Louis Theroux

[guest29835]

And if you knew anything about how the review commission works you will know the subject of PP is completely meaningless.

Nobody here is responsible for submissions to the CCRC or has any involvement with the lawyers or the Campaign Team.  You can tell us it's all a waste of time, but nobody here knows what the submissions contain.  The Campaign Team itself cannot be considered a reliable source in this respect.  Other than the CCRC, only the lawyers and Jeremy Bamber himself know for sure what has been submitted.

We also don't know how the CCRC will respond to certain issues, assuming they have been raised, because - again - we don't know the exact basis for the submissions.  Rest assured you will have ample opportunity to gloat if the application is rejected.  Conversely, if the application is accepted and there is an appeal, I rather suspect we will never hear from you.

[killingeve]

The subject of PP relates to her being the MP in whose constituency, certain individuals reside who have been accused wrongdoing or interference in the case. Regardless of whether the CCRC will bat it aside, the exposure of wrongdoing and any associated protective practices on the part of their MP, should be applauded. If you want to doth your cap to everyone in a position of authority, then knock yourself out. We won't stop you.

You make everything too personal and get so over emotional you are unable to see the wood for the trees.

Ask yourself this, does PP, or the relatives for that matter, meet the criteria for a successful referral to the appeal courts?

Everyone knows miscarriages of justice involve police wrongdoing, unreliable prosecutions witnesses etc, etc.  Bamber needs "fresh evidence" to prove it. 

[killingeve]

Nobody here is responsible for submissions to the CCRC or has any involvement with the lawyers or the Campaign Team.  You can tell us it's all a waste of time, but nobody here knows what the submissions contain.  The Campaign Team itself cannot be considered a reliable source in this respect.  Other than the CCRC, only the lawyers and Jeremy Bamber himself know for sure what has been submitted.

We also don't know how the CCRC will respond to certain issues, assuming they have been raised, because - again - we don't know the exact basis for the submissions.  Rest assured you will have ample opportunity to gloat if the application is rejected.  Conversely, if the application is accepted and there is an appeal, I rather suspect we will never hear from you.

Well either the female presenter in the recent podcast is lying (she came over as sincere in her beliefs to me) or you have misunderstood.  I listened very carefully to the podcast, pausing to make notes, and the support group put together the submission with the lawyer simply endorsing it. 

[Roch]

You make everything too personal and get so over emotional you are unable to see the wood for the trees.

Ask yourself this, does PP, or the relatives for that matter, meet the criteria for a successful referral to the appeal courts?

Everyone knows miscarriages of justice involve police wrongdoing, unreliable prosecutions witnesses etc, etc.  Bamber needs "fresh evidence" to prove it.

I don't recognise your assessment of me. You keep banging on about fresh evidence without telling us exactly what in this particular case, fresh evidence would be. I have already signposted you to the booklet regarding missing evidence. If your so called fresh evidence is not within that batch, could it be in evidence not allowed for release until 2054? If not there, then where exactly should this holy grail of fresh evidence be found? If you think the campaign team have done such crap job or made such a hash of it, then at least provide us with something constructive in terms of where you would venture evidence wise, if you were in their shoes.

Have you ever wondered whether the system itself may be to blame for MOJ's not bring overturned.  You can only work with what you have, and if the corrupt police you refer to have destroyed stuff, then what do you expect the campaign team or researchers to do?

[lookout]

The submission to the CCRC wouldn't be happening if there was no fresh evidence.

[guest29835]

Well either the female presenter in the recent podcast is lying (she came over as sincere in her beliefs to me) or you have misunderstood.  I listened very carefully to the podcast, pausing to make notes, and the support group put together the submission with the lawyer simply endorsing it.

They discuss this at 1:24:36.  It is Philip Walker who says the CT put the submissions together and get the lawyers to approve it, then put it in to the CCRC, but I honestly think that can be interpreted in different ways.  It's just words on a podcast.  It could mean the CT do everything and the lawyers just read it for legality.  Or it could mean that the CT do all the leg work and the lawyers then prepare and advise on the submissions (which I think is more likely).
 
I still say that I'm not inclined to rely on anything the CT say about the evidence or what they have done.  They are campaigners, not lawyers, and during the podcast both Philip and Yvonne use legal jargon loosely and incorrectly.  For instance, Philip talks about 'exculpatory evidence', which I doubt actually exists.  I think he very likely means evidence that the CT believe casts doubt on the safety of the convictions.

More importantly, although the CT outline the submissions topically, they don't go into detail about what evidence they have. 

I am inclined to wait before casting judgement on any of this, one way or the other, and I think this discussion on the thread is becoming a bit circular.

[Bill Robertson]

I listened very carefully to the podcast, pausing to make notes, and the support group put together the submission with the lawyer simply endorsing it.

