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.