Assessing Jeremy's Campaign Team in 2021/22

[guest29835]

Looking at it objectively (putting aside personal views/allegiances concerning the case itself), how would people here assess the effectiveness of the Walker/Hartley-led campaign?  What are the good points and bad points?  I offer some thoughts below.  I am mindful that it is easy to be an armchair critic of people who put their heads above the parapet, so nothing I say here should be taken as any sort of harsh criticism.

For me, the good points are:

1. A legal team has been found and a new CCRC application has been submitted.

2. They claim that the new legal team has built a viable case for appeal.  We will have to see what the CCRC make of it, but on the face of it they have some interesting points.

3. They have established an effective social media presence and a following.

4. They are building a team of activists, and also Adam is on board offering moral support to sceptics like me (just joking).

5. As far as I can tell, they are reasonably sensitive and dignified in the way they present the case.  To my knowledge, there have been no complaints from the family or tabloid newspapers.

6. They do have good judgement about the media.  They avoided involvement in the Sky Crime documentary.

7. They are in constant touch with Jeremy.  I understand they speak to him daily.

8. A lot of work is being put into the podcasts and the 'string and tin can' approach does have its appeal.  When a podcast is good, it is really good.

Some bad points:

9. They appear not to have Mark Williams-Thomas on board.

10. They have not been able to break into the mainstream, despite a prominent and popular TV dramatisation of the case on ITV and the recent Sky Crime documentary.  The best in-road they have been able to make is a weekly slot on a local radio station, plus support from alt-media types including Matthew Steeples and Shaun Attwood on YouTube.  The pro-guilt side still dominate the 'air war'. 

11. They have nobody high-profile and well-connected in support of them, such as a major celebrity or sporting figure or Member of Parliament.  Peter Tatchell is not well-connected in that sense and he does not even state Jeremy is innocent.

12. They come across as guileless when it comes to campaigning.  In the video of the demonstration at Essex Police HQ, they appear to just stand there like statues.  I still think the day was a success and the speeches were good, but at the same time just standing there doesn't really amount to much and I couldn't understand what Peter Tatchell was doing when he insisted that a fairly junior officer act as his postman.  They could have added a bit of drama to it, maybe produced a video of one of them 'pursuing' a senior officer, maybe the Chief Constable, outside the HQ or at another public meeting, asking him to accept the letter and offer a comment for the camera.

13. They have not taken the case forward forensically, which I think is really what is needed.  Instead, they are relying mostly on appeal points from the Lomax era.  I don't believe the appeal points put across by the campaign in social media reflect any deep or original research of the case.

14. The podcasts are of mixed quality.  The use of an automated computer voice is baffling to me.

15. The second season of podcasts seems to include other alleged miscarriages of justice, which is strange, but to be fair, it may be down to a wish to develop links and good will with other campaigners.

[killingeve]

Looking at it objectively (putting aside personal views/allegiances concerning the case itself), how would people here assess the effectiveness of the Walker/Hartley-led campaign?  What are the good points and bad points?  I offer some thoughts below.  I am mindful that it is easy to be an armchair critic of people who put their heads above the parapet, so nothing I say here should be taken as any sort of harsh criticism.

For me, the good points are:

1. A legal team has been found and a new CCRC application has been submitted.

Meaningless unless it is referred to appeal court.

2. They claim that the new legal team have built a viable case for appeal.  We will have to see what the CCRC make of it, but on the face of it they have some interesting points.

Meaningless unless referred to the appeal court.

3. They have established an effective social media presence and a following.

By what measurement is the social media presence effective?

4. They are building a team of activists, and also Adam is on board offering moral support to sceptics like me (just joking).

Who?  If such a team exists in what way are they effective and by what measurement?

5. As far as I can tell, they are reasonably sensitive and dignified in the way they present the case.  To my knowledge, there have been no complaints from the family or tabloid newspapers.

You are obviously overlooking the ridiculous campaigns involving a 'bake-off' and 'graveside reading'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-33521825

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3472521/Mass-murder-Jeremy-Bamber-sends-supporter-read-bizarre-rant-grave-parents-killed-blaming-sister-murdered-mass-killing.html



6. They do have good judgement about the media.  They avoided involvement in the Sky Crime documentary.

Wrong as usual.  See above.  They declined to get involved with the Sky Crime doc to avoid having their theories debunked.