That’s not what happens. I worked on several areas of the submission on behalf of the campaign team. The process is that an individual person finds something that they deem worthy of being submitted to the CCRC. The case, with evidence is compiled and given to the campaign team. Where necessary, as in my case, independent forensic experts are consulted. The completed report is given to the lawyers. They examine the materials and comment, referring back for further work where needed. In no sense do the lawyers just rubber stamp what is given to them, that would be crazy. They have their professional reputation to protect. What was submitted to the CCRC was in effect the lawyers work. We just assisted them with research.

[JackieD]

What similarities exist between the cases of Hall and Bamber?

I have reported your post as you continue to make it personal.

Your posts are made with the intention of goading. Fact

Other members see this also

You are make comments about submissions which you could not possibly know the extent of the submissions

Fact

We had another poster on this forum previously who used to goad other members and I will continue to call you out if I personally believe your behaviour is unacceptable

[JackieD]

Anyone who is capable of reading material objectively will appreciate Bamber's support group are not fit for purpose however well intentioned they might be. 

What happens after the submission is thrown out?  These people will still persist in the same vein without pausing to think 'ok maybe we need to go back to the drawing board and rethink our entire strategy'.  Instead they will accuse the review commission of being corrupt.  They will no doubt seek a judicial review and when that fails they will accuse the judges of being corrupt.  And perhaps unsurprisingly they will all end up in 'Liars Lobby'!  Worse still they will attempt to use the same material again and again and again but just tweak it slightly to the extent the review commission will be obliged to review it again.  If Bamber dies in the interim they will still seek a posthumous pardon.

You just do not know. Fact. Presumptions are useless

[JackieD]

And if you knew anything about how the review commission works you will know the subject of PP is completely meaningless.

Deja vu we have been here before with Matt the troll who pulled the wool over numerous posters eyes saying he knew what the CCRC were doing

It’s so boring now

[guest29835]

That’s not what happens. I worked on several areas of the submission on behalf of the campaign team. The process is that an individual person finds something that they deem worthy of being submitted to the CCRC. The case, with evidence is compiled and given to the campaign team. Where necessary, as in my case, independent forensic experts are consulted. The completed report is given to the lawyers. They examine the materials and comment, referring back for further work where needed. In no sense do the lawyers just rubber stamp what is given to them, that would be crazy. They have their professional reputation to protect. What was submitted to the CCRC was in effect the lawyers work. We just assisted them with research.

Yes, this is in line with what I would expect.

[JackieD]

You make everything too personal and get so over emotional you are unable to see the wood for the trees.

Ask yourself this, does PP, or the relatives for that matter, meet the criteria for a successful referral to the appeal courts?

Everyone knows miscarriages of justice involve police wrongdoing, unreliable prosecutions witnesses etc, etc.  Bamber needs "fresh evidence" to prove it.

So rude.

Most posters who spend time on this forum are worried about every aspect of this case and the whole justice system. It is personal to all of us who know the case inside out

[Roch]

What did people make of this?

https://ccrc.gov.uk/press-releases/ccrc-releases-official-response-to-the-westminster-commission-report/

[JackieD]

That’s not what happens. I worked on several areas of the submission on behalf of the campaign team. The process is that an individual person finds something that they deem worthy of being submitted to the CCRC. The case, with evidence is compiled and given to the campaign team. Where necessary, as in my case, independent forensic experts are consulted. The completed report is given to the lawyers. They examine the materials and comment, referring back for further work where needed. In no sense do the lawyers just rubber stamp what is given to them, that would be crazy. They have their professional reputation to protect. What was submitted to the CCRC was in effect the lawyers work. We just assisted them with research.

That was obvious to MOST of us

[killingeve]

They discuss this at 1:24:36.  It is Philip Walker who says the CT put the submissions together and get the lawyers to approve it, then put it in to the CCRC, but I honestly think that can be interpreted in different ways.  It's just words on a podcast.  It could mean the CT do everything and the lawyers just read it for legality.  Or it could mean that the CT do all the leg work and the lawyers then prepare and advise on the submissions (which I think is more likely).
 
I still say that I'm not inclined to rely on anything the CT say about the evidence or what they have done.  They are campaigners, not lawyers, and during the podcast both Philip and Yvonne use legal jargon loosely and incorrectly.  For instance, Philip talks about 'exculpatory evidence', which I doubt actually exists.  I think he very likely means evidence that the CT believe casts doubt on the safety of the convictions.

More importantly, although the CT outline the submissions topically, they don't go into detail about what evidence they have. 

I am inclined to wait before casting judgement on any of this, one way or the other, and I think this discussion on the thread is becoming a bit circular.

You need to move on a little at 1.25.  The female clearly states the support group understand the issues inside out, back to front, and upside down.  She then goes on to say that the lawyers haven't had to research anything because the support group have done it on their behalf.  She acknowledges this is unusual in that lawyers usually refuse to work with campaign groups. 

Prior to this the male gave the example of how they found some new material re the burns.  What he fails to understand is that at trial both pathologists were unable to conclude anything about the the so-called burns.  Therefore the jury could not have possibly taken the 'burns' into account in reaching a verdict.