The Last Christmas

[JackieD]

Interesting. It's worth noting that the most recent generic response from Essex Police, was elaborated upon and I have no doubt that this elaboration was designed to capitalise upon the recent media interest, drama and MindHouse Productions.

All of that, was a last ditch all-out attempt, to sell Jeremy Bamber as the greedy, mass murderer, with the police fulfilling their usual clichéd role, as bumbling along until Stan Jones and the relatives forced to though their own 'correct' narrative and won the day.

This presentation is to gel in the minds of the public a set view of the case, so that a rejection of submissions is made to be less controversial - because there is relatively no sizeable public opinion to bay for a referral. If Priti Patel can set the mood music and the public think that Bamber is guilty, that is the last bastion of hope for those with vested interests, some of whom knew that material had been released to Bamber's defence which could undermine the case.

We can only hope that the CCRC somehow baulk at this clichéd presentation of the case, avoid taking the route of rejection and drop a bombshell in the middle of the lot of them.

So are you questioning QC?  It is quite a statement he has made. As far as I can see he hasn’t misled us so far.  Ever hopeful that this case makes history and mistakes like this never happen again

[guest29835]

So are you questioning QC?  It is quite a statement he has made. As far as I can see he hasn’t misled us so far.  Ever hopeful that this case makes history and mistakes like this never happen again

What I am telling you is based on what I have been told and shown, and represents my interpretation of such.  The person I refer to is not within the CCRC, and for all I and he/she knows, Jeremy's application could be rejected today, or next week or next month.  That's the best I can do. 

There are certain details I cannot provide now as it would compromise my source, but I may elaborate in the coming months, depending on what happens.

What I will say is that there are supporters of Jeremy's, including some who have seen what I have seen, who are going round saying he will definitely be released next year and they express wonderment that the CCRC has not already referred his case to the Court of Appeal, such is the strength of the evidence - as they see it.  I think those supporters are foolish.  As I stated at the outset of this thread, I expect that this will not be Jeremy's last Christmas in prison.  (Of course, I could be the one who is wrong).

Conversely, I think those on the guilt side who dismiss the possibility of a referral may come out looking foolish.  There are signs I have seen and heard that there are people within the CCRC who are keen to make a second referral to the Court of Appeal in this case, but that does not mean a referral will happen.  Furthermore, it's worth re-emphasising that even if a referral happens, that does not mean the convictions will be overturned.  The sneers of the guilt camp may be vindicated, if not at this stage, then ultimately.

Unfortunately, this is one of those cases where, in all respects and on most points, I cannot help but sound like a Liberal Democrat trying to explain what he thinks.  It's just the way it is.

[Adam]

What I am telling you is based on what I have been told and shown, and represents my interpretation of such.  The person I refer to is not within the CCRC, and for all I and he/she knows, Jeremy's application could be rejected today, or next week or next month.  That's the best I can do. 

There are certain details I cannot provide now as it would compromise my source, but I may elaborate in the coming months, depending on what happens.

What I will say is that there are supporters of Jeremy's, including some who have seen what I have seen, who are going round saying he will definitely be released next year and they express wonderment that the CCRC has not already referred his case to the Court of Appeal, such is the strength of the evidence - as they see it.  I think those supporters are foolish.  As I stated at the outset of this thread, I expect that this will not be Jeremy's last Christmas in prison.  (Of course, I could be the one who is wrong).

Conversely, I think those on the guilt side who dismiss the possibility of a referral may come out looking foolish.  There are signs I have seen and heard that there are people within the CCRC who are keen to make a second referral to the Court of Appeal in this case, but that does not mean a referral will happen.  Furthermore, it's worth re-emphasising that even if a referral happens, that does not mean the convictions will be overturned.  The sneers of the guilt camp may be vindicated, if not at this stage, then ultimately.

Unfortunately, this is one of those cases where, in all respects and on most points, I cannot help but sound like a Liberal Democrat trying to explain what he thinks.  It's just the way it is.

What have you & others seen?

You can give this information out without compromising your source.

Please don't say you can't say. It's a discussion forum, not a cabinet meeting. The case is already with the CCRC.

[lookout]

What have you & others seen?

You can give this information out without compromising your source.

Please don't say you can't say. It's a discussion forum, not a cabinet meeting. The case is already with the CCRC.

You'd be the last person that anyone with any sense would divulge anything to !

[guest29835]

What have you & others seen?

You can give this information out without compromising your source.

Please don't say you can't say. It's a discussion forum, not a cabinet meeting. The case is already with the CCRC.

I can't do it.  I have thought it over already.  I will try to reveal more as events develop.  Based on what I have seen and heard, it does appear to me that the CCRC will not make a decision in 2022.  There's a long wait yet.

[Adam]

You'd be the last person that anyone with any sense would divulge anything to !

It's a forum. There has been enough hush hush info supporters have.

David's forensic evidence breakthrough.

Mike's photos.

