Author Topic: Trudie steps down:  (Read 893 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21479
Re: Trudie steps down:
« Reply #45 on: June 29, 2020, 09:34:PM »
Indeed, it would appear that myself, David, ngb and Bill Robertson were also overlooked  ^-^

David and NGB said they were not applying. I asked Jackie and Mike if they were applying but got no response.

Jackie may be focusing on her 6 part documentary. David may be meeting with Jeremy's legal advisors prior to the next CCRC submission.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12398
Re: Trudie steps down:
« Reply #46 on: June 30, 2020, 07:28:PM »
I doubt a Tired Old Owl will achieve very much.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21479
Re: Trudie steps down:
« Reply #47 on: June 30, 2020, 10:54:PM »
I doubt a Tired Old Owl will achieve very much.

Mike would have certainly been more pro active.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 43606
Re: Trudie steps down:
« Reply #48 on: July 03, 2020, 12:22:PM »
I wish the CT would cross off Priti Patel's name in their pleas for her to assist EP for the release of documents as she, along with John Whittingdale demanded that JB stay where he is. I find it a tad embarrassing that such a request is made to someone who'll totally ignore any such request. Never in a month of Sundays will this woman step down.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21479
Re: Trudie steps down:
« Reply #49 on: July 11, 2020, 02:00:PM »
The New CCRC Application

Hello everyone,

I know that in the aftermath of the Judicial Review application refusal by Judge Knowles on Friday 5 June 2020, many supporters are left feeling bewildered and uncertain of the way we will now proceed without this disclosure.  I believe it is important to let you know that it was always the intention that we would make fresh submissions to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) with substantive and comprehensive grounds, all of which demonstrate Jeremy’s innocence. Although the disclosure of the 27 documents and photographs we requested was important and would have assisted, even without it plans were already in place for the application to the CCRC with the compelling evidence we have.  

I have been asked many times, since the hearing, about the contention that a Senior Police Officer retained and then destroyed case material, as was reported in all the media, in particular the Daily Mirror.

The CPS only disclosed this fact to Jeremy’s legal team on 27 May 2020, two days before the hearing, and it was not in the case material. This was a completely unexpected revelation although not surprising. Steps are now in place to address this extremely serious issue, although I cannot say more at this time. 

So, to the hearing. I was absolutely convinced that the substantive evidence we provided to the CPS, and then the Courts, would achieve disclosure. However, the CPS simply chose to ignore the evidence we supplied over a three-and-a-half-year period resulting in the Judicial Review application of their decisions.  It seems clear that Judge Knowles appreciated the evidence and implications of the evidence submitted by the legal team when he set out in his ruling:

“If ever there was a case where the CCRC should be approached to make a decision on what is said to be new evidence, it is this one. This is a massively complex case which has been investigated and re-investigated by more than one police force over some 35 years. The body of material is vast. After so many years, and so much litigation, the CCRC is the body undoubtedly best placed to consider the Claimant’s arguments. This case is so complicated, and has so many overlapping layers, that judicial review is a hopelessly blunt tool with which to address and determine the Claimant’s arguments.”

As I say, we now have a vast amount of fresh evidence on a wide-ranging series of issues which undermines every aspect of the Crown’s contentions at trial and ever since. We believe each issue on its own merit should warrant a speedy referral by the CCRC to the Court of Appeal. However, to submit all of the fresh evidence we have uncovered at this time would be counter-productive, as it would take the CCRC a huge amount of time to consider, time we are not prepared to wait for.

Lengthy discussions have taken place between Jeremy, myself and the legal team and the primary issues of each ground have now been agreed upon to present in our arguments, to ensure we get Jeremy’s case back to the Court of Appeal as soon as possible. These compelling grounds are now in the final stages of being formatted and reference checked and will be submitted to the CCRC within the next few weeks.   

So please be assured that the fight continues with vigour and a determination that Jeremy’s unsustainable conviction will be quashed as soon as possible.   

Yvonne Hartley

Admin and Forensic Liaison Manager

---------


'Admin and Forensic Liaison Manager'. Is Yvonne managing Jeremy's filing clerks and forensic experts?


