Bamber and his campaign team choose to use social media and attempt to get the likes of David James Smith and Carol Ann Lee on board. It backfires badly and they never learn. Now they have the likes of Bamber's so-called bestie turning on him. What positives have come out of Bambers association with social and mainstream media? Forums like this are different in that he and his support people can distance themselves.
Youre right Bamber is the underdog. Whether you agree or disagree with the contributors to the recent doc most believe Bamber is where he should be. And it wasn't just local gossips you have the likes of Justice Henriques.
An over reliance on the 2002 appeal will not help you understand what really took place at WHF, in my opinion. It occurred before a huge amount of material was released. Material which may have prevented the original convictions in the first place (if Rivlin had had access and had performed his duties properly). I understand that differs from your opinion.
The makers of the drama in my opinion should be sued. In fact I hope they are at a later date. Though I accept, it is highly unlikely to take place. What is needed in this case is a 'Rough Justice' type exploration of the evidence from a defence stance, with some room afforded for counter argument from the prosecution stance. That will not happen. Such programmes are not made anymore. Media companies will not commission or produce anything similar until the convictions are overturned, therefore the defence lack the firepower of the state. It's an uneven competition, when it comes to resources. What we have just witnessed is a massive drive to shore up the conviction, in attempt to counteract anything that threatens the convictions from the material released in recent years. Although many of the protagonists involved genuinely believe in their own guilty stance, they are in effect puppets in a wider game being played out with high stakes. The likes of Jaques wouldn't impress me. I don't doth my cap to seniority.
