Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?

[Caroline]

Julie's testimony and statements are compelling, but it simply has to be considered that they might not be true. It's her word against Jeremy's word.

I have first hand experience of 'Jeremy's word' - it means squat.

[Kaldin]

I have first hand experience of 'Jeremy's word' - it means squat.

We're not talking about Jeremy though.

I thought you only wrote letters to him.

[Jane]

I was replying to Jane, who clearly thinks that Julie was a poor little victim who was abused and groomed.

You misrepresent me. I'd guess deliberately. Julie made the claim of abuse. I said if she'd been in that sort of relationship during childhood, it wasn't impossible that she'd find herself in another such as an adult. Do you not understand the difference between MAY be and WOULD be?

[Kaldin]

You misrepresent me. I'd guess deliberately. Julie made the claim of abuse. I said if she'd been in that sort of relationship during childhood, it wasn't impossible that she'd find herself in another such as an adult. Do you not understand the difference between MAY be and WOULD be?

That's also hearsay ...

[Jane]

It's up to them to speak for themselves. I can't help it if you don't like what I say.

You can say what you like as long as you don't twist my words.

[Kaldin]

You can say what you like as long as you don't twist my words.

I haven't - you should look back at your own posts.

[Jane]

That's also hearsay ...

Yes, I hear you block your ears to anything other than what's pro Jeremy. You appear to CHOOSE to call anything hearsay which you don't like.........................and I'm still not giving you the source.

[Jane]

I haven't - you should look back at your own posts.

I don't need to. I check what I've written before I send it. I have no idea what's going on with you, but since your return, when I welcomed you, you've become offensive in the extreme. You must be scraping the barrel to find insults if you have to resort to criticism of my writing style.

[ngb1066]

How would this transform Jeremy's guilt to innocence?

It would not in itself.  However it would undermine the credibility of JM and that could add to the strength of the appeal on other grounds.

 

[guest7363]

It would not in itself.  However it would undermine the credibility of JM and that could add to the strength of the appeal on other grounds.

 

Hi NGB, if he was to ever win an appeal, would a trial for all parties be practical 30+ years on, most who were around originally are deceased.  How could they summon witnesses.

[Jane]

It would not in itself.  However it would undermine the credibility of JM and that could add to the strength of the appeal on other grounds.

 

So we'd be talking about technicalities? I can't see that there's anything which could "create" him innocent when he's guilty.

[ngb1066]

Hi NGB, if he was to ever win an appeal, would a trial for all parties be practical 30+ years on, most who were around originally are deceased.  How could they summon witnesses.

I think that if he wins an appeal in the future there will be no retrial.  Many of the essential witnesses are dead.  The Court of Appeal would simply enter not guilty verdicts.

[guest7363]

I think that if he wins an appeal in the future there will be no retrial.  Many of the essential witnesses are dead.  The Court of Appeal would simply enter not guilty verdicts.

Thanks Neil, that’s what I thought

[ngb1066]

So we'd be talking about technicalities? I can't see that there's anything which could "create" him innocent when he's guilty.

No, not simply technicalities.  Remember, an appeal should be allowed if there is new evidence which renders the original guilty verdicts unsafe.  An appellant does not have to prove his innocence in order to succeed on appeal.  Obviously in some cases innocence is proved, but in the case of most successful appeals it is not.

[Jane]

I think that if he wins an appeal in the future there will be no retrial.  Many of the essential witnesses are dead.  The Court of Appeal would simply enter not guilty verdicts.

But we know that winning an appeal doesn't make a guilty person innocent, which, in Jeremy's case, would mean that a guilty man goes free. Oh well, I expect there are those who think he's been in long enough even though he's guilty.