submit questions for the Essex Police Challenge

[susan]

Scipio if it was proven that the silencer was doctored and not used in the murders would Jeremy Bamber walk?

[ngb1066]

Scipio if it was proven that the silencer was doctored and not used in the murders would Jeremy Bamber walk?

Yes, without a doubt.

[susan]

Hello ngb  thanks for that

[petey]

Yes, without a doubt.

With respect, I disagree.

It depends on the interpretation of 'doctored'

Personally, I don't think that jb would automatically walk free if it was proved that the silencer wasn't used in the killings. 

[scipio_usmc]

Scipio if it was proven that the silencer was doctored and not used in the murders would Jeremy Bamber walk?

Yes because the effort required to accomplish such doctoring of evidence would be so great it would cast doubt on other things like the staged ammunition found in the kitchen.  It could be alleged police lied about how many bullets were found in the kitchen and lied about where they found the bullet that grazed Nevill and lied about the 4 spent casings tied to Nevill's initial 4 shots.  Even if the photos are shown which demonstrate where they were found it will be alleged these photos were taken later not on the day of the murders.  The lab would have to have been involved in planting the blood it could not be pulled off without them so that would permit the defense to claim they lab the lab doctored the results of the GSR tests etc.

The government would not retry a case under such conditions even if permitted to do so.

[scipio_usmc]

With respect, I disagree.

It depends on the interpretation of 'doctored'

Personally, I don't think that jb would automatically walk free if it was proved that the silencer wasn't used in the killings.

The only way that the moderator wasn't used is if lab personnel, various police and extended family of the victims all were involved in a conspiracy.  The only way to prove this would be some of the people who took part in the conspiracy admitting to it.  If that were the case there would be no way a prosecutor would retry the case.  With the exception of Julie's claims all evidence was in some way tied to what the lab and police developed so would be attacked by the defense as unreliable. They would also suggest that since others lied she can't be trusted either. So even if she were willing to testify again the government would not bother.

[ngb1066]

With respect, I disagree.

It depends on the interpretation of 'doctored'

Personally, I don't think that jb would automatically walk free if it was proved that the silencer wasn't used in the killings.

I am confident that he would Petey.  The silencer evidence was one of the two central planks of the prosecution case, and was undoubtedly the most important issue in the case.  If this is discredited the Court of Appeal would be bound to conclude that the convistion is unsafe.  There is no way they could say that this was not something which influenced the jury.

[ngb1066]

Yes because the effort required to accomplish such doctoring of evidence would be so great it would cast doubt on other things like the staged ammunition found in the kitchen.  It could be alleged police lied about how many bullets were found in the kitchen and lied about where they found the bullet that grazed Nevill and lied about the 4 spent casings tied to Nevill's initial 4 shots.  Even if the photos are shown which demonstrate where they were found it will be alleged these photos were taken later not on the day of the murders.  The lab would have to have been involved in planting the blood it could not be pulled off without them so that would permit the defense to claim they lab the lab doctored the results of the GSR tests etc.

The government would not retry a case under such conditions even if permitted to do so.

I agree.

[petey]

I am confident that he would Petey.  The silencer evidence was one of the two central planks of the prosecution case, and was undoubtedly the most important issue in the case.  If this is discredited the Court of Appeal would be bound to conclude that the convistion is unsafe.  There is no way they could say that this was not something which influenced the jury.

I respect your reasoning and I fully agree that legally that would be the correct outcome.

However, IF this ever did come about, I remain sceptical that jb will ever be released. Or maybe I am placing too much emphasis on Denning's words!

[ngb1066]

I respect your reasoning and I fully agree that legally that would be the correct outcome.

However, IF this ever did come about, I remain sceptical that jb will ever be released. Or maybe I am placing too much emphasis on Denning's words!

I remember Lord Denning's words in the Birmingham 6 civil action very well.  Although admired by many for his bold approach to judge made extensions of the law (such as the High Trees case) in reality he was a deeply reactionary judge, whose pronouncements both in court and outside as he got older became increasingly embarrassing.  The Birmigham 6 example was particularly bad.

 

[scipio_usmc]

I respect your reasoning and I fully agree that legally that would be the correct outcome.

However, IF this ever did come about, I remain sceptical that jb will ever be released. Or maybe I am placing too much emphasis on Denning's words!

Let's just pretend that there were a way to negate the moderator evidence in a manner that didn't implicate any misconduct having occurred. The COA would still have to vacate the conviction and put the decision in the hands of the government to decide whether to retry him because there is no way to honestly suggest that the moderator evidence could not have significantly impacted how the jury voted.  Only if it could not have had a serious impact on their finding him guilty could the conviction still stand.

The way they deal with the concerns you are thinking about is to require solid proof that negates the moderator instead of just the speculation the defense has engaged in to date.  If the defense can meet the high standard required to negate the moderator evidence the COA would vacate the conviction and toss the ball to prosecutors to decide whether they want to retry it or not.

 

[David1819]

The tests in 1999 were simply tests for the presence of blood no blood was detected because the lab already removed all visible blood in 1985 and in 1986 defense expert Lincoln removed all microscopic traces of blood that had been left behind by the lab. The DNA tests done in 2000 found Sheila's DNA, June's DNA and most likely the DNA of at least one of the twins.  In addition  there were up to 10 minor DNA contributors.  There was DNA of at least 4 people and could have been as many as 15.  How does non-blood based DNA get in a moderator?  Through contamination of course.  LCN testing is so sensitive that there are very specific protocols in place with respect to evidence collection, processing the evidence and evidence handling and storage afterwards in case retesting is needed.  None of these protocols existed in 1985.  Lincoln could have deposited DNA of every victim in there while he was processing it and the lab could as well.  These were tiny DNA samples easily spread.  Nevill could have contaminated it when he took it apart.  The jurors could have contaminated the list is long.  If the DNA had been blood based that would be different because contaminating the moderator with blood by accident is not something that the lab would have been able to do, nor could the jury have done that. 

That still would not clear up whose DNA was removed in 1985 by the lab and 1986 by Lincoln only DNA testing the blood they removed could answer that.

Scip why make up such nonsense? That is the third time this week you have made blatantly false claims about the moderator. If you want to convince people of Jeremy's guilt making stuff up is not going to do you any favours

[David1819]

Scipio if it was proven that the silencer was doctored and not used in the murders would Jeremy Bamber walk?

I would think so yes. However there is so much at stake

1. How much compensation will they have to pay him?
2. Wont his cousins be in danger if he is let loose?

[Jan]

question 2 - none. I don't think there is any way he would want to put back in Jail.

compensation. Not automatic as has been shown with other cases recently .

[lookout]

I would think so yes. However there is so much at stake

1. How much compensation will they have to pay him?
2. Wont his cousins be in danger if he is let loose?

It would be Jeremy who'd be in danger.Nobody else.