Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Roch on March 12, 2021, 12:29:PM
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/12/jeremy-bamber-lawyers-hopeful-for-release-as-fresh-legal-challenge-launched
-
This seems to be quite encouraging after all this time. There's a more positive feel about the outcome.
-
This seems to be quite encouraging after all this time. There's a more positive feel about the outcome.
I always take a reserved, pessimistic view regarding the chances of success. I believe a decision has been made that the case can never go back to appeal, no matter what is presented.
-
I always take a reserved, pessimistic view regarding the chances of success. I believe a decision has been made that the case can never go back to appeal, no matter what is presented.
Even with the addition of further evidence ?
-
'But the jury was not told of a letter from the head of biology at Huntingdon Forensic Science Laboratories saying the blood on the silencer could have come from Sheila Caffell or another relative, Robert Boutflour who has since died.'
----------
Did Huntington test RB's blood?
Why? They were instructed to test the blood inside the silencer & did not have the authority to test anyones blood.
-
The relatives would have to be aware that RB apparently had similar blood groupings to Sheila. They were not blood relations so would have had to have done tests & compared while Sheila was still alive.
A very weird thing to do.
-
Can someone provide the source that RB had the same blood type as Sheila. There is nothing in the COA.
-
Can someone provide the source that RB had the same blood type as Sheila. There is nothing in the COA.
I believe all family members involved in the case had their blood taken by the police. Off-hand I can't remember specifically who, but it probably included Robert Boutflour. This happened at some point in 1986 in the run-up to the trial. There is a document concerning it. I will dig it out of my records at some point but it is on the Forum.
Mike speculated that these tests could have been carried out due to suspicions on the part of the police that family members may have planted the silencer evidence.
As for whether family members could have known Sheila's blood group, we know that Sheila was in direct correspondence with Peter and Ann Eaton and she knew David Boutflour quite well. I do agree with you that it would be rather strange for them to know her blood group, but it is not an impossibility and remember also that Sheila had contact with doctors and either Sheila or June could have let slip the information in mundane conversations with family members. At the end of the day, they all knew each other so the possibility that they knew Sheila's blood group cannot be ruled out, even though I agree it's strange.
Also, remember that the family were close to the police investigation and so it is not out-of-the-question that very early on somebody told them Sheila's blood group or they learned it or even overheard it.
Furthermore, it is possible that somebody planted the blood in the silencer without giving any thought to blood analysis, simply in the belief that any sort of human blood found in the silencer would be incriminating, while at the same time working on the assumption that the police would be unable to match the blood to a particular person. Remember, this was before the days when DNA was used routinely in criminal investigation - that technology was still in its infancy in 1985/86 and not widespread practice, so people like the Boutflours and Eatons, and probably most police officers and forensic scientists, would have no knowledge of it.
There was another thread I started on here where I considered the blood evidence in the silencer and my conclusion was that the blood pattern in the silencer is consistent with the blood having been deliberately put there by somebody. I also concluded, in another thread, that the silencer could not have caused the scratches on the aga. None of this is to say that the silencer evidence was fabricated. I just don't know that.
-
RWB had refused a DNA test.
-
RWB had refused a DNA test.
Was that in the 90s?
-
Was that in the 90s?
I'm not sure, but the information is out there. I'll try and find it.
-
I'm not sure, but the information is out there. I'll try and find it.
It must have been in the run-up to the 2002 appeal, so it will have come under Operation Stokenchurch. The 1986 trial and the subsequent Bamber Inquiry (circa 1991) were too early, I believe, for the police to be switched-on to the relevance of DNA, though the technology was around and in limited use.
-
I believe all family members involved in the case had their blood taken by the police. Off-hand I can't remember specifically who, but it probably included Robert Boutflour. This happened at some point in 1986 in the run-up to the trial. There is a document concerning it. I will dig it out of my records at some point but it is on the Forum.
Mike speculated that these tests could have been carried out due to suspicions on the part of the police that family members may have planted the silencer evidence.
As for whether family members could have known Sheila's blood group, we know that Sheila was in direct correspondence with Peter and Ann Eaton and she knew David Boutflour quite well. I do agree with you that it would be rather strange for them to know her blood group, but it is not an impossibility and remember also that Sheila had contact with doctors and either Sheila or June could have let slip the information in mundane conversations with family members. At the end of the day, they all knew each other so the possibility that they knew Sheila's blood group cannot be ruled out, even though I agree it's strange.
Also, remember that the family were close to the police investigation and so it is not out-of-the-question that very early on somebody told them Sheila's blood group or they learned it or even overheard it.
Furthermore, it is possible that somebody planted the blood in the silencer without giving any thought to blood analysis, simply in the belief that any sort of human blood found in the silencer would be incriminating, while at the same time working on the assumption that the police would be unable to match the blood to a particular person. Remember, this was before the days when DNA was used routinely in criminal investigation - that technology was still in its infancy in 1985/86 and not widespread practice, so people like the Boutflours and Eatons, and probably most police officers and forensic scientists, would have no knowledge of it.
There was another thread I started on here where I considered the blood evidence in the silencer and my conclusion was that the blood pattern in the silencer is consistent with the blood having been deliberately put there by somebody. I also concluded, in another thread, that the silencer could not have caused the scratches on the aga. None of this is to say that the silencer evidence was fabricated. I just don't know that.
'I believe all family members involved in the case had their blood taken by the police'.
----------
Can you provide the source.
-
Apparently RWB did have his DNA taken in 2002 but there are no records ? If so, was it ever compared with the blood that was found in the silencer ? Must be Sheila's then, mmm.
-
'I believe all family members involved in the case had their blood taken by the police'.
----------
Can you provide the source.
Yes, as stated above, it's on the Forum somewhere as Mike posted up the document. I also downloaded it, so I'll post it up as and when I get round to it.
-
Yes, as stated above, it's on the Forum somewhere as Mike posted up the document. I also downloaded it, so I'll post it up as and when I get round to it.
Thanks. This was not brought up by the defence in 1986. It was not included in the 2002 COA.
A valid source needs to be provided.
-
Even with the addition of further evidence ?
I'm afraid so Lookout. I think the case is political.
-
I'm afraid so Lookout. I think the case is political.
You mean due to the impact a successful appeal could have on confidence in the judiciary?
