Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Newbury1 on February 22, 2011, 04:29:PM
-
Mike,
Could you please list the main points (i.e the new evidence) that were put forward by Jeremy's legal team to support his latest appeal, and the CCRC's current response to each point?
(Apologies if there is already a thread on this but I can't find it).
Or are these three points on the JB.com website all there is?
• Fragmented bullet swapped from Sheila Caffell’s body – CCRC said this was available at trial and therefore cannot be used.
• Photographs showing Sheila Caffell’s body had been moved were not accurate as the police officers on the scene all made statements saying that they didn't touch or move anything and this is stronger evidence than the photographs.
• Photographs showing that the gun was moved on Sheila Caffell’s body were also inaccurate as the police officers on the scene all made statements saying that they didn't touch or move anything and this is stronger evidence than the photographs.
-
Source: http://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html#8897856103087525852
The CCRC have issued their grounds for not referring Jeremy Bamber’s case back to the appeal court these are the main points stated in their documentation.
• Fragmented bullet swapped from Sheila Caffell’s body – CCRC said this was available at trial and therefore cannot be used.
• Photographs showing Sheila Caffell’s body had been moved were not accurate as the police officers on the scene all made statements saying that they didn’t touch or move anything and this is stronger evidence than the photographs.
• Photographs showing that the gun was moved on Sheila Caffell’s body were also inaccurate as the police officers on the scene all made statements saying that they didn’t touch or move anything and this is stronger evidence than the photographs.
• No response to the documentation still held under Public Interest Immunity, 340,000 documents.
• No response to negatives still not released to the defence now totalling over 211.
• No mention of the evidence showing that Peter Eaton, Ann Eaton, David Boutflour and Robert Boutflour’s statements conflict with contemporaneous dates showing when the sound moderator was found which was 34 days after the killings and not 3 days after as they said in court.
• No mention of the nail polish chipped from Sheila Caffell appearing at the ‘alleged’ struggle in the kitchen
• No mention about the two sound moderators and how these were merged together by police officers.
• The CCRC found another photometry expert who questioned Peter Sutherst’s methodology in establishing that the scratch marks were not present in the original crime scene photographs. (Jeremy Bamber intends to use Amped 5 software to further support Peter Sutherst’s findings) Nevertheless, Peter Sutherst is one of the UK’s most eminent specialists in this field with over 50 years experience.
Final note: Jeremy has said that he has found the CCRC to be entirely unprofessional in their approach to the evidence submitted from Peter Sutherst as they did not address any problems with his methodology and discuss this with the Defence.
Jeremy Bamber has large teams of people who work for him, these are from many different backgrounds and countries, some are friends and many others offer their professional services pro-bono and want to see justice done. There is currently a mountain of further evidence which Jeremy Bamber will submit to the CCRC in his fight for freedom. The law must bring those to justice who have fabricated evidence in this case. Not one of us or Jeremy will ever give up until this innocent man is set free and justice is finally done.
I copied this from that same blog on 11th Feb. I don't think anything else has been disclosed to the public yet.
-
I would just like to make clear that the above came from Jeremy Bamber blog.
-
Gentle reminder - you have to ask a specific question/for specific evidence.
'Just give me all the documents and photos' will always be refused.
No response can also mean no evidence found (to specific question) although nil response is more common. i.e. no hits.
-
Well there you go,any further proof needed that it was a fit up.
-
It's been alleged that the CCRC were given 50 points. It's very unlikely the CCRC will release any fine details of their work other than to the defence.
-
Of course, the wording on Jeremy's blog is his team's interpretation of what the CCRC said, not direct quotes. Jeremy has released 9 or 10 bullet points from the 89 pages.
-
Well there you go,any further proof needed that it was a fit up.
No.. not at all. As bb2010 has pointed out, the above paragraphs and bullet points were copy and pasted by JB's legal team from a very lengthy document.
If you want the public to stand by you and believe your accusations then you must not do what you accuse the authorities of doing.
Either release the whole document for us to read and make an opinion on or don't release anything.
JB's team could easily be accused of cherry picking the bits he/they want the public to read and witholding the rest... which he accuses the Essex Police of doing.
-
Yes Pete - good post +1
-
Well there you go,any further proof needed that it was a fit up.
No.. not at all. As bb2010 has pointed out, the above paragraphs and bullet points were copy and pasted by JB's legal team from a very lengthy document.
