Vidvic good I am glad you are now showing an open mind. I dont think you will have long to wait
So, you don't have this evidence?
I take it this is the new 'dynamite' evidence yet to be posted.
Vidvic - again I find your goading of Jackie unattractive to say the least, particular for a site "Global Moderator". You are aware that Jeremy Bamber and his team have been concerned at new material being posted publicly, in particular on this forum, before they have had a chance to evaluate that new material properly. Jackie is following the reasonable requests of Jeremy Bamber's team in this regard, as they do not want to set hares running and damage the work which they are carrying out. You should respect this rather than ridicule it.
NGB - I appreciate what you are saying. But if they are concerned about information leaking out, why are they sharing this information with "civilians" such as Jackie? If such leaks genuinely run the risk of jeopardising the appeal then it doesn't seem terribly professional to me!
Bob - I take your point but although Jackie is a "civilian" in that she is not part of Jeremy Bamber's legal team she does do a lot of work on behalf on the campaign to generate public support for Jeremy Bamber's case. Jackie is therefore trusted by Jeremy Bamber and his team and they know that if they ask Jackie will refrain from posting confidential information.
I do accept that it is frustrating for members of this forum to see hints posted about ground breaking new evidence and then when further information is understandably requested it is withheld because of a request by the defence team. The caution on the part of the defence team is understandable in my view as in the past information has been released before the defence had been able to carry out a thorough check on its reliability and they want to avoid that happening in the future.
I beg to differ on that count. Jackie Preece is like a loose cannon and has done nothing but damage to Jeremy Bamber's chances of ever being believed as having been wrongly convicted. Her constant allegation that Julie Mugford lied and lied serves no purpose other than to feed her own ego and most certainly smells of sour grapes.
Her latest invitation to pursue a vendetta against a retired policeman who now lives in Australia on the basis of some anonymous post by a cyber user called Ron Cooke just serves to underline my previous comment. Maybe she should contact Julie Mugford or Mrs Julie Smerchanski as she is now if she feels so strongly about her.
Jackie should be in no doubt however that harassment of an individual whether he be in Australia or she be in Canada can quickly become a police matter with the ensuing consequences that such brings.
Mike knows all too well what it is like to get on the wrong side of the police and ngb1066 is a former barrister so I am quite sure that they both will advise caution in anything that you contemplate doing.
I will deal in turn with your points above.
1. Jackie Preece believes very strongly about Jeremy Bamber's innocence and that comes across in some of her posts, particularly where an "anti bamber" poster refuses to answer a direct question or where she is goaded by one or more posters. I am sure that some people have posted deliberately in a way intended to antagonise Jackie in order to get a reaction from her. Your opinion that Jackie has harmed Jeremy Bamber's chances of setting aside his convictions is not one shared by Jeremy Bamber himself. He appreciates all her efforts on his behalf.
2. Jackie's references to Julie Mugford lying are simply a reflection of Jeremy Bamber's case. If Jeremy Bamber is telling the truth, Julie Mugford must have lied. This is a central part of the case as we all know and strong comments by Jackie about Julie Mugford are to be expected in the circumstances and have nothing to do with ego our sour grapes. Anti - Bamber supporters post some damning comments about Jeremy Bamber, as is to be expected considering their views on the case.
3. There is nothing illegal in making contact with a potential witness in Australia or Canada or anywhere else. I have not seen Jackie suggesting anything which would come close to being a criminal offence.