To be honest, I personally doubt that. Unless some startling new evidence comes to light, or there is a radical shift in the interpretation of existing evidence, I think allowing the appeal could easily just be spun as a 'reasonable doubt' case - in effect, just 'one of those things' - rather than a major embarrassment to the judiciary. Any damage to public confidence in the system would be thereby minimised, and it would all quickly blow over and be forgotten in the public mind. It is true that the British judiciary are notoriously poor at institutional introspection, humility and self-reflection, but what I have just outlined is their typical method of dealing with mistakes that can't be hidden any longer: brush it under the carpet.
I think the basic problem Jeremy has is that the case against him was weak, but so is the case in his defence. This is perhaps a unique criminal case, in that regard. The crime scene is an inscrutable black box. There was never one thing that, as such, proved Jeremy was guilty, and he shouldn't have been convicted; but, he was convicted, and so the burden shifts to him, and that has exposed the correlative problem that there isn't one thing, as such, that proves him innocent - though there is scope for reasonable doubt, so it becomes a matter of whether judges are willing to recognise this and exercise their discretion in Jeremy's favour.
Realistically, I doubt appeal judges spend hours looking through case papers, and we know they're not on discussion forums like this. They come to cases fresh and naive about the underlying fact matrix and agendas involved, and (assuming there is a third appeal) this case will be one of maybe a dozen appeals they hear at any one time. The judges will place heavy reliance on what the parties tell them and won't develop a deeper understanding of the case.
Maybe in rare cases such as this, the whole thing should be placed under the supervision of 'examining judges' who investigate the case thoroughly over several years in the manner of a lengthy public inquiry and come to in-depth conclusions and make wider general recommendations about useful reforms to the system. But that would be an expensive system to run and it would also require the sort of institutional introspection that the British judiciary notoriously struggles with.
A realistic way to resolve the Bamber case would be to simply release him on the basis that he has served the time. The problem with that solution is that it doesn't suit either party. People like Steve will jump up and down screaming and shouting that you can't release a mass murderer, even if he's 90 and walking with a zimmer frame. Meanwhile, Jeremy may not want to be released as a convicted mass murderer, and given that he would be a convicted child killer, there will be expensive security measures needed.
-
QC you were definitely leaning towards Jeremy being guilty so I was wondering has that changed. Also going by what Bill has written today regarding six years of research there looks to have been undeniable cover ups in this case. On top of this we have the silencer evidence was it planted??? What happens to the people responsible? Then on top of that we have Mugford??
Can these people face justice?
How do you compensate someone for 30 years of their life, no wife, no children
Imagine that happening to anyone, I really have no idea how Jeremy has survived these years
Just imagine if the general public knew half of this?
-
I'm afraid so Lookout. I think the case is political.
Well we are a democratic society and there is such a thing as political freedom. Won't Human Rights come into it ?
-
What do you know about Mark Newby? I note he is careful not to say that he believes Jeremy Bamber to be innocent. https://crimejottings.com/2021/03/12/jeremy-bamber-the-story-yet-to-be-told/
-
Though he does say that as the case goes on they hope to show parts of the evidence which supports the fact that every part of the case appears to be untrue and if accepted by the Commission then in turn the Court of Appeal should lead to Jeremy Bamber being exonerated.
I'd say that Mark Newby has every faith in the evidence and does believe him to be innocent.
-
What do you know about Mark Newby? I note he is careful not to say that he believes Jeremy Bamber to be innocent. https://crimejottings.com/2021/03/12/jeremy-bamber-the-story-yet-to-be-told/
Thanks for posting that up. I think he's gone beyond saying Jeremy Bamber is innocent. He seems to believe that they have pieced together a significant picture of what really took place that night and afterwards. Whatever happens in our life time in terms of how the evidence is received and processed by the authorities may be irrelevant. I fully expect future generations to accept the defence case virtually without question. That means there's going to be a lot of tarnished reputations as well. JB's place in history as an MOJ is assured. I just have a feeling this will mainly be posthumous for those involved.
-
When I say virtually without question, I mean in terms of SC's culpability in the shootings and the subsequent police malpractice to frame JB. What I did notice is that Newby is basing a call from Nevill to police as one of the grounds. I hope that doesn't backfire, as it is a claim which has many detractors on both sides of the fence.
-
Thanks for posting that up. I think he's gone beyond saying Jeremy Bamber is innocent. He seems to believe that they have pieced together a significant picture of what really took place that night and afterwards. Whatever happens in our life time in terms of how the evidence is received and processed by the authorities may be irrelevant. I fully expect future generations to accept the defence case virtually without question. That means there's going to be a lot of tarnished reputations as well. JB's place in history as an MOJ is assured. I just have a feeling this will mainly be posthumous for those involved.
I respect your sincerity and lookout's and know it must be infuriating for his advocates, but I'm wondering why this is all so hush-hush after 35 years. I also wonder about the 30 year rule. I've been researching the Dunblane case, where documents are to remain withheld for 100 years (I'll post tomorrow but apologize in advance that it's mostly cut and paste) and I would have thought that had there been anything damning to be released the authorities would have ensured that we're all dead before it was made public.
-
When I say virtually without question, I mean in terms of SC's culpability in the shootings and the subsequent police malpractice to frame JB. What I did notice is that Newby is basing a call from Nevill to police as one of the grounds. I hope that doesn't backfire, as it is a claim which has many detractors on both sides of the fence.
I really don't think this is the best avenue or the Defence to pursue. You'd be far better arguing that the conviction is unsafe due to Sheila's mental health issues. I mean, there's no harm in libelling the dead, is there..
-
If there is sufficient blood on the silencer for a DNA profile, it is possible to carry out a familiall DNA test on Sheila's surviving blood relatives if any can be traced.
At least this could help identify if it is indeed her blood. But of course even if it's proven to be her blood it has to be ascertained as to how it got there.
-
If there is sufficient blood on the silencer for a DNA profile, it is possible to carry out a familiall DNA test on Sheila's surviving blood relatives if any can be traced.
At least this could help identify if it is indeed her blood. But of course even if it's proven to be her blood it has to be ascertained as to how it got there.
The silencer stopped being available for further testing decades ago.
-
Though he does say that as the case goes on they hope to show parts of the evidence which supports the fact that every part of the case appears to be untrue and if accepted by the Commission then in turn the Court of Appeal should lead to Jeremy Bamber being exonerated.
