why full disclosure is so important

[sherlock]

There have been two widely reported cases recently that people should take note of.

The first is the poor student who spent 2 years on bail for rape and only narrowly escaped a 12 year unjust jail term because the Police left it to the last minute to disclose a log of text messages proving his accuser was a complete liar.

Luckily for him his lawyers obtained disclosure of the relevant text messages from the Police as the trial was starting.

For almost 2 years his lawyers had requested disclosure only to be repeatedly told "there is nothing to disclose".

Thank God some one somewhere actually made the disclosure to the defence in time.

But it does show the absolute critical importance of total full and complete disclosure.

And as we all know that is not something that Jeremy Bamber has ever been allowed.


The second case is that of Rolf Harris.

He faced 3 separate trials.

He was found guilty of 11 counts in the first trial.

He was found not guilty in the second and third trial.

He appealed his 11 convictions from the first trial to the Court of Appeal.

I know the Barrister that did the appeal and he told me for a fact that a lot of fantasist had jumped on board against Rolf Harris.

He was only successful in overturning one of the 11 convictions.

The reason that appeal was granted is because the conviction depended on an independent witness who said that he remembered clearly the date he saw Rolf Harris in a certain location because he was on leave from the Army on that exact date.

Rolf Harris said he had never been to that location in his life.

The Jury believed the independent witness and therefore assumed Rolf Harris was lying and he was therefore convicted of that charge.

His Barrister managed to prove in the appeal that not only had the witness never been in the army but he had never had a passport and had never even left the country.

Basically it was proved beyond a doubt that the independent witness had made the whole thing up.

Just because you or i would not dream of giving false evidence against someone in Court it does not mean that there are not plenty of people who do tell complete and utter lies about people in Court.

It happens every day of the week in Courts across the country.

The moral of the story ?

Don't assume Julie Mugford was being truthful.

If you believe the silencer evidence is suspect then can you really be convinced Jeremy Bamber is guilty on the say so of one witness ?

Apart from the silencer and Julie the only evidence against Jeremy Bamber is simply not enough to justify locking him up for his whole natural life.

Discount the silencer and Julie and can you honestly say hand on heart there is enough evidence left so you can be sure he was guilty beyond any reasonable doubt ?

I can't ...

[nugnug]

well this even more so in this case were police are blatently withholding evidence.

[Jane]

There seems to be a vast blurring of lines here between there -allegedly- being no evidence of a crime committed by someone and whether such automatically signifies innocence. So WHAT if we accept that Julie may not have been entirely truthful -I, for one, believe that she's likely to have known more than she told- how would it make Jeremy innocent? As for the silencer? WHICH silencer? According to this forum, they were breeding. Maybe it was a case of the jury -just like one poster here has nothing but gut instinct to back-up belief in his innocence- having a gut instinct of his guilt. It might be an interesting exercise to find out how many jurors go with gut instinct over alleged evidence.

[nugnug]

There seems to be a vast blurring of lines here between there -allegedly- being no evidence of a crime committed by someone and whether such automatically signifies innocence. So WHAT if we accept that Julie may not have been entirely truthful -I, for one, believe that she's likely to have known more than she told- how would it make Jeremy innocent? As for the silencer? WHICH silencer? According to this forum, they were breeding. Maybe it was a case of the jury -just like one poster here has nothing but gut instinct to back-up belief in his innocence- having a gut instinct of his guilt. It might be an interesting exercise to find out how many jurors go with gut instinct over alleged evidence.

but there not ment to go with gut feeling there instructed by the judge to go with evdence if they failed to followe the judges instructions and it counts as a misscarredge of justice.

[sherlock]

There seems to be a vast blurring of lines here between there -allegedly- being no evidence of a crime committed by someone and whether such automatically signifies innocence. So WHAT if we accept that Julie may not have been entirely truthful -I, for one, believe that she's likely to have known more than she told- how would it make Jeremy innocent? As for the silencer? WHICH silencer? According to this forum, they were breeding. Maybe it was a case of the jury -just like one poster here has nothing but gut instinct to back-up belief in his innocence- having a gut instinct of his guilt. It might be an interesting exercise to find out how many jurors go with gut instinct over alleged evidence.

Lack of evidence does not automatically mean he is innocent.

Personally i would like to see a retrial including a very thorough cross examination indeed of Julie Mugford and others.

I once saw a question to a Judge from a Jury - "are we allowed to use our previous experience in life or must we stick to just the evidence ? ".

The Judges answer was that they must stick to the evidence.

I am normally a very good judge of character - my main method is looking in people eyes - for me the eyes truly are the window to the soul - second to that i rely on tone of voice and thirdly by body language.

If i have a lot of knowledge of a persons life then i also believe in looking at the fruits of someones life - for example what has become of the people that they have spent a lot of time with ? Some people seem to have a very good effect on most people they meet - and some the opposite.

I am happy to base my personal and business decisions in life based on the above factors.

