Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on April 24, 2015, 06:13:PM
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=f3k6VY30F5Tdar6pgKAK&url=http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/city-woman-key-witness-if-uk-judge-allows-appeal-148056175.html%3Fdevice%3Dmobile&ved=0CDAQFjAGOFA&usg=AFQjCNHAsOJwosaQEVQ2IJtHAyDGya-JwA&sig2=ooc6J90jvguYhWzDGU9HEw
-
If the CCRC had referred the matter to the COA then the Defense would have wanted to question her before the COA.
So?
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=f3k6VY30F5Tdar6pgKAK&url=http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/city-woman-key-witness-if-uk-judge-allows-appeal-148056175.html%3Fdevice%3Dmobile&ved=0CDAQFjAGOFA&usg=AFQjCNHAsOJwosaQEVQ2IJtHAyDGya-JwA&sig2=ooc6J90jvguYhWzDGU9HEw
Adam thank you for the links. I was wondering what point you were trying to make if any am I missing something.
-
"City woman" - why is Julie called that?
-
What would be the reason for calling Julie up ?
She is not new evidence. It's her word against this.
Jeremy's lawyers must assume that they could pressurise her enough on her testimony to make her retract. But she didn't retract 30 years ago as a 21 year old, so unlikely to do so now. Anyway the appeal can't be a repeat of the 1986 trial.
She didn't testify at the 2002 appeal. Although she made herself available. Voluntarily. Wasn't it ruled that there was not suitable evidence to get her in the dock. So what has changed ?
Jeremy's lawyers would need good grounds to get an order for her to travel across the world.
-
'McKay has had several highly publicized murder convictions overturned, and is representing several clients victimized in the ongoing hacked telephone and email scandal in Britain'.
Does anyone know what murder convictions he overturned ?
-
"She was a key witness," McKay said, though he emphasized, "No one considered that her evidence alone convicted Bamber."
That is correct, there really is a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence against Bamber.
-
"She was a key witness," McKay said, though he emphasized, "No one considered that her evidence alone convicted Bamber."
That is correct, there really is a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence against Bamber.
Adam whilst I am of the opinion that Jeremy is guilty of murdering his entire family I was not aware a mountain of forensic evidence existed IMO the evidence that convicted him was flimsey.
-
McKay said he believes he can compel Smerchanski to testify at an appeal.
"We're fairly certain we can issue a subpoena upon her," and that extradition treaties would force her to testify, he said.
'Fairly certain' ? Again, is Julie new evidence ? An appeal is not about getting old witnesses in and cross examining them. That was done at trial.
-
What would be the reason for calling Julie up ?
She is not new evidence. It's her word against this.
Jeremy's lawyers must assume that they could pressurise her enough on her testimony to make her retract. But she didn't retract 30 years ago as a 21 year old, so unlikely to do so now. Anyway the appeal can't be a repeat of the 1986 trial.
She didn't testify at the 2002 appeal. Although she made herself available. Voluntarily. Wasn't it ruled that there was not suitable evidence to get her in the dock. So what has changed ?
Jeremy's lawyers would need good grounds to get an order for her to travel across the world.
It always was - her word against his; and as you correctly point out, not evidence (at all <--- my addition.)
-
Bamber's supporters have often claimed there was no forensic evidence linking him to the massacre.
Is it correct that there was no forensic evidence ?
Bamber's footprints and fingerprints will be all over the house. He was a regular visitor. Either sneaking through windows to look at wills, or popping over for supper and a rabbit massacre. So no possible joy for the police here.
Bamber had a month to dispose of clothes. Even so John Hayward found human blood on Bamber's jacket, bathrobe and in his car.
The crime was committed by Sheila or Bamber. There is a lot of forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. Which automatically shows it was Bamber.
June being shot with her head on the pillow is forensic evidence pointing to Bamber rather than Sheila.
There is the silencer evidence.
There is the found hack saw which Bamber admitted using to get in and out of WHF. But apparently not on the massacre night. As well as the discovery that the kitchen window could be banged shut from outside is more forensic evidence.
-
I suspect Mckay was just saying this as bravado. As well as to have a dig at Julie.
-
It always was - her word against his; and as you correctly point out, not evidence (at all <--- my addition.)
Alias it was always her word against his and her evidence alone would not have convicted him they needed the silencer evidence as well and that was nearly not enough he could have walked had he had one more jury member on his side.
-
I suspect Mckay was just saying this as bravado. As well as to have a dig at Julie.
Adam think Simon MacKay was too much a professional to be into that nonsense.
-
Well he said he would be able to 'force her to testify'. But didn't she attend voluntarily last time ?
-
Bamber's supporters have often claimed there was no forensic evidence linking him to the massacre.
Is it correct that there was no forensic evidence ?
Bamber's footprints and fingerprints will be all over the house. He was a regular visitor. Either sneaking through windows to look at wills, or popping over for supper and a rabbit massacre. So no possible joy for the police here.
Bamber had a month to dispose of clothes. Even so John Hayward found human blood on Bamber's jacket, bathrobe and in his car.
The crime was committed by Sheila or Bamber. There is a lot of forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. Which automatically shows it was Bamber.
June being shot with her head on the pillow is forensic evidence pointing to Bamber rather than Sheila.
There is the silencer evidence.
There is the found hack saw which Bamber admitted using to get in and out of WHF. But apparently not on the massacre night. As well as the discovery that the kitchen window could be banged shut from outside is more fore
Adam please explain to me how June being shot with her head on the pillow indicates Jeremy shot her not Sheila.
