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

[killingeve]

There is no hypocrisy. 

Jeremy is not under any duty to disclose the Statement of Reasons.  It's a private document.  Jeremy is a private individual engaged in litigation.  He is not a public body. 

A court can order Jeremy to disclose private documents, but let us consider what the word 'disclosure' actually means.

It's when in litigation, or potential litigation, one party reveals to another documents on which it intends to rely.  The Crown can't rely on the Statement of Reasons, as it's not relevant to the current application.  Nor do they need to, as the same body that issued the Statement of Reasons is now reviewing Jeremy's latest CCRC application and will not normally accept re-submissions of evidence already disposed of.

That's why, whatever it may contain, disclosing the Statement of Reasons would be a pointless exercise in terms of the legal process.

What you really mean is not that Jeremy should disclose the Statement of Reasons, but that he should share it with the public and publish it for all to see.  Why should he?  You may say that if it's no longer relevant to the legal process, then what's the harm? But if it's no longer relevant, then why should he bother?  Would you share with all the world private correspondence with a public body if you were undertaking a criminal appeal or some other sort of litigation?  You are asking him to voluntarily do this.  Or you think, failing that, the CCRC should be permitted to publish the document on its own initiative, yet the CCRC is not allowed to do that, as the document is directed at the applicant. 

In contrast, documents generated by and held by public bodies, such as the police, are not just directed at police officers and there is no expectation that only other police officers will ever read them.  They are public property and potentially disclosable.

Bamber isn't a litigant.  He's a convicted mass murderer/child killer who has spent some 36 years behind bars and counting!

And he isn't a private individual thanks to his 'official' website and various social media platforms.  He attempts to engage with the public directly, via his blogs etc, and indirectly through the support group doing his bidding.  Therefore we, the public, have a right to challenge him and the support group.   

A campaign was orchestrated in an attempt to petition officialdom re non-disclosure.  If you can't see the double standards and hypocrisy then really there's no hope for you.

[killingeve]

You distinctly said that JB was withholding evidence, such as him personally ??

Yes that is exactly what I meant. 

[lookout]

Why would he himself hold on to something that could overturn his conviction ?

If anything's being withheld it's by EP.

[killingeve]

Why would he himself hold on to something that could overturn his conviction ?

If anything's being withheld it's by EP.

No Lookout.  When the review commission looks at an appellants submission it responds by way of a 'statement of reasons' (sor).  In 2012 when the commission last threw out Bamber's submission it issued a sor explaining why.  This sor run to some 100 pages but Bamber and his support group have refused to release it.  If this doesn't sound alarm bells I don't know what will!

[guest29835]

Bamber isn't a litigant.  He's a convicted mass murderer/child killer who has spent some 36 years behind bars and counting!

And he isn't a private individual thanks to his 'official' website and various social media platforms.  He attempts to engage with the public directly, via his blogs etc, and indirectly through the support group doing his bidding.  Therefore we, the public, have a right to challenge him and the support group.   

A campaign was orchestrated in an attempt to petition officialdom re non-disclosure.  If you can't see the double standards and hypocrisy then really there's no hope for you.

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

[Adam]

No Lookout.  When the review commission looks at an appellants submission it responds by way of a 'statement of reasons' (sor).  In 2012 when the commission last threw out Bamber's submission it issued a sor explaining why.  This sor run to some 100 pages but Bamber and his support group have refused to release it.  If this doesn't sound alarm bells I don't know what will!

No Lookout.

----------

 

[killingeve]

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Of course you don't 

[killingeve]

Bamber isn't a litigant.  He's a convicted mass murderer/child killer who has spent some 36 years behind bars and counting!

And he isn't a private individual thanks to his 'official' website and various social media platforms.  He attempts to engage with the public directly, via his blogs etc, and indirectly through the support group doing his bidding.  Therefore we, the public, have a right to challenge him and the support group.   

A campaign was orchestrated in an attempt to petition officialdom re non-disclosure.  If you can't see the double standards and hypocrisy then really there's no hope for you.

And lets not forget at one time Bamber and the support group had the begging bowl out supposedly for forensic tests.  Who would part with cash without knowing why the review commission threw out the 2012 submission.  Utter madness. 

