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

[JackieD]

Bill we may have treated you unfairly and if so I apologize on behalf of all members. I But we have had so many members down the years claiming to have new evidence in their possession it's only fair that if you do choose to post that you are subject to the same scrutiny as others.

As for information from the campaign team you know full well not everything used to get the case referred to the court of appeal would be put out in the public arena.

Your behaviour once again is unacceptable to question Bill in this way when you fail to accept the notorious pathological liar, bunny boiler Mugford was NOT a credible prosecution witness.
How dare you write posts like this you should be ashamed of yourself

[Steve_uk]

Another distasteful post from you. Wether Bill has a serious illness or not did you get his permission to post such private information. I find that disgusting behaviour. As for information from the campaign team you know full well not everything used to get the case referred to the court of appeal would be put out in the public arena.

Your behaviour once again is unacceptable to question Bill in this way when you fail to accept the notorious pathological liar, bunny boiler Mugford was NOT a credible prosecution witness.
How dare you write posts like this you should be ashamed of yourself

It was meant to be a conciliatory post. It's a compliment that we don't make allowances for anybody whatever their circumstances but treat them as equals.

[guest29835]

Bill we may have treated you unfairly and if so I apologize on behalf of all members.  But we have had so many members down the years claiming to have new evidence in their possession it's only fair that if you do choose to post that you are subject to the same scrutiny as others.

Please do not presume to apologise on my behalf.  I did not insult him in the first place and have nothing to apologise for.

As for his claims, it is well known that the Campaign Team are claiming to have new evidence that challenges various points.  I for one do not know what the quality of that evidence is, but it's hardly surprising that they will not want to put it in the public domain at this stage as the matter is still under consideration by the CCRC.

[ngb1066]

Another distasteful post from you. I find that disgusting behaviour.

How dare you write posts like this you should be ashamed of yourself.

I agree with the point you make.  If Bill requests it I will edit the post.

[Roch]

Steve, I normally don't criticise your posts - but the framing of your question to Bill wasn't great tbf.

[Steve_uk]

In response to the above posts I have removed one sentence from #1047. The information contained therein was already in the public domain, but I have deleted it and hope this will satisfy complainers.

[lookout]

I doubt there is anything to withhold. It seems with so many different individuals involved one of them would have blown the whistle by now had there been anything of a sensationalist nature to disclose.

Believe you me Steve, the social services are a force to be reckoned with once they have their claws out. Because of the seemingly laxed way in which this particular case was handled, notes would have been already made for future reference and the minutes which were discussed would be interesting to read.
I did read somewhere that it was Nevill who'd called a halt to any further intervention from the team overseeing the children's welfare. Money and position speaks loudly, doesn't it ?
The ordinary woman in the street would have had her children taken for a longer stretch in foster care under the circumstances that the twins endured.

There was far less understanding of severe depression back then than there is now, though as this illness stands we haven't moved that further on as we still read about child cruelty and murder. ALL the signs are there but with lack of experience and resources in many areas it becomes sadly too late for some children.

Even today in the Mail there's a case where a woman crashed her car and she's being charged with the deaths of her two children. The woman, who had four children fled abroad after their funerals. The case is ongoing. Her dangerous driving had taken the lives of the two of them. Drink ? Drugs ? We don't know but I can bet this is one case in thousands that has vanished under the radar !!

[David1819]

Please do not presume to apologise on my behalf.  I did not insult him in the first place and have nothing to apologise for.

As for his claims, it is well known that the Campaign Team are claiming to have new evidence that challenges various points.  I for one do not know what the quality of that evidence is, but it's hardly surprising that they will not want to put it in the public domain at this stage as the matter is still under consideration by the CCRC.

The reason its not being posted is because it will not stand up to scrutiny. If they had documented evidence of Sheila making a 999 call while Jeremy was outside with the police, they would be able to bypass the CCRC and go straight to the CPS who would agree that an appeal would not even be contested.

[Bill Robertson]

The reason its not being posted is because it will not stand up to scrutiny. If they had documented evidence of Sheila making a 999 call while Jeremy was outside with the police, they would be able to bypass the CCRC and go straight to the CPS who would agree that an appeal would not even be contested.

Unfortunately that is a very naive statement. The CPS has been approached and have rejected any notion that they will override the proscribed procedure. The CPS on principle defends the original court decision and, in my experience, is institutionally hostile towards suggestions that a guilty verdict is incorrect, not just in Jeremy’s case but in all MOJ situations.

[guest7363]

Unfortunately that is a very naive statement. The CPS has been approached and have rejected any notion that they will override the proscribed procedure. The CPS on principle defends the original court decision and, in my experience, is institutionally hostile towards suggestions that a guilty verdict is incorrect, not just in Jeremy’s case but in all MOJ situations.

Ive always been lead to believe that the only way of getting your case back before the courts is through referral from the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). I could be wrong but I don’t think the CPS would get involved before the CCRC even if they were approached Bill?

[JackieD]

I see the Louis Theroux documentary is being promoted as coming this month. Interesting to see if ‘Daisy’ is included

[guest29835]

Sorry but I think David is correct. 

First, if you read the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 carefully, you will note that no explicit statutory exclusivity is given to the CCRC for criminal appeals.  In other words, there is nothing in that Act that says you have to go through the CCRC first. 

