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

[Adam]

It's early to say, but my impression so far is that Jeremy has instructed his legal team to re-hash all the old Lomax-era innocence points.  It's a vanilla case, but it won't fly with the current CCRC, let alone the appeal court.  I remain of the view that a missed phone call from Nevill to the police is plausible, but it is at the far end of plausibility and must be put in the category of 'unlikely'.  Unless something startling has been discovered in the intervening years, what the CCRC will be presented with on that point is no improvement on what they saw before. 

My view is that Jeremy should not have been convicted and his convictions should have been quashed in 2002 and then a re-trial should have happened, probably ending with his acquittal.  To an extent, Jeremy is a victim of the internal politics of the criminal justice system.  Since perhaps the late 1990s (not long after its formation), the CCRC has been overly-cautious in referrals under pressure from the appellate judiciary who know they would otherwise be swamped with cases.

In my opinion, further reform is needed, possibly with the right for the CCRC to overturn convictions on its own account.  The present system is odd in that it embodies a contradiction.  The CCRC recently referred the Colin Norris convictions.  Having done so, and having considered the test for referral, I must ask: what can the appeal courts add to the process that the CCRC has not already done?  Perhaps the Norris case merits a second guess, given its gravity and seriousness, but there is a general question that I believe should be asked: if the CCRC think a conviction unsafe (which is what 'real possibility of deciding the conviction is unsafe' effectively means), then how can the appeal judges decide otherwise?  What is it that the appeal judges know that the Commissioners don't?

Bafflingly, in the Bamber case the CCRC have contradicted themselves.  They referred the case in 2001, but refused to refer in 2011.  Are these convictions safe or not?  If there is a real possibility that the appeal court will overturn the convictions, then does that not mean the convictions are unsafe?

Roch's suggestion that we re-listen to the podcasts and discuss any new points raised in them is a very sound idea.  My problem is that I find the use of simulated voices in the podcasts incredibly grating and it's a struggle to listen to them.  Jeremy really, really, really, really needs to politely and tactfully ask his Campaign Team if they could re-do those podcasts with natural voices.  It doesn't matter if it's a voice from the Valleys or a broad Lancashire accent, or whatever.  Amateur and rough-and-ready is fine - and may even be better than professional.

'I remain of the view that a missed phone call from Nevill to the police is plausible'.

----------

Please elaborate.

[Adam]

It's early to say, but my impression so far is that Jeremy has instructed his legal team to re-hash all the old Lomax-era innocence points.  It's a vanilla case, but it won't fly with the current CCRC, let alone the appeal court.  I remain of the view that a missed phone call from Nevill to the police is plausible, but it is at the far end of plausibility and must be put in the category of 'unlikely'.  Unless something startling has been discovered in the intervening years, what the CCRC will be presented with on that point is no improvement on what they saw before. 

My view is that Jeremy should not have been convicted and his convictions should have been quashed in 2002 and then a re-trial should have happened, probably ending with his acquittal.  To an extent, Jeremy is a victim of the internal politics of the criminal justice system.  Since perhaps the late 1990s (not long after its formation), the CCRC has been overly-cautious in referrals under pressure from the appellate judiciary who know they would otherwise be swamped with cases.

In my opinion, further reform is needed, possibly with the right for the CCRC to overturn convictions on its own account.  The present system is odd in that it embodies a contradiction.  The CCRC recently referred the Colin Norris convictions.  Having done so, and having considered the test for referral, I must ask: what can the appeal courts add to the process that the CCRC has not already done?  Perhaps the Norris case merits a second guess, given its gravity and seriousness, but there is a general question that I believe should be asked: if the CCRC think a conviction unsafe (which is what 'real possibility of deciding the conviction is unsafe' effectively means), then how can the appeal judges decide otherwise?  What is it that the appeal judges know that the Commissioners don't?

Bafflingly, in the Bamber case the CCRC have contradicted themselves.  They referred the case in 2001, but refused to refer in 2011.  Are these convictions safe or not?  If there is a real possibility that the appeal court will overturn the convictions, then does that not mean the convictions are unsafe?

Roch's suggestion that we re-listen to the podcasts and discuss any new points raised in them is a very sound idea.  My problem is that I find the use of simulated voices in the podcasts incredibly grating and it's a struggle to listen to them.  Jeremy really, really, really, really needs to politely and tactfully ask his Campaign Team if they could re-do those podcasts with natural voices.  It doesn't matter if it's a voice from the Valleys or a broad Lancashire accent, or whatever.  Amateur and rough-and-ready is fine - and may even be better than professional.