Roch saying he has seen evidence which shows Jeremy is definatly innocent.

Lookout with her daily unsourced claims.


Hopefully QC will be not be like the rest. Otherwise best not say anything.

[Adam]

I can't do it.  I have thought it over already.  I will try to reveal more as events develop.  Based on what I have seen and heard, it does appear to me that the CCRC will not make a decision in 2022.  There's a long wait yet.

I said that this week. No matter how weak each ground is, the CCRC must spend weaks going through it.

So the forum will have a year of QC saying he has seen something but can't say what it is. Great.

[guest29835]

It's a forum. There has been enough hush hush info supporters have.

David's forensic evidence breakthrough.

Mike's photos.

Roch saying he has seen evidence which shows Jeremy is definatly innocent.

Lookout with her daily unsourced claims.


Hopefully QC will be not be like the rest. Otherwise best not say anything.

Exactly.  It's a discussion forum.  So, having weighed things up, I've revealed what I know to the extent I'm able to.  Just giving you a heads up, Adam, so that if things do go pear-shaped for the guilt camp, you can't say you weren't warned.  The least I can do after all the moral support you've given me via the PM system.

[killingeve]

What I am telling you is based on what I have been told and shown, and represents my interpretation of such.  The person I refer to is not within the CCRC, and for all I and he/she knows, Jeremy's application could be rejected today, or next week or next month.  That's the best I can do. 

There are certain details I cannot provide now as it would compromise my source, but I may elaborate in the coming months, depending on what happens.

What I will say is that there are supporters of Jeremy's, including some who have seen what I have seen, who are going round saying he will definitely be released next year and they express wonderment that the CCRC has not already referred his case to the Court of Appeal, such is the strength of the evidence - as they see it.  I think those supporters are foolish.  As I stated at the outset of this thread, I expect that this will not be Jeremy's last Christmas in prison.  (Of course, I could be the one who is wrong).

Conversely, I think those on the guilt side who dismiss the possibility of a referral may come out looking foolish.  There are signs I have seen and heard that there are people within the CCRC who are keen to make a second referral to the Court of Appeal in this case, but that does not mean a referral will happen. Furthermore, it's worth re-emphasising that even if a referral happens, that does not mean the convictions will be overturned.  The sneers of the guilt camp may be vindicated, if not at this stage, then ultimately.

Unfortunately, this is one of those cases where, in all respects and on most points, I cannot help but sound like a Liberal Democrat trying to explain what he thinks.  It's just the way it is.

"People within the CCRC who are keen to make a second referral to the Court of Appeal". The CCRC need fresh evidence or legal argument that meets the criteria laid out by the CPS.  If its forthcoming they will refer; if it isn't they won't. 

[guest29835]

"People within the CCRC who are keen to make a second referral to the Court of Appeal". The CCRC need fresh evidence or legal argument that meets the criteria laid out by the CPS.  If its forthcoming they will refer; if it isn't they won't.

The CCRC won't refer unless there's evidence.  I didn't know that, thanks.  I just assumed they'd refer it if me and Roch turn up and ask them nicely.

[Adam]

QC is covering himself.

Saying other people he has aledgedly spoken to, believe the evidence will free Bamber - but he is not so sure.

Not sure how the aledged evidence can be so good, if QC believes the CCRC will not make a decision in 2022. 

[guest29835]

QC is covering himself.

Saying other people he has aledgedly spoken to, believe the evidence will free Bamber - but he is not so sure.

Not sure how the aledged evidence can be so good, if QC believes the CCRC will not make a decision in 2022.

As usual, you tell lies.

I have not stated that the evidence will free Jeremy.  In fact, I have expressed caution and scepticism.

Why do you continually lie on here about what people say?

I realise, by the way, that the Forum Rules state you should not accuse somebody of lying, but really, can you expect me to say anything other than this?

[killingeve]

The CCRC won't refer unless there's evidence.  I didn't know that, thanks.  I just assumed they'd refer it if me and Roch turn up and ask them nicely.

Why use the word 'keen' then? 

[Rob_]

QC is covering himself.

Saying other people he has aledgedly spoken to, believe the evidence will free Bamber - but he is not so sure.

Not sure how the aledged evidence can be so good, if QC believes the CCRC will not make a decision in 2022.

There was a case in the US where the defence got a report from a world renowned fire expert saying a fire was caused by a faulty radiator and was not started deliberately. They still executed the poor chap anyway and only latter was he exonerated.

So having evidence is one thing you still need people to be honest and do the right thing.

[Adam]

As usual, you tell lies.

I have not stated that the evidence will free Jeremy.  In fact, I have expressed caution and scepticism.

Why do you continually lie on here about what people say?

I realise, by the way, that the Forum Rules state you should not accuse somebody of lying, but really, can you expect me to say anything other than this?

You said -


'What I will say is that there are supporters of Jeremy's, including some who have seen what I have seen, who are going round saying he will definitely be released next year'

----------

I didn't say 'you believe'.

Keep up.