Would i consider these factors if i was on a jury - absolutely not !!!

Unfortunately i think many Jury members take a different approach.

I think a properly funded scientific study of "how many jurors go with gut instinct over alleged evidence." would be an excellent idea.

Depending on the results it might then be possible for Juries to receive appropriate pre trial advice from the Judge regarding this.

[Jane]

but there not ment to go with gut feeling there instructed by the judge to go with evdence if they failed to followe the judges instructions and it counts as a misscarredge of justice.

What people are MEANT to do and what they actually do -and admit to doing- are often entirely different things.

[nugnug]

lack of evdence does not prove somone is innocent it is a very good sighn that they are.

the jury were also blatent untruths in the court and how are you supposed to reach a correct verdict when your not only not told the whole story and the story you told contains blatent lies.

[Jane]

Lack of evidence does not automatically mean he is innocent.

Personally i would like to see a retrial including a very thorough cross examination indeed of Julie Mugford and others.

I once saw a question to a Judge from a Jury - "are we allowed to use our previous experience in life or must we stick to just the evidence ? ".

The Judges answer was that they must stick to the evidence.

I am normally a very good judge of character - my main method is looking in people eyes - for me the eyes truly are the window to the soul - second to that i rely on tone of voice and thirdly by body language.

If i have a lot of knowledge of a persons life then i also believe in looking at the fruits of someones life - for example what has become of the people that they have spent a lot of time with ? Some people seem to have a very good effect on most people they meet - and some the opposite.

I am happy to base my personal and business decisions in life based on the above factors.

Would i consider these factors if i was on a jury - absolutely not !!!

Unfortunately i think many Jury members take a different approach.

I think a properly funded scientific study of "how many jurors go with gut instinct over alleged evidence." would be an excellent idea.

Depending on the results it might then be possible for Juries to receive appropriate pre trial advice from the Judge regarding this.

Again, we're going back to living in a perfect world in which all jurors stick to the rules. When I was a mere 'rookie', I was required to write down any personal 'stuff' and deposit it in the bin provided to make certain I didn't take it with me into the counselling room. I had three years of training. How many jurors, despite a judges instructions to the contrary, will NOT bring their own life experiences with them into the jury room? How many times have you seen me tell a poster "This is not about YOU"? I imagine it's very hard for the untrained to remain objective. Some can only judge others in relation to themselves.

[Jane]

lack of evdence does not prove somone is innocent it is a very good sighn that they are.

the jury were also blatent untruths in the court and how are you supposed to reach a correct verdict when your not only not told the whole story and the story you told contains blatent lies.

All of which requires proof. At the moment it's no more than supporters' opinion and the differing opinions of experts.

[nugnug]

All of which requires proof. At the moment it's no more than supporters' opinion and the differing opinions of experts.

the proscution cliamed that it must be sheilas in the gun when they had way of proving that with 1980s forensics and they ethere knew that or should of done lie number 1

the proscution said lack of gsr pointed to guilt when it clearly indicates the reverse lie number 2

the proscution said the relatives had nothing to gain from bamberss conviction lie number 3.

[Jane]

the proscution cliamed that it must be sheilas in the gun when they had way of proving that with 1980s forensics and they ethere knew that or should of done lie number 1

the proscution said lack of gsr pointed to guilt when it clearly indicates the reverse lie number 2

the proscution said the relatives had nothing to gain from bamberss conviction lie number 3.

All of which can be disputed. As for the prosecution saying that relatives had nothing to gain from Jeremy's conviction, I don't believe such a question was ever posed. RWB was, I believe, asked if he would gain from Jeremy's conviction and he said he wouldn't. Technically he was correct in his answer. He wasn't asked if he'd gain via his wife's inheritance. -and as she passed the inheritance on- he didn't. He wasn't asked if his children would benefit from Jeremy's conviction, either. Lack of gsr on whom pointed to guilt? I don't understand your first point so I can't respond.

[nugnug]

All of which can be disputed. As for the prosecution saying that relatives had nothing to gain from Jeremy's conviction, I don't believe such a question was ever posed. RWB was, I believe, asked if he would gain from Jeremy's conviction and he said he wouldn't. Technically he was correct in his answer. He wasn't asked if he'd gain via his wife's inheritance. -and as she passed the inheritance on- he didn't. He wasn't asked if his children would benefit from Jeremy's conviction, either. Lack of gsr on whom pointed to guilt? I don't understand your first point so I can't respond.

no it was the correct answer they didn't ask him weather he was mentioned in the will they asked him if he had anything to gain.

a husband is considered in law to be the finical partner of his wife so if yuor wife is mentioned in will you do have something to gain.

[Jane]

no it was the correct answer they didn't ask him weather he was mentioned in the will they asked him if he had anything to gain.

a husband is considered in law to be the finical partner of his wife so if yuor wife is mentioned in will you do have something to gain.