'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline QCChevalier

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
Re: Trudie steps down:
« Reply #50 on: July 11, 2020, 02:11:PM »
Strictly, Jeremy Bamber doesn't need to prove his innocence.  He only needs to show there is doubt about the safety and/or satisfactoriness of the convictions; still a high bar but not as taxing as demonstrating actual innocence.

He can't prove his innocence anyway.  One reason for this is that the only likely potential alternative culprit is dead and her 'body of evidence' is decomposed.

In my view, this is a case of 'reasonable doubt' rather than exoneration.  There is no evidence available to establish Jeremy's factual innocence that anybody is aware of - unless Jeremy is concealing something?

Does anybody know what is this "vast amount of fresh evidence"?  I don't necessarily expect a detailed run-through, but what is it in summary/bullet point terms, please?
« Last Edit: July 11, 2020, 02:13:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 43606
Re: Trudie steps down:
« Reply #51 on: July 11, 2020, 02:33:PM »
The CT aren't likely to say what the fresh evidence consists of, for obvious reasons but however there must be sufficient to enable a further submission to the CCRC considering that much was put before them in the past but without success.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 43606
Re: Trudie steps down:
« Reply #52 on: July 11, 2020, 02:38:PM »
The case wouldn't have appeared complex etc if it hadn't been made to look that way !! It was sheer incompetence from the word go that made it look that way.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21479
Re: Trudie steps down:
« Reply #53 on: July 11, 2020, 03:20:PM »
Maybe David, NGB or Mike can give a summary of the fresh evidence.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5093
Re: Trudie steps down:
« Reply #54 on: July 11, 2020, 03:23:PM »
Maybe David, NGB or Mike can give a summary of the fresh evidence.

I no longer have any inside knowledge.


Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21479
Re: Trudie steps down:
« Reply #55 on: July 11, 2020, 03:25:PM »
Over to you David and Mike.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline QCChevalier

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
Re: Trudie steps down:
« Reply #56 on: July 11, 2020, 05:05:PM »
The CT aren't likely to say what the fresh evidence consists of, for obvious reasons but however there must be sufficient to enable a further submission to the CCRC considering that much was put before them in the past but without success.

What are these 'obvious reasons'?  I think people are too preoccupied with playing clever games rather than getting to the kernel of things.

To me, this is quite simple: It's not about whether Jeremy is innocent.  Nobody knows that other than Jeremy and I can't read his mind. 

Even if Jeremy had been caught red-handed holding the rifle above Nevill's body, it wouldn't follow that Jeremy is legally guilty.  We would need to establish that Jeremy had acted in a lucid frame of mind.

This is about the safety and satisfactoriness of his convictions.

The right to a fair trial does not end with the trial itself.  It continues for so long as there are protestations of innocence or any sort of doubt.

But the right to a fair trial applies to both sides.  The Crown, on behalf of the community, have a right to a fair trial.  Jeremy, especially, has the right to see a fair trial done.  People should try to practice what they preach and we need transparency now - from everybody.  From Jeremy.  From the CPS and DPP.  From Essex Police, COLP and the Metropolitan Police.

That means EVERYTHING needs to be public material and out in the open.  All cards on the table. 

A man serving a whole life order in a close confined prison maintains his absolute innocence, consistently, for approaching 40 years.  Is there a precedent for this in England?

The public interest in open disclosure of all case materials is now compelling.

Whatever the truth of Jeremy's culpability, the authorities cannot be trusted and their pleas of justification for withholding materials are hypocritical.

The investigating force unlawfully destroyed material evidence of forensic significance, in open defiance of a court order.

The senior investigating officer took evidence home with him and then destroyed it.

Disclosure of supposedly 'non-material' evidence has been ragged and reluctant, and it turns out that much of this evidence is of materiality after all and casts doubt on the prosecution case.

The police try to explain all their inconsistencies away as errors and mistakes in the heat of the incident, which is convenient for them.

The central prosecution witness was herself a criminal and gave inadmissible and non-dispositive evidence to emotionally-sway a jury.  The extent of her involvement with the police is still protected under PII, an abuse and misuse of protections that are meant to ensure national security and frustrate organised crime - neither a factor in this case.

She also lied to the trial about her cannabis use and lied about her financial dealings with a newspaper.

