0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
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.
If the Court of Appeal did not believe the new evidence cast real doubt on the guilt of JB they would not allow the appeal. If there is real doubt it would be wrong for JB to remain in prison.
Well, if it ever happens, news-wise, it'll top Brexit
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.
And if it does happen Jane, you can blame Brexit
I was replying to Jane, who clearly thinks that Julie was a poor little victim who was abused and groomed.
But that is her right to think that, just as it's yours to believe what you believe.
I'm disgusted Jeremy's legal team has nothing better to do than hound a happily-married woman who has happened to make a success of her life overseas since the tragedy. Everyone involved in this campaign should hang their heads in shame.
How are they hounding her?
She has already come back to England once, the recent publicity would rake the whole thing up again and now the Bamber legal team are hitting below the belt.
Has she been mentioned in the appeal then?
