Author Topic: 2012 CCRC judicial review decision summary:  (Read 2383 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline notsure

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1684
Re: 2012 CCRC judicial review decision summary:
« Reply #15 on: April 06, 2017, 07:24:PM »
There was one silencer.

The relatives found it and handed it in to the police.

The police handed it to Huntingdon for tests. It was human blood. Almost certainly Sheila's who had a received contact shot.

The silencer also had aga paint on. Which means it was on during the massacre.

But feel free to be a conspiracy theorist.

there was more than one silencer adam but only one supposedly used in the crime

it may have been handed in but was returned as they wouldn't accept it , god knows what happened to it in the me time

there is a possibility of it not being human blood, I have serious doubts about this evidence

Funny how Sutherst examined the scratches that were not there in the first set of photos, hence jb needs to see them all

your nuts if you think I am a conspiracy theorist, you are a sarcastic little man that seems to need to belittle everything anyone says if they question any of the evidence.

guest7363

  • Guest
Re: 2012 CCRC judicial review decision summary:
« Reply #16 on: April 06, 2017, 07:50:PM »
there was more than one silencer adam but only one supposedly used in the crime

it may have been handed in but was returned as they wouldn't accept it , god knows what happened to it in the me time

there is a possibility of it not being human blood, I have serious doubts about this evidence

Funny how Sutherst examined the scratches that were not there in the first set of photos, hence jb needs to see them all

your nuts if you think I am a conspiracy theorist, you are a sarcastic little man that seems to need to belittle everything anyone says if they question any of the evidence.
Hi Notsure, just found this,

A method for investigating claims of innocence

(second extract from 'Claims of Innocence' by Michael Naughton and Gabe Tan)

Introduction: Once an alleged victim of a wrongful conviction has lost in his/her appeal and been refused a referral back to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) (CACD) by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) there is a very slim chance that they will be able to overturn the conviction.

In these circumstances, victims of wrongful conviction are likely to have also exhausted the legal aid system and it will be down to themselves, their families, supporters, pro bono lawyers and voluntary groups to unearth the evidence of innocence and present it to relevant authorities such as the CCRC if they hope to get the conviction referred back to the CACD to be overturned. Investigating an alleged wrongful conviction is a lengthy and challenging process. Cases of high profile miscarriages of justice such as the Cardiff Newsagent Three, Paul Blackburn, Robert Brown, Sean Hodgson, and so on, show that it can take years and even decades of investigation before the evidence that led to the quashing of the conviction is found.

This chapter is not meant to be a comprehensive guide on how to investigate an alleged wrongful conviction. Rather, its aim is to provide a general and systematic method of investigation that can assist alleged victims of wrongful conviction and those seeking to investigate claims of innocence.

Step 1: Ensuring the retention of evidence and case documents
Before commencing an investigation into an alleged wrongful conviction, it is crucial to ensure that ALL evidence and documents obtained in the course of investigation are not destroyed. To this end, the following provides an outline of the respective retention policies of the Police, the Forensic Science Service (FSS) and solicitors finns.
Retention of material by the police

The duty of the police to retain material relevant to the investigation is set out in the Code of Practice made under s.23 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA).

Under the Code of Practice, all material which may be relevant to the investigation must be retained by the police until a decision is made on whether or not a person should be charged with the offence. If the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decides to proceed with criminal charges, all relevant material must be retained at least until the defendant is convicted, acquitted or the CPS decides not to proceed with the case.

Upon a conviction, all relevant material must be retained by the police until:

-   the convicted person is released from custody, or discharged from hospital, III cases where the court imposes a custodial sentence or a hospital order;

-   six months from the date of conviction in cases where a custodial sentence has not been imposed, or, where the custodial sentence given is less than 6 months.
If an appeal against conviction is in progress, all material must be retained until the appeal is determined, Similarly, if an application has been made to the CCRC, all material must be retained until the CCRC reaches a decision or until the appeal resulting from a referral by the CCRC is heard.

