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

[lookout]

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.

Oh I'm well aware that she/ he is hoping JB will fall at the first fence, as will anyone who, as you say, weren't conversant with how JB had been let down by his defence team at trial through lack of evidence which was being withheld.
The sooner people realise the cruel and callous workings of the police at that time, the better. 

[guest29835]

I thought the original inquest was adjourned pending on going police investigations at the time. I believe it was said to be looking strongly as a case of murder suicide but investigations were on going. Clearly after JB's conviction the inquest verdict would be a forgone conclusion. I do not believe there was ever an inquest verdict before JB was charged

Yes, this may be correct. It doesn't change my posts above, but my source about the inquest may be wrong as it is more usual for the coroner to adjourn the inquest in these circumstances.

[Bubo bubo]

No, I think the murder case complicated things greatly.  Remember that there was already a coroner's verdict of suicide, so you had a contradictory situation and a lot of uncertainty.

Another example of your tendency to sweeping statements not supported by evidence or the facts. I see you have corrected this thanks. I trust members will take these issues into account when deciding the veracity of your posts.

[guest29835]

Another example of your tendency to sweeping statements not supported by evidence or the facts. I see you have corrected this thanks. I trust members will take these issues into account when deciding the veracity of your posts.

My posts are accurate about the law.  Whether there was a coroner's verdict or not, what I said in response to Lookout stands and remains unchanged.  If you disagree, then tell me where I am actually wrong on the important points.

I see you have now started goading me too.  Why?  It's enough just to say to me: 'Oh, I think you may have got that fact wrong'.  I'm happy to correct it.  It's a discussion, not an ego-struggle.

[guest29835]

A question for QC.

If it had been initially proven that Sheila had committed suicide, would there have been any legal implications because she'd originally have been a beneficiary of her parent's Will ?Such as immediate or delayed access to what would have been her funds if the parents had died before her ?

This was Lookout's original question.  My answer was that if it was accepted that Sheila had committed suicide, then that in itself makes no difference to the length of time probate takes.

It may be that the coroner adjourned the case for further investigations, but that's a separate issue.  It doesn't change the answer to the question Lookout asked me.

The police told the coroner that it was four murders and a suicide and the bodies were released.  I'm not sure why the inquest was adjourned, but I think this is fairly standard procedure and is just to allow the police to formally conclude an investigation.

[killingeve]

How long until the outcome is known?

Review commission aims to complete a minimum of 85% of cases within 12 months of receiving the application. 

https://ccrc.gov.uk/facts-figures/

How long did it take in 2001/02 when referred to appeal court?

How long did it take in 2011/12 when non-referred?

I would say the longer it takes the less chance of a referral.  If there was a slam dunk/blockbuster piece of evidence it could be referred expeditiously.  If there isn't such evidence the review commission is obliged to produce a belt and braces statement of reason why it is not being referred. 

[Roch]

Well one thing's for sure. Nobody's waiting on tenterhooks. It is what it is. A rejection to me will make no odds, other than perhaps make me slightly annoyed that one or two things were so ambiguous regarding interpretation, that they shouldn't have been included. 

[killingeve]

Well one thing's for sure. Nobody's waiting on tenterhooks. It is what it is. A rejection to me will make no odds, other than perhaps make me slightly annoyed that one or two things were so ambiguous regarding interpretation, that they shouldn't have been included.

Agreed nobody here is waiting on teneterhooks but I rather think JB, his support group and prosecution witnesses are. 

Even when the review commission reaches the inevitable I doubt Bamber will release the full statement.  Who has seen the full statement from 2011/12?

[lookout]

I also imagine that the relatives will be awaiting with bated breath too !

[killingeve]

I also imagine that the relatives will be awaiting with bated breath too !

Relatives are proseuction witnesses!

[David1819]

Agreed nobody here is waiting on teneterhooks but I rather think JB, his support group and prosecution witnesses are. 

Even when the review commission reaches the inevitable I doubt Bamber will release the full statement.  Who has seen the full statement from 2011/12?

NGB1066 has a copy of it.

[JackieD]

Relatives are proseuction witnesses!

Same crap, same old, same boring people. We have all been here before with the troll Matt. You are embarrassing yourself with every post

[lookout]

Relatives are proseuction witnesses!

So ?

[lookout]

So ?

All the more reason for their " interest ", shall we say.

[killingeve]

So ?

So why mention the relatives when I had already said they were an interested party by referring to them as prosecution witnesses?