Author Topic: Justice for Jeremy  (Read 1293 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1885
Re: Justice for Jeremy
« Reply #15 on: June 06, 2020, 04:02:PM »
Optimism has been present during a lot of the last 35 years.  They have to break the cycle that the authorities have in place:
 
They rely upon the public, legal and other professionals, to take-for-granted that the sound moderator evidence is both genuine and 'compelling'. 

They portray partial disclosure as being compliant with requests for disclosure. 

They dismiss attempts to obtain further disclosure, by claiming that it would not diminish the original, compelling sound moderator evidence. 

They point towards appeals and enquiries having sustained the safety of the convictions.

This model is working for them very well.  This cycle will continue over and over, until the right voices, coherently explain in the simple terms, why the original sound moderator evidence is not genuine.

Also - why is the crown paying for a good QC to prevent disclosure, for paperwork that the Crown believes cannot impact on the safety of the convictions?  This makes no sense.  This needs to be pointed out to people.

Spot on

Why exactly
From Colin Caffells
His relationship with Sheila was one of brotherly love. He was very proud of having a beautiful sister who was a photographic model

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5092
Re: Justice for Jeremy
« Reply #16 on: June 06, 2020, 05:20:PM »




Why do you think they've refused their powers in the disclosure of materials when this is the CCRC's main objective in the criminal appeal act of 1995 ? What's your own personal view of their refusal ?
Then again, if you don't wish to say then I'll understand.
CCRC themselves said that the biggest causes of MOJ's was failure to disclose vital evidence----it doesn't make sense. The organisation isn't fit for purpose when this is the case with JB.

I have see some of the correspondence on this and I was very surprised at some of the reasons given.
I think their refusal has been very wrong.  They were given wide ranging powers and should be prepared to use them to the full where any cogent argument is made to them that documents might disclose something of benefit to the defence.

 

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5092
Re: Justice for Jeremy
« Reply #17 on: June 06, 2020, 05:21:PM »
Optimism has been present during a lot of the last 35 years.  They have to break the cycle that the authorities have in place:
 
They rely upon the public, legal and other professionals, to take-for-granted that the sound moderator evidence is both genuine and 'compelling'. 

They portray partial disclosure as being compliant with requests for disclosure. 

They dismiss attempts to obtain further disclosure, by claiming that it would not diminish the original, compelling sound moderator evidence. 

They point towards appeals and enquiries having sustained the safety of the convictions.

This model is working for them very well.  This cycle will continue over and over, until the right voices, coherently explain in the simple terms, why the original sound moderator evidence is not genuine.

Also - why is the crown paying for a good QC to prevent disclosure, for paperwork that the Crown believes cannot impact on the safety of the convictions?  This makes no sense.  This needs to be pointed out to people.

Your last point in particular is absolutely correct.

« Last Edit: June 06, 2020, 05:22:PM by ngb1066 »

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1885
Re: Justice for Jeremy
« Reply #18 on: June 12, 2020, 09:55:PM »
The only way JB is going to get anywhere is public support. The recent CAL 6 part doc/drama was embarrassing. At least a six part documentary is need that is completely factual and goes deep into the evidence and highlights things like special branch destroying evidence that could have been used in an appeal

So many vital points the general public have no idea about
Gun experts from America etc etc

There is more than enough to get the public gripped
From Colin Caffells
His relationship with Sheila was one of brotherly love. He was very proud of having a beautiful sister who was a photographic model

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13650
Re: Justice for Jeremy
« Reply #19 on: June 13, 2020, 01:53:PM »
The only way JB is going to get anywhere is public support. The recent CAL 6 part doc/drama was embarrassing. At least a six part documentary is need that is completely factual and goes deep into the evidence and highlights things like special branch destroying evidence that could have been used in an appeal

So many vital points the general public have no idea about
Gun experts from America etc etc

There is more than enough to get the public gripped
I agree, Jackie.  Lightweight docudramas based on dodgy evidence is mainly entertainment.

