Guardian 12th March

[lookout]

Have you thought about this form of release QC ?

[JackieD]

Jeremy is now 60, so they have every reason to be smug.  Adam, Steve, Real Justice, Jane, Caroline, and all the people on the Red Forum, and all the people in the documentary, are victorious.  Even if Jeremy is now released to great fanfare, it will not be on the back of a widespread view that he is factually innocent, rather it will almost-certainly be on the basis of, first, the conviction being held to be purely 'unsafe', and second, that the distance of time and destruction of evidence make a re-trial next-to-impossible to conduct in a fair manner.  Like Barry George or Siôn Jenkins, Jeremy will maintain his innocence in those circumstances and do the rounds in the media, and nobody will be able to gainsay him as White House Farm was a black box.  Nobody knows what happened, maybe not even him.  But his life will have been taken from him - maybe rightly, maybe wrongly, nobody will know for sure, except Jeremy himself, in the private, secret world that is his own mind.

At the end of the day this case is all about British Justice. It is a fact that the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
This conviction unless found to be unsafe means anyone of us could find ourself in Jeremys position. Without Julies statements and notes (mostly witheld) there would be no conviction. Fact. The women was known to be a pathological liar with a history of gaining goods through fraud. Julie did not supply a single piece of evidence to proof she was telling the truth about Jeremy.
The relatives that were clearly desperate to get there hands on the Bambers money Neville had worked hard for lied in the witness box and tried to mislead the jury.

There is no proof, there is no case or anyone of us could find ourselves in Jeremys position

[lookout]

The police work in black and white----useless ! Same goes for most professionals.

[Steve_uk]

At the end of the day this case is all about British Justice. It is a fact that the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
This conviction unless found to be unsafe means anyone of us could find ourself in Jeremys position. Without Julies statements and notes (mostly witheld) there would be no conviction. Fact. The women was known to be a pathological liar with a history of gaining goods through fraud. Julie did not supply a single piece of evidence to proof she was telling the truth about Jeremy.
The relatives that were clearly desperate to get there hands on the Bambers money Neville had worked hard for lied in the witness box and tried to mislead the jury.

There is no proof, there is no case or anyone of us could find ourselves in Jeremys position

I'm reminded of Judge Tompkins' summing up in the David Tamihere trial:

"There is no direct evidence to prove that the accused killed the Swedish couple. The Crown is asking you to infer that he did, from facts that the Crown claims have been properly proved, and thus the Crown is relying on what is called "circumstantial evidence." It is like a rope made up of a number of strands. One strand may not be sufficient to sustain a weight. But sufficient strands working together may do so. So it is with the weight of evidence. There may be a combination of circumstances, no one of which would raise a reasonable conviction, but the whole taken together may create a strong conclusion of guilt."

[guest29835]

I'm reminded of Judge Tompkins' summing up in the David Tamihere trial:

"There is no direct evidence to prove that the accused killed the Swedish couple. The Crown is asking you to infer that he did, from facts that the Crown claims have been properly proved, and thus the Crown is relying on what is called "circumstantial evidence." It is like a rope made up of a number of strands. One strand may not be sufficient to sustain a weight. But sufficient strands working together may do so. So it is with the weight of evidence. There may be a combination of circumstances, no one of which would raise a reasonable conviction, but the whole taken together may create a strong conclusion of guilt."

Isn't David Tamihere's conviction widely-believed to be unsafe?  Last I heard about it, the case was referred back to the New Zealand Court of Appeal.

Convictions based on circumstantial evidence alone will always be inferior to convictions supported by direct evidence.

[Steve_uk]

Isn't David Tamihere's conviction widely-believed to be unsafe?  Last I heard about it, the case was referred back to the New Zealand Court of Appeal.

Convictions based on circumstantial evidence alone will always be inferior to convictions supported by direct evidence.

He was released on parole in November 2010.

[guest29835]

He was released on parole in November 2010.

Yes, I know that, but he continued to protest his innocence and in 2020 a Royal Prerogative of Mercy was exercised to allow him a further appeal.

[Steve_uk]

Yes, I know that, but he continued to protest his innocence and in 2020 he was granted a Royal Prerogative of Mercy was exercised to allow him a further appeal.

It hasn't been decided yet. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/414811/david-tamihere-all-i-wanted-was-a-fair-hearing

Maybe handyman knows the latest.

[lookout]

I hadn't known that the Rettendon murders also took place at or near White House Farm Rettendon.
Two White House farms. Interesting, although 10 years later than the WHF murders that we know.

[Steve_uk]

I hadn't known that the Rettendon murders also took place at or near White House Farm Rettendon.
Two White House farms. Interesting, although 10 years later than the WHF murders that we know.

Yes and with a drugs connection to both, a feature of society which has only been compounded as the years progress.

[lookout]

Yes and with a drugs connection to both, a feature of society which has only been compounded as the years progress.

Makes you wonder, well it does me, anyway. Mistaken identity and all that.

[lookout]

Even down to an aircraft dropping drugs----which landed in a pond at the farm. Pargeter's brother must have got the farms mixed up there while in a haze of drugs himself.

[arthur]

Apparently RWB did have his DNA taken in 2002 but there are no records ? If so, was it ever compared with the blood that was found in the silencer ? Must be Sheila's  then, mmm.

I have to say this is what I find very frustrating and annoying. First you state.."RWB had refused a DNA test"...as if that's that...then when asked about the date you say.."I'm not sure.."...you then go on to say "apparently RWB did have a DNA test.."

I mean I'm not picking on you but how the hell can any independant observer of this site take anybody seriously, when statements are bandied as if there factual, then backtracked a couple of posts later.

So in reality I can't trust or accept anything that posters say. In that sense I suspect that if you support Bamber you'll might put up any old tosh as long as it sounds believable. Ditto re his guilt.

[Roch]

I have to say this is what I find very frustrating and annoying. First you state.."RWB had refused a DNA test"...as if that's that...then when asked about the date you say.."I'm not sure.."...you then go on to say "apparently RWB did have a DNA test.."

I mean I'm not picking on you but how the hell can any independant observer of this site take anybody seriously, when statements are bandied as if there factual, then backtracked a couple of posts later.

So in reality I can't trust or accept anything that posters say. In that sense I suspect that if you support Bamber you'll might put up any old tosh as long as it sounds believable. Ditto re his guilt.

I recently saw YH claim that he did not. However, I am no authority on it.

[Steve_uk]

Jeremy is now 60, so they have every reason to be smug. Adam, Steve, Real Justice, Jane, Caroline, and all the people on the Red Forum, and all the people in the documentary, are victorious.  Even if Jeremy is now released to great fanfare, it will not be on the back of a widespread view that he is factually innocent, rather it will almost-certainly be on the basis of, first, the conviction being held to be purely 'unsafe', and second, that the distance of time and destruction of evidence make a re-trial next-to-impossible to conduct in a fair manner.  Like Barry George or Siôn Jenkins, Jeremy will maintain his innocence in those circumstances and do the rounds in the media, and nobody will be able to gainsay him as White House Farm was a black box.  Nobody knows what happened, maybe not even him.  But his life will have been taken from him - maybe rightly, maybe wrongly, nobody will know for sure, except Jeremy himself, in the private, secret world that is his own mind.

Nobody is smug, faced with the loss of two six-year-old boys, their mother and grandparents. As for your last sentence he let the cat out of the bag with Julie, the first time was at Gresham's with his adoption revelation, so given what resulted on both occasions he's not about to disclose any further personal information anytime soon.