I'd say that Mark Newby has every faith in the evidence and does believe him to be innocent.
'Every part'. Wow.
The 2012 CCRC submission was based on who burnt Nevill's back.
-
It's straight forward that the blood in the silencer will be Sheila's.
She received two contact shots in a location with high blood flow.
Nug's theory that RB shot himself with the silencer is not credible. There is no source that RB was in the same blood group as Sheila.
David's theory that the relatives put diluted blood into the silencer is also not credible. There is no evidence this can be done.
There is no possibility the relatives would have these ideas as well as scratching the aga.
-
So because the blood on the silencer was of the same blood group as Sheila's, it has to be her blood.
-
So because the blood on the silencer was of the same blood group as Sheila's, it has to be her blood.
Who else's could it be?
-
The 2012 CCRC submission tried to prove the silencer was not used. This was by trying to prove Nevill's back was burnt minus the silencer.
This would just mean another item was used to burn Nevill's back. Or the silencer was taken off after Sheila was shot twice & then Nevill's back was burnt.
Besides which it was not possible to determine whether the burn marks were made with or without the silencer attached.
But good of Bamber to suggest Sheila was a calculated killer who could lift a 16 stone man in order to burn his back.
-
Who else's could it be?
Somebody else from the 8% of the UK who share this blood group.
-
Somebody else from the 8% of the UK who share this blood group.
How would Robert Boutfour have known?
-
How would Robert Boutfour have known?
Anything unusual would be in your medical records Steve, so he'd have known that unless he'd forgotten due to the onset of dementia.
-
Anything unusual would be in your medical records Steve, so he'd have known that unless he'd forgotten due to the onset of dementia.
Well I was thinking that 42% of the UK population have Type A blood, so evidently pathology has narrowed it down to 8% testing for enzymes. But how would Robert Boutflour have known that his blood matched Sheila's?
-
QC you were definitely leaning towards Jeremy being guilty so I was wondering has that changed.
Probably from reading Adam's posts.
-
Well I was thinking that 42% of the UK population have Type A blood, so evidently pathology has narrowed it down to 8% testing for enzymes. But how would Robert Boutflour have known that his blood matched Sheila's?
He'd have already known his own blood type in case he ever needed a transfusion and would have got to know Sheila's via news programmes/media or even from the police.
-
He'd have already known his own blood type in case he ever needed a transfusion and would have got to know Sheila's via news programmes/media or even from the police.
Who knows, he could have even made it his business to find out ? I wonder how he felt when it was known ?
-
Anything unusual would be in your medical records Steve, so he'd have known that unless he'd forgotten due to the onset of dementia.
Medical records are confidential.
-
He'd have already known his own blood type in case he ever needed a transfusion and would have got to know Sheila's via news programmes/media or even from the police.
Medical records are confidential.
-
Hopefully the source that RB had the same blood group as Sheila will be provided today. It was not part of the trial defence or an item at the COA.
-
Medical records are confidential.
Not to the individual patient they're not as you can request latest notes. Many people know their own blood group.
-
Not to the individual patient they're not as you can request latest notes. Many people know their own blood group.
I know. The relatives could not find out Sheila's blood group.
It is very bizarre that people suggest RB shot himself or the relatives undiluted already diluted period blood. Then scratched the aga.
-
Notes pertaining to RWB's blood group will have been included in files presented to the CCRC. It was never anything new that two blood groups were found to be the same, it's just that the information hadn't been mentioned or shown at the trial.
-
Notes pertaining to RWB's blood group will have been included in files presented to the CCRC. It was never anything new that two blood groups were found to be the same, it's just that the information hadn't been mentioned or shown at the trial.
Two questions here -
How would RB know Sheila's blood group?
How would Bamber know RB's blood group?
One answer - They wouldn't.
-
Two questions here -
How would RB know Sheila's blood group.
How would Bamber know RB's blood group.
One answer - They wouldn't.
Adam, I've already said how RWB would have known ::)
All info via the media and police as the Boutflours and Eatons were well in with the force as regards gathering info.
-
Adam, I've already said how RWB would have known ::)
All info via the media and police as the Boutflours and Eatons were well in with the force as regards gathering info.
The media wouldn't know or disclose Sheila's blood group.
Be surprised if the police did. Do you believe the police and relatives worked together on the silencer?
Thought you believe Sheila's blood fell into the silencer while she was committing the massacre.
-
As I stated above, if a relative or relatives did plant blood in the silencer, they may not have cared about the blood group or other forensics. The objective may have been simply to plant blood in the silencer that was recognisably human. The import of doing so may not have been fully appreciated and the evidence may have been then interpreted against Jeremy. That two of the people involved supposedly have the same blood group is not a coincidence - it's statistically quite likely.
-
As I stated above, if a relative or relatives did plant blood in the silencer, they may not have cared about the blood group or other forensics. The objective may have been simply to plant blood in the silencer that was recognisably human. The import of doing so may not have been fully appreciated and the evidence may have been then interpreted against Jeremy. That two of the people involved supposedly have the same blood group is not a coincidence - it's statistically quite likely.
I agree entirely, and has anyone ever seen the blood group analysis source materials? How does anyone know for sure that Sheila Caffell's blood group is what the police say it is? My understanding is that the original laboratory documentation stating the blood group analysis is among the papers that Essex Police refuse to disclose. I believe that Robert Boutflour dripped his blood inside the silencer so as to keep the investigation going at a time when the police had absolutely no evidence upon which to prosecute Jeremy and the case was about to be 'shut down'. I also believe that he was assured that Essex Police could 'fix' the paperwork to make it appear that the blood came from Sheila Caffell.
At trial there was a deliberate deception. As a way of obscuring the information that had come to light about the origin of the blood, i.e. it was identical for Sheila Caffell and Robert Boutflour, it appears that the police or the prosecution deliberately produced a list which the prosecution referred to at the trial, but the list omitted any of the relative’s names, including, crucially, Robert Boutflour.
