche by the appellant

This ground was abandoned before the hearing and nothing further need be said about it.

Why was this ground abandoned? Did it show that the police were not telling the truth when they said that Jeremy told them he would be able to buy a new Porsche with his bonus from the caravan site?

Was it that they had found evidence to support that it was Jeremy who was telling the truth about the Porsche being a kit car...and his words had been twisted.

There is a document from the suppliers of the kit car that confirms that Jeremy had indeed made enquiries about the Porsche kit car......Is this the reason it was abandoned?

Was it because the police got it wrong and Jeremy was telling the truth about what was said that night?

It was abandoned because it was obviously a totally worthless argument.

The court didn't bother to detial what the allegation was so unless Jeremy's defense releases the argument they revoked we can't determine exactly why they figured out it was worthless and decided to abandon it.

It could have been as stupid as claiming police mislead the jury by saying he was going to buy a Porsche when it was just a kit car.  Such would be worthless because aside from not being new, the defense had the ability at trial to correct the record if they wanted to by asking police if he mentioned it was a kit car or by asking Jeremy himself to clarify while he was on the stand.  If you don't take advantage of such opportunities then it is your tough luck. 

 

[Patti]

It was abandoned because it was obviously a totally worthless argument.

The court didn't bother to detial what the allegation was so unless Jeremy's defense releases the argument they revoked we can't determine exactly why they figured out it was worthless and decided to abandon it.

It could have been as stupid as claiming police mislead the jury by saying he was going to buy a Porsche when it was just a kit car.  Such would be worthless because aside from not being new, the defense had the ability at trial to correct the record if they wanted to by asking police if he mentioned it was a kit car or by asking Jeremy himself to clarify while he was on the stand.  If you don't take advantage of such opportunities then it is your tough luck. 

 

But in court the officer claimed/and in his statement that Jeremy had told him it was a Porsche and not a kit car. Thus, meaning that the officer in question was trying to mislead a jury it was a clear attempt of  showing Jeremy up in bad way.  Its a good job that there was proof that it was a kit car, was it not?

Do you not see that the officer in question was determined to show Bamber up in front of the jury as being a greedy, rich young man who had killed his parents and had intended to buy a Porsche as part of the proceeds of this crime. The officer had clearly not told the full truth. He had twisted what Bamber had told him and tried to relate this in court. 

[lookout]

The police ARE known to exaggerate whatever the case may be about. It's a recognised thing within the force !!
Is it over-zealousness,or something more sinister ? ( if they can get away with it )

[Mr. Gee]

It was abandoned because it was obviously a totally worthless argument.

The court didn't bother to detial what the allegation was so unless Jeremy's defense releases the argument they revoked we can't determine exactly why they figured out it was worthless and decided to abandon it.

It could have been as stupid as claiming police mislead the jury by saying he was going to buy a Porsche when it was just a kit car.  Such would be worthless because aside from not being new, the defense had the ability at trial to correct the record if they wanted to by asking police if he mentioned it was a kit car or by asking Jeremy himself to clarify while he was on the stand.  If you don't take advantage of such opportunities then it is your tough luck. 

 

That may have been so. But that hasn't stopped Jeremys enemies to keep on about him boasting that he was going to buy a Porche. In fact they continue to this day to use this to constantly vilifi him as being a greedy man. Perhaps you had better tell THEM that it is irrelevent. This is the kind of thing I don't like about the guilters. They are constantly bringing up things that have been rejected by either the court or the police in order to make Bamber to be a totally depraved character. Where's your adherance to the truth when it comes to this kind of vilification?

[scipio_usmc]

But in court the officer claimed/and in his statement that Jeremy had told him it was a Porsche and not a kit car. Thus, meaning that the officer in question was trying to mislead a jury it was a clear attempt of  showing Jeremy up in bad way.  Its a good job that there was proof that it was a kit car, was it not?

Do you not see that the officer in question was determined to show Bamber up in front of the jury as being a greedy, rich young man who had killed his parents and had intended to buy a Porsche as part of the proceeds of this crime. The officer had clearly not told the full truth. He had twisted what Bamber had told him and tried to relate this in court. 

1) Jeremy might not have mentioned a kit or the police might not have understood he meant a kit. Proving they intentionally lied about it would thus be next to impossible.

2) even if police intentionally omitted the kit discussion in an effort to decieve that is not the basis for a new trial anyway since the defense had the ability to ask Jeremy what he meant and what he said and to clarify the situation if desired.

If you fail to make an argument at trial you lose it and can't make it on appeal.  he exception to tha trule is if you there is new evidence available that was not available at trial which you could not have reasonably been aware of. How could they argue Jeremy wasn't aware he knew he meant a kit car and thus could have told such to the jury?

There is nothing meritorious that could be argued about the Porsche.  I'm curious to know what the defense alleged and abandoned just to see how pathetic the claim was.

 

[nugnug]

The police ARE known to exaggerate whatever the case may be about. It's a recognised thing within the force !!
Is it over-zealousness,or something more sinister ? ( if they can get away with it )

they dont just exgrate they tell damm right lies the uncoberated word of policam means nothing really.

