Thing is Grahame,
that the law courts and the appeal courts believe him to be guilty beyond any doubt. Whether you agree with that is neither here nor there. Whether you can prove otherwise is an entirely different matter. You say there are doubts? - two failed appeals say there isn't. The smalles of evidence? that is not the way courts work. In order for them to spend a considerable sum of the taxpayers money you better be darn sure and the appeal court say not.
This is the hard truth - accept it or provide fresh evidence to prove otherwise. This is the ONLY route left to Jeremy Bamber.
Whilst I agree with you that that is the only option open to JB, nevertheless my concerns still stand. Just because a court rules him guilty there are so many doubts among vertain qualified people that there is every chance that this may actually be a MOJ? After all MOJ's are very common in British law. Much more common than we may think. The courts and appeal courts etc have also been equally certain of many other cases that have in the end turned out to be MOJ's.
My post was about the case itself and the very dodgy evidence put forward by the prosecution, whilst at the same time deliberately witholding or minimising the importance of evidence at the time to the effect that the jury were asked to convict on entirely circumstantial evidence. I think the words of the judge that finally lead the jury to convict JB was "overwhelming" circumstantial evidence. No one should ever be convicted on cicumstantial evidence no matter how seemingly overwhelming.
By the way, I don't go with that old chesnut "taxpayers money". Especially when the government are using taxpayers money to kill and maim innocent people abroad at this time and spend millions on defence and less and less on the health of the nation each year. I believe the life and freedom of one innocent man is much more precious than "taxpayers" money, of whom I am one.
