Key feature - did police move body, before and during taking of photographs?

[Hartley]

Not really into ghosts. 

But anyway all these accusation may or may not have a basis in reality, the only way they are going to gain substance is if strong enough evidence is discovered to corroborate the allegations.

If that happens then great, if not then they remain unfounded.

[mike tesko]

The statements made by PS Adams, PC Collins and PC Delgado, which they made to COLP in 1991, and in particular, reference to the possibility that there was no gun on Shiela's body, and that her head had been moved, and the bible displaced from another part of the bedroom floor, cannot be explained away entirely by the actions of DI Cook - and as the CCRC has rightly indicated, the contents of police officers statements are more significant and reliable than photographs. When the CCRC made those comments, they were seeking to rely upon the claim made by members of the raid team, that they did not move or touch bodies whilst present at the scene .- however, at least three of those same officers, have since claimed or inferred that although they didn't move or touch Shiela's body, other police officers, might have done. What is significant as far as this matter is concerned, is that three different police officers have voiced thier concern about the possibility that someone may have moved Shiela's body after the firearms team left the scene...

[grahameb]

The recent CCRC decision not to refer Jeremy's case back to the court of appeal, by claiming that the content of police officers witness statements, are more powerfull and reliable, than photographs which purport to show that Shiela's arm and right hand were moved, and that for this reason, the ground that formed part of Jeremy's application, had to be rejected - such words of wisdom, will almost certainly come back to haunt the CCRC, as a result of the witness statements made to COLP, by three members of the raid team, who whilst attending a debrief on the evening of the shootings, complained about Shiela's body having been moved after they left the scene, by reference to a crime scene video which contained photographs of Shiela's body, showing it in a different position...

Come back to haunt them are the right words. When I heard that decision and one of the reasons for them not to refer the case back to the court of appeal I was dumbfounded. Surely the pictures are not only more powerful than the sworn testimonies of the police, but they definitely show police corruption. But now after these contradictions in their own testimonies the CCRC should asked again whether their sworn statements are stronger evidence than these pictures that were taken by none other than their own people. The CCRC are in a very precarious position if you ask me?

[Hartley]

Let's not forget that we haven't actually seen the 89 page dossier outlining their reasons for not referring, all we've actually seen are a few bullet points taken from JB's own blog. So it seems premature to start questioning CCRC's decision and their reasons.

[grahameb]

Let's not forget that we haven't actually seen the 89 page dossier outlining their reasons for not referring, all we've actually seen are a few bullet points taken from JB's own blog. So it seems premature to start questioning CCRC's decision and their reasons.

I'm not sure. I saw it on the news the day they made their decision. I'm not sure that they did get it from JB's blog?

[mike tesko]

I was under the impression that the prosecution made an application to call fresh evidence at the 2002 appeal showing that Sheila had been moved. Expert witness Martyn Ismail gave evidence which showed the body had been moved due to the fact that the nightdress was rucked up at the back, which would be consistent with her body being moved due to the difference in friction between her skin and the nightdress and the carpet and the nightdress. However the front of the nightdress was not rucked up so must have been pulled back down following the movement. It was concluded that if this evidence was put to the jury it would be compelling and likely strengthen the prosecutions case.

However the application to call fresh prosecution evidence was refused.

.....................

The expert you refer to, did not see all the 581 photographs which EP took as part of this investigation. In particular, he did not see everyone of the photographs which the police took of Sheila at the scene, if he did then he saw more than the defense did, more than Jeremy has, more than Mr Sutherst has, and more than I have...

First things first, in 2002 at the time of the appeal, not a lot was known about all these 358 non disclosed photographs, and the evidence which has since been made available to Bamber and his legal team, was not made available to him at that time, or to his legal team, or to the appellate court which sat in judgement on this matter...