[killingeve]

And QC refers to Bamber as a litigant 

[killingeve]

And QC refers to Bamber as a litigant 

Do I recall Bamber suing HMP for whiplash injury when he was being ferried around and on another occassion he had his play station stolen from his cell?  These are cases he could be referred to as a litigant.  Mass murder/child killing - litigation 

[lookout]

No Lookout.  When the review commission looks at an appellants submission it responds by way of a 'statement of reasons' (sor).  In 2012 when the commission last threw out Bamber's submission it issued a sor explaining why.  This sor run to some 100 pages but Bamber and his support group have refused to release it.  If this doesn't sound alarm bells I don't know what will!

That was in 2012 when it was possible that a summary of reasons why could well have been repetitive from the earlier appeal. Since 2012, there has been a number of documents released which might tie-in with those which had been held back and until we hear that hopefully there's a further submission, those " reasons " could come to light and connect like the missing pieces of the jigsaw.

I don't envisage the " alarm bells "  that you pessimistically continue to sound as I think this is all about not knowing what the contents of the CCRC are more than anything else, so you'll just have to be patient won't you ?

[guest29835]

And QC refers to Bamber as a litigant 

Because he is, though strictly speaking he is currently an applicant to the CCRC, not a 'litigant'.  In the message you replied to, I referred to him as a "private individual engaged in litigation".  I meant in the context of disclosure in respect of litigation and potential litigation, which is what this subject is about.  It was you who used the word 'disclosure' or 'disclosing', not me.

I'm still not convinced you are well-versed in the subject you are talking about.  You don't appear to understand the concept of disclosure.

[killingeve]

That was in 2012 when it was possible that a summary of reasons why could well have been repetitive from the earlier appeal. Since 2012, there has been a number of documents released which might tie-in with those which had been held back and until we hear that hopefully there's a further submission, those " reasons " could come to light and connect like the missing pieces of the jigsaw.

I don't envisage the " alarm bells "  that you pessimistically continue to sound as I think this is all about not knowing what the contents of the CCRC are more than anything else, so you'll just have to be patient won't you ?

Lookout, Bambers last appeal was 2002.  Finished.  Gone.  Roll on nearly 20 years and he has now filed a brand new submission with the review commission supposedly containing all new evidence.  Why wont he release the 100 page doc issued by the review commission detailing why they threw out the last  submission in 2012.  He might get a lot of new support on the back of it. 

I wonder who has seen this document?  I don't think Carol Ann Lee had access to it or any of the recent prog makers?   

Is it possible you can send an Christmas card and ask for a copy?

[killingeve]

Because he is, though strictly speaking he is currently an applicant to the CCRC, not a 'litigant'.  In the message you replied to, I referred to him as a "private individual engaged in litigation".  I meant in the context of disclosure in respect of litigation and potential litigation, which is what this subject is about.  It was you who used the word 'disclosure' or 'disclosing', not me.

I'm still not convinced you are well-versed in the subject you are talking about. You don't appear to understand the concept of disclosure.

Likewise.  I'm still not convinced you are well-versed in the subject you are talking about. You don't appear to understand the concept of disclosure.

If Bamber refuses to release the sor for the submission made this year and at the same time is still running a public campaign I will flag it up with the media.   

[guest29835]

Lookout, Bambers last appeal was 2002.  Finished.  Gone.  Roll on nearly 20 years and he has now filed a brand new submission with the review commission supposedly containing all new evidence.  Why wont he release the 100 page doc issued by the review commission detailing why they threw out the last  submission in 2012.  He might get a lot of new support on the back of it. 

I wonder who has seen this document?  I don't think Carol Ann Lee had access to it or any of the recent prog makers?   

Is it possible you can send an Christmas card and ask for a copy?

Why would he get any new support off the back of a document that rejected his last application for appeal?  That makes no sense.  Why would he voluntarily do that?  Would you do that?

I don't always defend Jeremy on here, but I'm defending him on this point because I think you're being unfair and the whole point is a futile tangent.  Jeremy is not in charge of a public body.  He has no duty of disclosure other than that ordered by a court in litigation.  The document you refer to is no longer relevant, and its only effect can be to do him damage by opening up discussion about the CCRC's previous interpretation of points that it rejected and that can't be considered anyway.

Don't misunderstand me: I would like to see the document too.  But I don't accept he is being hypocritical in not releasing it.  Different duties and expectations apply to Jeremy and public bodies respectively.