How many people think Sheila was the shooter

[lookout]

My believe in his guilt rests with the facts and evidence of the case while you decided he is innocent based on your feelings.

 The supposed " facts and evidence" of the case cuts no ice with me because it's all different for a start.
There's no evidence to speak of and even the circumstantial is wrong half the time besides being flimsy and yes," gut " feelings for I know that something is wrong somewhere and that the police have got it wrong. They've chosen the easy way out.

[David1819]

They are ALL the same photographs Lookout - the one with the (so called) flowing blood is the SAME picture as the one I keep posting that shows dried cracked blood and facial discolouration. There were only ONE set of pictures but you're free to believe what you like - however, there was only ONE SET!

They are two separate photographs

PSM/SLI/SMM/BAMBER
00162/2004
28 July 2005

Criminal Cases Review Commission,
DX 715466
BIRMINGHAM 41

Dear Sirs,

Re: Jeremy BAMBER

We refer to our previous correspondence in this matter, the relevant Submissions and the new evidence that we have submitted to the Commission with a view to this matter being referred to the Court of Appeal as we consider right and proper.

We are somewhat concerned at the delay in the matter since :

the photographs that we have submitted which were not disclosed to the Defence at all, a completely different story to the way the Prosecution was founded, and

the new evidence that has been submitted including the radio logs.

This clearly shows a cavalier attitude on the part of the Crown when it came to the question of disclosure.

The matter is further compounded by the admission from the Trial Counsel, Mr. Anthony Arlidge QC, that the documents we have submitted to the Criminal Cases Review Commission were not even seen by himself prior to our forwarding him a copy.  In short, he was not aware of the documents which should have been disclosed and which were clearly hidden from the Defence for whatever reason and for the purposes of these Submissions are quite irrelevant.

You will of course be aware that the time of death of the five members of the Bamber household is of paramount importance.  We have sent to the Commission a photograph of Sheila Caffell which was not disclosed to the Defence of the scene of the crime photographs showing blood pouring from her neck.  This is a clear indication that if a photograph was taken at approximately 9 am, the time of the murder certainly could not have been before 6 to 7 am and probably somewhat later.

We know that at 7.34 am the officers entered the house.  It saddens us that we have now discovered a further Statement which, at this stage, we are not certain whether or not was actually disclosed to the Defence because of the 4 million documents that this case has attracted.

However, the Statement is from Peter Woodcock ATS 426 dated 20th September 1985 and within the Statement it says the following :-

“She had what appeared to be two bullet holes under her chin and blood leaking from both sides of her mouth down her cheeks”.

This Statement clearly is corroborative to the photographs of Sheila Caffell with blood leaking down from her neck which we have submitted to the Commission and which, at the cost of being repetitive, there was a distinct and clear failure to disclose to the Defence.

We refer to this document, namely the Statement form PC Woodcock, who as we know was the first officer to enter the house at 7.34 am.   Even if we allow a few moments for the said police officer to find the bodies, it is clear that what he saw was probably before 9 am in the morning.  If as PC Woodcock states there was “blood leaking from both sides of her mouth down her cheeks” at any time after 7.34 am, and we know that within his Statement 2 hours later, the blood was dry, the time of death or the time that the bullets went into Sheila Caffell’s neck could not have been more than 1 ½ hours, maximum 2 hours, from the moment that Mr. Woodcock saw her.

That being the case and since our client, Jeremy Bamber, was with the police from 3 am onwards and, with this evidence, the time of death being maximum 2 hours before PC Woodcock had seen such, makes the time of death approximately between 5.30 and 6.30 am.   Since our client was with the police at the time, we cannot understand now what further procrastination there can be on behalf of the Commission in referring this to the Court of Appeal.

First and foremost on the question of the appalling disclosure that this case has attracted and the manner upon which the evidence now clearly suggests that our client could not be guilty of these murders.

We therefore would be grateful if you will kindly and as a matter of urgency, let us have your views on this with the clear distinction that this is a case that properly should be referred back to the Court of Appeal.

We would remind you with respect that in the case of the Carl Bridgewater murder, a conviction was quashed purely on the basis of an undisclosed fingerprint.  Here there is more than 30%, in our view, of non disclosed documents which probably, even today, the Crown have still failed to disclose for whatever reasons.

Further, since there is now (a) the photograph of the blood of Sheila Caffell pouring from her neck and (b) what we have now found to be a corroborative Statement from Peter Woodcock APS 426 dated 20th September 1985 evidencing the state of Sheila Caffell and the timing of such, we cannot see how our client can possibly have been guilty of murder.

We look forward to hearing from you as a matter of urgency.


Yours faithfully,
PAUL MARTIN & CO.

[scipio_usmc]

They are two separate photographs

There was one set of photos taken by police. When making copies of this SINGLE SET of photos they altered the coloring and these altered photos are what some people contend shows wet blood though it is not correct.

[lookout]

Of course there are two separate photographs.I've always said this. Nobody can tell me otherwise.
There are at least 3 hours difference from when the first pic was taken.Obviously the later one would be chosen as it fits nicely into the scenario that she'd been deceased for hours rather than just one hour.