If the evidence which is now available, had been made available to Bamber and his legal team by the judgement in the 2002 appeal would have been so very different. You refer to the new evidence of Mr Ismail, as though it in someway proves that Jeremy was / is the killer, but hold your horses - If that evidence was presented today, Bamber and his legal team would argue that Mr Ismails findings is evidence that the police stage managed Sheila's body, and they would be able to point to other images which the police themselves took at the scene which shows the hem of Sheila's nightdress, in different positions whilst and during the taking of crime scene pictures at the scene by PC Bird. I have got two photographs which show the hem of Sheila's nightdress arranged differently, which must have been altered or changed by police officers at the scene, and so your suggestion that if Mr Ismails evidence had been heard by the jury it would have been a more compelling case against Jeremy being the killer, is ill judged...

The only people who moved and disturbed Sheila's body in the bedroom were police officers, and their actions went much further than DI Cook claiming he only moved Sheila's hand so that PC Bird could photograph bloodied marks on the front lower part of her nightdress...

The appellate court in making the judgement it did, and by referring to any possible consequence of Mr Ismails findings would obviously claim that it would have made matters worse for Jeremy if this evidence had gone before the jury, but they refused to allow it in, because they knew that hundreds of crime scene photographs had been deliberately withheld under pii rules, and that if they allowed that evidence in, they would be duty bound to authorize the disclosure of all those missing photographs to see if the position of the hem of Sheila's nightdress was photographed in different positions, on occasions after the police took control of the scene?

If Mr Ismails evidence had been allowed in at the 2002 appeal, it would have opened up a can of worms, that EP, and the CPS / DPP, had worked so tirelessly to keep a secret, so I do not share your enthusiasm for what if anything Mr Ismails evidence would have proved, one way or the other?

What I can say, is that as things stand at the moment, Bamber and his legal team would be seeking to rely upon the findings of Mr Ismails evidence to support the claim that police stage managed Sheila's body at the scene, and that Jeremy was convicted because the jury were being asked to believe and accept that Jeremy had been responsible for the stage managing, when all along it was the police, themselves...

[mike tesko]

Okay I'll wait until you post the relevant extract.


The only reference to police misconduct and the various allegations given in Ground 16 of the 2002 appeal is as follows:

Ground 16 – police misconduct

509.
The final ground of appeal is a generalised allegation that as a result of “the activities of Detective Superintendent Ainsley, DS Jones and DCI Wright as detailed in grounds 1 to 13, the prosecution case is tainted and the convictions therefore unsafe. We have already recorded our conclusions on the individual grounds and have made clear that we find none of the allegations of serious misconduct made out. Before reaching final conclusions about the individual allegations, we have deliberately reconsidered the matter to see whether looking at the wider picture gives rise to any concern that in looking at matters of detail, we might have missed evidence of the kind that only is capable of being perceived by having regard to a number of smaller matters. We can see no reason to revise our view on any of the matters and we have found no evidence at all to support the allegations of serious wrongdoing by the police that is suggested.

510.
As Mr Temple observed in his closing address to us, one of the striking features of this case was the difference between Mr Turner’s opening address and the speech that he felt able to make once the evidence had been examined. In the former, suggestions of a widespread conspiracy to present a false case and to deprive the defence of material that would assist them in answering the case were made. By the close of the case, many of those allegations had been abandoned because they were patently obviously unjustified once the evidence was scrutinised.

511.
This case has been scrutinised since conviction with as much care as probably any comparable case. In our judgment nothing has emerged to cause us to believe that there was any improper conduct by the investigating officers that threatened the integrity of the trial process, such as is alleged in this ground.

---------------------------------

Considering that as of the 2002 appeal hearing and judgement, hundreds of crime scene photographs and documents which would have shed a different light on these allegations, had they been disclosed, I do not think we should take much notice of what the appellate court said about the misconduct claims made by Mr Turner - what we have here, is a clear case of the police / CPS / DPP deliberately withholding material evidence that would have gone a very long way to supporting the claims made by Mr Turner, had such material not been deliberately withheld under the umbrella of Pii? Lets look at this from another point of view, imagine that all the withheld material had been disclosed and relied upon by Mr Turner in support of his arguments, what then would the appellate court judgement have concluded? It would seem to me, that just because the court has made a judgement in the absence of such material being disclosed, it should not prevent any further argument or ground being led in any appeal, once such material becomes disclosed, on the basis that an earlier court dismissed claims of police malpractice at a time when the material was not disclosed...