Not according to Google, he isn't. If I'm reading it correctly, a wife is fully entitled to keep to herself an inheritance she's the recipient of.

[Steve_uk]

There have been two widely reported cases recently that people should take note of.

The first is the poor student who spent 2 years on bail for rape and only narrowly escaped a 12 year unjust jail term because the Police left it to the last minute to disclose a log of text messages proving his accuser was a complete liar.

Luckily for him his lawyers obtained disclosure of the relevant text messages from the Police as the trial was starting.

For almost 2 years his lawyers had requested disclosure only to be repeatedly told "there is nothing to disclose".

Thank God some one somewhere actually made the disclosure to the defence in time.

But it does show the absolute critical importance of total full and complete disclosure.

And as we all know that is not something that Jeremy Bamber has ever been allowed.


The second case is that of Rolf Harris.

He faced 3 separate trials.

He was found guilty of 11 counts in the first trial.

He was found not guilty in the second and third trial.

He appealed his 11 convictions from the first trial to the Court of Appeal.

I know the Barrister that did the appeal and he told me for a fact that a lot of fantasist had jumped on board against Rolf Harris.

He was only successful in overturning one of the 11 convictions.

The reason that appeal was granted is because the conviction depended on an independent witness who said that he remembered clearly the date he saw Rolf Harris in a certain location because he was on leave from the Army on that exact date.

Rolf Harris said he had never been to that location in his life.

The Jury believed the independent witness and therefore assumed Rolf Harris was lying and he was therefore convicted of that charge.

His Barrister managed to prove in the appeal that not only had the witness never been in the army but he had never had a passport and had never even left the country.

Basically it was proved beyond a doubt that the independent witness had made the whole thing up.

Just because you or i would not dream of giving false evidence against someone in Court it does not mean that there are not plenty of people who do tell complete and utter lies about people in Court.

It happens every day of the week in Courts across the country.

The moral of the story ?

Don't assume Julie Mugford was being truthful.

If you believe the silencer evidence is suspect then can you really be convinced Jeremy Bamber is guilty on the say so of one witness ?

Apart from the silencer and Julie the only evidence against Jeremy Bamber is simply not enough to justify locking him up for his whole natural life.

Discount the silencer and Julie and can you honestly say hand on heart there is enough evidence left so you can be sure he was guilty beyond any reasonable doubt ?

I can't ...

But there was also an occasion where he had been accused of sexual assault in Cambridge in 1978 and he denied having been there, yet television footage of him in the locality at that time emerged. I'm all for giving these people a fair trial, but you have to respect the verdict of it. If you wish to make a pain in the ass of the Establishment, the only real way to secure release, then go ahead.

In the Bamber case there's far more to go on than the silencer. He lied about the true nature of his relationship with his parents, hoping that his bluster, charm and Hugo Boss suit would see him exculpated. One should never forget the nature of the crimes we are discussing and the overwhelming circumstantial evidence when all parts of the jigsaw are assembled.

[sherlock]

But there was also an occasion where he had been accused of sexual assault in Cambridge in 1978 and he denied having been there, yet television footage of him in the locality at that time emerged. I'm all for giving these people a fair trial, but you have to respect the verdict of it. If you wish to make a pain in the ass of the Establishment, the only real way to secure release, then go ahead.

In the Bamber case there's far more to go on than the silencer. He lied about the true nature of his relationship with his parents, hoping that his bluster, charm and Hugo Boss suit would see him exculpated. One should never forget the nature of the crimes we are discussing and the overwhelming circumstantial evidence when all parts of the jigsaw are assembled.

I agree 100% that Rolf Harris has still rightly been convicted of 10 offences.
My point was that in relation to the 11th charge an independent witness made up his whole story.
I made the point to show how easily it happens.

In the other case i highlighted the facts appear to be that a girl kept pestering the poor bloke for sex and when he rejected her - she made up allegations that could have seen him in prison for 12 years - a case of "if i can't have you then no one can" for sure - some people do react like this to being rejected.

I never ever forget the true nature of the Bamber murders - apart from others it was a double child murder.

I for one do not yet accept that the circumstantial evidence against Jeremy Bamber is overwhelming.

If the silencer was not used then Sheila could well have done it - therefore Neville could well have phoned Jeremy.

What circumstantial evidence apart from the above convinces you beyond doubt ?

One of the big mysteries to this case for me - and i suspect others - is that the glove seems to fit Sheila very well - but equally the glove appears to fit Jeremy.

It seems that strangely they were both fairly likely to have done it.

But it could only have been one of them.

Against Sheila is the fact that she told her psychiatrist that she had thoughts of killing her children - and i do not believe anyone else would have known she had told him this - and the significance of Psalm 51 seems again to place it on her.

I also have no problem believing that Sheila showered after the murders before killing herself - as a form of ritual cleaning.

On the other hand there is good reason to suspect Jeremy.

A very baffling case indeed as i am sure many forum members will agree.