submit questions for the Essex Police Challenge

[susan]

Hello Scipio  just say for the sake of debate if it was proven that Bamber had an unfair trial would this mean a new trial or walking free or stay where he is.

[scipio_usmc]

Hello Scipio  just say for the sake of debate if it was proven that Bamber had an unfair trial would this mean a new trial or walking free or stay where he is.

The state is allowed to retry him if it so chooses.  He got a fair trial though, there is no way for him to prove otherwise all his attempts to argue he didn't get a fair trail went up in smoke.  Those Jeremy supporters here who say he didn't get a fair trial are unable to articulate actual legal issues that constitute an unfair trial and just keep repeating claims already rejected by the Courts.

If Police lie and/or fake evidence to a substantial enough degree the Judges will simply declare someone innocent and not even allow the government to retry the case.  More often though it simply results in the conviction being vacated and the government being free to retry the case except without the evidence that was established to have been false.  The state usually won't retry cases like that though because the jury is not going to have confidence in the evidence that remains. The defense will be claiming the remaining evidence can't be trusted and might be tainted as well. 

 

[susan]

Scipio thanks for that.  May I ask if somebody can prove that EP did not tell the truth and that the evidence submitted was suspect what would happen? I appreciate your thoughts.

[scipio_usmc]

Scipio thanks for that.  May I ask if somebody can prove that EP did not tell the truth and that the evidence submitted was suspect what would happen? I appreciate your thoughts.

It depends on what it is. If it is something minor it will not have any impact.  If it relates to evidence presented in court It has to be something that could have resulted in the jurors voting another way. If it wasn't in court it has to be significant enough to have prevented the defense from realizing they had a viable inquiry line that they didn't pursue because of the misconduct.

They tried making the latter argument with respect ot the Bible.  They argued the police failed to disclose the page numbers that had blood on them and that had the defense known which pages had blood they could have tried arguing the Bible was open to said pages and such Bible passages constituted a suicide note.  The Court noted they could have inspected the Bible if they so chose to, they didn't have to rely upon police to tell them which pages had blood that was their own duty to investigate such.  The Court also suggested the defense didn't argue the bible for strategic reasons suggesting the Bible's location was staged and thus it would have helped the prosecution to discuss it.  Moreover the Court found the passages in question inconclusive and didn't see any way of establishing the passages in question were a suicide note.   

So you have to establish not only that stuff was improperly held which prevented the defense from making a viable argument but that if such argument had been made at trial the verdict could have been different.

[susan]

Scipio thanks for that I understand better now and would think he will never get another trial if anything of significance did transpire I guess his conviction would be quashed.

[scipio_usmc]

Oh,I don't think so.

But you have no ability to defend your opinion with anything substantial.  In any event what you choose to believe doesn't matter.  What the jury believed and what the Court of Appeal judges believed is what matters.  Your denials don't amount to a hill of beans you can't go to a Court and state you refuse to believe Jeremy framed his sister, you need to present a very well constructed argument to judges to establish the jury had no basis to find as they did.  That effort already failed decades ago.   

[scipio_usmc]

Scipio thanks for that I understand better now and would think he will never get another trial if anything of significance did transpire I guess his conviction would be quashed.

Even if it were not quashed and they permitted a retrial the state would not bother. They probably could not even get Julie to testify again. Jeremy's lawyers know this that is why they tried everything including the kitchen sink the last time around but it still was not enough. They exhausted their best arguments already.  Unless something substantial happens like someone admitting to substantial misconduct there is no genuine chance of Jeremy being released.

[lookout]

Susan,in the Eddie Gilfoyle case,as far as most are concerned,the man remains guilty. Eddie was released in December 2010 after it was found that police hadn't submitted his late wife's diaries in which they'd contained evidence of a couple of attempted suicides,these had been held back from the defence when he was sentenced. ( among other things )
Upon production of the said diaries,it still took 2 years to release Eddie,and even now,he's remained in limbo instead of his sentence having been quashed,so technically he's " still a guilty man " until such times as the police admit their many anomalies that were found in sentencing and charging him with the murder of his late wife.(  even the rope on which she hanged herself " went missing !" )

This was one terrible case,badly investigated and still on-going insofar as him being pardoned for wrongful imprisonment.

[lookout]

I suppose it was easier for the police just to let Eddie free and say nothing. It's how it looks to me,and to " be glad of his freedom ",though it's not the point so far as Eddie's concerned. This is his 5th year of release and still nothing in the way of an apology.

[susan]

Lookout thanks for that story I did not really know too much about his case.  What a dreadful state of affairs  he has been released but still a guilty man that does not sound right to me.  I guess if you come across a corrupt cop you have no chance but the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 and others fought against the system.Has Eddie got family who can help him try and clear his name.

[scipio_usmc]

Lookout thanks for that story I did not really know too much about his case.  What a dreadful state of affairs  he has been released but still a guilty man that does not sound right to me.  I guess if you come across a corrupt cop you have no chance but the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 and others fought against the system.Has Eddie got family who can help him try and clear his name.

She means guilty in the eyes of many who know him or have heard of him.  He was guilty in the eyes of many who knew him before he was tried.  If he wasn't tried or was acquitted such people would still have harbored the same feelings they do now after his conviction being tossed.

[susan]

Scipio guess it would be the same for Jeremy Bamber if his conviction was quashed he would have no quality of life because he would still be seen as a guilty man.

[lookout]

Eddie's sister is brilliant with him. Isn't it ironic that his sister's brother-in-law is a police sergeant ? In the past,she made a note of all the anomalies that were made during her brother's arrest and to the time he'd been charged. There were pages and pages of it. Also the pathologist came in for some stick too as they work with the police. I don't think a time of death was recorded either. There were all sorts of cover-ups and it made for uncomfortable reading. Even a handwritten suicide note ( written,and proved to have been done by Eddie's late wife ) wasn't enough to stop him from going to prison.
Eddie had alibis too because he was at work. That wasn't enough for Merseyside Police either. He isn't a free man despite his release as his name has never been cleared.

David Jessel ( former commissioner at the CCRC ) has written about the unfair justice system. At present the Justice Committee in Parliament is currently looking into the work of the CCRC.

[scipio_usmc]

Scipio guess it would be the same for Jeremy Bamber if his conviction was quashed he would have no quality of life because he would still be seen as a guilty man.

If he were freed now it would have to be because of evidence that was doctored. That kind of thing would help support his innocence.  It would not simply be a reversal because of some procedural error.  So a lot of people would view him as innocent.  The chance of someone coming forward to establish they helped plant evidence though is a million to 1.

[lookout]

She means guilty in the eyes of many who know him or have heard of him.  He was guilty in the eyes of many who knew him before he was tried.  If he wasn't tried or was acquitted such people would still have harbored the same feelings they do now after his conviction being tossed.

For God's sake,give it a bloody rest will you. I happen to have known the couple in a professional capacity and I actually saw the deceased a week beforehand. Eddie worked for the NHS the same as I did. I also knew that he was at work when the tragedy occurred.