The Official Jeremy Bamber and White House Farm Podcast Series - Season 1

[guest29835]

Thanks for that, I was always under the impression that it was because the CCRC was created to deal with cases where people have used up their normal rights of appeal?

Yes, that's absolutely correct, but what David is saying is that if the Campaign Team have exculpatory/exonerating evidence, then why not just go straight to the police/CPS and the Court of Appeal?  Even if the police/CPS aren't interested, Jeremy can still go straight to the Court, present his evidence, maybe ask for bail pending a full hearing, and insist that the Court clears him.

I went into detail about the law to show that there is nothing in the 1995 statute to prevent Jeremy going down this route.  The CCRC does not have exclusive rights over the consideration of appeals, though it is true that - barring exceptional circumstances - the Court will invoke section 5(1) and send it to the CCRC for investigation. 

Surely evidence proving innocence is 'exceptional' and puts the Bamber appeal within the ambit of the case law I mention above where the judges re-asserted their direct jurisdiction?

[guest29835]

Indeed, now I'm warming to the theme, you could even argue that the CCRC themselves should decline to consider Jeremy case on the basis that he has evidence that proves him innocent.  If he's clearly innocent, then what's it got to do with the CCRC?  Surely that's a matter for the Court of Appeal?  We needn't stand on ceremony.

[Bill Robertson]

However, I think if there is exonerating evidence, you have to ask why it's not being circulated.  There is no obligation on the Campaign Team to do so, and it could be that they lack a platform to do so as there is an understandable caution among prominent people in the media and politics about being associated with a supposed double child killer, but why not release it to forums like this?

To the extent that there is a functioning Campaign Team, they dare not even fart without permission of the lawyers. The legal advisors determine everything and have done so for years now. Therefore, it seems that the lawyers don’t want any information in the public domain.

[Adam]

The only way I can see the CCRC being bypassed is if a key/only witness went to the police & said their testimony was totally wrong.

This has happened before. The 'Rough Justice' TV programme interviewed the woman who committed perjury. The man was then released. Assume without going through the CCRC/COA.

There would have to be little or no other evidence against the convicted. Which is not the case with Bamber. So he may still have to go through the CCRC/COA if Julie retracted everything. He would then probably get released on the technicality of an unsafe conviction.

[guest29835]

The only way I can see the CCRC being bypassed is if a key/only witness went to the police & said their testimony was totally wrong.

This has happened before. The 'Rough Justice' TV programme interviewed the woman who committed perjury. The man was then released. Assume without going through the CCRC/COA.

There would have to be little or no other evidence against the convicted. Which is not the case with Bamber. So he may still have to go through the CCRC/COA if Julie retracted everything. He would then probably get released on the technicality of an unsafe conviction.

I think David is correct to the extent that any evidence they have would not exonerate Jeremy, it just raises doubt potentially, so they have to go through the CCRC like virtually everybody else. 

[Adam]

Some of what the CT claim has been passed to the CCRC exonerates Bamber - calls by Nevill, proof Sheila was still alive in WHF.

It is a good tactic to claim documents relating to this are with the CCRC. Supporters become convinced of Bamber's innocence & then more convinced of a cover up if the CCRC reject it.

[guest29835]

Some of what the CT claim has been passed to the CCRC exonerates Bamber - calls by Nevill, proof Sheila was still alive in WHF.

It is a good tactic to claim documents relating to this are with the CCRC. Supporters become convinced of Bamber's innocence & then more convinced of a cover up if the CCRC reject it.

When they say it 'exonerates' Bamber, that's just their spin, as you know.  In reality, it only casts doubt, potentially, by suggesting that particular evidence on this or that point is unreliable, thus (as they will argue) the conviction is unsafe.

If any of their submissions actually exonerated him, he would be out right now making 3 a.m. phone calls and this Forum would be totally redundant.

[David1819]

To the extent that there is a functioning Campaign Team, they dare not even fart without permission of the lawyers. The legal advisors determine everything and have done so for years now. Therefore, it seems that the lawyers don’t want any information in the public domain.

So why have they done exactly that and mentioned it in a public podcast?

[guest29835]

So why have they done exactly that and mentioned it in a public podcast?

Swop 'evidence' for 'information' and the sentence makes more sense. 

I noticed the same error but resisted the temptation to comment.

[Adam]

Issue 2 – The telephone calls – Substantial fresh evidence regarding the telephone call from Nevill Bamber to Jeremy and two phone calls to the police, one made by Nevill at 03:26, one made by Jeremy at 03:36.

----------

This is strictly for the media. The CT have been saying this for years. However it was not in the 2002 COA or 2012 CCRC submissions.

[Adam]

Ditto this -

Issue 5 – Sheila Caffell – Multiple grounds which prove Sheila was alive until after the raid team entered the house. In addition, fresh evidence regarding Sheila at the scene.

----------

Suspect the grounds are very sombre.

[Steve_uk]

 I respect anyone working pro bono but I can't help but think that the Campaign Team and its associates are just stringing everyone along, though why I do not know.

[David1819]

Swop 'evidence' for 'information' and the sentence makes more sense. 

I noticed the same error but resisted the temptation to comment.

Also for the record. It has been four years since the CT came up with this idea.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8578.0.html

[lookout]

I respect anyone working pro bono but I can't help but think that the Campaign Team and its associates are just stringing everyone along, though why I do not know.

I don't think it's so much about stringing everyone along as hanging fire while awaiting news from the CCRC. With little or nothing to add it's now a case of repeating what everyone already knows about the case without giving anything away which would be damaging before any would-be appeal.

[Roch]

So why have they done exactly that and mentioned it in a public podcast?

Depends on how much credence you give the content of the podcasts. They suggest evidence exists to underpin the claims made. But like you said yourself, would the evidence stand up to critical scrutiny? Ambiguity in interpretation has not been a good servant for the defence cause so far.