If you want the public to stand by you and believe your accusations then you must not do what you accuse the authorities of doing.
Either release the whole document for us to read and make an opinion on or don't release anything.
JB's team could easily be accused of cherry picking the bits he/they want the public to read and witholding the rest... which he accuses the Essex Police of doing.
Yes that's precisely what I was alluding to. You put it across much better though. :)
I would just like to make clear that the above came from Jeremy Bamber blog.
-
Gentle reminder - you have to ask a specific question/for specific evidence.
'Just give me all the documents and photos' will always be refused.
No response can also mean no evidence found (to specific question) although nil response is more common. i.e. no hits.
So it is basically down to JB's legal team to ask the right questions in order to get the right answers.
Do you think JB's legal team are doing a good job in following this concept?
Think I've said this elsewhere.
If you ask the question, get a response you don't like, can you continually say it's a lie, you know it, but you can prove it?
or
If you don't ask the question, you can maintain the conjecture that supports your theory.
They have asked questions, and material has been disclosed from the original file.
-
Gentle reminder - you have to ask a specific question/for specific evidence.
'Just give me all the documents and photos' will always be refused.
No response can also mean no evidence found (to specific question) although nil response is more common. i.e. no hits.
So it is basically down to JB's legal team to ask the right questions in order to get the right answers.
Do you think JB's legal team are doing a good job in following this concept?
Think I've said this elsewhere.
If you ask the question, get a response you don't like, can you continually say it's a lie, you know it, but you can prove it?
or
If you don't ask the question, you can maintain the conjecture that supports your theory.
They have asked questions, and material has been disclosed from the original file.
Apologies, but I am not quite getting this.
I am referring to JB's legal team handling of the new appeal case with the CCRC.
JB' legal team put together a paper to present to the CCRC requesting an appeal based on "new evidence".
The first point (above) about the fragmented bullet was available at trial and is therefore not new evidence and has therefore been discounted by the CCRC in this appeal attempt - surely JBs legal team should have known this.
All the other points made by JB's legal team have also effectively been rejected albeit on different grounds.
Are JB's legal team asking the right questions in order to obtain the right material to put together a strong appeal case (not evidenced so far) and do you think JB's legal team are doing a good job on behalf of JB?
The problem, as you or someone else has pointed out, is that we have not seen the full submission, but I assume we are being given the 'headline' points. I will defend the team and say it would be unprofessional to release the submission at this stage.
Speculating as much as anyone else, to me it appears:
I'm led to believe that is argued whether the bullet was ever fragmented, and that the xrays show a bullet and displaced tissue. All available since the original trial.
You cannot 'not' argue certain points at a trial, to keep them in the bag for an appeal. Can you imagine the games that would be played forever more?
The photographs aren't fixed points. No-one set up a tripod, recorded images and 9am, went away, checked the tripos and camera angle hadn't been shifted etc, then took further images. Therefore, the photos can't be treated like static CCTV images. Stand over an object and photograph it, moving stance by mms and the end results are very different, yet the object has not been moved, just the photographer. Have seen this done, and the CCRC could duplicate this in an afternoon. They have gone back to, and relied upon, the court testimony. Evidence would be needed to prove the individual officers were lying. Evidence not accusation. It appears no evidence is forthcoming.
The contemporaneous material - diaries etc. Can't see these being admissable in a court. It is dangerous for the defence to claim these are ''truthful" documents as they say other things about JB. Accept these documents in their entirety, or not at all... But I believe they are the written equivalent of 'hearsay'.
Nail polish - it may be the same expert who counters the 'mantelpiece/silencer' evidence counters this as well. Or they are appointing another specialist to address this directly in the interim period. Sounds flaky to me.
Other headlines suggest 3 silencers become 1. I have gone over all the cataloguing Mike has posted here and cannot define a moment when this happened, even by accident (which I was willing to consider - to err is human.) I see evidence trails for 3 separate silencers. I ready to look at more - it's like a busman's holiday for me! If the accusation is a deliberate swap, they have to PROVE when, where and who.
Sutherst's evidence. Their expert says no, simple as that. So JB's team need additional experts, not further work by the same one. MORE experts saying the same thing. BUT even if the 'paint was discredited, it doesn't make the silencer disappear. That point alone doesn't appear strong enough to press for 'serious doubt' or 're-trial' circumstances.