Therefore when giving scientific evidence, forensic scientist John Hayward made reference to a list and as a result Hayward was able to tell the court that the only person on the list whose blood was found inside the silencer was Sheila Caffell. Incidentally, this confirms beyond any doubt that the prosecution QC, Anthony Arlidge, was also aware of the deception being practiced by Hayward, for it was Arlidge who asked him to consult the ‘list’. The questioning of Hayward was purposely misleading:
The following exchange took place in relation to blood found inside the silencer.
Q) Mr Arlidge: Did you test further any of that blood?
A) Hayward: I did, Sir, and found that this blood was also of human origin and I obtained grouping reactions for group A PGM1+EAP BA AK1 Hp 2-1
Q) Mr Arlidge: Looking at those items you have given… it appears that those correspond with the grouping that you found for Sheila Caffell?
A) Hayward: That is correct Sir
Q) Mr Arlidge: But not with anybody else on our list?
A) Hayward: That is correct Sir
The list that Arlidge referred to contained the names of the five victims plus Jeremy Bamber. Therefore Mr Hayward answered truthfully that the only person on that list with the blood group A PGM1+EAP BA AK1 Hp 2-1 was Sheila Caffell.
However, Mr Hayward was aware that blood samples had been taken from some of Jeremy Bamber’s relatives and the blood was also an identical match for Robert Boutflour. Mr Hayward did not disclose this to the Court. It is prima facie evidence that Hayward and Arlidge were engaged in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice as both men knew that the Jury was not being told the full story.
-
As far as I'm aware Robert Boutflour didn't give a blood sample.
-
As far as I'm aware Robert Boutflour didn't give a blood sample.
Actually, I believe he did. As I have mentioned already to Adam, blood was taken and analysed from family members in 1986 in the run-up to the trial. I will find the document and post it up at some point.
-
That's interesting about Sheila's blood Bill as it's not unusual for siblings to have the same blood group as their mother and neither of the twins did.
-
Actually, I believe he did. As I have mentioned already to Adam, blood was taken and analysed from family members in 1986 in the run-up to the trial. I will find the document and post it up at some point.
At some point.
-
At some point.
It's on the Forum, Adam. Mike uploaded it. Just use the search tool and find it, or wait for me to upload it. I'll do it to my schedule, not yours.
-
As far as I'm aware Robert Boutflour didn't give a blood sample.
DI Cook created ‘Action 1627’ on 19 September 1986. With the Trial just weeks away, DI Cook asked for blood samples to be taken from relatives Robert and David Boutflour and David and Christine Eaton, for the purpose “to prove the origin of the sample inside the silencer” .
Then on Monday 29 September 1986, just 3 days before the Trial began on Thursday 2nd October 1986, the Police received the result of these tests from Graham Craddock, Head of Biology at the Forensic Science Laboratory saying that the blood in the silencer was compatible with either Robert Boutflour or Sheila Caffell. His findings concluded that :
“I have considered the grouping results given in my Statement dated 15 November 1985 and in Miss HOWARD'S Statement dated 29 September 1986. Judged by these grouping results alone, the blood from the sound moderator (22) could have come from either Sheila CAFFELL or R W BOUTFLOUR. "
-
DI Cook created ‘Action 1627’ on 19 September 1986. With the Trial just weeks away, DI Cook asked for blood samples to be taken from relatives Robert and David Boutflour and David and Christine Eaton, for the purpose “to prove the origin of the sample inside the silencer” .
Then on Monday 29 September 1986, just 3 days before the Trial began on Thursday 2nd October 1986, the Police received the result of these tests from Graham Craddock, Head of Biology at the Forensic Science Laboratory saying that the blood in the silencer was compatible with either Robert Boutflour or Sheila Caffell. His findings concluded that :
“I have considered the grouping results given in my Statement dated 15 November 1985 and in Miss HOWARD'S Statement dated 29 September 1986. Judged by these grouping results alone, the blood from the sound moderator (22) could have come from either Sheila CAFFELL or R W BOUTFLOUR. "
It could be argued that Robert Boutflour gave a sample of his blood because he had nothing to hide. Do we know whether the blood was analysed generically as 32% of the population or was it narrowed down to the 8%?
-
DI Cook created ‘Action 1627’ on 19 September 1986. With the Trial just weeks away, DI Cook asked for blood samples to be taken from relatives Robert and David Boutflour and David and Christine Eaton, for the purpose “to prove the origin of the sample inside the silencer” .
Then on Monday 29 September 1986, just 3 days before the Trial began on Thursday 2nd October 1986, the Police received the result of these tests from Graham Craddock, Head of Biology at the Forensic Science Laboratory saying that the blood in the silencer was compatible with either Robert Boutflour or Sheila Caffell. His findings concluded that :
“I have considered the grouping results given in my Statement dated 15 November 1985 and in Miss HOWARD'S Statement dated 29 September 1986. Judged by these grouping results alone, the blood from the sound moderator (22) could have come from either Sheila CAFFELL or R W BOUTFLOUR. "
Thanks. Can you post the link.
-
Never heard of that before. Witnesses being asked to give blood samples.
RB apparently being in the same blood group as Sheila, was not brought up in 1986, 2002 & 2012. So surprised it is being brought up now. Most probably properganda.
-
Never heard of that before. Witnesses being asked to give blood samples.
RB apparently being in the same blood group as Sheila, was not brought up in 1986, 2002 & 2012. So surprised it is being brought up now. Most probably properganda.
Actually Geoffrey Rivlin QC asked Robert Boutflour at trial if he'd had a cut finger when the silencer was found so it seems as if Defence must have known his blood type.
-
We never did learn how RWB cut his finger did we ? Only JB's hands were scrutinised for injuries !
-
Actually Geoffrey Rivlin QC asked Robert Boutflour at trial if he'd had a cut finger when the silencer was found so it seems as if Defence must have known his blood type.
Have you got a source?
-
We never did learn how RWB cut his finger did we ? Only JB's hands were scrutinised for injuries !
Do you agree with Nugs that RB shot himself with the silencer to create the backsplatter effect. Then the relatives scratched the aga?
The police and Julie working together to create a false WS & the experts and police working together to create the other evidence?
-
Have you got a source?
The Murders at White House Farm Chapter 40.
-
The Murders at White House Farm Chapter 40.
CAL ?
Did the book tell you anything new?
-
CAL ?
Did the book tell you anything new?