It would also seem to me, that if photographic evidence was deliberately being withheld that would prove that the police stage managed Sheila's body at the scene, then of course the appellate court would say that they have found no evidence to support such a claim of malpractice - that is why it was withheld from the court of appeal, by the other interested parties...

In view of the new material which has recently been disclosed because of the freedom of information act, a great deal of what Mr Turner spoke about at his opening address to the appellate court, could have been supported by documents and photographs which have until very recently been withheld and not disclosed...

What kind of a criminal justice system do we have, where the prosecution and the police can withhold information, evidence and photographs which they have under their control, that was / is capable of seriously undermining its own case, but they choose to manipulate the evidence so that the other side cannot get access to the very material which would destroy the prosecutions case? Its just a game, and the police and the CPS / DPP bend the rules to suit themselves...

I have got no doubt whatsoever that there was police malpractice in this investigation, and that police stage managed Sheila's body in the bedroom, not Jeremy and not any as yet unidentified killer...

[mike tesko]

Okay I'll wait until you post the relevant extract.

I was under the impression that the prosecution made an application to call fresh evidence at the 2002 appeal showing that Sheila had been moved. Expert witness Martyn Ismail gave evidence which showed the body had been moved due to the fact that the nightdress was rucked up at the back, which would be consistent with her body being moved due to the difference in friction between her skin and the nightdress and the carpet and the nightdress. However the front of the nightdress was not rucked up so must have been pulled back down following the movement. It was concluded that if this evidence was put to the jury it would be compelling and likely strengthen the prosecutions case.

However the application to call fresh prosecution evidence was refused.

I haven't seen any mention of police officers moving her body and the implications of such an act on the verdict. Although I also don't think I've seen a revised 2002 Judgement, the only one I've seen is dated 12/12/2002.

The only reference to police misconduct and the various allegations given in Ground 16 of the 2002 appeal is as follows:

Ground 16 – police misconduct

509.
The final ground of appeal is a generalised allegation that as a result of “the activities of Detective Superintendent Ainsley, DS Jones and DCI Wright as detailed in grounds 1 to 13, the prosecution case is tainted and the convictions therefore unsafe. We have already recorded our conclusions on the individual grounds and have made clear that we find none of the allegations of serious misconduct made out. Before reaching final conclusions about the individual allegations, we have deliberately reconsidered the matter to see whether looking at the wider picture gives rise to any concern that in looking at matters of detail, we might have missed evidence of the kind that only is capable of being perceived by having regard to a number of smaller matters. We can see no reason to revise our view on any of the matters and we have found no evidence at all to support the allegations of serious wrongdoing by the police that is suggested.

510.
As Mr Temple observed in his closing address to us, one of the striking features of this case was the difference between Mr Turner’s opening address and the speech that he felt able to make once the evidence had been examined. In the former, suggestions of a widespread conspiracy to present a false case and to deprive the defence of material that would assist them in answering the case were made. By the close of the case, many of those allegations had been abandoned because they were patently obviously unjustified once the evidence was scrutinised.

511.
This case has been scrutinised since conviction with as much care as probably any comparable case. In our judgment nothing has emerged to cause us to believe that there was any improper conduct by the investigating officers that threatened the integrity of the trial process, such as is alleged in this ground.

That's a pretty damning judgement of the appeal given that most of the grounds people raise on this forum imply police corruption 

--------------------------------

New evidence and information and photographs have been disclosed to the defense since the time of that judgement in 2002, which seriously undermines the message it tries to convey. So, you might say that its a pretty damning judgement, but this wouldn't have been the case if the material which has since been disclosed, had been disclosed in time for the 2002 appeal. Until and unless any new material is considered by a court, that touches upon these matters, you cannot say that this matter has already been dealt with and dismissed, since any new material was not heard at the time of the judgement, and its disclosure and presentation might have changed the conclusions of the judgement you seek to rely on...