Why, then, do people bother with the CCRC?  Because of the Court's powers in section 5(1).  As a practical matter, if somebody did try to appeal direct to the Court of Appeal, then the judges would almost-certainly invoke section 5(1) of the 1995 Act (which is section 23A of the 1968 Act it amends), which is the power to order that the CCRC investigate the case - effectively putting the matter in the hands of the CCRC anyway.

In view of all this, normally Jeremy would go through the CCRC, like virtually everybody else.  However, David's point is that the Campaign Team claim to hold exonerating evidence.  With such evidence, it would not be unreasonable for his Campaign Team to dispense with the CCRC and go direct to Essex Police or the CPS, or both, and ask them to consider their position on the basis that an agreed application could be made to the Court - maybe starting with an application for bail. 

There is case law on this point arising from the joint enterprise appeals.  A number of cases say that the Court of Appeal acknowledges its direct jurisdiction and that an appeal without the CCRC is permissible, though it is also stressed that this is rare.   

The cases are R v Walsh [2007] NICA 4, Christopher Boughton-Fox v Regina [2014] EWCA Crim. 227 and R v Yassain [2015] 3 WLR 1571.  In these judgments, the appeal judges are effectively rebuffing the CCRC.  The Commission had always claimed an exclusive right of appeal in criminal cases once the immediate appeal period is exhausted (and the Commission still impliedly claims it has this right).  The Court decided this is not the case, albeit that direct jurisdiction is to be exercised exceptionally.

None of this is to say the Campaign Team should follow the unconventional route, but as David rightly says, you have to ask, why mess around with the CCRC if there is evidence that exonerates Jeremy? 

[guest29835]

The reason its not being posted is because it will not stand up to scrutiny. If they had documented evidence of Sheila making a 999 call while Jeremy was outside with the police, they would be able to bypass the CCRC and go straight to the CPS who would agree that an appeal would not even be contested.

I also accept this, though we should elide the two points.  It's one thing to pursue an accelerated appeal direct to the Court, perhaps with the co-operation of the CPS, on the basis of exonerating evidence; it is quite another thing to release the evidence to every Jack, James and Sandra.

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? 

I think the only answer is that the evidence does not exonerate Jeremy, it merely casts doubt potentially, and given that Jeremy's cause lacks penetration into mainstream culture, it would be imprudent to release such evidence and allow critical evaluation and discussion of it. 

Just as the neutrality of people like me can add natural weight to the pro-innocence cause in free discussion of the case, the downside is that neutrality means criticism.  The pro-guilt case can be ripped to shreds, but anything put up by Jeremy can come under the same scrutiny.

[Roch]

I also accept this, though we should elide the two points.  It's one thing to pursue an accelerated appeal direct to the Court, perhaps with the co-operation of the CPS, on the basis of exonerating evidence; it is quite another thing to release the evidence to every Jack, James and Sandra.

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? 

I think the only answer is that the evidence does not exonerate Jeremy, it merely casts doubt potentially, and given that Jeremy's cause lacks penetration into mainstream culture, it would be imprudent to release such evidence and allow critical evaluation and discussion of it. 

Just as the neutrality of people like me can add natural weight to the pro-innocence cause in free discussion of the case, the downside is that neutrality means criticism.  The pro-guilt case can be ripped to shreds, but anything put up by Jeremy can come under the same scrutiny.

Good post.

[guest7363]

Sorry but I think David is correct. 

First, if you read the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 carefully, you will note that no explicit statutory exclusivity is given to the CCRC for criminal appeals.  In other words, there is nothing in that Act that says you have to go through the CCRC first. 

Why, then, do people bother with the CCRC?  Because of the Court's powers in section 5(1).  As a practical matter, if somebody did try to appeal direct to the Court of Appeal, then the judges would almost-certainly invoke section 5(1) of the 1995 Act (which is section 23A of the 1968 Act it amends), which is the power to order that the CCRC investigate the case - effectively putting the matter in the hands of the CCRC anyway.

In view of all this, normally Jeremy would go through the CCRC, like virtually everybody else.  However, David's point is that the Campaign Team claim to hold exonerating evidence.  With such evidence, it would not be unreasonable for his Campaign Team to dispense with the CCRC and go direct to Essex Police or the CPS, or both, and ask them to consider their position on the basis that an agreed application could be made to the Court - maybe starting with an application for bail. 

There is case law on this point arising from the joint enterprise appeals.  A number of cases say that the Court of Appeal acknowledges its direct jurisdiction and that an appeal without the CCRC is permissible, though it is also stressed that this is rare.   

The cases are R v Walsh [2007] NICA 4, Christopher Boughton-Fox v Regina [2014] EWCA Crim. 227 and R v Yassain [2015] 3 WLR 1571.  In these judgments, the appeal judges are effectively rebuffing the CCRC.  The Commission had always claimed an exclusive right of appeal in criminal cases once the immediate appeal period is exhausted (and the Commission still impliedly claims it has this right).  The Court decided this is not the case, albeit that direct jurisdiction is to be exercised exceptionally.

None of this is to say the Campaign Team should follow the unconventional route, but as David rightly says, you have to ask, why mess around with the CCRC if there is evidence that exonerates Jeremy?

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?