What makes Bamber innocent?

[lookout]

very true lookout

And fools who pay them.

[mike tesko]

As far as I can see, the mode of trial needs to be amended. The current format appears to be conducive toward 'mis carriages of justice', occurring. We need to stop any witness on either side who attend court thinking that even if what they say is 'not believed' they should realise that where it can be clearly shown that a witness must have lied, then they will automatically receive a mandatory sentence of two years imprisonment, rising in length dependant upon the extent of the 'lies' they told. Only then will the floodgates of dishonest witness statement evidence be halted dead in its tracks. So, witnesses to be at peril of instant terms of imprisonment within the duration of the same proceedings, that would be 'a beginning'. Secondly, the defendant (through his or her lawyer) should be able to question the evidence which a witness gives, and be provided with answers by the witness, so that in the event that a defendant gets convicted, the questions posed, and the answers given, would be the focal point of any subsequent appeal...

[sami]

As far as I can see, the mode of trial needs to be amended. The current format appears to be conducive toward 'mis carriages of justice', occurring. We need to stop any witness on either side who attend court thinking that even if what they say is 'not believed' they should realise that where it can be clearly shown that a witness must have lied, then they will automatically receive a mandatory sentence of two years imprisonment, rising in length dependant upon the extent of the 'lies' they told. Only then will the floodgates of dishonest witness statement evidence be halted dead in its tracks. So, witnesses to be at peril of instant terms of imprisonment within the duration of the same proceedings, that would be 'a beginning'. Secondly, the defendant (through his or her lawyer) should be able to question the evidence which a witness gives, and be provided with answers by the witness, so that in the event that a defendant gets convicted, the questions posed, and the answers given, would be the focal point of any subsequent appeal...

here here

[mike tesko]

As far as I can see, the mode of trial needs to be amended. The current format appears to be conducive toward 'mis carriages of justice', occurring. We need to stop any witness on either side who attend court thinking that even if what they say is 'not believed' they should realise that where it can be clearly shown that a witness must have lied, then they will automatically receive a mandatory sentence of two years imprisonment, rising in length dependant upon the extent of the 'lies' they told. Only then will the floodgates of dishonest witness statement evidence be halted dead in its tracks. So, witnesses to be at peril of instant terms of imprisonment within the duration of the same proceedings, that would be 'a beginning'. Secondly, the defendant (through his or her lawyer) should be able to question the evidence which a witness gives, and be provided with answers by the witness, so that in the event that a defendant gets convicted, the questions posed, and the answers given, would be the focal point of any subsequent appeal...

From a prosecution stand point, and later from a defence stand point, the evidence of each witness should be categorised on a level of reliability by the prosecution (for prosecution witnesses), and the defence who call witnesses in support of the defendants case, on a scale of either being a 'class 1, class 2, or a class 3 type of witness ( where class 1 is considered to be truthful, class 2 a case of 'its' and 'buts', and class 3, potentially doubtful). Appeals could be settled far more quickly than at present, simply by the defence producing evidence which is capable of altering the category of key witnesses, from 1 to 2, or from 1 to 3, or 2 to 3...

[mike tesko]

In the Bamber  case, for example, the prosecution have placed much emphasis on the claim that David Boutflour found the key silencer inside the gun cupboard on Saturday the 10th August, 1985. The prosecution clearly relied upon his evidence as though he was a 'class 1' witness. But since the time of the trial, his account appears to fall far short of what he claimed, since, he did not report finding the silencer until the 12th September, 1985 (a month later). In addition, his sister handed over the silencer to DC Oakley, on the 11th September 1985, almost exactly one month after her husband had handed 'it' over to DS Jones. Now, clearly, there is something wrong with the information supplied to Essex police by David Boutflour, Peter Eaton,  Ann Eaton, DS Jones, DI Cook, and DC Oakey...

In these circumstances, the evidence of David Boutflour falls into the category of class 2, or even class 3, because the information he provides, relies on arguments of 'ifs' and 'buts', or to be as 'blunt' as I possibly can, 'doubtful'...