[mike tesko]

COLP Evidence given to them by PS Adams (Firearms commander at scene on 7th August 1985):-

[mike tesko]

COLP Evidence given to them by PC Collins (Firearms officer at the scene on 7th August 1985):-

[mike tesko]

COLP Evidence given to them by PC Delgado, (firearms officer who attended the scene on 7th August 1985):-

[mike tesko]

Now, what becomes clear, is that on the same evening that the shootings had taken place (7th August 1985) there was a debriefing held at Witham police station, and members of the firearms team were shown a video of the crime scene which had crime scene photographs upon it. It was these images which caused three members of the firearms team to suggest that Sheila's body could have been moved by someone after the firearms team had left the scene...

Now that is pretty much significant evidence...

These are the very same police officers, upon whom ther CCRC recently stated they intended to rely because what they said in their witness statements was more powerful than what was shown in photographs, and these police officers said they did not move or touch anything whilst they were at the scene - well, be that as it may, but what these very same police officers said to senior officers at the debrief on the day of the shootings, and in written form when they made statements to COLP in 1991, is that they believed that Sheila's body was moved, t ouched or repositioned by someone else, after they had left the scene...

Now, nothing can be any clearer than that - somebody moved and displaced Sheila's body and this stager managing took place after the firearms officers left the scene, and the only other people at the scene once they left, was other police officers...

It must follow, that other police officers, in addition to DI Cook, moved, touched and stage managed Sheila's body in the bedroom at whf, and that Jeremy Bamber, got blamed for doing something that the police themselves had done, and what is worse, th e pictures which were taken after the police stage managed Sheila's body, were used and relied upon to persuade the jury that Jeremy had staged managed the body in keeping with the images shown in PC Birds crime scene photographs...

[Hartley]

Yes Mike that's all very interesting, but nothing to do what was being discussed. I was responding to your below posts and that's all. I mentioned Ismail because that is the only reference to SC's body being moved in the 2002 judgement, I was looking for justification of your post stating that the 2002 appeal judgement mentioned police moving her body and the quashing of JB's conviction.

It doesn't seem to be the case, so I was asking you to clarify, not go off on a tangent and try to explain why Ismails evidence (which wasn't allowed anyway) was wrong.

At the 2002 appeal, it was indicated that if it could be shown that the police had moved Shiela's body, that they would have no hesitation but to quash the convictions...

Where is that indicated?

... I will post the relevant extract shortly, but rest assured that this was part of the revised judgement from the 2002 appeal. Also, it should not be overlooked, that at the time of the failed appeal (2002), the court accepted that any disturbance of Shiela's hand / gun, was because of DI Cooks actions (alone) - but we now know that this is / was untrue, false...

[mike tesko]

Yes Mike that's all very interesting, but nothing to do what was being discussed. I was responding to your below posts and that's all. I mentioned Ismail because that is the only reference to SC's body being moved in the 2002 judgement, I was looking for justification of your post stating that the 2002 appeal judgement mentioned police moving her body and the quashing of JB's conviction.

It doesn't seem to be the case, so I was asking you to clarify, not go off on a tangent and try to explain why Ismails evidence (which wasn't allowed anyway) was wrong.

At the 2002 appeal, it was indicated that if it could be shown that the police had moved Shiela's body, that they would have no hesitation but to quash the convictions...

Where is that indicated?

... I will post the relevant extract shortly, but rest assured that this was part of the revised judgement from the 2002 appeal. Also, it should not be overlooked, that at the time of the failed appeal (2002), the court accepted that any disturbance of Shiela's hand / gun, was because of DI Cooks actions (alone) - but we now know that this is / was untrue, false...

----------------

Well, you mentioned that had it been introduced or allowed in, it would have been more compelling against Jeremy - or words to that effect, and I was merely pointing out that the opposite would be, and is true...

[Hartley]

Okay fair enough, but they are not my words, they are taken straight from the 2002 judgement. I don't have an opinion on the matter.

What I was really interested in and what I replied to was your initial claim relating to moving bodies and the 2002 judgement, basically because it doesn't sound truthful, so I was asking you to prove me wrong.

But that's also fine, so don't worry about it.