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1885
Re: Justice for Jeremy
« Reply #20 on: June 13, 2020, 02:52:PM »
Maggie let’s start a list of points that have to be highlighted in a new six part documentary and the I will pass to all the documentary makers who I follow on Twitter

1 the NOTW deal and the Jury
2 special branch destruction of evidence
3 Jeremy’s solicitor going to the ccrc
4 in-depth maybe a whole hour on Sheila’s health
5 maybe 2 or three episodes on forensics
6 the missing negatives

That’s a start
From Colin Caffells
His relationship with Sheila was one of brotherly love. He was very proud of having a beautiful sister who was a photographic model

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5092
Re: Justice for Jeremy
« Reply #21 on: June 13, 2020, 04:34:PM »
Maggie let’s start a list of points that have to be highlighted in a new six part documentary and the I will pass to all the documentary makers who I follow on Twitter

1 the NOTW deal and the Jury
2 special branch destruction of evidence
3 Jeremy’s solicitor going to the ccrc
4 in-depth maybe a whole hour on Sheila’s health
5 maybe 2 or three episodes on forensics
6 the missing negatives

That’s a start

Add to the above:
1. Failure to disclose documents in possession of Essex Police/CPS.
2. Police complicity in handling JM cheque fraud and interaction with bank manager and lies about this.
3. Immunity given by DPP to JM for various offences.
4. False impression presented of circumstances in which JM "came forward" to police.
5. Sound moderator evidence - handling of exhibit and evidence of multiple sound moderators handled at different stages (I know of 5 specific ones).

   

Online Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12367
Re: Justice for Jeremy
« Reply #22 on: June 13, 2020, 08:27:PM »
Add to the above:
1. Failure to disclose documents in possession of Essex Police/CPS.
2. Police complicity in handling JM cheque fraud and interaction with bank manager and lies about this.
3. Immunity given by DPP to JM for various offences.
4. False impression presented of circumstances in which JM "came forward" to police.
5. Sound moderator evidence - handling of exhibit and evidence of multiple sound moderators handled at different stages (I know of 5 specific ones).

 
So Alan Dovey is in on the conspiracy as well, along with Robert and David Boutflour, Ann Eaton, Julie Mugford, Liz Rimington, PC Lay, James Richards..

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5092
Re: Justice for Jeremy
« Reply #23 on: June 13, 2020, 08:43:PM »
So Alan Dovey is in on the conspiracy as well, along with Robert and David Boutflour, Ann Eaton, Julie Mugford, Liz Rimington, PC Lay, James Richards..

What are you talking about?  Have I said any of this?  You are really weird.

 

Online Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12367
Re: Justice for Jeremy
« Reply #24 on: June 13, 2020, 08:55:PM »
What are you talking about?  Have I said any of this?  You are really weird.
You would acknowledge that there would have to be a conspiracy amongst a large number of individuals for Jeremy Bamber to be innocent of any crime. You never elaborate on your points anyhow, hence the misunderstandings.

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1885
Re: Justice for Jeremy
« Reply #25 on: June 13, 2020, 09:42:PM »
Add to the above:
1. Failure to disclose documents in possession of Essex Police/CPS.
2. Police complicity in handling JM cheque fraud and interaction with bank manager and lies about this.
3. Immunity given by DPP to JM for various offences.
4. False impression presented of circumstances in which JM "came forward" to police.
5. Sound moderator evidence - handling of exhibit and evidence of multiple sound moderators handled at different stages (I know of 5 specific ones).

 

Brilliant and next to none of this has been seen in a tv documentary and the public have no idea
From Colin Caffells
His relationship with Sheila was one of brotherly love. He was very proud of having a beautiful sister who was a photographic model

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1885
Re: Justice for Jeremy
« Reply #26 on: June 13, 2020, 09:49:PM »
So Alan Dovey is in on the conspiracy as well, along with Robert and David Boutflour, Ann Eaton, Julie Mugford, Liz Rimington, PC Lay, James Richards..

Steve don’t you think the public need to know the FACTS around the case. Surely it’s a good idea if we are paying to keep an innocent man in prison
From Colin Caffells
His relationship with Sheila was one of brotherly love. He was very proud of having a beautiful sister who was a photographic model

Online Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12367
Re: Justice for Jeremy
« Reply #27 on: June 13, 2020, 10:35:PM »
Steve don’t you think the public need to know the FACTS around the case. Surely it’s a good idea if we are paying to keep an innocent man in prison
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/4650-truth-is-stranger-than-fiction-but-it-is-because-fiction

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8455
Re: Justice for Jeremy
« Reply #28 on: June 14, 2020, 07:07:AM »
So Alan Dovey is in on the conspiracy as well, along with Robert and David Boutflour, Ann Eaton, Julie Mugford, Liz Rimington, PC Lay, James Richards..

How is Alan Dovey in on any conspiracy? His involvement was concealed from the defence for the sole purpose of helping to cover it up.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2020, 07:09:AM by David1819 »

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5092
Re: Justice for Jeremy
« Reply #29 on: June 14, 2020, 11:12:AM »
You would acknowledge that there would have to be a conspiracy amongst a large number of individuals for Jeremy Bamber to be innocent of any crime. You never elaborate on your points anyhow, hence the misunderstandings.

Both of the points you make are rubbish.  However I really cannot be bothered to debate with you.