Robert Boutflour followed his son-in-law into the witness box. He grew agitated when Rivlin asked whether he might have cut himself at any stage after the discovery of the silencer, implying that the blood within the baffles was his rather than Sheila's, since by pure coincidence they had the exact same bloodgrouping. He became irate when Rivlin questioned his memory of Jeremy declaring, "I could kill anybody, I could even kill my parents." In response to Rivlin's suggestion that Jeremy "didn't say anything at all about killing his parents," Robert thundered: "You can suggest it, but I was there and I heard it!" He was hustled, red-faced and protesting, out of court, whilst the judge discussed a point of law with both counsels. Colin Caffell was in the witness waiting room at the time, and sensed that the relatives risked turning the jury against them, such was their obvious revulsion towards Jeremy.
-
Robert Boutflour followed his son-in-law into the witness box. He grew agitated when Rivlin asked whether he might have cut himself at any stage after the discovery of the silencer, implying that the blood within the baffles was his rather than Sheila's, since by pure coincidence they had the exact same bloodgrouping. He became irate when Rivlin questioned his memory of Jeremy declaring, "I could kill anybody, I could even kill my parents." In response to Rivlin's suggestion that Jeremy "didn't say anything at all about killing his parents," Robert thundered: "You can suggest it, but I was there and I heard it!" He was hustled, red-faced and protesting, out of court, whilst the judge discussed a point of law with both counsels. Colin Caffell was in the witness waiting room at the time, and sensed that the relatives risked turning the jury against them, such was their obvious revulsion towards Jeremy.
On the contrary Steve, a guilty conscience can rile a person.
-
Mark Newby's statement claims the rebuilding of the case from the ground up was delivered by Joe Stone and Matt Stanbury, not the CT (who are described in terms of having a support role).
https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/barristers/joe-stone-qc
https://www.gcnchambers.co.uk/barrister/matthew-stanbury/
-
I hope they hurry up about it as my time is now limited :o
-
I hope they hurry up about it as my time is now limited :o
Given the rather smug approach taken by some in the first episode (which is the only one I have seen), I'd be interested to know when it was filmed. It's bad enough that it's been aired at this time. Re the timing, I think 'the authorities' learned a trick from McKay / MWT and thought let's have some of that ourselves. I hope legal action is taken against the people behind the drama one day. Though I expect they have attempted to cover themselves. Re the CCRC, hopefully, these blatant attempts to influence people against JB's cause during this time will not distract commissioners and caseworkers from the case that has been rebuilt by Stone and Stanbury. Even as an eternally pessimistic supporter, I still retain some small ember of hope that right will prevail
-
Given the rather smug approach taken by some in the first episode (which is the only one I have seen), I'd be interested to know when it was filmed. It's bad enough that it's been aired at this time. Re the timing, I think 'the authorities' learned a trick from McKay / MWT and thought let's have some of that ourselves. I hope legal action is taken against the people behind the drama one day. Though I expect they have attempted to cover themselves. Re the CCRC, hopefully, these blatant attempts to influence people against JB's cause during this time will not distract commissioners and caseworkers from the case that has been rebuilt by Stone and Stanbury. Even as an eternally pessimistic supporter, I still retain some small ember of hope that right will prevail
Jeremy is now 60, so they have every reason to be smug. Adam, Steve, Real Justice, Jane, Caroline, and all the people on the Red Forum, and all the people in the documentary, are victorious. Even if Jeremy is now released to great fanfare, it will not be on the back of a widespread view that he is factually innocent, rather it will almost-certainly be on the basis of, first, the conviction being held to be purely 'unsafe', and second, that the distance of time and destruction of evidence make a re-trial next-to-impossible to conduct in a fair manner. Like Barry George or Siôn Jenkins, Jeremy will maintain his innocence in those circumstances and do the rounds in the media, and nobody will be able to gainsay him as White House Farm was a black box. Nobody knows what happened, maybe not even him. But his life will have been taken from him - maybe rightly, maybe wrongly, nobody will know for sure, except Jeremy himself, in the private, secret world that is his own mind.
-
Jeremy is now 60, so they have every reason to be smug. Steve, Real Justice, Jane, Caroline, and all the people on the Red Forum, and all the people in the documentary, are victorious. Even if Jeremy is now released to great fanfare, it will not be on the back of a widespread view that he is factually innocent, rather it will almost-certainly be on the basis of, first, the conviction being held to be purely 'unsafe', and second, that the distance of time and destruction of evidence make a re-trial next-to-impossible to conduct in a fair manner. Like Barry George or Siôn Jenkins, Jeremy will maintain his innocence in those circumstances and do the rounds in the media, and nobody will be able to gainsay him as White House Farm was a black box. Nobody knows what happened, maybe not even him. But his life will have been taken from him - maybe rightly, maybe wrongly, nobody will know for sure, except Jeremy himself, in the private, secret world that is his own mind.
These smug people on TV are taking part in propaganda. I watched 90% of the drama and could barely recognise the case. It was as if 20% of the actual case had been clubbed together with 20% fantasy and used to represent the case as a whole. 60% being omitted, because it was surplus to requirements or didn't fit CAL's precious 'right narrative'. The message at the beginning was highly misleading. What it should have said is: this drama is based upon a narrow and selective narrative, in part chosen from case evidence'. The defence are not allowed present their version of the case in the UK media, because of the convictions. The media and the state should be separate, not melded together.
-
There's every possibility that Jeremy could be released on licence such as Eddie Gilfoyle was in 2010 and who remains so to this day. Although he's " free " from the confines of prison, his freedom doesn't stretch to a life that he wishes to lead as he'll remain under the jurisdiction of the authorities.
He will not be eligible for compensation.
-
Eddie's case is another miscarriage to my mind. I knew him in a professional capacity.
-
Have you thought about this form of release QC ?
-
Jeremy is now 60, so they have every reason to be smug. Adam, Steve, Real Justice, Jane, Caroline, and all the people on the Red Forum, and all the people in the documentary, are victorious. Even if Jeremy is now released to great fanfare, it will not be on the back of a widespread view that he is factually innocent, rather it will almost-certainly be on the basis of, first, the conviction being held to be purely 'unsafe', and second, that the distance of time and destruction of evidence make a re-trial next-to-impossible to conduct in a fair manner. Like Barry George or Siôn Jenkins, Jeremy will maintain his innocence in those circumstances and do the rounds in the media, and nobody will be able to gainsay him as White House Farm was a black box. Nobody knows what happened, maybe not even him. But his life will have been taken from him - maybe rightly, maybe wrongly, nobody will know for sure, except Jeremy himself, in the private, secret world that is his own mind.