If you are still seeking to challenge your conviction even after you have lost in your appeal or the CCRC has refused to refer your case back to the appeal courts, it is vital that you make a formal written request to the relevant police force for all material relating to your case to be retained.

guest7363

  • Guest
Re: 2012 CCRC judicial review decision summary:
« Reply #17 on: April 06, 2017, 07:54:PM »
If an appeal against conviction is in progress, all material must be retained until the appeal is determined, Similarly, if an application has been made to the CCRC, all material must be retained until the CCRC reaches a decision or until the appeal resulting from a referral by the CCRC is heard.

If you are still seeking to challenge your conviction even after you have lost in your appeal or the CCRC has refused to refer your case back to the appeal courts, it is vital that you make a formal written request to the relevant police force for all material relating to your case to be retained.

Retention of material by the FSS and other forensic science providers

The CPIA does not cover third parties such as the FSS. Instead, the main provisions relating to the retention of case material are detailed in a Memorandum of Understanding between the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the FSS. These are simply 'best practices', rather than mandatory provisions that impose specific duties on forensic scientists in relation to the preservation of material.

All items submitted by the police to the FSS will normally be returned to the police upon completion of the laboratory examination except in circumstances where the samples are thought to pose a potential hazard (e.g. biological samples such as blood), or, where an agreement has been reached with a relevant police force/organisation for the FSS to retain them, or part of them, under specialised storage conditions, for reference purposes or for possible future re-examination using improved techniques.

The FSS will maintain a documented audit trail in relation to retained and destroyed material.

The FSS will retain material for 30 years as a matter of course in serious cases including:

Murder (including attempted murder) Other suspicious deaths

Section 18 assaults Terrorism Explosives Rape

Kidnapping and abduction Blackmail Robbery Aggravated burglary

Materials relating to all other types of offences will be retained for a period of 7 years.

However, materials in the following type of cases will only be stored for 3 years:

Simple possession of drugs Driving after consuming alcohol/drugs Alcohol technical defence

It is important to note that the 30, 7 and 3 years retention periods do not cover 'items of a perishable nature' such as bodily fluid samples which can be listed for destruction even prior to the conviction. A 'Notification of Intention to Destroy Items of a Perishable Nature' will be sent to the defence team prior to destruction which lists the items that the FSS are intending to dispose of.

As with material retained by the police, exhibits and samples held by the FSS could be vital in proving a claim of innocence. They could be tested and analysed with forms of forensic science techniques not utilised or not available at the time of the police investigation which could yield results that exonerate an alleged victim of wrongful conviction.

It is crucial that alleged victims of wrongful convictions instruct their defence team to respond to the FSS's 'Notification ofIntention to Destroy Items of a Perishable Nature' and request for the destruction to be stayed - stopped. In addition, a formal request to the FSS should be made for other non-perishable materials to be retained beyond the minimum retention period.

In addition, even though the original item has been destroyed, it is possible that material taken from the item has been retained. Checks should be made whether such derived samples exist; for example, DNA extracts that may have been frozen. Items listed on the destruction order might also still exist even if the original defence solicitor had failed to make a request for them to be retained. It is, therefore, worth contacting the FSS to ascertain the specific items and samples that they still hold in relation to your case.

Finally, it is important to point out that the police are increasingly using other forensic science providers. The retention policy with forensic science providers other than the FSS is contained within the General Specification Schedule 6A Items 3.22-3.26 Storage, Retention and Disposal. The details of this policy are the same as the Memorandum of Understanding between the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the FSS, i.e. the 3, 7 and 30 year guidance, with the option for forces to request extension periods.
It is recommended that it be requested in writing to the forensic science provider and the investigating police force that all items be retained. The reason that the police need to be contacted is that once a forensic science provider has finished with a case, most exhibits will be sent back to the police. However, certain items such as microscope slides, DNA extracts, acetate sheets containing fibre tape lifts etc will be retained by the forensic science provider for a variable amount of time.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21095

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44329
Re: 2012 CCRC judicial review decision summary:
« Reply #19 on: April 06, 2017, 08:12:PM »
there was more than one silencer adam but only one supposedly used in the crime

it may have been handed in but was returned as they wouldn't accept it , god knows what happened to it in the me time

there is a possibility of it not being human blood, I have serious doubts about this evidence

Funny how Sutherst examined the scratches that were not there in the first set of photos, hence jb needs to see them all

your nuts if you think I am a conspiracy theorist, you are a sarcastic little man that seems to need to belittle everything anyone says if they question any of the evidence.