[sami]

In the Bamber  case, for example, the prosecution have placed much emphasis on the claim that David Boutflour found the key silencer inside the gun cupboard on Saturday the 10th August, 1985. The prosecution clearly relied upon his evidence as though he was a 'class 1' witness. But since the time of the trial, his account appears to fall far short of what he claimed, since, he did not report finding the silencer until the 12th September, 1985 (a month later). In addition, his sister handed over the silencer to DC Oakley, on the 11th September 1985, almost exactly one month after her husband had handed 'it' over to DS Jones. Now, clearly, there is something wrong with the information supplied to Essex police by David Boutflour, Peter Eaton,  Ann Eaton, DS Jones, DI Cook, and DC Oakey...

In these circumstances, the evidence of David Boutflour falls into the category of class 2, or even class 3, because the information he provides, relies on arguments of 'its' and 'buts', or to be as 'blunt' as I possibly can, 'doubtful'...

class 3 mike would be correct

[mike tesko]

class 3 mike would be correct

Maybe so, but at least in the suggested system, questions could have been asked of David Boutflour by Jeremy himself, which could have been put to David Boutflour on his behalf, toward the end of David Boutflours testimony, with a view to soliciting the truth from the defendants perspective...

Clearly, David Boutflours account that he had found 'the' silencer in the cupboard at the scene on the 10th August 1985, does 'not' hold water. I am sorry but if there had only been the one silencer, I can't for the life of me, see how Peter Eaton had handed over 'that' silencer to DS Jones, on the evening of the 12th August 1985, and that David Boutflour did not contact the police until a month later to 'tell them' that he had found the silencer to the gun (12th SeptemBer 1985). Sorry, I am 'not' buying into 'that' story...

[mike tesko]

Maybe so, but at least in the suggested system, questions could have been asked of David Boutflour by Jeremy himself, which could have been put to David Boutflour on his behalf, toward the end of David Boutflours testimony, with a view to soliciting the truth from the defendants perspective...

Clearly, David Boutflours account that he had found 'the' silencer in the cupboard at the scene on the 10th August 1985, does 'not' hold water. I am sorry but if there had only been the one silencer, I can't for the life of me, see how Peter Eaton had handed over 'that' silencer to DS Jones, on the evening of the 12th August 1985, and that David Boutflour did not contact the police until a month later to 'tell them' that he had found the silencer to the gun (12th SeptemBer 1985). Sorry, I am 'not' buying into 'that' story...

If some want to believe 'that' argument, all well and good, but to me, it 'stinks' of a deception...

[mike tesko]

City of London police (COLP) could find no police record to confirm that the relatives had found a silencer, and had handed it over to cops by the 12th August 1985...

Think about 'that' for a moment...

[mike tesko]

Think about the 'tall story' told by Robert Boutflour, PI 'Bob' Miller, D's 'Stan' Jones, DI 'Ron' Cook, and 'Glynis Howard', who all provide input to 'that' earlier alleged handing over of the 'first' silencer to cops by Peter Eaton?

'It' goes to the lab' on the 13th August, 1985 ( we are told), and 'Glynis Howard' inspects it, then returns 'it' back into 'Ron' Cooks possession, but Cook doesn't seek to place 'that' silencer into storage as he 'should' have done. Oh, no...

Cook decides to keep the said silencer in his jacket pocket, not for one day, or two days, or three days or four days, not for five days, not for six days, or seven days or eight days, not for nine days or ten days, not for eleven days or twelve days, or thirteen days or fourteen days, on and on until we come to the 30th August, 1985, when finally, 'Ron' Cook does the decent thing by sending 'that' silencer to the lab' on 'that' date,  17 days after 'Glynis Howard' handed 'it' back to him (allegedly, on the 13th August, 1985). In all 'that' time, 'Ron' Cook has been carrying 'that' silencer around in his jacket pocket ( between the 13th August and the 30th August, 1985). This is the person who admittedly by his own account did not wear gloves when he handled the bloodstained rifle by ' removing it' from Sheila's body, handing it to PI Montgomery to supposedly make it safe, before he himself (Cook) placed the rifle at the main bedroom window (if you believe 'that' version of events). We are not told whether Montgomery was wearing gloves when Cook handed him the rifle to make it safe, before Cook himself retook possession of the rifle in his 'ungloved' hands and he placed it at the bedroom window...

Bearing in mind, that 'Ron' Cook admits to it being 'he' who had moved the 'bloodstained' right hand of Sheila off the gun, so that PC Bird could photograph bloodied finger / hand marks on the front lower right part of Sheila's nightdress...