At the end of the day this case is all about British Justice. It is a fact that the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
This conviction unless found to be unsafe means anyone of us could find ourself in Jeremys position. Without Julies statements and notes (mostly witheld) there would be no conviction. Fact. The women was known to be a pathological liar with a history of gaining goods through fraud. Julie did not supply a single piece of evidence to proof she was telling the truth about Jeremy.
The relatives that were clearly desperate to get there hands on the Bambers money Neville had worked hard for lied in the witness box and tried to mislead the jury.
There is no proof, there is no case or anyone of us could find ourselves in Jeremys position
-
The police work in black and white----useless ! Same goes for most professionals.
-
At the end of the day this case is all about British Justice. It is a fact that the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
This conviction unless found to be unsafe means anyone of us could find ourself in Jeremys position. Without Julies statements and notes (mostly witheld) there would be no conviction. Fact. The women was known to be a pathological liar with a history of gaining goods through fraud. Julie did not supply a single piece of evidence to proof she was telling the truth about Jeremy.
The relatives that were clearly desperate to get there hands on the Bambers money Neville had worked hard for lied in the witness box and tried to mislead the jury.
There is no proof, there is no case or anyone of us could find ourselves in Jeremys position
I'm reminded of Judge Tompkins' summing up in the David Tamihere trial:
"There is no direct evidence to prove that the accused killed the Swedish couple. The Crown is asking you to infer that he did, from facts that the Crown claims have been properly proved, and thus the Crown is relying on what is called "circumstantial evidence." It is like a rope made up of a number of strands. One strand may not be sufficient to sustain a weight. But sufficient strands working together may do so. So it is with the weight of evidence. There may be a combination of circumstances, no one of which would raise a reasonable conviction, but the whole taken together may create a strong conclusion of guilt."
-
I'm reminded of Judge Tompkins' summing up in the David Tamihere trial:
"There is no direct evidence to prove that the accused killed the Swedish couple. The Crown is asking you to infer that he did, from facts that the Crown claims have been properly proved, and thus the Crown is relying on what is called "circumstantial evidence." It is like a rope made up of a number of strands. One strand may not be sufficient to sustain a weight. But sufficient strands working together may do so. So it is with the weight of evidence. There may be a combination of circumstances, no one of which would raise a reasonable conviction, but the whole taken together may create a strong conclusion of guilt."
Isn't David Tamihere's conviction widely-believed to be unsafe? Last I heard about it, the case was referred back to the New Zealand Court of Appeal.
Convictions based on circumstantial evidence alone will always be inferior to convictions supported by direct evidence.
-
Isn't David Tamihere's conviction widely-believed to be unsafe? Last I heard about it, the case was referred back to the New Zealand Court of Appeal.
Convictions based on circumstantial evidence alone will always be inferior to convictions supported by direct evidence.
He was released on parole in November 2010.
-
He was released on parole in November 2010.
Yes, I know that, but he continued to protest his innocence and in 2020 a Royal Prerogative of Mercy was exercised to allow him a further appeal.
-
Yes, I know that, but he continued to protest his innocence and in 2020 he was granted a Royal Prerogative of Mercy was exercised to allow him a further appeal.
It hasn't been decided yet. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/414811/david-tamihere-all-i-wanted-was-a-fair-hearing
Maybe handyman knows the latest.
-
I hadn't known that the Rettendon murders also took place at or near White House Farm Rettendon.
Two White House farms. Interesting, although 10 years later than the WHF murders that we know.
-
I hadn't known that the Rettendon murders also took place at or near White House Farm Rettendon.
Two White House farms. Interesting, although 10 years later than the WHF murders that we know.
Yes and with a drugs connection to both, a feature of society which has only been compounded as the years progress.
-
Yes and with a drugs connection to both, a feature of society which has only been compounded as the years progress.
Makes you wonder, well it does me, anyway. Mistaken identity and all that.
-
Even down to an aircraft dropping drugs----which landed in a pond at the farm. Pargeter's brother must have got the farms mixed up there while in a haze of drugs himself.
-
Apparently RWB did have his DNA taken in 2002 but there are no records ? If so, was it ever compared with the blood that was found in the silencer ? Must be Sheila's then, mmm.
I have to say this is what I find very frustrating and annoying. First you state.."RWB had refused a DNA test"...as if that's that...then when asked about the date you say.."I'm not sure.."...you then go on to say "apparently RWB did have a DNA test.."
I mean I'm not picking on you but how the hell can any independant observer of this site take anybody seriously, when statements are bandied as if there factual, then backtracked a couple of posts later.
So in reality I can't trust or accept anything that posters say. In that sense I suspect that if you support Bamber you'll might put up any old tosh as long as it sounds believable. Ditto re his guilt.
-
I have to say this is what I find very frustrating and annoying. First you state.."RWB had refused a DNA test"...as if that's that...then when asked about the date you say.."I'm not sure.."...you then go on to say "apparently RWB did have a DNA test.."
I mean I'm not picking on you but how the hell can any independant observer of this site take anybody seriously, when statements are bandied as if there factual, then backtracked a couple of posts later.
So in reality I can't trust or accept anything that posters say. In that sense I suspect that if you support Bamber you'll might put up any old tosh as long as it sounds believable. Ditto re his guilt.
I recently saw YH claim that he did not. However, I am no authority on it.
-
Jeremy is now 60, so they have every reason to be smug. Adam, Steve, Real Justice, Jane, Caroline, and all the people on the Red Forum, and all the people in the documentary, are victorious. Even if Jeremy is now released to great fanfare, it will not be on the back of a widespread view that he is factually innocent, rather it will almost-certainly be on the basis of, first, the conviction being held to be purely 'unsafe', and second, that the distance of time and destruction of evidence make a re-trial next-to-impossible to conduct in a fair manner. Like Barry George or Siôn Jenkins, Jeremy will maintain his innocence in those circumstances and do the rounds in the media, and nobody will be able to gainsay him as White House Farm was a black box. Nobody knows what happened, maybe not even him. But his life will have been taken from him - maybe rightly, maybe wrongly, nobody will know for sure, except Jeremy himself, in the private, secret world that is his own mind.