Sources please.

The crime scene photos could not determine whether the aga had scratch marks.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21095
Re: 2012 CCRC judicial review decision summary:
« Reply #20 on: April 06, 2017, 08:34:PM »
Sources please.

The crime scene photos could not determine whether the aga had scratch marks.
It was the underside of the mantelpiece I think. Peter Sutherst in Crimes That Shook Britain said they weren't there when the photos were taken, but if they were underneath why would they be?

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44329
Re: 2012 CCRC judicial review decision summary:
« Reply #21 on: April 06, 2017, 08:37:PM »
It was the underside of the mantelpiece I think. Peter Sutherst in Crimes That Shook Britain said they weren't there when the photos were taken, but if they were underneath why would they be?

If it was proved the scratch marks were made after the crime scene photos were taken, surely Bamber would have been released. And the relatives would be in big trouble.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44329
Re: 2012 CCRC judicial review decision summary:
« Reply #22 on: April 06, 2017, 08:40:PM »
The other thing Smethurst said was there was no debris underneath the scratch marks. But there wouldn't be. The scratch marks were too weak to produce debris.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2017, 08:45:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48673
Re: 2012 CCRC judicial review decision summary:
« Reply #23 on: April 07, 2017, 08:56:AM »
It looks like Peter Tatchell is running with this story: https://twitter.com/Bambertweets/status/849925691219083264?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet





It's surprising how many followers/contacts this man has.

guest7363

  • Guest
Re: 2012 CCRC judicial review decision summary:
« Reply #24 on: April 07, 2017, 08:11:PM »




It's surprising how many followers/contacts this man has.
Makes you wonder who his followers are, seems to have the wrong contacts?

https://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=436

http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/index.php/peter-tatchell-and-the-paedophile-book/

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48673
Re: 2012 CCRC judicial review decision summary:
« Reply #25 on: April 07, 2017, 08:26:PM »
Makes you wonder who his followers are, seems to have the wrong contacts?

https://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=436

http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/index.php/peter-tatchell-and-the-paedophile-book/




I'm no fan of the man,never have been,don't buy his books and don't agree with his way of life,but it would seem in this day and age if you pass remarks about people like this,you end up being the " baddie " and not them.It's the world we live in. Bad seems to overrule good,so long as you're well-known ! 




 

guest7363

  • Guest
Re: 2012 CCRC judicial review decision summary:
« Reply #26 on: April 07, 2017, 08:35:PM »



I'm no fan of the man,never have been,don't buy his books and don't agree with his way of life,but it would seem in this day and age if you pass remarks about people like this,you end up being the " baddie " and not them.It's the world we live in. Bad seems to overrule good,so long as you're well-known !
Quite true Lookout, just seems he courts the wrong type of press, I'm like you I follow no one, I'm my own mind and I don't want no Aussie coming over here trying to change our laws that may effect my grandchildren.  He seems to stick his nose into everything.

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48673
Re: 2012 CCRC judicial review decision summary:
« Reply #27 on: April 07, 2017, 08:40:PM »
As long as PT's main objective right now is towards helping make JB a free man,then he can continue campaigning in that area as he's known for his insistence with his rights programmes.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21095
Re: 2012 CCRC judicial review decision summary:
« Reply #28 on: April 07, 2017, 10:08:PM »
There's so much fake news about today. Does anyone know what Tatchell said or is it all guilt by association?

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48673
Re: 2012 CCRC judicial review decision summary:
« Reply #29 on: April 07, 2017, 10:12:PM »
There's so much fake news about today. Does anyone know what Tatchell said or is it all guilt by association?





The letter he wrote to EP is on Bambertweets or the CT campaign news page.