That's my summary, for what it's worth Newbury 1.
The CCRC are a tougher audience than a jury! A trial allows for loser interpretation of evidence and facts (within limits). That was the time for theories.
I am not an expert on this case. My concern is that the 'conspiracy' theories seem to date not from the finding of evidence but when the whole life tariff was handed down. JB may have thought he had 3-5 years more to serve, but under the whole life ruling of 1983 he meets 2 different criteria. Since the home secretary reviewed the listing and included JB the appeals have begun.
Innocent, I would have been seeking leave to appeal the following day, not concentrating on suing relatives for money (although that is required to put together the very best teams).
JB's team has changed over the years. There are other defendants/cases in similar circumstances where the original team have worked tirelessly throughout, bringing in other legal experts for fresh perspectives and reviews etc. Teams that are convinced of their client's innocence rather than the chess game of legal argument.
Don't think I can say any more!
-
Good post.
One small addition is that he sought leave to appeal in June 1987, which was refused in March 1989.
-
Gentle reminder - you have to ask a specific question/for specific evidence.
'Just give me all the documents and photos' will always be refused.
No response can also mean no evidence found (to specific question) although nil response is more common. i.e. no hits.
So it is basically down to JB's legal team to ask the right questions in order to get the right answers.
Do you think JB's legal team are doing a good job in following this concept?
Think I've said this elsewhere.
If you ask the question, get a response you don't like, can you continually say it's a lie, you know it, but you can prove it?
or
If you don't ask the question, you can maintain the conjecture that supports your theory.
They have asked questions, and material has been disclosed from the original file.
Apologies, but I am not quite getting this.
I am referring to JB's legal team handling of the new appeal case with the CCRC.
JB' legal team put together a paper to present to the CCRC requesting an appeal based on "new evidence".
The first point (above) about the fragmented bullet was available at trial and is therefore not new evidence and has therefore been discounted by the CCRC in this appeal attempt - surely JBs legal team should have known this.
All the other points made by JB's legal team have also effectively been rejected albeit on different grounds.
Are JB's legal team asking the right questions in order to obtain the right material to put together a strong appeal case (not evidenced so far) and do you think JB's legal team are doing a good job on behalf of JB?
The problem, as you or someone else has pointed out, is that we have not seen the full submission, but I assume we are being given the 'headline' points. I will defend the team and say it would be unprofessional to release the submission at this stage.
Speculating as much as anyone else, to me it appears:
I'm led to believe that is argued whether the bullet was ever fragmented, and that the xrays show a bullet and displaced tissue. All available since the original trial.
You cannot 'not' argue certain points at a trial, to keep them in the bag for an appeal. Can you imagine the games that would be played forever more?
The photographs aren't fixed points. No-one set up a tripod, recorded images and 9am, went away, checked the tripos and camera angle hadn't been shifted etc, then took further images. Therefore, the photos can't be treated like static CCTV images. Stand over an object and photograph it, moving stance by mms and the end results are very different, yet the object has not been moved, just the photographer. Have seen this done, and the CCRC could duplicate this in an afternoon. They have gone back to, and relied upon, the court testimony. Evidence would be needed to prove the individual officers were lying. Evidence not accusation. It appears no evidence is forthcoming.
The contemporaneous material - diaries etc. Can't see these being admissable in a court. It is dangerous for the defence to claim these are ''truthful" documents as they say other things about JB. Accept these documents in their entirety, or not at all... But I believe they are the written equivalent of 'hearsay'.
Nail polish - it may be the same expert who counters the 'mantelpiece/silencer' evidence counters this as well. Or they are appointing another specialist to address this directly in the interim period. Sounds flaky to me.
Other headlines suggest 3 silencers become 1. I have gone over all the cataloguing Mike has posted here and cannot define a moment when this happened, even by accident (which I was willing to consider - to err is human.) I see evidence trails for 3 separate silencers. I ready to look at more - it's like a busman's holiday for me! If the accusation is a deliberate swap, they have to PROVE when, where and who.
Sutherst's evidence. Their expert says no, simple as that. So JB's team need additional experts, not further work by the same one. MORE experts saying the same thing. BUT even if the 'paint was discredited, it doesn't make the silencer disappear. That point alone doesn't appear strong enough to press for 'serious doubt' or 're-trial' circumstances.
That's my summary, for what it's worth Newbury 1.
