The Official Jeremy Bamber and White House Farm Podcast Series - Season 2

[lookout]

What wasn't mentioned at trial?

Listen to the podcast 

[guest29835]

Talk by Dr. Dennis Eady of Cardiff Law School Innocence Project, followed by Q & A:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxzkdH65B-8

[lookout]

Dennis Eady is saying pretty much what I'd have said knowing how the system works. Once everything is " done by the book " there's no turning back, i.e. investigations of a crime, the jury's final vote etc etc.police involvements ( however crooked, it doesn't matter )
The CCRC is going to be a hard act to follow----when they're already biased toward the original verdict in 1986.

Dennis did say he was a pessimist. He wasn't/ isn't kidding either and listening to him he doesn't hold out much hope for JB where the CCRC is concerned as he'll be lucky to get to the CoA.     Pray hard 

A good honest talk on his behalf though and very interesting from one and all concerned.   

[Roch]

Dennis Eady is saying pretty much what I'd have said knowing how the system works. Once everything is " done by the book " there's no turning back, i.e. investigations of a crime, the jury's final vote etc etc.police involvements ( however crooked, it doesn't matter )
The CCRC is going to be a hard act to follow----when they're already biased toward the original verdict in 1986.

Dennis did say he was a pessimist. He wasn't/ isn't kidding either and listening to him he doesn't hold out much hope for JB where the CCRC is concerned as he'll be lucky to get to the CoA.     Pray hard 

A good honest talk on his behalf though and very interesting from one and all concerned.

He sounds like a man after my own heart, if that's the case. However, I think there is some secrecy surrounding some of the material submitted. He may be basing his opinions from a position of exclusion regarding that material. I hope he is. If he is not, then I am as pessimistic as he is.

[lookout]

He sounds like a man after my own heart, if that's the case. However, I think there is some secrecy surrounding some of the material submitted. He may be basing his opinions from a position of exclusion regarding that material. I hope he is. If he is not, then I am as pessimistic as he is.

Yes, he could be holding back, you wouldn't know, as obviously right now they can't say too much.

[Roch]

Yes, he could be holding back, you wouldn't know, as obviously right now they can't say too much.

I meant, he may not be in the know; and that there may be some strong evidence. There are certainly some claims made in the podcast which they are not going in to any detail about. It's closed shop.

[lookout]

I meant, he may not be in the know; and that there may be some strong evidence. There are certainly some claims made in the podcast which they are not going in to any detail about. It's closed shop.

A " closed shop " about divulging something, you mean ?

[lookout]

Yvonne sounded quite chirpy about the evidence, even mentioning that more had turned up since the submission. They also have the help of an ex-police officer who I wonder could have been part of WHF investigation then threw his hand in ?

[lookout]

To have as much on Ainsley there'd have had to have been a witness as you can't rely on paperwork alone, which is why I think an ex-officer is assisting the team. You can argue against paperwork as Ainsley would do ( editing/ mistakes etc ) but it's that much harder when you have a physical witness who was working alongside. Anyway, a case is building against officers alone so we'll have to wait and see how that pans out------if those concerned are still alive.

Part of why SJ didn't get his longed for promotion, eh ? Jiggery pokery.

[Steve_uk]

Talk by Dr Dennis Eady of Cardiff Law School Innocence Project, followed by Q & A:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxzkdH65B-8

The expression folie à deux springs all too readily to mind, in this case the extension being folie à cinq or folie à six, the assemblage prattling on for an hour and a half when fifteen minutes would have sufficed. They couldn't resist a huge pat on their own backs along the way, and of course the usual sideswipe at Julie "Magda Goebbels" Mugford to make everybody feel better and keep those suffering from a state of catatonia on board.

[guest29835]

The expression folie à deux springs all too readily to mind, in this case the extension being folie à cinq or folie à six, the assemblage prattling on for an hour and a half when fifteen minutes would have sufficed. They couldn't resist a huge pat on their own backs along the way, and of course the usual sideswipe at Julie "Magda Goebbels" Mugford to make everybody feel better and keep those suffering from a state of catatonia on board.

In my opinion, the innocent and guilt camps are mirror images of each other, but I would not conceive of it in terms of madness.

Did somebody on the podcast really use the term "Magda Goebbels" to describe the former Julie Mugford?  If so, that is rather unfair.  Magda Goebbels was a perfectly nice lady.

[Adam]

Yvonne sounded quite chirpy about the evidence, even mentioning that more had turned up since the submission. They also have the help of an ex-police officer who I wonder could have been part of WHF investigation then threw his hand in ?

A bit late. Where do these new pieces 'turn up' from?

[lookout]

A bit late. Where do these new pieces 'turn up' from?

Very likely something that was pieced together from the thousands of documents they already had to hand.
Another piece in the jigsaw which they obviously thought would fit what was already submitted. Other " bits " are holding fire should the whole affair go t*ts-up again.

[Steve_uk]

It's a pity Yvonne Hartley and her ilk cannot work with what documents are already in the public domain. Of course they cannot do so, or choose to hide behind the ostensibly more exciting concealed information because they can't break the alleged telephone call from Nevill to Jeremy or lack thereof, Julie Mugford's evidence in court and the blood in the silencer. Until these three planks of the prosecution case are demolished they can hold as many meetings as they like in whatever locale they choose, spouting their airy-fairy ideas in the process.

[lookout]

It's a pity Yvonne Hartley and her ilk cannot work with what documents are already in the public domain. Of course they cannot do so, or choose to hide behind the ostensibly more exciting concealed information because they can't break the alleged telephone call from Nevill to Jeremy or lack thereof, Julie Mugford's evidence in court and the blood in the silencer. Until these three planks of the prosecution case are demolished they can hold as many meetings as they like in whatever locale they choose, spouting their airy-fairy ideas in the process.

They're doing their best Steve. Shades of the defence with one hand behind their backs when you don't have all in front of you.