7. They are in constant touch with Jeremy.  I understand they speak to him daily.

Which would suggest an unhealthy closeness.

8. A lot of work is being put into the podcasts and the 'string and tin can' approach does have its appeal.  When a podcast is good, it is really good.

I listened to the Barbara D'Ath one which was totally irrelevant.  A woman who claims to have holidayed on the caravan site and thought Jeremy was nice! What about all the tens of thousands of others?

Some bad points:

9. They appear not to have Mark Williams-Thomas on board.
In what way do you think he could assist Bamber at this stage?

10. They have not been able to break into the mainstream, despite a prominent and popular TV dramatisation of the case on ITV and the recent Sky Crime documentary.  The best in-road they have been able to make is a weekly slot on a local radio station, plus support from alt-media types including Matthew Steeples and Shaun Attwood on YouTube.  The pro-guilt side still dominate the 'air war'.

Who is going to support a family annihalator without compelling evidence of a wrongful conviction?

11. They have nobody high-profile and well-connected in support of them, such as a major celebrity or sporting figure or Member of Parliament.  Peter Tatchell is not well-connected in that sense and he does not even state Jeremy is innocent.

Who is going to support a family annihalator without compelling evidence of a wrongful conviction?

12. They come across as guileless when it comes to campaigning.  In the video of the demonstration at Essex Police HQ, they appear to just stand there like statues.  I still think the day was a success and the speeches were good, but at the same time just standing there doesn't really amount to much and I couldn't understand what Peter Tatchell was doing when he insisted that a fairly junior officer act as his postman.  They could have added a bit of drama to it, maybe produced a video of one of them 'pursuing' a senior officer, maybe the Chief Constable, outside the HQ or at another public meeting, asking him to accept the letter and offer a comment for the camera.

More than enough drama with the bake-off and graveside reading.  Did even the most junior reporter turn up from the local rag?

13. They have not taken the case forward forensically, which I think is really what is needed.  Instead, they are relying mostly on appeal points from the Lomax era.  I don't believe the appeal points put across by the campaign in social media reflect any deep or original research of the case.

A constant rehash of theories debunked years ago.

14. The podcasts are of mixed quality.  The use of an automated computer voice is baffling to me.

I must have been unlucky then because the few I've listened to are either totally irrelevant or utterly useless.

15. The second season of podcasts seems to include other alleged miscarriages of justice, which is strange, but to be fair, it may be down to a wish to develop links and good will with other campaigners.

As above.

[guest29835]

You are obviously overlooking the ridiculous campaigns involving a 'bake-off' and 'graveside reading'

No, I am obviously not overlooking that.  As stated in the opening post, I am talking about the Walker/Hartley campaign, which is after Trudi and Pat Benjamin.

[lookout]

Because Peter Tatchell is accustomed to public speaking he is the right man to engage with whatever his personal views on the case are as it would be no use if he was biased toward guilt or innocence.
 He's got a good speaking voice and can put things in a more " professional " way than either Yvonne or Philip who haven't had the experience that PT's had.

I don't blame them for declining any documentary. Anyone with a brain would avoid them like the plague !

I think the present team have done well and are more in-tune with the case since Trudi seemed to have been losing interest in many ways.

[JackieD]

Your right QC MWT was the right person to promote this case but the campaign team severely criticised him.
He has so many contacts also in America which would have been great regarding gun issues.

He was quite desperate to make a series

He was severely criticised for being too impartial in his documentary

[guest29835]

Your right QC was the right person to promote this case but the campaign team severely criticised him.
He has so many contacts also in America which would have been great regarding gun issues.

He was quite desperate to make a series

He was severely criticised for being too impartial in his documentary

Yes, if you mean Mark Williams-Thomas, I would have grabbed him with both hands and put him in front of a camera.  I thought the ITV documentary was excellent, but the 1980s Granada documentaries on the Birmingham Six are the model.  They came from the angle of assuming innocence or reasonable doubt and arguing from there, and a high-quality documentary along those lines is needed, with good narration and new forensic evidence.

If the concern is about egos, Jeremy could keep control of the Campaign Team separate, with MWT free to make a documentary or series and obtain expert evidence. 

Have the CT spoken with Joe Karam, do you know?  I would seek him out for advice and read his books.  He was successful, and it's wise to study and consider what successful people in the same field have done.

