jb states that when neville phoned him he said sheila has gone beserk, i cant see neville mistakinf someone else for sheila, especially a male.
Andrea - I agree with you. Although the third party theory has some attractions I believe it does not tie in with the known evidence and it is does not take our understanding of the case further forward. I believe that the theories along these lines advanced some time ago by others then assisting Jeremy Bamber did a lot of harm to his case at the time.
I think it was Giovanni Di Stefano who started that story?
Yes it was and it did Jeremy Bamber's case no good whatsoever. I am not surprised that Jeremy got rid of him and took on a sensible legal team with their feet firmly on the ground and looking at hard evidence rather than wild speculation.
ngb / Mike / jackie...
Are you aware of any positive developments which came about during the GDS period? It can't have been all bad. He must have achieved something useful for Jeremy / the defense?
I suppose he raised the profile of the case which in itself had some value at a time when there was not the same level of public interest as there is now. Apart from that however my own feeling is that Jeremy's case was harmed by the wild and unsupported theory advanced by GDS. I will try to remember to ask Jeremy for his opinion on this when I next speak to him. It would also be interesting to hear Mike Tesko's views on this.
A question for you NGB , what do you think Rivilin think's of the case today , i have been critical of him in the past , i shouldn't have been as i never knew he worked for JB for nothing at one time , i apologize for this , do you think he feel's anything on the subject ?
As you know Geoffrey Rivlin QC has been a judge for some time now and he would be unlikely to make any public pronouncement on the case. I need to be careful what I say here because I have discussed this with Jeremy Bamber so I do know his views but I do not want to break a confidence. I have in the past expressed some surprise at the conduct of the defence at the original trial and I have discussed this with Jeremy. I do not think Jeremy would mind if I said that he does not view his trial barristers harshly, as he recognises that in conducting his defence they had effectively one hand tied behind their back because of the failure of Essex Police to disclose important evidence. It would be wrong for me to give my reasons for stating the following, which is that I believe that if Geoffrey Rivlin were to express a view privately on the case now he would support Jeremy's case being referred back to the Court of Appeal.