[vidvic]

Of course there are two separate photographs.I've always said this. Nobody can tell me otherwise.
There are at least 3 hours difference from when the first pic was taken.Obviously the later one would be chosen as it fits nicely into the scenario that she'd been deceased for hours rather than just one hour.

Nope. Same set. There is only one set.

[guest154]

Of course there are two separate photographs.I've always said this. Nobody can tell me otherwise.
There are at least 3 hours difference from when the first pic was taken.Obviously the later one would be chosen as it fits nicely into the scenario that she'd been deceased for hours rather than just one hour.

Post them both then? Should be a simple thing to do, since you're so sure.

[David1819]

Nope. Same set. There is only one set.

No there are more than one set of photos, I have highlighted the relevant text in red bellow

R E G I N A



V



JEREMY NEVILL BAMBER




FURTHER SUBMISSIONS TO THE CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT
CASE NO: 00162/2004







Studio Legale Internazionale,
Via Tommaso Salvini 15,
00197 Roma,
Italy
TEL +44 7766 732099
FAX +39 06 80692652
[email protected]
www.studiolegaleinternazionale.com






REF: DM/DP/GDS



     06 JUNE 2004

R. v Jeremy Nevill Bamber





These further submissions should be in conjunction with the application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission filed on the 8 March 2004 and 17 March 2004 respectively. In accordance with the instructions received from the Commission dated 10 March 2004 further information is in the form of these submissions. For the purposes of these further submissions it is necessary to recite the legislation and law in order that the Applicant is fully aware of the limitations and constraints levied upon any submissions made to the Commission.


THE LAW
The terms of reference of the Commission are set out in the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 section 13, which provides as follows :-
1. A reference of a conviction, verdict, finding or sentence shall not  be made under any of Sections 9 to 12, unless :-
(a) The Commission considers that there is a real possibility that the conviction, verdict, finding or sentence would not be upheld were the reference to be made.
(b) The Commission so consider :-
(i) in the case of a conviction, verdict or finding, because of an argument or evidence not raised in the proceedings which led to it, or on any appeal or application for leave to appeal against it, or
(ii)   in the case of a sentence, because of an argument on a point of law or information not so raised, and     
(1)   in the case of an appeal against the conviction, verdict, finding       or sentence has been determined or leave to appeal against it has been refused.
(2)   Nothing in Sub Section 1 (b)(i) or (c) would prevent the making of a reference if it appears to the Commission that there are exceptional circumstances which justify making it.

In R v Bamber [2002] EWCA Crim 2912 Lord Justice Kay delivering the approved judgement of the Court stated as follows when considering the question of fresh evidence in appellate proceedings:

“Section 23(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 requires the court to have regard to four matters in deciding whether to admit fresh evidence:
“(a)  whether the evidence appears to the Court to be capable of belief;
(b)  whether it appears to the Court that the evidence may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
(c)  whether the evidence would have been admissible in the proceedings from which the appeal lies on an issue which is the subject of the appeal; and
(d)  whether there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence in those proceedings”.
In a number of cases this court has made clear that it will not readily admit expert evidence as fresh evidence where the necessary expertise was available at the time of trial (see e.g. Lomas, 53 Cr. App. R. 256 & Jones (Steven) [1997] 1 Cr. App. R. 56).  To do otherwise would permit an appellant to shop around for an expert after conviction and upon finding one favourable to his case mount an appeal based on the views of that expert.  To allow that would subvert the trial process and generally speaking the time for advancing expert evidence is before the jury and not after conviction.” (Para 219-220)


The purpose of these submissions in part will satisfy the caveats imposed by precedent and procedure.

DISCLOSURE

We have already outlined in detail the legal submissions regarding disclosure and it is not necessary to recite such for the purposes of these submissions. We have already stated that disclosure is a matter of law regulated by procedure.

The existence of a post mortem photograph of Ralph Bamber’s right arm evidencing lacerations caused by finger nails should have been disclosed by the Prosecuting Authorities to the Applicant as part of their primary disclosure obligation pursuant to section 3(1)(a) Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 at the very least for the Appellate Procedures in 2002. It follows that the failure to do so at the original trial denied the Applicant and his then Learned Counsel vital missed opportunities at indeed advocating the proposition that the said murders were committed by a third party.

Any document which might reasonably found an application for a charge to be quashed, and/or to be stayed as amounting to an abuse of the process of the court, is a document which has a potential to “undermine the case for the prosecution against the accused”. Moreover, failure to disclose to the Applicant the existence of such document, is clearly contrary to the spirit and intendment of the Guidelines issued by the Attorney-General (whether pre- or post- the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, i.e. whether one has regard to the Guidelines issued 18th December 1981 or to the current Guidelines issued 29th November 2000).

