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

[guest29835]

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.   

I'm sure the Campaign Team are quivering with fear. 

[killingeve]

I'm sure the Campaign Team are quivering with fear.

I tell you one thing if the likes of Peter Tatchell and Eric Allison continue to support Bamber knowing he's withholding 2 lengthy docs, running into hundreds of pages, it will say more about them than anything. 

Front page of the tabloids 'Bamber once again withholds document detailing why review commission threw out his claims'! 

[guest29835]

I tell you one thing if the likes of Peter Tatchell and Eric Allison continue to support Bamber knowing he's withholding 2 lengthy docs, running into hundreds of pages, it will say more about them than anything. 

Front page of the tabloids 'Bamber once again withholds document detailing why review commission threw out his claims'!

This, I repeat, is how I understand things:

Private documents - the expectation is that the documents will only be seen by the people reading or receiving them, unless a court orders otherwise or there is a duty of disclosure under litigation protocols (e.g. exchanging all relevant evidence before a trial).

Public/regulated documents - the expectation is that the documents may be seen by people other than those who read or receive them, including the whole world/the public-at-large.

There is some overlap between the two, but the expectations are different.  An example of the former is the Statement of Reasons.  It is private - for Jeremy and his advisors only.  If Jeremy wishes to publish the document, he can do so, but there is no specific expectation that he should do so, and there is no duty of disclosure as the document is not relevant. 

An example of the latter could be a report written by a police officer as part of an investigation.  When he writes it, he knows that it may one day be considered in a court or disclosed to the world-at-large.

On this basis, I see no hypocrisy.

If Jeremy had in his possession a document of material relevance to the case that represented new evidence and he refused to disclose this because it helps the Crown, again that would not be hypocrisy unless it could be shown there is a specific obligation on him to disclose this evidence.  Since when do people incriminate themselves or weaken their own case?  Is that what you would do?  People don't do that, so it's not hypocrisy as there is no expectation on him to do so, and as I have shown, no duty either.

And as for double standards, the existence of two different and unequal standards does not equate to a double standard.  The standards are not the same for one as they are for the other, for good reasons.

[killingeve]

This, I repeat, is how I understand things:

Private documents - the expectation is that the documents will only be seen by the people reading or receiving them, unless a court orders otherwise or there is a duty of disclosure under litigation protocols (e.g. exchanging all relevant evidence before a trial).

Public/regulated documents - the expectation is that the documents may be seen by people other than those who read or receive them, including the whole world/the public-at-large.

There is some overlap between the two, but the expectations are different.  An example of the former is the Statement of Reasons.  It is private - for Jeremy and his advisors only.  If Jeremy wishes to publish the document, he can do so, but there is no specific expectation that he should do so, and there is no duty of disclosure as the document is not relevant. 

An example of the latter could be a report written by a police officer as part of an investigation.  When he writes it, he knows that it may one day be considered in a court or disclosed to the world-at-large.

On this basis, I see no hypocrisy.

If Jeremy had in his possession a document of material relevance to the case that represented new evidence and he refused to disclose this because it helps the Crown, again that would not be hypocrisy unless it could be shown there is a specific obligation on him to disclose this evidence.  Since when do people incriminate themselves or weaken their own case?  Is that what you would do?  People don't do that, so it's not hypocrisy as there is no expectation on him to do so, and as I have shown, no duty either.

And as for double standards, the existence of two different and unequal standards does not equate to a double standard.  The standards are not the same for one as they are for the other, for good reasons.

Let the media make of it what it will if Bamber refuses to release the latest sor when its issued. 

[guest29835]

Let the media make of it what it will if Bamber refuses to release the latest sor when its issued.

It's yet another uninformed tangent from guilters, like cooked breakfasts, Boss suits and grinning at funerals.

[killingeve]

It's yet another uninformed tangent from guilters, like cooked breakfasts, Boss suits and grinning at funerals.

If the review commission throws out Bamber's latest submission and he continues to protest his innocence, seek public support etc then the public has a right to know what the score is!  The media need to flag up the fact Bamber is withholding two lengthy reports as to why his submission was thrown out.  Then interested parties can say 'Oh those people at the review commission are treating this appellant unfairly I must lend my support to his cause'!  Or those people at the review commission are bang on and Bamber's at the end of the road time to throw away the key'!

[guest29835]

If the review commission throws out Bamber's latest submission and he continues to protest his innocence, seek public support etc then the public has a right to know what the score is!  The media need to flag up the fact Bamber is withholding two lengthy reports as to why his submission was thrown out.  Then interested parties can say 'Oh those people at the review commission are treating this appellant unfairly I must lend my support to his cause'!  Or those people at the review commission are bang on and Bamber's at the end of the road time to throw away the key'!

I'm sure with your help the media will be right on this.  There was a Provisional Statement of Reasons issued by the CCRC in January 2011 and then a somewhat longer Final Statement of Reasons in April 2012.

[killingeve]

I'm sure with your help the media will be right on this.  There was a Provisional Statement of Reasons issued by the CCRC in January 2011 and then a somewhat longer Final Statement of Reasons in April 2012.

The one available for public consumption relates to the new forensic tests in Arizona and amounts to a few pages.  The somewhat longer final statement of reasons you refer to amounts ot about 100 pages and Bamber has withheld. 

[guest29835]

The one available for public consumption relates to the new forensic tests in Arizona and amounts to a few pages.  The somewhat longer final statement of reasons you refer to amounts ot about 100 pages and Bamber has withheld.

I'm talking about:

- a Provisional Statement of Reasons released in January 2011, which is 89 pages;
- a Final Statement of Reasons released in April 2012, which is 109 pages.

[killingeve]

I'm talking about:

- a Provisional Statement of Reasons released in January 2011, which is 89 pages;
- a Final Statement of Reasons released in April 2012, which is 109 pages.

You are obviously in the know  but I have it on reliable terms there's a 100 page doc not for public consumption.  Anyway water under the bridge now.  We will see what this submission throws up. 

[lookout]

And QC refers to Bamber as a litigant 

And why shouldn't he be a litigant ? It's what you do when fighting for your rights isn't it ?

[Steve_uk]

It's yet another uninformed tangent from guilters, like cooked breakfasts, Boss suits and grinning at funerals.

..you may as well add his spiked hair to the list, formed with shampoo akin to the photographs of Nicholas and Daniel: the twins, remember, whose picture you posted on a thread of your own, yet castigated me for using a similar image as my Avatar.

I could give further examples.

[killingeve]

And why shouldn't he be a litigant ? It's what you do when fighting for your rights isn't it ?

Bamber was found guilty in a court of law some 35 years ago of mass murder.  He has the right to appeal and is then referred to as an appellant.  Bamber is absolutely not a litigant. 

[lookout]

Bamber was found guilty in a court of law some 35 years ago of mass murder.  He has the right to appeal and is then referred to as an appellant.  Bamber is absolutely not a litigant.

So you keep saying, Polly.

[guest29835]

Bamber was found guilty in a court of law some 35 years ago of mass murder.  He has the right to appeal and is then referred to as an appellant.  Bamber is absolutely not a litigant.

An appellant is a type of litigant.