The ITV Drama

[guest7363]

There is in practice now a high bar for JB to secure a fresh appeal.  The CCRC are frankly fairly hostile to him now.  Having referred the case once to the Court of Appeal and having seen some fairly strong comments in the Court of Appeal judgement they are very wary of sending the case back for a third appeal.  They were not very helpful to JB in the run up to the last submissions in 2012.  They have declined to use their powers to compel disclosure to the extent requested by the defence, for reasons I considered very weak.

I think that to persuade the CCRC to refer the case again will require very strong grounds based upon new evidence, not available at trial or at the earlier appeals.   I am out of the loop now so I do not know how far JB's current legal have got.

To be fair NGB I’m glad your out the loop and I really do mean that.

[Kaldin]

Here's Julie's statement about the deal.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1210.0.html

It all seems to have been dealt with in 2002 at least.

[Jan]

still no detail about when it was signed which is the most relevant bit .

[Steve_uk]

Here's Julie's statement about the deal.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1210.0.html

It all seems to have been dealt with in 2002 at least.

"Money was never my drive: it was the consequence of the advice I was given.."

[guest7363]

Thank you

I have always been on here ( on and off for a long time ) because I was interested in the case .

And people always are passionate when they think rightly or wrongly they are pursuing the truth .

My only very remote connection is that i know someone that had met Jeremy on several occasions through the caravan site and also said he was a very quiet self effacing young man  and nothing like he has been portrayed - so there you go.

And your only other connection is you write to him?  I don’t think that’s remote

[Steve_uk]

still no detail about when it was signed which is the most relevant bit .

No but she does affirm that she would never lie on oath for financial benefit.

[Jan]

No but she does affirm that she would never lie on oath for financial benefit.
[/quote

does not make any difference - if she signd the agreement before the court case finished she and the NOTW broke the law and misled the trial judge and broke the law .

ignoramce of the law is no excuse and she did lie in her statements to the police so how do we know she did not keep up the pretence in court with the money as the incentive.

[Steve_uk]

No but she does affirm that she would never lie on oath for financial benefit.
[/quote

does not make any difference - if she signd the agreement before the court case finished she and the NOTW broke the law and misled the trial judge and broke the law .

ignoramce of the law is no excuse and she did lie in her statements to the police so how do we know she did not keep up the pretence in court with the money as the incentive.

The Defence had ample opportunity to expose her and failed.

[Jane]

No but she does affirm that she would never lie on oath for financial benefit.
[/quote

does not make any difference - if she signd the agreement before the court case finished she and the NOTW broke the law and misled the trial judge and broke the law .

ignoramce of the law is no excuse and she did lie in her statements to the police so how do we know she did not keep up the pretence in court with the money as the incentive.

I find it hard to believe, given the importance which is being placed on it now, that this wasn't thoroughly checked out at the time.

[Steve_uk]

I find it hard to believe, given the importance which is being placed on it now, that this wasn't thoroughly checked out at the time.

I don't see what difference it makes. Her testimony was her testimony whether she expected financial gain from it at the end or not.

[Jan]

but as far as I know the deal was only discussed in chambers and not in the court - so she would not have been questioned about it in court ?

And she was not going to admit it was she as she had been warned of the consequences .

She told the judge she had no intention of making a deal - but from her own statement she admitted that the discussion  between her solicitor and the press and the reasons why had been going on for some time .

and then within days she did exactly what she said she was not going to do ?

[Steve_uk]

but as far as I know the deal was only discussed in chambers and not in the court - so she would not have been questioned about it in court ?

And she was not going to admit it was she as she had been warned of the consequences .

She told the judge she had no intention of making a deal - but from her own statement she admitted that the discussion  between her solicitor and the press and the reasons why had been going on for some time .

and then within days she did exactly what she said she was not going to do ?

But I don't think anything had been signed. The News of the World would not have been interested in her story had Jeremy Bamber got off.

[Jan]

But I don't think anything had been signed. The News of the World would not have been interested in her story had Jeremy Bamber got off.

we will see wont we .

the deal was signed in the event of him being convicted and a sum of money was agreed beforehand . That's what I think .All this losing of documents and no memory of the signing date makes no sense at all .

All she had to say was she did it at the time  ruling came in ( even though she told the judge she would not )  but she never said that did she?

[ngb1066]

But I don't think anything had been signed. The News of the World would not have been interested in her story had Jeremy Bamber got off.

It had been signed.  The agreement provided for payment only if JB was convicted.

 

[ngb1066]

The Defence had ample opportunity to expose her and failed.

The defence did not have ample opportunity to expose her.  She lied about the NoW deal and the defence at that time had no way of getting access to the documents which exposed her lies.  This was compounded by the deception about the circumstances in which the bank were persuaded not to press charges in relation to the cheque fraud.  Had the jury had the full facts it is likely that they would have treated JM's evidence with considerably greater caution.