Attached to these addendum submissions is the post mortem report on all five victims as adduced at trial and the 2002 Appeal dated 30 day of September 1985.  It is important to note the following matters within the said report:

(a) Whilst dated 30 day of September 1985 Professor Peter Vanezis carried out the post mortems on the 7 day of August 1985 commencing at 3.30pm and completing such “on the afternoon of the 8th August 1985.” It follows the said post mortems were carried out without haste and with great care and attention. All the said bodies were subject to radiography for the sake of completeness.
(b) Professor Peter Vanezis has further and readily signed the post mortem report encompassing such within a witness statement format with the caveat: “ This statement, consisting of 15 pages each signed by me, is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.”

THE POST MORTEM REPORT
 
 
The post mortem report on Ralph Neville Bamber commences on page 5 and concludes on page 9. It is important to note the observations of Professor Vanezis on page 7 : “ There was loss of skin from the palm of the right hand near the 5th digit. There was a collection of bruises, 3 of which had an approximate linear configuration, covering a distance of approximately 2” x 4” on the ulnar aspect of the right forearm.”

Lord Justice Kay in R v Bamber [2002] EWCA Crim 2912 stated as follows:

“The examination of Nevill Bamber’s body also revealed black eyes and a broken nose, linear bruising to the cheeks, lacerations to the head, linear type bruising to the right forearm, bruising to the left wrist and forearm and three circular burn type marks to the back. The linear marks were consistent with Mr Bamber having been struck with a long blunt object, possibly a gun.” (Para 42)

For the purposes of the Defence, the Crown and the Learned Trial Judge and further the Court of Appeal the evidence was that to the right forearm of Ralph Neville Bamber there existed ONLY bruising of a linear type.

In making these submissions we are fully aware this case has attracted over 4,000,000 documents and that only part of such was available to the defence. Post mortem photographs were made available to the Defence, the Trial Judge, and of course the Jury. In the 35 boxes received from Glaisyers Solicitors therein contained for the Appellate purposes were three blue photograph albums marked:

“METROPOLITAN POLICE. R v Bamber Court Bundle (7B) Photograph Album (1) Jury Bundle”
 
By inference the said album and its contents were the post mortem photographs before the Jury, the Trial Judge, the Appellate Courts and available to the defence. It must be noted the said albums contain colour photocopies of photographs and not actual photographic paper. By inference the negatives and/or actual photographs are to be found in the possession of the Prosecuting Authorities who were responsible for the Jury Bundle.

Quite apart from the three albums found amongst the 35 boxes a further album, different from the Jury Bundle and consisting of actual photographs was found. It was not encased in a blue photo album folder but bound by black wire spiral binder half broken.

On the cover the markings as follows:

“METROPOLITAN POLICE. R v Bamber Court Bundle (7B) Photograph Album (III) Original Case Photographs”

Amongst the album marked “Original Case Photographs” was a post mortem photograph of Ralph Neville Bamber’s right arm, missing from the album made available to the Jury, Trial Judge and Appellate Courts as well as the Defence.

The photo of Ralph Neville Bamber’s arm does indeed sustain the observation and witness statement of Professor Vanezis in that “there was a collection of bruises, 3 of which had an approximate linear configuration…” and the observation uplifted from the post mortem report in the Court of Appeal’s Approved Judgement in para 42: “linear type bruising to the right forearm,”
but what was not made available to the Court of Appeal was the very post mortem photograph itself since what was available was only the blue photographic albums marked “Jury Bundle” and NOT the album marked “original case photographs.”

[scipio_usmc]

No there are more than one set of photos, I have highlighted the relevant text in red bellow

You have no idea what you are talking about.  Copies were made of the original photos.  These copies had enhanced coloring done to them and these enhanced copies are what the Italian clowns and other Jeremy supporters argue shows wet blood.  The original non doctored photos show the blood is dark and dry.

 

[lookout]

You have no idea what you are talking about.  Copies were made of the original photos.  These copies had enhanced coloring done to them and these enhanced copies are what the Italian clowns and other Jeremy supporters argue shows wet blood.  The original non doctored photos show the blood is dark and dry.

So you're now arguing with case material.

[lookout]

Found------------the proof of blood at the back of Sheila's nightdress. On thread headed ( naturally ) " Bloodstains on the back of Sheila's nightdress "-Oct 10th 2011. General Examination Record 14/8/85.

[lookout]

Now you can all tell me how it got there.    

[Caroline]

Found------------the proof of blood at the back of Sheila's nightdress. On thread headed ( naturally ) " Bloodstains on the back of Sheila's nightdress "-Oct 10th 2011. General Examination Record 14/8/85.

Rather than people search through ALL of the threads Looout, which page is it on and I will post a link to it for you.

[Caroline]

Found it http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1633.msg49724/topicseen.html#msg49724

[lookout]

Rather than people search through ALL of the threads Looout, which page is it on and I will post a link to it for you.

Page 1 thankyou Caroline.

[Caroline]

Page 1 thankyou Caroline.

I found it Lookout, posted above. Don't agree with Mike's explanation though - I think the large bloodstain at the top the ND came from her wound and small stains are from the carpet that June walked over.