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

[killingeve]

If the female contributor to the podcast reads this forum question for you please?

At the end you say something about wanting to garner public support and letting the whole world know about what you consider to be Bamber's wrongful conviction.  Throughout the podcast you also talk extensively about non-disclosure in terms of Bamber struggling to obtain full disclosure of case related documents from the authorities.  Therefore can you please tell me why the public should support Bamber when you seem to be picking and choosing what we have access to? 

Maybe you could look to upload the document to the website you run on Bamber's behalf?  If you want full disclosure, transparency and accuse many of lying (they feature in 'Liars Lobby') I really think you should look to discslose this document?  If you're unable to then perhaps you could explain why?

Thank you.

[killingeve]

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

Sorry I must have missed the point correct about what?

[killingeve]

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.

Thanks.  Can I ask do you believe Bamber factually innocent?

[Roch]

Sorry I must have missed the point correct about what?

Reply 92, I was agreeing with his views on the document you refer to.

[David1819]

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.

If the list of grounds on the CTs website is all there is to it, then a referral will be denied and rightly so. 

NGB has said in the past the CCRC watch this forum. Ironically I could be doing there job for them. They already have all the rebuttals they need in my own posts. 

[killingeve]

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.

Are you able to summarise the reasons why it was not referred?  Or maybe it would be better to ask Bamber's support group for full disclosure?

[Roch]

If the female contributor to the podcast reads this forum question for you please?

At the end you say something about wanting to garner public support and letting the whole world know about what you consider to be Bamber's wrongful conviction.  Throughout the podcast you also talk extensively about non-disclosure in terms of Bamber struggling to obtain full disclosure of case related documents from the authorities.  Therefore can you please tell me why the public should support Bamber when you seem to be picking and choosing what we have access to? 

Maybe you could look to upload the document to the website you run on Bamber's behalf?  If you want full disclosure, transparency and accuse many of lying (they feature in 'Liars Lobby') I really think you should look to discslose this document?  If you're unable to then perhaps you could explain why?

Thank you.

They're not asking specifically for public disclosure though are they? More like disclosure to the defence, which is what the ex Essex detective was campaigning for.

[lookout]

As long as Ainsley's still breathing he'll make sure that the case won't go anywhere.

[killingeve]

Reply 92, I was agreeing with his views on the document you refer to.

Ok.  I think our wires are crossed.  I interpreted the post as NGB1066 having posted previously that he is a barrister and seen the document. 

I then asked you why the support group have not disclosed the document.  As far as I can see NGB1066 has not given a reason for non-disclsoure. 

[killingeve]

As long as Ainsley's still breathing he'll make sure that the case won't go anywhere.

I must say his breathing seemed rather laboured in the doc and he looked to be carrying some excess weight around his middle which probably isn't ideal given his age.  The prosecutor looked painfully frail.   

Anyway it has nothing to do with Ainsley.  He is no more influential at this stage than we are here. 

[lookout]

I must say his breathing seemed rather laboured in the doc and he looked to be carrying some excess weight around his middle which probably isn't ideal given his age.  The prosecutor looked painfully frail.   

Anyway it has nothing to do with Ainsley.  He is no more influential at this stage than we are here.

Oh I think he has more clout than us morsels here, frail or not.

[killingeve]

They're not asking specifically for public disclosure though are they? More like disclosure to the defence, which is what the ex Essex detective was campaigning for.

That may be so but if you listen to the podcast at the end the female wants everyone on board and said we can ask anything and all will be revealed but we know this is not true as they are not releasing the statment of reasons from 2011/12?  How do you know you're not being hoodwinked? 

[killingeve]

Oh I think he has more clout than us morsels here, frail or not.

I didn't say he was frail. 

What evidence do you have that a long retired police officer is capable of influencing the review commission and/or appeal courts?

[ngb1066]

Are you able to summarise the reasons why it was not referred?  Or maybe it would be better to ask Bamber's support group for full disclosure?

The CCRC Statement of Reasons is a very lengthy document and it would take a bit of time for me to summarise it here now.  If you search posts here from 2012 you will find a lot written about it and about the subsequent Judicial Review application.

[lookout]

I didn't say he was frail. 

What evidence do you have that a long retired police officer is capable of influencing the review commission and/or appeal courts?

It was something that Paul Terzeon had once said when he was acting as JB's defence, in that Terzeon had blamed Ainsley for the withholding of evidence at trial.