Nobody is smug, faced with the loss of two six-year-old boys, their mother and grandparents. As for your last sentence he let the cat out of the bag with Julie, the first time was at Gresham's with his adoption revelation, so given what resulted on both occasions he's not about to disclose any further personal information anytime soon.
-
I'd like to ask those who support Jeremy if they think life sentences are appropriate in principle..https://www.aol.co.uk/news/sarah-everard-killer-die-behind-174600003.html
-
I'd have had Couzens hanged !
-
Those with absolute proof of murder should be put to death.
-
Those with absolute proof of murder should be put to death.
It would solve one problem, though may bring others in its wake.
-
Nobody is smug, faced with the loss of two six-year-old boys, their mother and grandparents. As for your last sentence he let the cat out of the bag with Julie, the first time was at Gresham's with his adoption revelation, so given what resulted on both occasions he's not about to disclose any further personal information anytime soon.
The only surviving victim who lost his own children was Colin. Is he in the documentary? I otherwise stand by my remarks. I doubt the relatives were emotionally very upset at what happened.
-
It would solve one problem, though may bring others in its wake.
Would anyone miss a murderer ? If they had any sense it would be a resounding NO !
-
Steve, if anyone killed/ murdered a member of my family I'd want them dead. No question about it.
-
Steve, if anyone killed/ murdered a member of my family I'd want them dead. No question about it.
I myself Lookout don't believe a civilised society should execute anyone, but I know where you are coming from.
It's also very easy now with a bit of planted DNA to frame someone, so I would want to see DNA + other evidence backing up the conviction. Not just DNA on it's own, look at the USA well over 100 people have been executed and afterwards the convictions found unsafe.
-
I myself Lookout don't believe a civilised society should execute anyone, but I know where you are coming from.
It's also very easy now with a bit of planted DNA to frame someone, so I would want to see DNA + other evidence backing up the conviction. Not just DNA on it's own, look at the USA well over 100 people have been executed and afterwards the convictions found unsafe.
Rob, there's a frightening lack of brain power when it comes to investigating a murder. Where there's been one unsafe execution is an execution too many ! Something's radically wrong with the system both in the USA and here, especially, along with those who run the systems.
Churchill once said---" All men make mistakes, but only wise men learn from their mistakes ". Which begs the question, where are all these " wise men ?"
Mistakes are supposed to increase experience. What happened ?
-
Rob, there's a frightening lack of brain power when it comes to investigating a murder. Where there's been one unsafe execution is an execution too many ! Something's radically wrong with the system both in the USA and here, especially, along with those who run the systems.
Churchill once said---" All men make mistakes, but only wise men learn from their mistakes ". Which begs the question, where are all these " wise men ?"
Mistakes are supposed to increase experience. What happened ?
Terror of fallibility. People don't want to admit and own up to mistakes and human error.
-
Terror of fallibility. People don't want to admit and own up to mistakes and human error.
Which can be dangerous.
-
I myself Lookout don't believe a civilised society should execute anyone, but I know where you are coming from.
It's also very easy now with a bit of planted DNA to frame someone, so I would want to see DNA + other evidence backing up the conviction. Not just DNA on it's own, look at the USA well over 100 people have been executed and afterwards the convictions found unsafe.
It's also uncivilised for a person to randomly kill another and remain alive to breathe the same air.
-
It's also uncivilised for a person to randomly kill another and remain alive to breathe the same air.
In cases of premeditated murder, the punishment should be death.
-
In cases of premeditated murder, the punishment should be death.
If we could trust our police, state and relevant authorative bodies to act, behave and function in an efficient, non corrupt, honest manner, then it might be possible to rely upon 'death' as being a suitable punishment for such crimes.
-
Which can be dangerous.
Do any of us publicly admit to error? It is a brave person who does and to do so runs somewhat contrary to human nature, which is what it is. It is ingrained in each of us that when we think we are certain of something, we must be right, when it should actually be the other way round. We should remind ourselves that the more we think we are right, the more likely we are to be wrong - this has been demonstrated time and again in my own experience of watching others and thinking about my own actions in real situations.
In my trade, there is a useful saying: Measure twice, cut once. This is good to remember, not just for cutting and joining things. You can be certain you are right about something that seems very obvious and simple, but find you are completely wrong. Unfortunately, intelligent decisions require humility, which is a quality in short supply.
I believe in the past bodies like the police were covering things up for fear of the consequences and cutting corners or inventing evidence in the firm belief that they were dealing with a guilty person. This is a major example of the fallacy of certainty (or 'the fallacy of alleged certainty', as it is sometimes known formally). The policeman assumes guilt, thus everything he hears is interpreted through that prior conclusion, in a process of convergence bias. This is of course a very common intellectual flaw, and we all fall into it from time-to-time. It probably has an evolutionary origin in that it may have been necessary for primeval Man to think and analyse situations quickly for survival purposes, resulting in a tendency against balanced or convoluted thinking. There are a few more checks and balances in the system now, but I see no fundamental reason the same fallacy should not be widespread today, as I believe human nature is at play.
If anything, I believe it could be worse now. For one thing, there is the danger of deference to scientific evidence, such as DNA. Genetic identification is widely seen as infallible but it isn't, and it should not be a means for the prosecution to circumvent the burden of proof.
The jury is meant to be one of the checks in the system against wrongful convictions. Juries have always made bad decisions. The general flaw in the institution of juries is very obvious. It's argued that inquisitorial criminal justice systems have fewer miscarriages of justice, but I think it more likely that in systems without juries there is a greater readiness to overturn wrong decisions. The Anglo-American common law system of jurisprudence sanctifies the jury, which is really a way of entrenching wrong or fallacious decisions.
Yet a jury of very ordinary people that can hear and consider all the evidence and facts in the round provides a last resort against the natural tendency to believe experts uncritically or defer to voices of authority: a tendency that is especially prevalent among experts themselves. A panel of judges hearing a case will naturally tend to demote their own common-sense and everyday experiences and believe experts. A jury, by contrast, can decide in secret and is not accountable or answerable for its decisions, thus not subject to the ordinary social pressures and influences that can lead to uncritical acceptance of expertise; and the jury can, if it so chooses, disregard expertise and acquit a defendant by considering the evidence from a layperson's point-of-view and measuring it against everyday experience and the juries' own idiosyncratic evaluation of the experts - which will often be more accurate than that of the experts themselves. This protection has been eroded by majority verdicts, and a climate in society that gives overdue regard to credentials and 'science' and demotes experience and subjectivity. Unless jurors can think for themselves, they may be tempted just to ratify expert opinions. The Sally Clarke case seems to be an example of this.
