are the appeal court and the ccrc guilty of double standards

[sami]

why did jb defence not mention the figure at the window in court

[Jane]

why did jb defence not mention the figure at the window in court

Why was Jeremy not screaming it from the roof tops. All he had to do was swear that he AND named police saw "an unidentified person moving around in the bedroom".

[sami]

they dont need to the fact they agrea it could of been makes the conviction unsafe be any normal standard of brittish justice.

the jury took all this in considaration and found him guilty

[David1819]

why did jb defence not mention the figure at the window in court

They didn't have the police log books or radio notes.

I have read somewhere that it was brought up at his first appeal in 1988  but was argued to be a trick of the light.

[sami]

They didn't have the police log books or radio notes.

I have read somewhere that it was brought up at his first appeal in 1988  but was argued to be a trick of the light.

but thats jb and his defence teams fault.had it happened then they should have asked for any logs relating to the case .why did they not ask.the fact is that jb did not mention this to his defence team why.because it never happened.there was no one at any window of whf

[Adam]

They didn't have the police log books or radio notes.

I have read somewhere that it was brought up at his first appeal in 1988  but was argued to be a trick of the light.

But Bamber saw it himself. Most sources say he was the one who spotted  it. So he could have told his defence.

[Adam]

That's not what Vanezis said. He said the shots was entirely consistent with her taking her own life but you cant determine exactly one way or another.

Professor Knight then sais the idea of someone else doing it seems "extraordinary"

Contrary to Johns claim that the wounds mean any fool can work out she didn't shoot herself

How can she have shot herself with the silencer on ?

[Adam]

how could scratch marks in the kitchen prove a silencer was used thats a total joke.

Because the silencer had the paint from the aga inside.

[sami]

the false sighting was all part of jb master plan to deflect blame somewhere else ofcourse  it couldnt have been him if he was standing outside with police and someone was at the window .so he would have us beleave

[Caroline]

the false sighting was all part of jb master plan to deflect blame somewhere else ofcourse  it couldnt have been him if he was standing outside with police and someone was at the window .so he would have us beleave

And part of his alibi, if someone was alive inside, it couldn't have been him who killed everyone.

[Adam]

ok in barry geordges case the evdence was more or less non existent in the first place but the jenkins is very silmlar in the use of foensic evdence.

at the trail the proscution cliamed that the blood on his clothes was irfutable proof of guilt.

it later turned out to be noting of the sort.

the same as the silencer in this case.

That was the only forensic evidence in the Sion Jenkins case. The Bamber case has hundreds.

Jenkins  said something about the blood ending up on his clothes was to do with him going towards his dead daughter. Jenkins was a clever man and got a retrial. Juries twice unable to reach a verdict.

Jenkins also had the option of claiming it was a random burglar/mad man. Bamber didn't.

[sami]

And part of his alibi, if someone was alive inside, it couldn't have been him who killed everyone.

correct very very cunning

[David1819]

but thats jb and his defence teams fault.had it happened then they should have asked for any logs relating to the case .why did they not ask.the fact is that jb did not mention this to his defence team why.because it never happened.there was no one at any window of whf

They asked for everything and were told they were given everything.

Withholding information from the defence is nothing unusual unfortunately

[David1819]

But Bamber saw it himself. Most sources say he was the one who spotted  it. So he could have told his defence.

Its no good Jeremy just standing in court saying he saw it, the prosecution would just say he is lying.

They would need police material to back it up, that they didn't have.

[sami]

That was the only forensic evidence in the Sion Jenkins case. The Bamber case has hundreds.

Jenkins  said something about the blood ending up on his clothes was to do with him going towards his dead daughter. Jenkins was a clever man and got a retrial. Juries twice unable to reach a verdict.

Jenkins also had the option of claiming it was a random burglar/mad man. Bamber didn't.

clever killer adam and very evil man.the splatter he claimed was a bubble of blood from dying daughters mouth that had burst and sprayed his shirt.telling point is he told police he went to shut the sunroof of his car after finding his daughter dying.perfect excuse for any traces of his daughters blood found in his car.because he killed her than took the others shopping.very cunning