The CCRC are a tougher audience than a jury! A trial allows for loser interpretation of evidence and facts (within limits). That was the time for theories.
I am not an expert on this case. My concern is that the 'conspiracy' theories seem to date not from the finding of evidence but when the whole life tariff was handed down. JB may have thought he had 3-5 years more to serve, but under the whole life ruling of 1983 he meets 2 different criteria. Since the home secretary reviewed the listing and included JB the appeals have begun.
Innocent, I would have been seeking leave to appeal the following day, not concentrating on suing relatives for money (although that is required to put together the very best teams).
JB's team has changed over the years. There are other defendants/cases in similar circumstances where the original team have worked tirelessly throughout, bringing in other legal experts for fresh perspectives and reviews etc. Teams that are convinced of their client's innocence rather than the chess game of legal argument.
Don't think I can say any more!
Thanks mb1 - you got my Karma point for that!
-
Good post.
One small addition is that he sought leave to appeal in June 1987, which was refused in March 1989.
There is a standard action class for this. Don't know of a murder case where this hasn't happened.
At the end of ANY criminal trial resulting in conviction, a judge who may have concerns - jury conclusion/evidence/matters of law - can give automatic leave to appeal. This did not happen in JB's case.
-
Thanks mb1 - you got my Karma point for that!
Thanks Newbury 1.
Now off to Shoreham airport, so hope the good Karma wings the light aircraft to Jersey!
Will try to catch up on posts later this evening. Apologise beforehand if I send bad posts, as I am likely to be slighty squiffy...
-
the photos can't be treated like static CCTV images. Stand over an object and photograph it, moving stance by mms and the end results are very different, yet the object has not been moved, just the photographer. Have seen this done, and the CCRC could duplicate this in an afternoon.
That's far too sweeping a statement. The photographs of Sheila's body lying on the floor contain fixed reference points - bloodstains on the floor - that can be used to determine whether the camera position has changed significantly (and if so, by how much), whether one photograph contains significant distortion not present in the other due to the use of different camera lenses, and whether one photograph is enlarged in comparison with another. A change of camera position would cause differences in the photographs, but wouldn't convert straight lines (drawn through fixed reference points) to curved lines. I doubt that it would be possible to duplicate the apparent movement of Sheila's body in relation to the fixed points on the floor, and I would expect accurate measurements of the photographs would make it possible to prove that the body had moved significantly.
-
Just out of curiosity, at what point was the moving of the body acceptable.
The police say that's where the body was found and made statements to that effect. Of course the body was moved, I mean it's not still there now.
The subtle differences in position of the rifle and arms/hands shown in the photographs don't really mean anything do they? I'm not sure, I'm obviously missing something.
Obviously if it was proved that the body went from downstairs to upstairs or from the bed to the floor then that's a whole different issue.
-
The police initially maintained that nothing was moved, but later said the gun was moved and replaced, which might have caused slight movement of Sheila's arm and nightdress. Removing and replacing the gun would not cause Sheila's entire body to move lengthwise a few inches, which is what the photographs appear to show on casual examination.
-
The police initially maintained that nothing was moved, but later said the gun was moved and replaced, which might have caused slight movement of Sheila's arm and nightdress. Removing and replacing the gun would not cause Sheila's entire body to move lengthwise a few inches, which is what the photographs appear to show on casual examination.
Okay so just for arguments sake, let's say the body was moved as per the photographs, what are the ramifications?
Is it only to argue that the police who said they didn't move the body didn't tell the truth, or would the movement imply something else?
-
I am confused about the commissioners who make the decisions at the ccrc. I think one of them ewen smith was jeremys solicitor and presumably believed in his innocence. Was Ewan smith at that time trying to get disclosure of documents still witheld
As regards the withholding of evidence I understand some evidence containing peoples witness statements might be witheld for safety reasons but what possible reason is there for withholding photos and recordings
Isn't there a conflict of evidence at the ccrc with ewen smith
I have asked the question before
-
There is such a conflict of interest, but he probably didn't have an active role in deliberating on this case.
Sheila's suicide was somewhat implausible if the police found her body and the rifle positioned as they described. If the photographs show their descriptions were significantly inaccurate, the true original positions of the body and gun when Sheila died are not known reliably, so that suicide remains plausible. If this matter were raised at an appeal hearing, the court could be asked to rule that the prosecution must release all the remaining photographs taken of Sheila's body before it was taken away.
