Grounds for not referring Jeremy Bamber’s case back to the appeal court.

[mike tesko]

And that is exactly what he is still up against.

Silks are probably the only 'experts' who won't be 'told'. They guide their clients, and are guided by their clients wishes. But they cannot stand in court and deliberately lie.

The barristers on both sides are interpretors. They tell 'a story' that fits the evidence.

My point is, lots of 'fresh evidence' proclaimed by JB's team actually disappeared before it came before the Appeal Court. Turner could not produce the evidence to support the argument.

Ask the right question of the file...

I once sang a song to Mike Mansfield when he was leaning out a window. He threw a flower down for me. At least, I think it was for, not at... Ah, lost youth!

--------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for that...

Silks, like judges, are very intelligent, and can twist something to mean something else, which could be the opposite of what the other side are arguing it means...

I have seen thee people at close quarters, and I understand what they do, and what they are capable of doing...

But if you do not have access to the material you are referring to, I suppose you have to give it up as a bad job. Perhaps Mike Turner gave it up as a bad job, once he realized that the Crown were not going to disclose the material which  he felt the court would demand, to be disclosed?

Most of that material which would have supported Mike Turners arguments, is still being withheld today, as we speak - so, under those circumstances, is it any wonder, that He withdrew his arguments, or did not feel that he could continue with them?

[Jackiepreece]

It makes me so angry when you say certain judges are pro police surely they know what goes on with the police more than anyone.  So does that mean that everyone has put all the hard work to get the case refered to the  appeal court and jb could be aware he doesn't stand a chance when he sees the names of certain judges are handling the case.  Unbelievable

Pot luck if the jurors understand the case and pot luck which judges you get

Great

[andrea]

the whole thing seems unfair, i think this case should be reffered to appeal, there are far too many things un answered, for a start the essex police should disclose everything they have, that way we can put an end to speculation and deal with it once and for all.

[Alex]

the whole thing seems unfair, i think this case should be reffered to appeal, there are far too many things un answered, for a start the essex police should disclose everything they have, that way we can put an end to speculation and deal with it once and for all.

I agree.  Too many unanswered questions and too much evidence being withheld - and although I've nothing against the police it does sound like they may be claiming PII under false pretenses.  Twenty-five years has passed.  How can it not be in public interests to release that information and stop all this wasted time and money?

[Pete0001]

It makes me so angry when you say certain judges are pro police surely they know what goes on with the police more than anyone.  So does that mean that everyone has put all the hard work to get the case refered to the  appeal court and jb could be aware he doesn't stand a chance when he sees the names of certain judges are handling the case.  Unbelievable

Pot luck if the jurors understand the case and pot luck which judges you get

Great

Being Pro Police doesn't mean that a Judge will allow fraud, contempt, lies and cover ups. It means the Judge believes IN the Police and the job they do.
i come from a family of Judges and know that some Judges use every case they hear as an opertunity to slate the Police and the money they waste with mickey mouse charges etc. It swings both ways, but being Pro something doesn't mean you are corrupt.

The justice system we have is controlled by humans.. humans have emotions and individual thoughts and feelings. A professional will try and rule on evidence and sometimes experience but you can never be sure that individual emotions won't come into it.

[Hartley]

It makes me so angry ........

Well don't let it. Detach yourself a bit and accept that people have differing ideas, views and opinions.

[haughton]

Why was the fact that Sheila was bleeding fresh blood at aprox 0800 not taken  as evidence?

[Hartley]

Why was the fact that Sheila was bleeding fresh blood at aprox 0800 not taken  as evidence?

It's only recently been suggested that her blood was wet, and the only evidence is that it appears to be in photographs. Same thing with the rigor mortis and liver mortis.

[zeppler53]

Who was the photographer???

I don't know. I'm not sure it matters though, the statement of a photographer would not override the statements of police officers.

And who was it that said the camera never lies.

[Reader]

Pc Bird (SOCO) was the photographer.

[haughton]

I would h ave thought that the moving of Sheila from the kitchen to the bedroom between  0730 and 0800, while everybody was outside, should have been evidence enough. Or is this incorrect.

[Pete0001]

Who was the photographer???

I don't know. I'm not sure it matters though, the statement of a photographer would not override the statements of police officers.

And who was it that said the camera never lies.

A camera doesn't lie but it is not living evidence... What you see is the truth of the picture but not necessarily the truth of the scene/situation.

Give me one image and I'll make two versions that look very different. Neither is lying as they are just displaying the picture.
The lie is in the before and after.

If I have a picture of a blue moon in the sky then that's the truth.. "this is a picture of a blue moon in the sky" that is true... The picture can't be used to decide whether that blue moon exists in the real world or not though.

[Newbury1]

Who was the photographer???

I don't know. I'm not sure it matters though, the statement of a photographer would not override the statements of police officers.

And who was it that said the camera never lies.

A camera doesn't lie but it is not living evidence... What you see is the truth of the picture but not necessarily the truth of the scene/situation.

Give me one image and I'll make two versions that look very different. Neither is lying as they are just displaying the picture.
The lie is in the before and after.

If I have a picture of a blue moon in the sky then that's the truth.. "this is a picture of a blue moon in the sky" that is true... The picture can't be used to decide whether that blue moon exists in the real world or not though.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle thought the camera didn't lie (and wanted to believe a certain way) and that's why he was taken in by the infamous Cottingley fairies pictures!

[mb1]

Someone had to check Sheila was deceased.
Someone had to check the gun was safe.
Someone had to bag Sheila's hands and feet.
Someone had to collect visible evidence from Sheila's body.
And so on... Until eventually she was carried out in a body bag.

Do I think she was moved? Probably. Would I accept that officers even practiced removing guns? Maybe.

Because of Jeremy's phone call, that morning the police went into the house believing a woman had gone mad with a gun, killed her family and then herself.
Coroner's inquest/court. No big murder trial.

I think the scene/investigation was 'contaminated' by that phone call.

No phone call, no 'live situation', and the police would have arrived in the morning to view a charnel house without preconceptions. Apart from 5 possible murders and a killer/s to be caught. It would have been a very different investigation, of that I am SURE.

[Pete0001]

Who was the photographer???

I don't know. I'm not sure it matters though, the statement of a photographer would not override the statements of police officers.

And who was it that said the camera never lies.

A camera doesn't lie but it is not living evidence... What you see is the truth of the picture but not necessarily the truth of the scene/situation.

Give me one image and I'll make two versions that look very different. Neither is lying as they are just displaying the picture.
The lie is in the before and after.

If I have a picture of a blue moon in the sky then that's the truth.. "this is a picture of a blue moon in the sky" that is true... The picture can't be used to decide whether that blue moon exists in the real world or not though.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle thought the camera didn't lie (and wanted to believe a certain way) and that's why he was taken in by the infamous Cottingley fairies pictures!

lol.. yes very true... but the picture didn't lie.. it wasn't one of these magic holagram images that you have to stare at for hours and still only some people see the image kinda things.

Was it a photograph? Yes
Was there fairies in it? Yes

This is all true and fact and only becomes questionable when the photograph is put in context of real life.

An image in the form of a photograph is just a record of what has been recorded and that can be seen in the photograph.. it doesn't prove anything or disprove anything.
Photographs only become good evidence when they have things to back up the image.