Podcast by Bamber's support group containing information about 03/21 submission

[lookout]

I could hazard a few guesses. I'm just going to let you crack on now. Fill your boots.

Sour grapes if there's any connection to a solicitor, wishing they'd got in first, would be my guess.

[killingeve]

347,000 pages of evidence which EP had withheld from JB, including police logs which all came to light after the 30 years retaining period was not applicable.

Many of these papers prove that the jury were not provided with evidence and were misled repeatedly.

Each of those 8 submissions/ issues which have been set out contain information which answers the questions on the main subjects on which the conviction was based.

Evidence now supports the fact that every part of the case is untrue.

Good luck convincing the review commission.

[killingeve]

Sour grapes if there's any connection to a solicitor, wishing they'd got in first, would be my guess.

Do you think the above makes any sense at all?

[lookout]

Do you think the above makes any sense at all?

Of course I do.

[lookout]

Good luck convincing the review commission.

Thankyou.

[lookout]

I've always been prepared for all kinds of flak whenever there's been a hint of a pending appeal. It's part of human nature in those of a pessimistic outlook. Never fails.

[killingeve]

https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/new-ccrc-submission

Statement of Reasons (non-refferal)

1. Silencer (claims of 2/Robert Boutflour's blood contaminating/contamination general)

The defence at trial agreed with the prosecution that the silencer was used but argued the blood flake represented an intimate mix of Mr and Mrs Bamber's blood which combined produced the same blood group ings as Sheila's blood as a stand-alone.  The defence argued Sheila used the silencer before removing it, placing it in the gun cupboard and returning ustairs to shoot herself.  The judge quite rightly ridiculed defence argurments at trial.

Attempting to go down the route of Robert Boutflour's blood (or a.n. other) is analgous to placing a bet, losing and then going into the bookies and saying actually I didn't mean team x to win I meant team y (the winning team). 

The time to argue contamination was at trial not 36 years down the line. 

2. Telephone calls

As explained above

3. Intergrity of scene

Dealt with at 2002 appeal.  Anything new will not trump blood/Julie Mugford

4. Windows

As explained above

5.  Sheila alive when Bamber outside

999 call explained above.  Trick of light dealt with at trial.  Lights and curtains on and off, opening and closing are simply down to officers referring to the same lights/windows/curtains but using slightly different descriptions to convey the same message. 

Will not trumpt blood/Julie Mugford

6. Photos

Will not trump blood/Julie Mugford

7. Police wrongdoing

Dealt with 2002 appeal

Will not trump blood/Julie Mugford

3. Inheritance

Dealt with 2002 appeal

Will not trump blood/Julie Mugford

[killingeve]

I've always been prepared for all kinds of flak whenever there's been a hint of a pending appeal. It's part of human nature in those of a pessimistic outlook. Never fails.

Its not pessimistic its realistic based on how the commission will review it.

[killingeve]

Of course I do.

Well let me tell you it doesn't.  Why would any solicitor want to be associated with a high profile case that will easily be batted away by the review commission?

[lookout]

So, let's crack on about this submission.
 Here's hoping that besides the silencer having been " found " in the cupboard there was also another item, the metal cap which allowed a silencer to be fitted on the end of the rifle. Because no silencer was used, the red paint would have been on the end of the metal cap and not the silencer.

I'll stick my neck out here and say that the burns on Nevill's back were caused by this metal cap which after firing the rifle would have got hot and caused the solid burns, not the end of the gun's barrel, nor a silencer.
In Davidson's statement, he was adamant when he'd stated that there was paint on the gun's barrel and not the silencer. Then there was Hammersley who'd stuck to his silencer evidence along with everyone else and when COLP interviewed him he whinged like a girl, knowing he'd lied. Why didn't COLP pursue this instead of brushing it under the carpet ?  Closed ranks as always !

[lookout]

BTW, the said metal cap had been given an exhibit number but no sign of who'd found it etc.

[JackieD]

You have absolutely no idea why I'm here.

We have been here before. Nobody here is stupid.
Matt the troll pretending he had links to the CCRC and knew the decision of the CCRC before it was announced

I’m pretty confident in guessing the relatives who did there best to mislead the jury would have known the results of the application before they were publicly announced
Just like the police trying to mislead the public by drip feeding private unreleased documentation to media outlets

[Roch]

Sour grapes if there's any connection to a solicitor, wishing they'd got in first, would be my guess.

She doesn't seem to take in to account the impact and implications of non disclosure with regard to previous appeals. Some of the issues that have been brought up in the past were done so without the benefit of disclosures yet to occur. Therefore, there is a chance that rejections of individual grounds this time, could be nothing more than proof of a rigged system full of flaws itself. But she's portraying it as something other than this, attaching validity to such potential rejections. I will add a caveat, that it is possible that some grounds may not deserve to progress because they may be based upon misinterpretations of case evidence.

[lookout]

https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/new-ccrc-submission

Statement of Reasons (non-refferal)

1. Silencer (claims of 2/Robert Boutflour's blood contaminating/contamination general)

The defence at trial agreed with the prosecution that the silencer was used but argued the blood flake represented an intimate mix of Mr and Mrs Bamber's blood which combined produced the same blood group ings as Sheila's blood as a stand-alone.  The defence argued Sheila used the silencer before removing it, placing it in the gun cupboard and returning ustairs to shoot herself.  The judge quite rightly ridiculed defence argurments at trial.

Attempting to go down the route of Robert Boutflour's blood (or a.n. other) is analgous to placing a bet, losing and then going into the bookies and saying actually I didn't mean team x to win I meant team y (the winning team). 

The time to argue contamination was at trial not 36 years down the line. 

2. Telephone calls

As explained above

3. Intergrity of scene

Dealt with at 2002 appeal.  Anything new will not trump blood/Julie Mugford

4. Windows

As explained above

5.  Sheila alive when Bamber outside

999 call explained above.  Trick of light dealt with at trial.  Lights and curtains on and off, opening and closing are simply down to officers referring to the same lights/windows/curtains but using slightly different descriptions to convey the same message. 

Will not trumpt blood/Julie Mugford

6. Photos

Will not trump blood/Julie Mugford

7. Police wrongdoing

Dealt with 2002 appeal

Will not trump blood/Julie Mugford

3. Inheritance

Dealt with 2002 appeal

Will not trump blood/Julie Mugford

Mmm, you've got every faith haven't you ?
Could you then tell me why the case has rumbled on non-stop for 35 years ? Why do you think ?

[JackieD]

I doubt that. She seems to be one of those people who doesn't see the flaws in how JB was defended at trial, nor the impact and implications of non disclosure with regard to previous appeals. Some of the issues that have been brought up in the past were done so without the benefit of disclosures yet to occur. Therefore, there is a chance that rejections of individual grounds this time, could be nothing more than proof of a rigged system full of flaws itself. But she's portraying it as something other than this, ie she is attaching validity to such potential rejections. I will add a caveat, that it is possible that some grounds may not deserve to progress because they may be based upon misinterpretations of case evidence.

I think you are wrong. I think she/he is connected to the case in some way like Matt and has been told how the case is likely to go

She/he is going in the ignore box with Adam so she/he can argue with itself