[Adam]

Yes, if you mean Mark Williams-Thomas, I would have grabbed him with both hands and put him in front of a camera.  I thought the ITV documentary was excellent, but the 1980s Granada documentaries on the Birmingham Six are the model.  They came from the angle of assuming innocence or reasonable doubt and arguing from there, and a high-quality documentary along those lines is needed, with good narration and new forensic evidence.

If the concern is about egos, Jeremy could keep control of the Campaign Team separate, with MWT free to make a documentary or series and obtain expert evidence. 

Have the CT spoken with Joe Karam, do you know?  I would seek him out for advice and read his books.  He was successful, and it's wise to study and consider what successful people in the same field have done.

Quite right to. There has only been about 9 documentaries already.

[killingeve]

No, I am obviously not overlooking that.  As stated in the opening post, I am talking about the Walker/Hartley campaign, which is after Trudi and Pat Benjamin.

Oh but you are!  I can assure you 100% at least one current member at the heart of the support group fully endorsed the 'graveside reading'. 

[killingeve]

Yes, if you mean Mark Williams-Thomas, I would have grabbed him with both hands and put him in front of a camera.  I thought the ITV documentary was excellent, but the 1980s Granada documentaries on the Birmingham Six are the model.  They came from the angle of assuming innocence or reasonable doubt and arguing from there, and a high-quality documentary along those lines is needed, with good narration and new forensic evidence.

If the concern is about egos, Jeremy could keep control of the Campaign Team separate, with MWT free to make a documentary or series and obtain expert evidence. 

Have the CT spoken with Joe Karam, do you know?  I would seek him out for advice and read his books.  He was successful, and it's wise to study and consider what successful people in the same field have done.

What did you think was "excellent" about the ITV documentary aired nearly 10 years ago and how has it advanced Bamber's case?

If doc makers want to angle on innocence or reasonable doubt they need something to work with! 

You talk about new forensic evidence as though it is readily available for purchase like a Christmas tree!

MWT might be free to make a doc but firstly he needs to convince prog makers its a viable proposition and then he needs the expert evidence!  Even if funds are forthcoming where is the evidence coming from?

Why would Joe Karam want to get involved with another case? 

I believe Bamber has at times been in the same jail as the Guildford Four and others.  However despite some of the members taking up miscarriages of justice none have got involved with Bamber.

[lookout]

On the contrary, it was probably JB who didn't get involved with others who've shared the same jail !
The only one that he was involved with to my mind was the late Susan May as they helped one another with their cases of being blamed for something neither were apart of. JB was cut-up when the poor woman died.

[killingeve]

On the contrary, it was probably JB who didn't get involved with others who've shared the same jail !
The only one that he was involved with to my mind was the late Susan May as they helped one another with their cases of being blamed for something neither were apart of. JB was cut-up when the poor woman died.

You're forgetting Michael O'Brien. 

The likes of Paul Hall are well connected (quite good looking too imo).  There's also Paddy Hill who runs some sort of miscarriage of justice organisation in Scotland. 

I can see no reason Bamber would not want to get involved with some of these people.  More likely they don't want to get involved with him!

[lookout]

There's also Eric Allison who has and still continues to help JB where he can. Influential.

[guest29835]

What did you think was "excellent" about the ITV documentary aired nearly 10 years ago and how has it advanced Bamber's case?

If doc makers want to angle on innocence or reasonable doubt they need something to work with! 

You talk about new forensic evidence as though it is readily available for purchase like a Christmas tree!

MWT might be free to make a doc but firstly he needs to convince prog makers its a viable proposition and then he needs the expert evidence!  Even if funds are forthcoming where is the evidence coming from?

Why would Joe Karam want to get involved with another case? 

I believe Bamber has at times been in the same jail as the Guildford Four and others.  However despite some of the members taking up miscarriages of justice none have got involved with Bamber.

What is the purpose of this post?  It's like being berated by a schoolmistress.

I didn't say new forensic evidence is easy to come by.

[David1819]

For me, the good points are:

1. A legal team has been found and a new CCRC application has been submitted.

2. They claim that the new legal team have built a viable case for appeal.  We will have to see what the CCRC make of it, but on the face of it they have some interesting points.

These two are not good points as the CCRC application has little to no valid points and the lawyer who signed it off should have done his due diligence.

[Adam]

These two are not good points as the CCRC application has little to no valid points and the lawyer who signed it off should have done his due diligence.

What would you have submitted to the CCRC?

Or do you think there is currently not enough for a submission?