Author Topic: Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020  (Read 541 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21479
Re: Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020
« Reply #16 on: July 01, 2020, 09:03:AM »
"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.

-----------

That is a bit risky. Safer to submit everything they have. If allowed. If it takes the CCRC a couple more months to look through, wait.

Believe they only submitted one issue to the CCRC in 2012. Which was rejected.

« Last Edit: July 01, 2020, 09:13:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21479
Re: Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020
« Reply #17 on: July 02, 2020, 10:50:AM »
Better to be safe than sorry.

A failed CCRC submission will mean a 10 year wait until the next one. If Bamber is alive. Better to submit everything this time & be prepared to wait a bit longer for the potential COA referral.

Maybe David or NGB can update us on the forthcoming CCRC referral.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8463
Re: Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020
« Reply #18 on: July 02, 2020, 11:17:AM »
Better to be safe than sorry.

A failed CCRC submission will mean a 10 year wait until the next one. If Bamber is alive. Better to submit everything this time & be prepared to wait a bit longer for the potential COA referral.

Maybe David or NGB can update us on the forthcoming CCRC referral.

The problem is Jeremy is hiring new solicitors every time that are not familiar with the case. Recently we had Newby entertain the absurd notion of Nevill calling the police and police inflicting the second gunshot wound. He seemed to have come to his senses eventually.

Jeremy really should get back in touch with McKay or ask NGB to refer someone to him.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21479
Re: Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020
« Reply #19 on: July 02, 2020, 11:58:AM »
Why not set up a regular direct debit to help fund Jeremy's CCRC submissions? Thanks to so many who have donated to the huge costs it takes to get the case to court...we need more! https://t.co/nvfYOfVYcY https://t.co/eJJeIyrwet

----------

Maybe the Direct Debits people set up will assist with the submission.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21479
Re: Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020
« Reply #20 on: July 02, 2020, 12:33:PM »
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/case

Seems the aim is to 'potentionally undermine the safety of the conviction'. Rather than prove innocence.

The CT accept there is other evidence, but want to prove that there was a second moderator recovered from the farm. Not sure how that is so important.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2020, 12:39:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8463
Re: Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020
« Reply #21 on: July 02, 2020, 04:40:PM »
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/case

Seems the aim is to 'potentionally undermine the safety of the conviction'. Rather than prove innocence.

The CT accept there is other evidence, but want to prove that there was a second moderator recovered from the farm. Not sure how that is so important.

If a second sound moderator was recovered from the farm it would undermine the credibility of the witnesses who said they only recovered one.

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1485
Re: Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020
« Reply #22 on: July 02, 2020, 07:28:PM »
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/case

Seems the aim is to 'potentionally undermine the safety of the conviction'. Rather than prove innocence.

The CT accept there is other evidence, but want to prove that there was a second moderator recovered from the farm. Not sure how that is so important.
  If you're not sure why proof of the finding of a second moderator is important, despite commenting over 21,000 times on this forum alone, then you are out of your depth.
    You have exposed both your lack of understanding and the bad faith in which you post into just two lines. You would not question why EP would lie about this. Given proof of a second moderator, you would assume that EP lied for over 30 years for no apparent reason. It wouldn't occur to you that if EP are proven to have lied to ask why.
    Where exactly was this second moderator found? When?
    The story told at trial about the moderator being put into the cupboard which meant that it couldn't be Sheila. What about this second moderator? Where was this second moderator? Would that be important? Why have EP covered it up? The whole paper and evidence trail obviously would need reevaluating in light of this. Questions, questions or, if you're Adam, a shrug of the shoulders and bewilderment.
    Have a think about it and then you could write one of your lists, because we know you like lists, with reasons as to why a second moderator is important/unimportant
 

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12398
Re: Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020
« Reply #23 on: July 02, 2020, 07:58:PM »
  If you're not sure why proof of the finding of a second moderator is important, despite commenting over 21,000 times on this forum alone, then you are out of your depth.
    You have exposed both your lack of understanding and the bad faith in which you post into just two lines. You would not question why EP would lie about this. Given proof of a second moderator, you would assume that EP lied for over 30 years for no apparent reason. It wouldn't occur to you that if EP are proven to have lied to ask why.
    Where exactly was this second moderator found? When?
    The story told at trial about the moderator being put into the cupboard which meant that it couldn't be Sheila. What about this second moderator? Where was this second moderator? Would that be important? Why have EP covered it up? The whole paper and evidence trail obviously would need reevaluating in light of this. Questions, questions or, if you're Adam, a shrug of the shoulders and bewilderment.
    Have a think about it and then you could write one of your lists, because we know you like lists, with reasons as to why a second moderator is important/unimportant
 
The second moderator issue is a smokescreen to obfuscate the first silencer found with Sheila's blood inside, which she was unable to use to shoot herself.

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11145
Re: Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020
« Reply #24 on: July 02, 2020, 08:34:PM »
The second moderator issue is a smokescreen to obfuscate the first silencer found with Sheila's blood inside, which she was unable to use to shoot herself.

Which one had blood inside that matched Pamela and David Boutflour's blood group? 

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12398
Re: Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020
« Reply #25 on: July 02, 2020, 09:53:PM »
Which one had blood inside that matched Pamela and David Boutflour's blood group?
The one that was found in the gun cupboard.

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1485
Re: Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020
« Reply #26 on: July 02, 2020, 10:46:PM »
The one that was found in the gun cupboard.
   When and where was the second moderator found?

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12398
Re: Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020
« Reply #27 on: July 03, 2020, 04:51:AM »
   When and where was the second moderator found?
I really don't see the relevancy, unless this mythical second sound moderator also contained Sheila's blood and paint from the Aga.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8463
Re: Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020
« Reply #28 on: July 03, 2020, 09:32:AM »
This is the only convincing evidence I have seen that indicates the existence of a second silencer.

I believe NGB has seen some additional evidence also.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 43606
Re: Bamber v Crown Prosecution Service 05 June 2020
« Reply #29 on: July 03, 2020, 12:09:PM »
Would you know if D I Cook is the same person who was also involved in the Stephen Lawrence murders ?