What makes Bamber innocent?

[David1819]

I think you have got what they are saying completely wrong,

What makes you say that?

[Caroline]

What makes you say that?

I just told you ....

35. The Commission's judgment on this matter, which is set out carefully in its decision, is at paragraphs 360 to 362. First of all, it is said that Dr Fowler did not deal with the fact that there was no residue found in the rifle, but there was the blood flake found in the silencer. Although there is really no answer to the first half of that observation, as regards the second there is the point, on which I was prepared to make an assumption, namely that there may be a problem with the blood flake. I have made that assumption because it seems to me that it is possible to do so by reference to the other reasons given by the Commission. The first is the fact that the evidence of Dr Fowler does not grapple with the evidence of the fight in the kitchen and the paint evidence, to which I have referred; second, it does not grapple with the contemporaneous evidence of Mr Fletcher and Dr Vanezis at the trial, which dealt with these issues; third, the Commission took the view that the injuries could well have been caused by another process. They are saying that they don't understand why Fowler didn't deal with evidence of residue inside the silencer (the flake) but not the rifle and that they were prepared to consider there might be a problem with the flake of blood (mixture of June's and Nevill's). They are saying he didn't tackle the fight in the kitchen and the paint evidence or directly challenge the evidence of Dr Fletcher and Venezis but that they have already considered that Nevill's injuries could have occurred by another process.

36. It is accepted realistically by Mr McKay that those are formidable points. I cannot see how one can begin to say those are points that the Commission can in any way be criticised for arriving at. They must be plainly within that ambit of judgment open to the Commission. It therefore seems to me very, very difficult to see how, on the analysis that I have briefly summarised, the conclusion in relation to the evidence of Dr Fowler is susceptible to challenge. They are saying that their conclusions in relation to Fowler's report are not susceptible to challenge. NOT that Fowlers report isn't open to challenge. They then go on to say .....

37. Conclusion on the main issues

38. Taking, therefore, the three grounds relied on together, and for this purpose making an assumption again in favour of Mr Bamber on the first point, but doing so on the basis that the second and third points, namely the report of Dr Caruso and the report of Dr Fowler, have been dealt with by the Commission in a way that is not open to challenge, it seems to me that properly understood the approach of the Commission has been one that is very favourable to Mr Bamber making the assumption, in the case of expert evidence in his favour, that it is admissible, and going on to make a judgment on that basis. They are saying that there consideration of the report was favourable to Jeremy given that they made the assumption that it would be admissible. They considered the report on that basis - however .....

39. I would add, in relation to the assumption about the receipt by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) of fresh evidence, it is ready to receive evidence of an expert nature where there has been appropriate scientific advances. It is much more cautious about expert evidence which is accepted as not new science, but the result of more research on the specific case or another view. I say that because the assumption upon which the Commission has proceeded is one that is as favourable and as generous as could be made to Mr Bamber. They are saying, that they are cautious to accept evidence which isn't new science but basically just further research of what has gone before leading to a different view but that they gave Bamber the benefit of the doubt anyway.

The alleged failure to make further enquiries

40. I turn, therefore, having dealt at some length with that first ground of challenge, to the other remaining ground of challenge. That relates to the failure to make further enquiries. As is apparent from the summary I have given of the report of Dr Fowler and the report of Dr Caruso, both are preliminary in nature. It is argued, again attractively by Mr Simon McKay, that it was the duty of the Commission, as these reports were preliminary, to have made further enquiries. However, again the question is not whether this court thinks further enquiries should be made, but whether the judgment of the Commission is one that is open to challenge. Basically they are saying the work is incomplete but that don't believe it would challenge their decision anyway.

41. It seems to me that a challenge is impossible to make for two primary reasons. First, the Commission has spent a very, very considerable time, namely from March 2004 until April 2012, examining for a second time the safety of the convictions. It must be a matter for the Commission's judgment whether, in those circumstances, it is right to prolong the investigation. Secondly, and more importantly, there is the question of the Commission's judgment as to whether such enquiries would actually advance the matter further. It seems to me that their decision that further enquiries would not advance the matter further is a matter that on the evidence before this court was a decision plainly open to them on the circumstances. I sought to illustrate that in the observations I have made in relation to heating up the barrel of the rifle.

42. Overall conclusion

43. In my judgment, therefore, this is a case where Mr McKay has taken a very responsible attitude. He has advanced points that could properly be made to the Commission. He has pursued those points with considerable vigour and provided to the Commission two areas where they had to consider the new evidence very carefully. But having reviewed with his considerable assistance, and that of the Commission, the Commission's approach to these matters, I cannot see any way in which on the assumptions that have been made, all of which are entirely favourable to Mr Bamber, or any proper challenge can be made to this decision. They are saying that they looked at the evidence and it's not enough, it's just further research and an alternative view.

