Conflicting Statements

[Jan]

It might be possible but you would have to pay for it.

I though that I had read that it had been refused or was "missing" I am sure if it was just a matter of money someone would have coughed up by now .

[Caroline]

I though that I had read that it had been refused or was "missing" I am sure if it was just a matter of money someone would have coughed up by now .

https://www.gov.uk/apply-transcript-court-tribunal-hearing

[ngb1066]

It might be possible but you would have to pay for it.

Yes and it would cost a lot.

[Jan]

Yes and it would cost a lot.

if you were preparing for an appeal though you would have access though? Because you would need to refer to points that led to the conviction?

[ngb1066]

if you were preparing for an appeal though you would have access though? Because you would need to refer to points that led to the conviction?

If the case is referred again to the Court of Appeal there will be an opportunity for the defence to request transcripts of parts of the evidence directly relevant to the grounds of appeal.  This would be unlikely to include a full transcript of JB's evidence. 

[Jan]

If the case is referred again to the Court of Appeal there will be an opportunity for the defence to request transcripts of parts of the evidence directly relevant to the grounds of appeal.  This would be unlikely to include a full transcript of JB's evidence.

I found this in the 2002 appeal - and in my distant memory this ties up with a comment I heard that the original transcript was no longer available.

"the Appellant's Evidence at Trial 137. No transcript has survived as to the appellant's evidence in chief, although it seems clear from the summing up that it was entirely consistent with that which he had told the police. A transcript of his cross-examination is available. In cross-examination the appellant said Sheila Caffell had frequent delusions and had spoken to him of suicide."
"

[Steve_uk]

It wouldn't do you any good anyway.

[Jan]

It wouldn't do you any good anyway.

to whom  are you addressing this?

[Steve_uk]

to whom  are you addressing this?

Those who are lobbying for Jeremy Bamber to be released, a new trial or whatever it is would satisfy you.

[Jan]

Those who are lobbying for Jeremy Bamber to be released, a new trial or whatever it is would satisfy you.

not personally lobbying .

but I do hope there is a further appeal but I am under no illusion that it must be based on evidence not seen in the courts before .

It might be difficult but not impossible .

[Steve_uk]

not personally lobbying .

but I do hope there is a further appeal but I am under no illusion that it must be based on evidence not seen in the courts before .

It might be difficult but not impossible .

..and what if he is released on a technicality? Will you stand surety that he doesn't venture to Essex and kill Ann Eaton's children, or buy a gun in Canada under a false name and travel to Winnipeg?

[lookout]

Those who are lobbying for Jeremy Bamber to be released, a new trial or whatever it is would satisfy you.

It mightn't apply to you Steve but I like to see fair play, seeing as I believe he's innocent. Obviously if he wasn't I wouldn't even think of supporting him or of being here arguing over him.

[Steve_uk]

It mightn't apply to you Steve but I like to see fair play, seeing as I believe he's innocent. Obviously if he wasn't I wouldn't even think of supporting him or of being here arguing over him.

But there can't be a new trial after all this time. The likelihood of him being released on a technicality is remote.

[guest7363]

..and what if he is released on a technicality? Will you stand surety that he doesn't venture to Essex and kill Ann Eaton's children, or buy a gun in Canada under a false name and travel to Winnipeg?

I personally don’t think he would do that Steve, I sometimes look at this way Steve, you might not agree, if he gets out on a technicality so what?  He got sentenced to 25 years originally the public and courts excepted this at the time, to me and my thoughts only he got what he deserved and if after 35 years he does at least get out he did longer than he thought he would do mate. He has to live with what he did not me or you.

[Jan]

But there can't be a new trial after all this time. The likelihood of him being released on a technicality is remote.

Personally I would not want him released on a technicality - not because of fanciful assumptions of what he would do - but because his life would not be worth living on the outside.

It would have to be new evidence that was withheld at the trial .