When the enquiry changed from a suicide to murder did the relatives have alibis?

[clifford]

Have a read of Ground 15 of the 2002 appeal judgement.

Lots of info about the DNA and how it was responded to in the last appeal.

or in conclusion...

In our judgment having reviewed the whole of the evidence about the blood, there is nothing to suggest that the evidence of Mr Hayward in this regard is wrong. The evidence did point to the blood being that of Sheila Caffell but he was right to acknowledge the remote possibility that there was a mixture of blood from June  Bamber  and Nevill  Bamber . That possibility could only be overcome by considering the other aspects of the evidence, the lack of any blood in the barrel of the rifle, the finding of the moderator carefully put away in its proper place and all the other unrelated aspects of the case. We can find nothing to suggest that the evidence that was placed before the jury was misleading nor that the jury would not have given careful consideration to this aspect of the case. Accordingly we reject this ground.

Was this a quote from the dodgy Appeal judges.Birds of the feather ect.

The judges are dodgy now then?

Come on Harts you know they are. Please don,t make go through all of the recent cases. Give you one in a long line, I am not going to mention the judge that was pissed[bugger I did].I will mention the judge who said a twelve year old who was raped, that she asked for it. Not the exact words, but that was what he was implying.

[Hartley]

Have a read of Ground 15 of the 2002 appeal judgement.

Lots of info about the DNA and how it was responded to in the last appeal.

or in conclusion...

In our judgment having reviewed the whole of the evidence about the blood, there is nothing to suggest that the evidence of Mr Hayward in this regard is wrong. The evidence did point to the blood being that of Sheila Caffell but he was right to acknowledge the remote possibility that there was a mixture of blood from June  Bamber  and Nevill  Bamber . That possibility could only be overcome by considering the other aspects of the evidence, the lack of any blood in the barrel of the rifle, the finding of the moderator carefully put away in its proper place and all the other unrelated aspects of the case. We can find nothing to suggest that the evidence that was placed before the jury was misleading nor that the jury would not have given careful consideration to this aspect of the case. Accordingly we reject this ground.

Was this a quote from the dodgy Appeal judges.Birds of the feather ect.

The judges are dodgy now then?

Come on Harts you know they are. Please don,t make go through all of the recent cases. Give you one in a long line, I am not going to mention the judge that was pissed[bugger I did].I will mention the judge who said a twelve year old who was raped, that she asked for it. Not the exact words, but that was what he was implying.

No, if you excuse my French but that is ******** (I decided not to use French  ). A Judge presides over a case and nothing more. Are you suggesting that the judge in this case was dodgy? What evidence is there of that, what gain would he have accrued?

We are getting into fantasy land here.

[clifford]

Have a read of Ground 15 of the 2002 appeal judgement.

Lots of info about the DNA and how it was responded to in the last appeal.

or in conclusion...

In our judgment having reviewed the whole of the evidence about the blood, there is nothing to suggest that the evidence of Mr Hayward in this regard is wrong. The evidence did point to the blood being that of Sheila Caffell but he was right to acknowledge the remote possibility that there was a mixture of blood from June  Bamber  and Nevill  Bamber . That possibility could only be overcome by considering the other aspects of the evidence, the lack of any blood in the barrel of the rifle, the finding of the moderator carefully put away in its proper place and all the other unrelated aspects of the case. We can find nothing to suggest that the evidence that was placed before the jury was misleading nor that the jury would not have given careful consideration to this aspect of the case. Accordingly we reject this ground.

Was this a quote from the dodgy Appeal judges.Birds of the feather ect.

The judges are dodgy now then?

Come on Harts you know they are. Please don,t make go through all of the recent cases. Give you one in a long line, I am not going to mention the judge that was pissed[bugger I did].I will mention the judge who said a twelve year old who was raped, that she asked for it. Not the exact words, but that was what he was implying.

No, if you excuse my French but that is ******** (I decided not to use French  ). A Judge presides over a case and nothing more. Are you suggesting that the judge in this case was dodgy? What evidence is there of that, what gain would he have accrued?

We are getting into fantasy land here.

No Harts I believe the judge in Bambers case stepped over the line in his summing up. I don,t suppose you did though.

[Jackiepreece]

Hartley the question I asked was Appeal Judges get it wrong sometimes don't they?

[John]

They probably took over the baton from the 18 appeal judges who made judgements on the case of the Birmingham 6

As someone correctly posted yesterday, the Birmingham 6 was a politically inspired case whereas Jeremy Bamber's is not.