44. For these reasons, which in the light of the length of time that this case has been going on, and its notoriety, I have given at some length, I would refuse this renewed application. They refused the application - had they given a 'no contest' approach to Fowler's report, they couldn't have denied an application for an appeal.

[mike tesko]

The court of appeal has never dealt with or considered the introduction of a second silencer into the case. One which the key blood group results were falsely attributed to...

[mike tesko]

The court of appeal has never dealt with or considered the introduction of a second silencer into the case. One which the key blood group results were falsely attributed to...

[mike tesko]

Non of the experts at the lab' have recorded that they examined the silencer once it had been submitted to the lab' on the 20th September 1985, (for the first time) to be checked for blood...

[mike tesko]

Non of the experts at the lab' have recorded that they examined the silencer ('DRB/1') once it had been submitted to the lab' on the 20th September 1985, (for the first time) to be checked for blood...

DS Eastwood was involved with fingerprinting 'this' particular silencer, on the 13th September, 1985. But, he does not make a witness statement confirming this...

[mike tesko]

When DS Davidson was interviewed by COLP he told them that he never saw the silencer or had anything to do with it. He stated that the silencer was at all times in the possession and under the control of 'Ron' Cook. But, a document exists which confirms that DSDavodson, and DS Eastwood, 'fingerprinted ' a silencer, on the 13th September, 1985. So, Davidson deceived the COLP investigators..

[sami]

During the investigation two or three officers were pulled to oneside and cautioned.
No matter how out of line an officer can be it's rare that he faces disciplinary hearings,or loses his pension and status.
It's normally the top brass who are found to be reneging but because of their positions,they remain untouchable for some unknown reason. Take Hillsborough for instance.

what is your souce for your first statement above

[David1819]

They refused the application - had they given a 'no contest' approach to Fowler's report, they couldn't have denied an application for an appeal.

Yes they could have denied an application for an appeal. The silencer itself consists of two pillars of evidence

A - The blood on the inside that matches Sheila
B - The Paint on the outside that matches the AGA surround.

Dismantling A is all well and good but then you still have B showing the silencer was still used on the night. The same applies vice versa. For argument sake, If it was proven that the marks on Sheila's neck/chin show silencer abrasions but Jeremy could prove the scratches were put there afterwards, it does not overcome the evidence against him.
 

Dr Caruso and Peter Suthurst's evidence is not 100% conclusive. But in my view they show a high probablility of the scratches being made after the 7th.

The logic applied by the CCRC makes sense, But it is raising the bar extremely high.

If it can be proven 100% that the scratches were made after the murders then they would probably have to grant an appeal.

[lookout]

what is your souce for your first statement above

The Dickinson Enquiry.
Sunday Express 20th October 1985-------made headline news. ( the jobs of at least 3 senior officers at risk)

[mike tesko]

During the investigation two or three officers were pulled to oneside and cautioned.
No matter how out of line an officer can be it's rare that he faces disciplinary hearings,or loses his pension and status.
It's normally the top brass who are found to be reneging but because of their positions,they remain untouchable for some unknown reason. Take Hillsborough for instance.

I have personal experience of this type of cop dishonesty, backed up by documentation. For example, two crooked cops claimed they were inside an observation van at 5.20pm, situated outside target premises in Monkspring, Worsborough Dale, Barnsley, on Wednesday, 22nd January, 1986, when the two police officers (DS Shepherd, and DC Caulfield) claimed they saw a stolen Alfa Romeo motor vehicle pull up outside the target premises containing two men. Both men, they said were 'identical looking' and both wore similar clothing and foot wear. One of the two identical looking men, was 4" taller than the other man. The cops inside the van at 5.20pm, that date, later claimed for the very first time on the 17th March, 1986, that I was one of these two men, that I was the driver of the stolen vehicle, and that I was the taller of the two men...

However, after having spent five and a half months on remand on trumped up charges, the Stipendiary Magistrate, 'Ron' Barry, threw the case out. One of the reasons for throwing the case out was because the observation van both Shepherd and Caulfield claimed they were in at 5.20pm, was still parked up in the police compound back at Barnsley police station, and was not even sent for from the scene until 5.55pm by DI Henshaw (No.3 Regional Crime Squad) and not physically in place at the scene until 6.30pm. one of the two coppers (DC 'Ron' Caulfield) who committed perjury in this matter, later went on to become a Detective Inspector. Neither of these two criminals in uniform ever got prosecuted. They should both have been charged with perjury, and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, convicted, and the key thrown away. But the Criminal Justice System is so corrupt nothing hardly ever happens to crooks like Shepherd and Caulfield...

[mike tesko]

Corruption and dishonesty is rife all the way through the Criminal Justice System, cops, CPS, magistrates, and judges...