Why on earth, did the lab' accept the silencer from Cook on the 30th August, 1985, when it had clearly been at a very high risk of having been contaminated with blood, via the direct handling and carrying of 'it' in 'Ron' Cooks jacket pocket for around 17 days and nights, too and fro, between the police station and the scene?

[mike tesko]

Think about the 'tall story' told by Robert Boutflour, PI 'Bob' Miller, D's 'Stan' Jones, DI 'Ron' Cook, and 'Glynis Howard', who all provide input to 'that' earlier alleged handing over of the 'first' silencer to cops by Peter Eaton?

'It' goes to the lab' on the 13th August, 1985 ( we are told), and 'Glynis Howard' inspects it, then returns 'it' back into 'Ron' Cooks possession, but Cook doesn't seek to place 'that' silencer into storage as he 'should' have done. Oh, no...

Cook decides to keep the said silencer in his jacket pocket, not for one day, or two days, or three days or four days, not for five days, not for six days, or seven days or eight days, not for nine days or ten days, not for eleven days or twelve days, or thirteen days or fourteen days, on and on until we come to the 30th August, 1985, when finally, 'Ron' Cook does the decent thing by sending 'that' silencer to the lab' on 'that' date,  17 days after 'Glynis Howard' handed 'it' back to him (allegedly, on the 13th August, 1985). In all 'that' time, 'Ron' Cook has been carrying 'that' silencer around in his jacket pocket ( between the 13th August and the 30th August, 1985). This is the person who admittedly by his own account did not wear gloves when he handled the bloodstained rifle by ' removing it' from Sheila's body, handing it to PI Montgomery to supposedly make it safe, before he himself (Cook) placed the rifle at the main bedroom window (if you believe 'that' version of events). We are not told whether Montgomery was wearing gloves when Cook handed him the rifle to make it safe, before Cook himself retook possession of the rifle in his 'ungloved' hands and he placed it at the bedroom window...

Bearing in mind, that 'Ron' Cook admits to it being 'he' who had moved the 'bloodstained' right hand of Sheila off the gun, so that PC Bird could photograph bloodied finger / hand marks on the front lower right part of Sheila's nightdress...

Why on earth, did the lab' accept the silencer from Cook on the 30th August, 1985, when it had clearly been at a very high risk of having been contaminated with blood, via the direct handling and carrying of 'it' in 'Ron' Cooks jacket pocket for around 17 days and nights, too and fro, between the police station and the scene?

And, 'he' having handled a bloodstained anshuzt Rifle, and the bloodied right hand of Sheila Caffell?

[mike tesko]

Worse, still...

'Ron' Cook had taken it upon himself to 'strip the silencer' down, before he sent it away to the lab' to be 'examined by Fletcher', on 30th August, 1985...

At 'that' stage, Cook had stripped the silencer and he had separated the top seven baffle plates, and the top washer, and the silencers 'end cap', so that there was a visible gap between them. At 'that' stage, Cook did 'not' report finding, or seeing any blood on any of the internal baffle plates he had 'removed' and 'separated'...

How remarkable then...

That once Fletcher receives the 'rebuilt' silencer that Cook had sent to the lab' on the 30th August 1985, that Fletcher 'examines' on the 11th September, 1985, that Fletcher discovers the 'loose flake' of dried blood trapped between baffles one and two? Odd, that when Cook had stripped the silencer down prior to its rebuild and submission to the lab' by 30th August, 1985, 'that flake' was 'not' there on that occasion when Cook had stripped it down and separated the baffles?

[mike tesko]

What, if anything, had 'Ron' Cook done with the silencer 'after' he had stripped the silencer down, and separated the baffle plates, at a time when there could not have been any blood anywhere at all upon the first seven or eight baffle plates which Cook himself had separated...

[mike tesko]

Cook was in possession of a 'third' blood sample that was taken from Sheila Caffells body...

Only two blood samples had been taken from the other four victims...

[mike tesko]

Cook was in possession of a 'third' blood sample that was taken from Sheila Caffells body...

Only two blood samples had been taken from the other four victims...

Why did cops take a third blood sample from Sheila's body during autopsy on the 7th August, 1985, if they only needed to take two?