With respect, that makes no difference to the question whether there has been a miscarriage of justice.

There is no comparison between the cases and to intimate that there is incorrect.

[John]

Have a read of Ground 15 of the 2002 appeal judgement.

Lots of info about the DNA and how it was responded to in the last appeal.

or in conclusion...

In our judgment having reviewed the whole of the evidence about the blood, there is nothing to suggest that the evidence of Mr Hayward in this regard is wrong. The evidence did point to the blood being that of Sheila Caffell but he was right to acknowledge the remote possibility that there was a mixture of blood from June  Bamber  and Nevill  Bamber . That possibility could only be overcome by considering the other aspects of the evidence, the lack of any blood in the barrel of the rifle, the finding of the moderator carefully put away in its proper place and all the other unrelated aspects of the case. We can find nothing to suggest that the evidence that was placed before the jury was misleading nor that the jury would not have given careful consideration to this aspect of the case. Accordingly we reject this ground.

Was this a quote from the dodgy Appeal judges.Birds of the feather ect.

The judges are dodgy now then?

Come on Harts you know they are. Please don,t make go through all of the recent cases. Give you one in a long line, I am not going to mention the judge that was pissed[bugger I did].I will mention the judge who said a twelve year old who was raped, that she asked for it. Not the exact words, but that was what he was implying.

Judges are human...at least I am told so.   

There will always be rogues in every station in life, judges are no different.

[clifford]

Have a read of Ground 15 of the 2002 appeal judgement.

Lots of info about the DNA and how it was responded to in the last appeal.

or in conclusion...

In our judgment having reviewed the whole of the evidence about the blood, there is nothing to suggest that the evidence of Mr Hayward in this regard is wrong. The evidence did point to the blood being that of Sheila Caffell but he was right to acknowledge the remote possibility that there was a mixture of blood from June  Bamber  and Nevill  Bamber . That possibility could only be overcome by considering the other aspects of the evidence, the lack of any blood in the barrel of the rifle, the finding of the moderator carefully put away in its proper place and all the other unrelated aspects of the case. We can find nothing to suggest that the evidence that was placed before the jury was misleading nor that the jury would not have given careful consideration to this aspect of the case. Accordingly we reject this ground.

Was this a quote from the dodgy Appeal judges.Birds of the feather ect.

The judges are dodgy now then?

Come on Harts you know they are. Please don,t make go through all of the recent cases. Give you one in a long line, I am not going to mention the judge that was pissed[bugger I did].I will mention the judge who said a twelve year old who was raped, that she asked for it. Not the exact words, but that was what he was implying.

Judges are human...at least I am told so.   

There will always be rogues in every station in life, judges are no different.

Here, Here.

[Hartley]

Hartley the question I asked was Appeal Judges get it wrong sometimes don't they?

No I don't think so, I don't think they get it wrong.

I think they pass judgement on what is presented before them, if something is wrong in terms of successful appellants, then it is the evidence presented which is 'wrong' or insufficient.

[ngb1066]

They probably took over the baton from the 18 appeal judges who made judgements on the case of the Birmingham 6

As someone correctly posted yesterday, the Birmingham 6 was a politically inspired case whereas Jeremy Bamber's is not.

With respect, that makes no difference to the question whether there has been a miscarriage of justice.

There is no comparison between the cases and to intimate that there is incorrect.

Of course the cases are different - almost every case if different from another even if the charges are the same.  The key point however is that it does not matter what was the original inspiration or motivation for the prosecution.  Following a conviction which is taken to appeal judges of the Court of Appeal can and do get it wrong on occasions. 

   

[John]

Have a read of Ground 15 of the 2002 appeal judgement.

Lots of info about the DNA and how it was responded to in the last appeal.

or in conclusion...

In our judgment having reviewed the whole of the evidence about the blood, there is nothing to suggest that the evidence of Mr Hayward in this regard is wrong. The evidence did point to the blood being that of Sheila Caffell but he was right to acknowledge the remote possibility that there was a mixture of blood from June  Bamber  and Nevill  Bamber . That possibility could only be overcome by considering the other aspects of the evidence, the lack of any blood in the barrel of the rifle, the finding of the moderator carefully put away in its proper place and all the other unrelated aspects of the case. We can find nothing to suggest that the evidence that was placed before the jury was misleading nor that the jury would not have given careful consideration to this aspect of the case. Accordingly we reject this ground.