On a different but related note, I have been involved in training in different places and have closely-observed how schools, colleges and universities now work. There is very much a belief that all must pass, with the result that many young people are carrying around useless paper credentials rather than gaining skills and experiences. Does this encourage the increasing spread of robotic deference to expertise and credentials that 'educated' people especially can sometimes fall into? Does it encourage needless abstract thinking that militates against practical sense and experience, making good decisions rarer to find?
-
If we could trust our police, state and relevant authorative bodies to act, behave and function in an efficient, non corrupt, honest manner, then it might be possible to rely upon 'death' as being a suitable punishment for such crimes.
I agree there have been miscarriage of justice cases with a death penalty that have proved to be unsafe
-
If we could trust our police, state and relevant authorative bodies to act, behave and function in an efficient, non corrupt, honest manner, then it might be possible to rely upon 'death' as being a suitable punishment for such crimes.
That is not an argument against the death penalty.
We can never trust the police, state and authority. The whole point of the jury system is that authority cannot be completely trusted. That's how the modern jury system, invented in England, came about in the first place. It's meant to be an independent check against authority, not a group of rather dull people ratifying the decisions of authority. If the Law and authority are right, then the jury's verdict should be Guilty, but in all cases the jury is sovereign and reserves the right to return a verdict of Not Guilty, and is not required to explain or justify this decision.
I believe the answer to the specific problem of police investigative misconduct is further reform to ensure that there is effective oversight of major investigations and the collection of evidence.
-
With Couzens it’s very worrying there are still serving police officers which were part of his what’s app group
This is the second major catastrophe
If you remember the Huntley case. He had been in trouble with the police and no proper checks were done before he started working at the school
-
That is not an argument against the death penalty.
We can never trust the police, state and authority. The whole point of the jury system is that authority cannot be completely trusted. That's how the modern jury system, invented in England, came about in the first place. It's meant to be an independent check against authority, not a group of rather dull people ratifying the decisions of authority. If the Law and authority are right, then the jury's verdict should be Guilty, but in all cases the jury is sovereign and reserves the right to return a verdict of Not Guilty, and is not required to explain or justify this decision.
I believe the answer to the specific problem of police investigative misconduct is further reform to ensure that there is effective oversight of major investigations and the collection of evidence.
Citizen Chevalier! Report immediately to Alien Liaison Officer David1819. You have been selected for specimen study.
BTW mate, juries can be mislead.
-
If we could trust our police, state and relevant authorative bodies to act, behave and function in an efficient, non corrupt, honest manner, then it might be possible to rely upon 'death' as being a suitable punishment for such crimes.
Agreed, Roch.
-
Agreed, Roch.
Great minds think alike :))
-
Citizen Chevalier! Report immediately to Alien Liaison Officer David1819. You have been selected for specimen study.
BTW mate, juries can be mislead.
They're not detectives and can't order further inquiries. They are not judges, so can't call witnesses back for further questioning or voir dire major witnesses or experts or order the production of new or additional evidence. They could ask the judge to do some of these things, but their formal role is limited to giving a verdict based on the evidence heard. They can freely ask questions, and should be resilient enough to question things, but if evidence is fabricated or planted, it may be difficult to surmise this in the heat of a trial. We can see there are issues with the evidence, but we have the luxury of considering the case at leisure, which the jury did not have.
I think the Bamber trial jury in the end couldn't make up their minds and the majority just fell in with the summing-up - at least, that's what happened according to a couple of the jurors who spoke to, respectively, an Essex journalist and an author. This of course illustrates the danger of abolishing the unanimity protection. We can't know how the dynamics of the jury would have been different if unanimity had been required, but if two or three jurors - maybe more - were sceptical after hearing all the evidence, and if two of them were robust enough to maintain their scepticism to the end, that suggests the prosecution would have been in great difficulty convincing the jury under those alternate circumstances.
-
https://youtu.be/_LNqtwFjFBM
The jury took just one day to return a verdict. After a 14 day trial.
-
They're not detectives and can't order further inquiries. They are not judges, so can't call witnesses back for further questioning or voir dire major witnesses or experts or order the production of new or additional evidence. They could ask the judge to do some of these things, but their formal role is limited to giving a verdict based on the evidence heard. They can freely ask questions, and should be resilient enough to question things, but if evidence is fabricated or planted, it may be difficult to surmise this in the heat of a trial. We can see there are issues with the evidence, but we have the luxury of considering the case at leisure, which the jury did not have.
I think the Bamber trial jury in the end couldn't make up their minds and the majority just fell in with the summing-up - at least, that's what happened according to a couple of the jurors who spoke to, respectively, an Essex journalist and an author. This of course illustrates the danger of abolishing the unanimity protection. We can't know how the dynamics of the jury would have been different if unanimity had been required, but if two or three jurors - maybe more - were sceptical after hearing all the evidence, and if two of them were robust enough to maintain their scepticism to the end, that suggests the prosecution would have been in great difficulty convincing the jury under those alternate circumstances.
Thank you for your source.
-
Thank you for your source.
Thanks Adam. It's good that you're putting me and Rob through our paces. Appreciate that moral support sometimes involves giving people the 'hard word'. If it wasn't for you, I'd probably still be going out on Tollesbury Road now in my windsurfing clobber.
-
I have to say this is what I find very frustrating and annoying. First you state.."RWB had refused a DNA test"...as if that's that...then when asked about the date you say.."I'm not sure.."...you then go on to say "apparently RWB did have a DNA test.."
I mean I'm not picking on you but how the hell can any independant observer of this site take anybody seriously, when statements are bandied as if there factual, then backtracked a couple of posts later.
So in reality I can't trust or accept anything that posters say. In that sense I suspect that if you support Bamber you'll might put up any old tosh as long as it sounds believable. Ditto re his guilt.
I see I am not the only one calling out Lookout.