A detective under the influence of alcohol collected dubious evidence from relatives who had a vital financial interest in seeing the accused convicted.  He then failed to secure this evidence and lost a grey hair attached to it, that could have been a rabbit hair - a fact not reported to the laboratory.

The senior scenes of crime officer dismantled this evidence under non-sterilised conditions before he passed it to the FSS.

The trial judge misled the jury as to the interpretation of the blood evidence.

The whole thing is a fiasco and a shambles from the moment Jeremy - probably - picked up that rifle, and the cause of his terrible actions goes deeper, into his adoption and the family dynamics that ensued.  It is not too much of a stretch to suppose that he is both perpetrator and victim in this saga.

A fair appellate court must now see all the evidence and decide.  Not if he is innocent, but whether the conviction is safe and satisfactory. 

No more of these games.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2020, 05:11:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12398
Re: Trudie steps down:
« Reply #57 on: July 11, 2020, 05:33:PM »
What are these 'obvious reasons'?  I think people are too preoccupied with playing clever games rather than getting to the kernel of things.

To me, this is quite simple: It's not about whether Jeremy is innocent.  Nobody knows that other than Jeremy and I can't read his mind. 

Even if Jeremy had been caught red-handed holding the rifle above Nevill's body, it wouldn't follow that Jeremy is legally guilty.  We would need to establish that Jeremy had acted in a lucid frame of mind.

This is about the safety and satisfactoriness of his convictions.

The right to a fair trial does not end with the trial itself.  It continues for so long as there are protestations of innocence or any sort of doubt.

But the right to a fair trial applies to both sides.  The Crown, on behalf of the community, have a right to a fair trial.  Jeremy, especially, has the right to see a fair trial done.  People should try to practice what they preach and we need transparency now - from everybody.  From Jeremy.  From the CPS and DPP.  From Essex Police, COLP and the Metropolitan Police.

That means EVERYTHING needs to be public material and out in the open.  All cards on the table. 

A man serving a whole life order in a close confined prison maintains his absolute innocence, consistently, for approaching 40 years.  Is there a precedent for this in England?

The public interest in open disclosure of all case materials is now compelling.

Whatever the truth of Jeremy's culpability, the authorities cannot be trusted and their pleas of justification for withholding materials are hypocritical.

The investigating force unlawfully destroyed material evidence of forensic significance, in open defiance of a court order.

The senior investigating officer took evidence home with him and then destroyed it.

Disclosure of supposedly 'non-material' evidence has been ragged and reluctant, and it turns out that much of this evidence is of materiality after all and casts doubt on the prosecution case.

The police try to explain all their inconsistencies away as errors and mistakes in the heat of the incident, which is convenient for them.

The central prosecution witness was herself a criminal and gave inadmissible and non-dispositive evidence to emotionally-sway a jury.  The extent of her involvement with the police is still protected under PII, an abuse and misuse of protections that are meant to ensure national security and frustrate organised crime - neither a factor in this case.

She also lied to the trial about her cannabis use and lied about her financial dealings with a newspaper.

A detective under the influence of alcohol collected dubious evidence from relatives who had a vital financial interest in seeing the accused convicted.  He then failed to secure this evidence and lost a grey hair attached to it, that could have been a rabbit hair - a fact not reported to the laboratory.

The senior scenes of crime officer dismantled this evidence under non-sterilised conditions before he passed it to the FSS.

The trial judge misled the jury as to the interpretation of the blood evidence.

The whole thing is a fiasco and a shambles from the moment Jeremy - probably - picked up that rifle, and the cause of his terrible actions goes deeper, into his adoption and the family dynamics that ensued.  It is not too much of a stretch to suppose that he is both perpetrator and victim in this saga.

A fair appellate court must now see all the evidence and decide.  Not if he is innocent, but whether the conviction is safe and satisfactory. 

No more of these games.
That's good coming from you.

Offline QCChevalier

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
Re: Trudie steps down:
« Reply #58 on: July 11, 2020, 05:47:PM »
Again, I'm just ignoring the forum creep.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12398
Re: Trudie steps down:
« Reply #59 on: July 11, 2020, 06:00:PM »
Again, I'm just ignoring the forum creep.
Lookout is a respected member who makes you look like the stray, autistic ingenu you probably are.