Was this a quote from the dodgy Appeal judges.Birds of the feather ect.

The judges are dodgy now then?

Come on Harts you know they are. Please don,t make go through all of the recent cases. Give you one in a long line, I am not going to mention the judge that was pissed[bugger I did].I will mention the judge who said a twelve year old who was raped, that she asked for it. Not the exact words, but that was what he was implying.

No, if you excuse my French but that is ******** (I decided not to use French  ). A Judge presides over a case and nothing more. Are you suggesting that the judge in this case was dodgy? What evidence is there of that, what gain would he have accrued?

We are getting into fantasy land here.

No Harts I believe the judge in Bambers case stepped over the line in his summing up. I don,t suppose you did though.

They do this routinely Cliff, it is a fact of life.  Many  Most of these judges start out as prosecutors and are fundamentally against allowing convictions to be quashed. I don't like it, you don't like it but that is the rotten system we are stuck with.  I don't think it is just as bad in England but try looking at a small place like Scotland where just about every judge previously worked for the Crown Office.  I think judges should be elected in any event like they were in olden times or as in the US, they would then be accountable to the people as a whole.  As it stands they are accountable to only their immediate superior who himself is ultimately only accountable to the Home Secretary.

Judges are not impartial, they are biased and are so towards the Crown. It is a fact of life.

[John]

They probably took over the baton from the 18 appeal judges who made judgements on the case of the Birmingham 6

As someone correctly posted yesterday, the Birmingham 6 was a politically inspired case whereas Jeremy Bamber's is not.

With respect, that makes no difference to the question whether there has been a miscarriage of justice.

There is no comparison between the cases and to intimate that there is incorrect.

Of course the cases are different - almost every case if different from another even if the charges are the same.  The key point however is that it does not matter what was the original inspiration or motivation for the prosecution.  Following a conviction which is taken to appeal judges of the Court of Appeal can and do get it wrong on occasions. 

 

That is why they have 3, 5 or 7 on the bench.  They cannot all be wrong being the theory!

[clifford]

Have a read of Ground 15 of the 2002 appeal judgement.

Lots of info about the DNA and how it was responded to in the last appeal.

or in conclusion...

In our judgment having reviewed the whole of the evidence about the blood, there is nothing to suggest that the evidence of Mr Hayward in this regard is wrong. The evidence did point to the blood being that of Sheila Caffell but he was right to acknowledge the remote possibility that there was a mixture of blood from June  Bamber  and Nevill  Bamber . That possibility could only be overcome by considering the other aspects of the evidence, the lack of any blood in the barrel of the rifle, the finding of the moderator carefully put away in its proper place and all the other unrelated aspects of the case. We can find nothing to suggest that the evidence that was placed before the jury was misleading nor that the jury would not have given careful consideration to this aspect of the case. Accordingly we reject this ground.

Was this a quote from the dodgy Appeal judges.Birds of the feather ect.

The judges are dodgy now then?

Come on Harts you know they are. Please don,t make go through all of the recent cases. Give you one in a long line, I am not going to mention the judge that was pissed[bugger I did].I will mention the judge who said a twelve year old who was raped, that she asked for it. Not the exact words, but that was what he was implying.

No, if you excuse my French but that is ******** (I decided not to use French  ). A Judge presides over a case and nothing more. Are you suggesting that the judge in this case was dodgy? What evidence is there of that, what gain would he have accrued?

We are getting into fantasy land here.

No Harts I believe the judge in Bambers case stepped over the line in his summing up. I don,t suppose you did though.

They do this routinely Cliff, it is a fact of life.  Many  Most of these judges start out as prosecutors and are fundamentally against allowing convictions to be quashed. I don't like it, you don't like it but that is the rotten system we are stuck with.  I don't think it is just as bad in England but try looking at a small place like Scotland where just about every judge previously worked for the Crown Office.  I think judges should be elected in any event like they were in olden times or as in the US, they would then be accountable to the people as a whole.  As it stands they are accountable to only their immediate superior who himself is ultimately only accountable to the Home Secretary.

Judges are not impartial, they are biased and are so towards the Crown. It is a fact of life.

That was quite refreshing from you John.

[John]

Just the truth...I have no problem with that.

[Hartley]

No Harts I believe the judge in Bambers case stepped over the line in his summing up. I don,t suppose you did though.

I don't really have an opinion about it.

Do you think if he summed it up differently the juries verdict would be different?

[Jackiepreece]

Absolutely