'his convictions should have been quashed in 2002 and then a re-trial should have happened, probably ending with his acquittal.  To an extent, Jeremy is a victim of the internal politics of the criminal justice system.'

--------

The COA were confident in their dismissal.

[Roch]

How many episodes are there? and which one do you recommend I listen to?

If you want to be certain of missing nothing, start at the beginning. However, you're right. Most of what is in them will be familiar to you. But the other stuff is dotted about in various different podcasts. Some are short and some between 30 and 45 mins. If I was to hazard a guess, maybe 12 podcasts up to now. As well as anything you don't agree with, there's an error in the timeline podcast which they have recognised - but the error is not repeated in the submissions.  Give it a whirl. You may find something you like, among the stuff you don't.

[guest29835]

The COA were confident in their dismissal.

Well that's it then.  I don't know why Mike has ever bothered with the Forum.  I wish you'd said before Adam.

[Roch]

How many episodes are there?

15.  16 if they release another today.

[guest29835]

15.  16 if they release another today.

20 actually.  They've released another today:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCotKmX_uqg

We're back to the female HAL 9000 again.

[Roch]

20 actually.  They've released another today:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCotKmX_uqg

We're back to the female HAL 9000 again.

They should do a couple with 'Holly' from 'Red Dwarf'.

[Adam]

'I remain of the view that a missed phone call from Nevill to the police is plausible'.

----------

Please elaborate.

As Steve said, QC is good at creating an atmosphere. His long posts may influence supporters or people who do not know much about the case.

When I ask him about certain points, I either get no response or told it has already been discussed. 

[guest29835]

As Steve said, QC is good at creating an atmosphere. His long posts may influence supporters or people who do not know much about the case.

When I ask him about certain points, I either get no response or told it has already been discussed.

That's rubbish.  I answer each and every point, but I am not going to re-post things over and over again because you're too lazy to look at Mike's documents or read what people say the first time.  You're a classic troll and just a spammer.  Whenever I've got into an argument with you about something, as with Steve, it just goes round and round and round and round, with you making the same point over and over again because you're emotionally and/or dogmatically attached to your rigid stance and can't take anything in.  What's the point?  Life is too short.

[guest29835]

They should do a couple with 'Holly' from 'Red Dwarf'.

In all seriousness, they do need to look at that.  I'm afraid I find most of the podcasts completely unlistenable.  It's a very easy issue to resolve, but there you are.

[lookout]

As Steve said, QC is good at creating an atmosphere. His long posts may influence supporters or people who do not know much about the case.

When I ask him about certain points, I either get no response or told it has already been discussed.

And what's your excuse for your long posts ?

[Adam]

That's rubbish.  I answer each and every point, but I am not going to re-post things over and over again because you're too lazy to look at Mike's documents or read what people say the first time.  You're a classic troll and just a spammer.  Whenever I've got into an argument with you about something, as with Steve, it just goes round and round and round and round, with you making the same point over and over again because you're emotionally and/or dogmatically attached to your rigid stance and can't take anything in.  What's the point?  Life is too short.

Just tell the forum what you mean by -

'I remain of the view that a missed phone call from Nevill to the police is plausible'.

[lookout]

In all seriousness, they do need to look at that.  I'm afraid I find most of the podcasts completely unlistenable.  It's a very easy issue to resolve, but there you are.

I enjoy the podcasts, much easier to follow and refer to, for those who are interested of course.

[guest29835]

And what's your excuse for your long posts ?

My posts are of varying lengths.  Some long.  Some short.  Some in-between.  Surely people can decide if they wish to read my posts, long or short or otherwise.  It's not mandatory.

[guest29835]

Just tell the forum what you mean by -

'I remain of the view that a missed phone call from Nevill to the police is plausible'.

There's a whole thread on it - another one I started.  Why should I give you another explanation?   It's not required of me.

Why are still allowed to post here?  I just don't understand what you add to the Forum overall.  You're clearly a troll, and I just have to openly question what the moderators think they're doing.  Why hasn't your behaviour been corrected? 

I really don't follow the thinking behind it.  It just means anybody sensible is going less inclined to post here.