Let's put it this way, if your cards get marked, for whatever reason, you won't get any justice...

[mike tesko]

Despite attempts made by me, to incorporate the facts of the aforementioned prosecution (observation van matters) as part of my defence during my trial at Sheffield Crown Court, 12th to 22nd September, 1988 (bungalow matters) I was prevented from doing so, because the CPS stated that it intended to resurrect the earlier failed prosecution of me. I was therefore, denied a reliance upon established facts which showed how utterly dishonest police officers in South Yorkshire had been, by making false claims of identification from inside an observation van that was not even present at the scene at the time the so called identification of one of two identical looking men, as being me. It would have been very beneficial for the jury which tried and convicted me in 1988, to have been presented with the stark facts arising out of the earlier matter, in particular, it would have alerted the jury to the possibility or the likelihood that cops had just made up the identification evidence in the bungalow matters, in the same way they had in the observation van matter. More importantly, I was denied a reliance on the claim that in the observation van matters, there were 'two men both identical in appearance, both wearing similar clothing and foot wear, the only difference being, that one of the two identical looking men was 4" taller than the other...

In the bungalow matters, the man who barricaded himself into the loft of the bungalow, and broke out onto the roof, who jumped from the roof of the bungalow and fled the scene, was not given a height at all by any of the identifying officers. This was problematic for the cops because it was on the police record that another person identical to me, had allegedly accompanied me in the observation van matters. Yet, here in the bungalow matters, involving only one suspect all the cops were saying I was 'that' man, without making any reference whatsoever to the height of the man in the loft, the height of the man on the roof, etc...

Without any reference at all, to the height of the suspect involved in the bungalow matters, how could police be certain that the man involved in these bungalow matters, was not the shorter of the two identical looking men involved in the observation van matter?

[mike tesko]

Despite attempts made by me, to incorporate the facts of the aforementioned prosecution (observation van matters) as part of my defence during my trial at Sheffield Crown Court, 12th to 22nd September, 1988 (bungalow matters) I was prevented from doing so, because the CPS stated that it intended to resurrect the earlier failed prosecution of me. I was therefore, denied a reliance upon established facts which showed how utterly dishonest police officers in South Yorkshire had been, by making false claims of identification from inside an observation van that was not even present at the scene at the time the so called identification of one of two identical looking men, as being me. It would have been very beneficial for the jury which tried and convicted me in 1988, to have been presented with the stark facts arising out of the earlier matter, in particular, it would have alerted the jury to the possibility or the likelihood that cops had just made up the identification evidence in the bungalow matters, in the same way they had in the observation van matter. More importantly, I was denied a reliance on the claim that in the observation van matters, there were 'two men both identical in appearance, both wearing similar clothing and foot wear, the only difference being, that one of the two identical looking men was 4" taller than the other...

In the bungalow matters, the man who barricaded himself into the loft of the bungalow, and broke out onto the roof, who jumped from the roof of the bungalow and fled the scene, was not given a height at all by any of the identifying officers. This was problematic for the cops because it was on the police record that another person identical to me, had allegedly accompanied me in the observation van matters. Yet, here in the bungalow matters, involving only one suspect all the cops were saying I was 'that' man, without making any reference whatsoever to the height of the man in the loft, the height of the man on the roof, etc...

Without any reference at all, to the height of the suspect involved in the bungalow matters, how could police be certain that the man involved in these bungalow matters, was not the shorter of the two identical looking men involved in the observation van matter?

The CPS pulled a flanker by making out it intended to reinstate the observation van matters, knowing that by presenting this lie to the trial judge in September, 1988, that I would be prevented from relying on such a damning piece of evidence which was capable of seriously undermining the identification evidence of cops in the instant case...

The CPS never went on to reinstate the so called observation van matters...

I believe this provides me with a fresh ground of appeal. Since, I was prevented from relying upon the fact that dishonest South Yorkshire police officers (DS Shepherd, and DC Caulfield) had 'fabricated identification evidence' against me, in an earlier No.3 Regional Crime Squad / Barnsley CID, operation. It now being my case, that had it been properly allowed during my trial, that the jury would have been swayed by the fact that, according to South Yorkshire police themselves, there existed two identical looking men, who looked like me (that made for three versions of myself), without any reference by any of the identifying officers to the height of the man involved in the bungalow matters. With no mention of the suspects height by any of the identifying officers, how could anyone of them have been sure that the man they claim they saw, had been me?

[mike tesko]

Failure to provide a height, or as it were an estimated height of the suspect in the bungalow matters, is pivotal in relation to the question of whether or not, my convictions are safe, or not. Cops and the CPS knew this from the failure to convict me in the observation van matters, and sought to deliberately deprive me of access to this material during my 1988 trial...