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

[Roch]

Wrong as usual.  Just more flooding the board with misinformation.  Joe Stone QC was instructed by Bamber to launch a court challenge over CPS withholding evidence (Dec '19).  He failed

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8392497/High-Court-rejects-Jeremy-Bamber-bid-release-evidence-claims-clear-murder.html

Why would the CPS spend tens of thousands of pounds of tax payers money (or more?) to prevent some photographs of a sound moderator and related documents being released to the defence?

Does it not make more sense to say 'here are the photographs and documents you asked for'?  Then the tax payers money could have been saved.

[killingeve]

If right, 2 years is a long time.

Given the mountain of docs I guess its about right.  The commission has no choice other than to do a belt and braces  job in debunking Bamber's claims. 

I say Bamber's claims but it is difficult to know who's in the driving seat - Bamber or the support group. 

[David1819]

Why would the CPS spend tens of thousands of pounds of tax payers money (or more?) to prevent some photographs of a sound moderator and related documents being released to the defence?

Does it not make more sense to say 'here are the photographs and documents you asked for'?  Then the tax payers money could have been saved.

Who said they did?

[Roch]

Who said they did?

I doubt the legal team for the CPS worked pro bono. You have to look at how long this wrangled on. The CPS first expressed that they would disclose documents etc. Then with a change of personnel, they reneged on that and decided to fight it. Why?

Why not just hand them over?

[killingeve]

Why would the CPS spend tens of thousands of pounds of tax payers money (or more?) to prevent some photographs of a sound moderator and related documents being released to the defence?

Does it not make more sense to say 'here are the photographs and documents you asked for'?  Then the tax payers money could have been saved.

How do we know what the material is/relates to?  In any event as the learned judge said -

But Mr Justice Knowles added: 'I am not on the material I have seen readily able to accept the premise that the existence of a second sound moderator is capable of affecting the safety of the claimant's convictions in any meaningful way.

[killingeve]

I doubt the legal team for the CPS worked pro bono. You have to look at how long this wrangled on. The CPS first expressed that they would disclose documents etc. Then with a change of personnel, they reneged on that and decided to fight it. Why?

Why not just hand them over?

You appear to be assuming that there is something that could assist Bamber in the material when it might be something completely irrelevant. 

[Roch]

You appear to be assuming that there is something that could assist Bamber in the material when it might be something completely irrelevant.

You appear to be assuming that highly intelligent people would rather spend tens of thousands of pounds (if not more) than simply release a bunch of irrelevant documents of no use to the defence.

[killingeve]

You appear to be assuming that highly intelligent people would rather spend tens of thousands of pounds (if not more) than simply release a bunch of irrelevant documents of no use to the defence.

The fact that the documents are irrelevant to the defence does not mean they should be in the public domain. 

[Roch]

The fact that the documents are irrelevant to the defence does not mean they should be in the public domain.

I'm sure that the public will sleep easier now, in the knowledge that photographs of silencers and relevant accompanying documents have been kept out of their domain. I expect the public are relieved at the 'no expense spared' approach provided by the authorities, to ensure their domain remains free of such evidence. 

[killingeve]

I'm sure that the public will sleep easier now, in the knowledge that photographs of silencers and relevant accompanying documents have been kept out of their domain. I expect the public are relieved at the 'no expense spared' approach provided by the authorities, to ensure their domain remains free of such evidence.

You have no idea what's in the material.  The public are not as daft as you sound they will appreciate in a case of this magnitude a lot of personal information, irrelevant to the case, might have been obtained.

I think I am right in stating that the defence employed 2 private detectives to look into Sheila's background? 

[Roch]

You have no idea what's in the material.  The public are not as daft as you sound they will appreciate in a case of this magnitude a lot of personal information, irrelevant to the case, might have been obtained.

I think I am right in stating that the defence employed 2 private detectives to look into Sheila's background?

The material requested were photographs and documents relating to silencers, as you well know. Please don't deflect. I think my taxes could have been spent better elsewhere. Also, it wasn't requested for release to the public. It was requested for disclosure to the defence.

[lookout]

If anyone's going to block this submission it'll be the CPS because of the of information they're hanging on to.

[killingeve]

The material requested were photographs and documents relating to silencers, as you well know. Please don't deflect. I think my taxes could have been spent better elsewhere. Also, it wasn't requested for release to the public. It was requested for disclosure to the defence.

You seem to know more than Bamber's lawyer representing him in this matter:

Joe Stone QC, representing Bamber, told a remote High Court hearing last week that 'it now seems almost certain that there is a second sound moderator' - evidence he suggested could 'significantly undermine the prosecution case'.

[Roch]

You seem to know more than Bamber's lawyer representing him in this matter:

Joe Stone QC, representing Bamber, told a remote High Court hearing last week that 'it now seems almost certain that there is a second sound moderator' - evidence he suggested could 'significantly undermine the prosecution case'.

Your reply doesn't make sense in the context of my post.

[killingeve]

Your reply doesn't make sense in the context of my post.

It might not to you but it does to me!

You are claiming there's knowledge of a second silencer whereas the lawyer is more circumspect 'it now seems almost certain'...

Most here seem to hold NGB1066 in high esteem and he has recently confirmed 5 silencers are connected to the case. 

The judge in the recent disclosure case

But Mr Justice Knowles added: 'I am not on the material I have seen readily able to accept the premise that the existence of a second sound moderator is capable of affecting the safety of the claimant's convictions in any meaningful way.