-
Well he said he would be able to 'force her to testify'. But didn't she attend voluntarily last time ?
Adam I am not sure that Julie attended voluntarily I am sure Scipio will add his comments.
-
Do you think that June slept through Sheila's craziness ? And that Neville didn't wake her up. For assistance, her own protection and to stay with the twins ?
Why ring Jeremy if there was already another adult at WHF ?
-
Adam guess Simon MacKay will not be doing anything now to represent Jeremy think he was dismissed :'(
-
Adam I am not sure that Julie attended voluntarily I am sure Scipio will add his comments.
Well she didn't testify so the reason for attending could not have been strong.
-
Do you think that June slept through Sheila's craziness ? And that Neville didn't wake her up. For assistance, her own protection and to stay with the twins ?
Why ring Jeremy if there was already another adult at WHF ?
Adam you know that I don't think Sheila shot her family but it is only fair to see things from both sides. If Sheila had been capable of using and reloading the rifle she could have murdered her family just as Jeremy did the main reason I think she did not murder her family is she was too clean when the police arrived on the scene had she changed and showered after the massacre where were her stained clothes the police never found them.
-
Well she didn't testify so the reason for attending could not have been strong.
Adam maybe no evidence existed to justify her to testify I will have to read up on this.
-
Adam you know that I don't think Sheila shot her family but it is only fair to see things from both sides. If Sheila had been capable of using and reloading the rifle she could have murdered her family just as Jeremy did the main reason I think she did not murder her family is she was too clean when the police arrived on the scene had she changed and showered after the massacre where were her stained clothes the police never found them.
How do you think Sheila did it ?
-
With June there are three suspensions of disbelief required:
Neville refused to wake her.
June did not wake from hearing all the noise.
Things escalated but Neville chose to ring Jeremy, rather than wake June.
-
How do you think Sheila did it ?
Adam I have tried and tried to think how Sheila could have murdered her family NGB posted on here last week that he thought it would have been possible for Sheila to beat her Father whilst in a psychotic rage but then we come back to how clean she was and it has been suggested that she showered and changed her clothes where did she hide her soiled clothes none were found.
-
How do you think Sheila did it ?
I know Susan was polite and answered your question, but why do you ask her, she doesn´t think Sheila did it?
-
With June there are three suspensions of disbelief required:
Neville refused to wake her.
June did not wake from hearing all the noise.
Things escalated but Neville chose to ring Jeremy, rather than wake June.
Adam I can only think June was shot first this would all happen so quickly Ralph was shot trying to escape downstairs to a phone maybe to call the police but he was fatally shot in the kitchen. Sheila heard the noise went to her parents bedroom was shot twice then alas her wee boys shot whilst sleeping in their beds.
-
Alias it was always her word against his and her evidence alone would not have convicted him they needed the silencer evidence as well and that was nearly not enough he could have walked had he had one more jury member on his side.
Alias and others incorrectly assert that her word was not evidence. Her word was evidence and her word alone could be a basis of a conviction so long as there is no evidence to establish Jeremy can't have done it. Even without the moderator evidence a jury could still have decided that the other evidence (such as lack of any evidence to tie Sheila to the murders as would be present had she actually committed them).
Thus undermining the moderator evidence alone would be insufficient to establish Jeremy's innocence. Undermining it could be sufficient to win a new trial but might not before some judges and certainly wouldn't establish his innocence. So that would be a reason why Jeremy's defense would want to try to attack all the evidence that convicted him.
-
Hello Scipio thanks for that I was always under the impression that Julie's evidence alone was not enough to convict him but on reflection I guess at the end of the day it was all down to who the Jury believed Julie or Jeremy and I guess they believed her. One would have thought the Defence would have tried to discredit her in someway i.e. cheque fraud drugs but maybe they are not allowed to do this in Court.
-
Hello Scipio thanks for that I was always under the impression that Julie's evidence alone was not enough to convict him but on reflection I guess at the end of the day it was all down to who the Jury believed Julie or Jeremy and I guess they believed her. One would have thought the Defence would have tried to discredit her in someway i.e. cheque fraud drugs but maybe they are not allowed to do this in Court.
Right in a he said/she said situation the trier of fact (jury in a jury trial/ judge in a bench trial) decides who to believe. If there is evidence that establishes either is lying that makes it easier to tell who to believe.
The defense could potentially have wanted to question her to try to establish she lied as a back-up plan so that even if they fail in discrediting the moderator that they could try to get a retrial by virtue of undermining her evidence.
The defense could also have wanted to question her to see what she remembers if anything simply as a preview of what her testimony would be in the event they did manage to get a retrial. If the moderator evidence were tossed her testimony would be even more significant in a retrial. If they found out that she would make a useless witness that could end up resulting in the government not even bothering with a retrial. It also could help them find some weaknesses based on her memory failings. So they could have essentially wanted to do strategic probing which can be considered underhanded but lawyers do such things fairly often. I can't even begin to tell all the different games that are played.
-
Hello Scipio thanks for that I was always under the impression that Julie's evidence alone was not enough to convict him but on reflection I guess at the end of the day it was all down to who the Jury believed Julie or Jeremy and I guess they believed her. One would have thought the Defence would have tried to discredit her in someway i.e. cheque fraud drugs but maybe they are not allowed to do this in Court.
The defence did bring up the cheque book fraud to try to discredit her.
As Simon Mckay said, there was more than just Julie's word. A lot of what she said is supported by other people.