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

[lookout]

Well he has handed a lot of material over to someone as its here on this forum so why not the statement of reasons document?

It's probably with his solicitor.

[ngb1066]

Well he has handed a lot of material over to someone as its here on this forum so why not the statement of reasons document?

Almost all of the case related case material posted here is material held by Mike Tesko.  He obtained that material when he was assisting Jeremy Bamber as his Mackenzie adviser.  A lot was passed to Mike by Jeremy Bamber's previous solicitors when their involvement in the case had finished and the time limit for archiving case papers had passed.  It is not correct therefore to suggest that Jeremy Bamber has provided the material posted here.  Mike does not have the 2012 CCRC Statement of Reasons, which is why he has not posted them.  The fact that the Campaign Team have decided not to publish the document is not sinister.  It is simply a policy decision they have taken.  I may not agree with the decision but it is in no way a reflection of any weakness in the defence case or lack of confidence in it.



 

[JackieD]

And how do you feel about Bamber withholding a 100 page document from the review commission detailing why it rejected Bamber's 2011/12 submission.

Even if, and its a big IFBamber's conviction is overturned I doubt there will be any repercussions for Julie Mugford.

I doubt ??  Your a nobody!  So you don’t know anything. Stick to the facts not supposition

[JackieD]

It proves Bamber's guilt beyond a shadow of doubt!!!!!!!!!!

Jokes. Pathetic. Embarrassing

[JackieD]

And how do you feel about Bamber withholding a 100 page document from the review commission detailing why it rejected Bamber's 2011/12 submission.

Even if, and its a big IFBamber's conviction is overturned I doubt there will be any repercussions for Julie Mugford.

I know you have a problem processing information but if Julies Mugfords notes evidence etc was all released in the public domain we would not need statements of reasons. So give it a rest or fight for the really important information to be released

[lookout]

Why so desperate I wonder ?

[Roch]

It proves Bamber's guilt beyond a shadow of doubt!!!!!!!!!!

If that was the case, everybody would agree with you.

[killingeve]

It's probably with his solicitor.

I am sure a number of people have copies eg past and present lawyers, Bamber, support group etc.

[killingeve]

Almost all of the case related case material posted here is material held by Mike Tesko.  He obtained that material when he was assisting Jeremy Bamber as his Mackenzie adviser.  A lot was passed to Mike by Jeremy Bamber's previous solicitors when their involvement in the case had finished and the time limit for archiving case papers had passed.  It is not correct therefore to suggest that Jeremy Bamber has provided the material posted here.  Mike does not have the 2012 CCRC Statement of Reasons, which is why he has not posted them.  The fact that the Campaign Team have decided not to publish the document is not sinister.  It is simply a policy decision they have taken.  I may not agree with the decision but it is in no way a reflection of any weakness in the defence case or lack of confidence in it.

I accept what you're saying but I would be interested in getting a handle on the review commissions thinking about the case.  After all 100 pages is a lot of thinking!

Given Bamber and his support group claim non-disclosure is at the heart of his case I am surprised they do not wish to be seen as anything less than totally transparent. 

[killingeve]

I doubt ??  Your a nobody!  So you don’t know anything. Stick to the facts not supposition

Is that a nobody troll or just a nobody?!

Anyway on a serious note perhaps NGB1066 could give his opinion on whether in the event Bamber's conviction is overturned Julie Mugford would face prosecution?

[killingeve]

Jokes. Pathetic. Embarrassing

It isn't!  If you care to read the 2002 appeal hearing the learned judges concluded at point 513

We should perhaps add in fairness to the jury that the deeper we have delved into the available evidence the more likely it has seemed to us that the jury were right, but our views do not matter in this regard, it is the views of the jury that are paramount.

[killingeve]

I know you have a problem processing information but if Julies Mugfords notes evidence etc was all released in the public domain we would not need statements of reasons. So give it a rest or fight for the really important information to be released

I do have a problem processing information that Bamber is withholding, yes!

How do you know

a) Non-disclosed information exists?
b) if such information exists it would assist Bamber?

Perhpas NGB1066 could give his opinion on the above.

[Roch]

It isn't!  If you care to read the 2002 appeal hearing the learned judges concluded at point 513

We should perhaps add in fairness to the jury that the deeper we have delved into the available evidence the more likely it has seemed to us that the jury were right, but our views do not matter in this regard, it is the views of the jury that are paramount.

The jury were not told that the blood grouping in the sound moderator was a match for one of the major prosecution witnesses. They were not told that Miller had informed the same witness that sophisticated equipment had not detected any tampering with the windows at WHF. They were not told that peer reviewed ballistics and burns' experts reports were of the opinion a sound moderator wasn't used. The reports have not been contested by any other scientists and obviously would have brought in to play the question of deliberate contamination (if JB had used a defence barrister instead of Rivlin). They were not told that JM was arrested as opposed to having come forward. They were not told how many coaching sessions she had, or who paid her subsistence while she was at police college or that her deal with NOTW was pre-trial. Etc etc etc etc etc ,(ie prob tip of the iceberg, regarding what the jury were not told).

[JackieD]

Is that a nobody troll or just a nobody?!

Anyway on a serious note perhaps NGB1066 could give his opinion on whether in the event Bamber's conviction is overturned Julie Mugford would face prosecution?

 Now you are wasting time. Clearly that would depend on how and why Jeremys conviction is overturned!!!!!!!!
 If you can grasp that

[JackieD]

It isn't!  If you care to read the 2002 appeal hearing the learned judges concluded at point 513

We should perhaps add in fairness to the jury that the deeper we have delved into the available evidence the more likely it has seemed to us that the jury were right, but our views do not matter in this regard, it is the views of the jury that are paramount.

If you are telling the ‘truth’ and have read up about the case you would clearly know how much evidence was witheld from the jury. Just one piece of evidence that would have made a difference to the jury was the NOTW deal
So your post is pointless