[Jan]

1) Jeremy might not have mentioned a kit or the police might not have understood he meant a kit. Proving they intentionally lied about it would thus be next to impossible.

2) even if police intentionally omitted the kit discussion in an effort to decieve that is not the basis for a new trial anyway since the defense had the ability to ask Jeremy what he meant and what he said and to clarify the situation if desired.

If you fail to make an argument at trial you lose it and can't make it on appeal.  he exception to tha trule is if you there is new evidence available that was not available at trial which you could not have reasonably been aware of. How could they argue Jeremy wasn't aware he knew he meant a kit car and thus could have told such to the jury?

There is nothing meritorious that could be argued about the Porsche.  I'm curious to know what the defense alleged and abandoned just to see how pathetic the claim was.

No but to pinch your favourite analogy - its is part of the "bigger picture"  the police trying to accuse him of spending his inheritance before he had got it.

[nugnug]

1) Jeremy might not have mentioned a kit or the police might not have understood he meant a kit. Proving they intentionally lied about it would thus be next to impossible.

2) even if police intentionally omitted the kit discussion in an effort to decieve that is not the basis for a new trial anyway since the defense had the ability to ask Jeremy what he meant and what he said and to clarify the situation if desired.

If you fail to make an argument at trial you lose it and can't make it on appeal.  he exception to tha trule is if you there is new evidence available that was not available at trial which you could not have reasonably been aware of. How could they argue Jeremy wasn't aware he knew he meant a kit car and thus could have told such to the jury?

There is nothing meritorious that could be argued about the Porsche.  I'm curious to know what the defense alleged and abandoned just to see how pathetic the claim was.

on its own its not the basis of new trial but put together with other things it could weather the defence had a chance to bring or not does not matter imcompetence is grounds for appeal if he can prove this was significant and the defence should of brought it up.

[scipio_usmc]

No but to pinch your favourite analogy - its is part of the "bigger picture"  the police trying to accuse him of spending his inheritance before he had got it.

The jury got to decide the bigger picture.  The jury herd how instea dof being worried about his family he lied to police about Sheila firing all wepons in the house and lied about calling police before calling Julie and was talking to police about how he was going to get a Porshe instead of expressing concern for his family and running up to the house to try to go in.

While the jury can certainly wonder whether he was expressing how he was planning to spend the money he was about to receive as a result of the murders the more damaging aspect is the lack of concern for his family and the lies he told.

As a defense lawyer I would be much more worried about that aspect and trying to find a way to explain away his lies to police and the overall lack of concern.  Of course how do you do that?  If he really received the call claimed he should have rushed over right away or dialed 999 instantly and should have been pressuring the police to go in or trying to go take a look for himself.  He didn't even put in the effort to try to force police to restarin him and stop him from going in for his own protection.  Perhaps he feared they would not stop him otherwise he didn't think to do that. 

The defense ultimately dealt with some of these issues in an odd way.  Jeremy on one hand still insisted he dialed police before Julie but claimed at first he was not worried and didn't that only after thinking about it for some time did he relaize the situation was urgent and that he had better call police.  This is the explanation for why he didn't go there right away and the delay in calling police.  He claimed Nevill phoned him at 3:10 and clearly he didn't phone police until 3:23 or so thus there was more than a 10 minute gap and looking in a phone book for numbers doesn't explain that away.  So he came up with the was not worried at first routine.

He didn't really provide an explanation for his lies to police, calmly talking about cars and not trying to go inside through a window (like he admitted he could do) to check up on them. 

I think he made matters worse with the crap about not being worried at first because the jury knew he called Julie first in spite of his lies to the contrary and that made the call to her make even less sense than it already did.

The Porsche statement was part of a much larger problem.

In any event, if the defense was worried about the jury thinking Jeremy was telling them how he planned to spend the money he was to inherit from the murders the defense could have had Jeremy stress he was talking about a kit car and to discuss the cost of such kit. I have not seen all of Jeremy's testimony but what I have seen didn't do such and I doubt such was done because the appeal court would have likely mentioned it.  The defense failing to do so and leaving the impression that it was a real Porsche unrebutted is not a basis to appeal the verdict.

[nugnug]

dident the police that they made small talk with jeremy to keep him calm.

[Alias]

dident the police that they made small talk with jeremy to keep him calm.

They did say that, yes.

[nugnug]

so that really explians it then.

[scipio_usmc]

so that really explians it then.

only to someone who chooses to ignore that someone in Jeremy's place who actually received the clal claimed would not have chit chatted about cars but rather would have tried to go inside or demanded police do so.  Of course the same people ignore countless other pieces of evidenc eproving Jeremy's guilt though they can't explain any rational reaosn for doing so...

[maggie]

dident the police that they made small talk with jeremy to keep him calm.

They certainly did, whatever was said at that time was general conversation. Whether Jeremy Bamber is guilty or innocent the constant scrutiny and misrepresentation of every word he said is pathetic IMO and proves nothing. Anyway how stupid do some believe the man is? IF he had just carried out such a horrendous crime in such cold blood he must be a person lacking all emotion, why then would he be so careless as to implicate himself by speaking of plans to buy a car costing many thousands of pounds and way out of his league? It simply doesn't make sense.