-
There is such a conflict of interest, but he probably didn't have an active role in deliberating on this case.
Sheila's suicide was somewhat implausible if the police found her body and the rifle positioned as they described. If the photographs show their descriptions were significantly inaccurate, the true original positions of the body and gun when Sheila died are not known reliably, so that suicide remains plausible. If this matter were raised at an appeal hearing, the court could be asked to rule that the prosecution must release all the remaining photographs taken of Sheila's body before it was taken away.
Are you saying that the photographs indicate that suicide was implausible in any of the photographs currently available?
Seems a bit of a chicken and egg scenario, they need the withheld photograph (if it exists) to try force the release of evidence n court; but they need that photograph to get to court in the first place.
-
If sheila was originally found on the bed, having committed suicide, (no photographic evidence so far) and the police moved the gun away from her body and tried recovering her (and failed) then it might have been simpler to restage her body on the floor (in a suicide position). i.e reflecting the suicide they initially thought had happenned (no thought of JB at this stage).
I wonder in what way the police tried to 'recover her'? did they do this on the bed? and since we're told how fresh the blood was, did any of it leak onto the bed?
And does the flow of the apparently fresh blood seem consistent with being moved from the bed to the floor as well as at some stage being perhaps put in the recovery position?
-
I don't know too much about forensics, withholding evidence etc but it does worry me that mike has said that he has actually said he gas seen the photo of Sheila on the bed along with ewen smith who is now commissioner with the ccrc. Mike has also said he would be prepared to take a lie detector test to prove this. Maybe I am naive but I have no reason to think mike would lie about something like this. If there is a photo where is it and what implications would it have on the case.
I think the above is what I read recently
-
If sheila was originally found on the bed, having committed suicide, (no photographic evidence so far) and the police moved the gun away from her body and tried recovering her (and failed) then it might have been simpler to restage her body on the floor (in a suicide position). i.e reflecting the suicide they initially thought had happenned (no thought of JB at this stage).
I wonder in what way the police tried to 'recover her'? did they do this on the bed? and since we're told how fresh the blood was, did any of it leak onto the bed?
And does the flow of the apparently fresh blood seem consistent with being moved from the bed to the floor as well as at some stage being perhaps put in the recovery position?
Thats a good point about the blood as any clots formed could have been disturbed when she was moved making the blood look fresher that it actually was.
-
I guess I struggle to understand why the pattern of blood on Sheila in the photo's doesn't seem to match the amount of movement that she purportedly had either taken herself (to go upstairs) or allegedly movement caused by the police - movement from the bed/recovery position.
Could Sheila have merely been put on the bed prior to being put in a body bag? And therefore it could be one of the last photos taken on the day.
-
If Sheila had been lying in the kitchen for some time, her blood from the first wound could have congealed sufficiently not to drip while she went upstairs.
Bear in mind that (a) the jury weren't shown these particular photographs, and (b) if Sheila had been dead for about 5 hours, it would quickly be realized there was no possibility of reviving her. Moving the body from the bed to the floor could make sense if Sheila died after the police broke in. If the police moved her to the floor very shortly after the fatal shot, the amount of her blood on the bed would be limited.
-
Quote from Sleuthing for Justice Mike Tesko on October 9, 2008
Essex police took a video of the scene at whf, but failed to bring this fact to the attention of Bamber, his legal team, or to the court, which tried him for these five murders..
The video recording has only very recently been obtained by the CCRC but Banber has been told that he will never get to see its contents.
What documentary evidence are you referring to when you state that the CCRC have obtained the video recording?
Also what reasons, if any, did the CCRC give Bamber when he was told he would never be allowed to view the contents of the tape?
-
If she had been dead for 6+ hours, would it have even been possible to change the arms and wrists as the photos show.
-
If she had been dead for 6+ hours, would it have even been possible to change the arms and wrists as the photos show.
I believe rigor mortis occurs between 2 and 4 hours after death, depending on environment.
I think you have made a very valid point there.
+1
-
Yes a very good point, it occurs after 3 hours and is most pronounced after 12 hours before subsiding again after 72 hours.
There's also liver Mortis to consider, which seems to be present in June but not Sheila, not that I'm an expert in photography of course.
Another consideration is could she have been incapacitated but not immediately killed from the two gunshot wounds, succumbing to death much later than being shot or shooting herself.