Assessing Jeremy's Campaign Team in 2021/22

[Adam]

What would you have submitted to the CCRC?

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

Looks like David is not going to answer.

He must believe there is not enough new evidence for a successful referral

[lookout]

It's more the quality ( truth ) than the quantity which matters this time.

[Adam]

David promotes the diluted period blood theory. However there is no evidence this happened or is possible. So this cannot be submitted to the CCRC.

He also believes the COA evidence is 'bullshit'. But has no evidence there was an industrial frame. So this cannot be submitted to the CCRC.

[Adam]

It is a similar situation with JackieD's & Rob's theories.

A CCRC submission can't be submitted on the basis that Julie identified the twins or it was dark outside.

These are both correct statements but it just someone's opinion that this makes Bamber innocent. 

The jury in 1986 were also aware of both.

[Adam]

I suspect the 7 points submitted to the CCRC was the best that Bamber's large team could get together over the last 9 years.

They are hopeing 7 points will result in one point being successful. Rather than relying on one piece as in 2012.

David still believes it will be dismissed. QC saying he has expressed his views privately.

Opinions on forums are either not supported by evidence, have already been put before a jury/appeals or is supported by evidence but is just an opinion.

[guest29835]

David promotes the diluted period blood theory. However there is no evidence this happened or is possible. So this cannot be submitted to the CCRC.

He also believes the COA evidence is 'bullshit'. But has no evidence there was an industrial frame. So this cannot be submitted to the CCRC.

Thanks Adam.  I agree that Jeremy needs to sort a prescription out for some stylish industrial-framed glasses for when his case comes up.

Another one for the CT.

[David1819]

Thanks Adam.  I agree that Jeremy needs to sort a prescription out for some stylish industrial-framed glasses for when his case comes up.

Another one for the CT.

[David1819]

What would you have submitted to the CCRC?

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

I would have submitted the research paper :Homicide or Suicide? Gunshot Wound Interpretation: A Bayesian Approach.

My forensic breakthrough.

The NOTW contract proving Julie lied about a pre-trial agreement.

And an argument for Ineffective assistance of counsel.

[Adam]

I would have submitted the research paper :Homicide or Suicide? Gunshot Wound Interpretation: A Bayesian Approach.

My forensic breakthrough.

The NOTW contract proving Julie lied about a pre-trial agreement.

And an argument for Ineffective assistance of counsel.

All of these will be dismissed.

[Adam]

I would have submitted the research paper :Homicide or Suicide? Gunshot Wound Interpretation: A Bayesian Approach.

My forensic breakthrough.

The NOTW contract proving Julie lied about a pre-trial agreement.

And an argument for Ineffective assistance of counsel.

This is not new evidence. It is your own alternative source. Which can be countered by another source.

[Adam]

I would have submitted the research paper :Homicide or Suicide? Gunshot Wound Interpretation: A Bayesian Approach.

My forensic breakthrough.

The NOTW contract proving Julie lied about a pre-trial agreement.

And an argument for Ineffective assistance of counsel.

This was dismissed by the CT in 2016.

[Adam]

I would have submitted the research paper :Homicide or Suicide? Gunshot Wound Interpretation: A Bayesian Approach.

My forensic breakthrough.

The NOTW contract proving Julie lied about a pre-trial agreement.

And an argument for Ineffective assistance of counsel.

No contract has been found by Bamber's lawyers.

[Adam]

I would have submitted the research paper :Homicide or Suicide? Gunshot Wound Interpretation: A Bayesian Approach.

My forensic breakthrough.

The NOTW contract proving Julie lied about a pre-trial agreement.

And an argument for Ineffective assistance of counsel.

This is not new evidence. Just an opinion 35 years later.

[lookout]

Flooding the boards again I notice Adam. We've heard it all before 

[ngb1066]

No contract has been found by Bamber's lawyers.

How do you know?