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

[killingeve]

NGB1066 has a copy of it.

This is the forum moderator?  How do you know he/she has a copy?

[killingeve]

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

I think others can judge for themselves who's am embarrasment around here?

Do you actually make any case related posts or do you just bandy about names no one seems remotely interested in intermingled with the word troll?

[ngb1066]

This is the forum moderator?  How do you know he/she has a copy?

I have posted that information in the past.  Personally I would see no reason for the CT not to publish it, but they have decided not to.  It is not a document which is made public by the CCRC.

[David1819]

This is the forum moderator?  How do you know he/she has a copy?

He was doing pro bono legal work for JB in 2010-2012 and paid for some of the expert evidence put to the CCRC.

[killingeve]

I have posted that information in the past.  Personally I would see no reason for the CT not to publish it, but they have decided not to.  It is not a document which is made public by the CCRC.

Oh I see you thank you for explaining.  I assume you have agreed not to make it public? 

Quite ironic that Bamber and his support group claim non-disclosure is at the heart of his case and yet have decided not to make the document avaialble to the public who they wish to get on side. 

[killingeve]

He was doing pro bono legal work for JB in 2010-2012 and paid for some of the expert evidence put to the CCRC.

I assume he's a solciitor then?  Sorry NGB1066 we are talking about you 

[Steve_uk]

I assume he's a solciitor then?  Sorry NGB1066 we are talking about you 

He's a barrister.

[Roch]

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

I doubt anyone needs to worry much. I suspect the caseworkers understand he is innocent, from some, if not all evidence placed in front of them, and from previous communication. However, as you have pointed out, their hands may be tied, politically - which is why legalese nonsense is used to prevent referral. They can't refer because the crown would be unable to contest the case at its current stage. With masses of non-disclosure still in place (ie 2002), the crown could defend. It can't now. Therefore they have to find a way to refuse.

[killingeve]

He's a barrister.

A very altruistic one by the sounds of things. 

[ngb1066]

I assume he's a solciitor then?  Sorry NGB1066 we are talking about you 

I am a barrister.

[killingeve]

I doubt anyone needs to worry much. I suspect the caseworkers understand he is innocent, from some, if not all evidence placed in front of them, and from previous communication. However, as you have pointed out, their hands may be tied, politically - which is why legalese nonsense is used to prevent referral. They can't refer because the crown would be unable to contest the case at its current stage. With masses of non-disclosure still in place (ie 2002), the crown could defend. It can't now. Therefore they have to find a way to refuse.

Talking of non-disclosure have you any idea why Bamber and his support group are denying the public full access to the 2011/12 Statement of Reason doc when they're attempting to get them on side?

[killingeve]

I am a barrister.

Do you practice the law?  If so can I ask which area(s)?

[Roch]

Talking of non-disclosure have you any idea why Bamber and his support group are denying the public full access to the 2011/12 Statement of Reason doc when they're attempting to get them on side?

No. I don't. I suspect ngb is correct.

[ngb1066]

Do you practice the law?  If so can I ask which area(s)?

I am no longer in practice.  I used to have a mixed practice, part criminal and part civil, with the emphasis more on criminal work.

 

[ngb1066]

Oh I see you thank you for explaining.  I assume you have agreed not to make it public? 

Quite ironic that Bamber and his support group claim non-disclosure is at the heart of his case and yet have decided not to make the document avaialble to the public who they wish to get on side.

I have not specifically given an undertaking to keep this and other material I have confidential, but I would be uneasy about publishing it on the forum because of the circumstances in which I came into possession of the material.  I do think however that no harm would come from publishing the information.