Justice for Jeremy

[JackieD]

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

[ngb1066]

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.

 

[ngb1066]

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.

[JackieD]

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

[maggie]

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.

[JackieD]

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

[ngb1066]

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).

   

[Steve_uk]

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..

[ngb1066]

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.

 

[Steve_uk]

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.

[JackieD]

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

[JackieD]

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

[Steve_uk]

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

[David1819]

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.

[ngb1066]

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.