Why The CCRC Will Refute/Reject Recent Claims About Marks On Nevill's Back

[Zoso]

Only one appellant is listed and that's Jeremy, his trial not Sheila's. If you want to split hairs then go ahead but the trial wasn't Sheila's, it was Jeremy's.

[Roch]

Sheila was NOT on trial.

Sheila is still on trial now.  She's on trial for multiple murders, with a defence of diminished responsibility.  Sheila's defence has been provided by Bamber supporters.

[snow66!]

I think you shouldn't try and think for other people Snow, I know exactly what he is saying and it's not the first time he's said it but Sheila was NOT on trial. If there was an inquiry, that would be AFTER the trial which just proves that the two things are separate!

Raoul Moat was identified as the killer, he was seen, there was no question of his guilt. You're going way off on a tangent! I'm sure Roch is glad to have your endorsement. However, I can pretty much live without it - thanks all the same!

Very well Zoso,very well!

[snow66!]

Sheila is still on trial now.  She's on trial for multiple murders, with a defence of diminished responsibility.  Sheila's defence has been provided by Bamber supporters.

Yes,and the undying dedication and work by the CT [including JB himself] has finally led to what I see as a major breakthrough Roch!
Wait for it! Yes, the Aga evidence! Words that strike fear into the guilters!!!

[Zoso]

Sheila is still on trial now.  She's on trial for multiple murders, with a defence of diminished responsibility.  Sheila's defence has been provided by Bamber supporters.

She actually isn't - she is discussed as a potential killer. I didn't think we were talking about hypotheticals - I certainly wasn't, I was talking about the actual trial. The one where ONLY Jeremy was listed as the 'appellant'

[Zoso]

Yes,and the undying dedication and work by the CT [including JB himself] has finally led to what I see as a major breakthrough Roch!
Wait for it! Yes, the Aga evidence! Words that strike fear into the guilters!!!

Complete and utter 'wishful thinking'.

[Hardy Boy]

Yes,I know what your saying HB,but no one who commits suicide or is shot by the police can defend themself,but they still have to answer for their crimes,albeit usually by inquest.
But it was stated from the start that the Bamber case was unusual in that it was 'ACCEPTED' that either Sheila or Jeremy was guilty,and the trial would indeed establish which. So I agree with Roch's statement!

Accepted is not proof Snow,  before anyone can stand trial they have to be charged and enter a plea and they have a right to defend and to give evidence themselves.  The charge was against Jeremy Bamber himself.............R V JEREMY BAMBER......................Doesn't say and Sheila Caffell

under s.37B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has the power to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to charge a person with an offence. The statutory provision clearly contemplates that any charging decision is in relation to a LIVING  person, as following the decision that person must be charged or cautioned or given notice of a decision not to charge.


I still stand by what the CPS website say.........Since deceased persons cannot be prosecuted, the CPS will not make a charging decision in respect of a suspect who is deceased.

This applies in all cases where the suspect is deceased, including cases in which the police made a referral to the CPS for a charging decision prior to the suspect's death.

The CPS will also not make hypothetical charging decisions. For instance, it will not indicate:

What the charging decision would have been if the suspect were still alive;
Whether a different charging decision would be made now, in relation to a deceased suspect, as compared with the charging decision that was made previously in relation to the same suspect.

[Jane]

Well,having said that,as we know Brett believes it was an ex-squaddie!

I wonder from whom he received the information? Might it not suggest that he didn't buy into the "Sheila did it" theory? I think we can guarantee it to have been post murders because he wasn't in the country at the time. If, as I suspect, it had come from JB, why, when he'd convinced police that Sheila was capable and 'dressed' the scene in such a way to suggest such, would he put forward the squaddie theory, if not to deflect attention from himself.

[Hardy Boy]

Yes,and the undying dedication and work by the CT [including JB himself] has finally led to what I see as a major breakthrough Roch!
Wait for it! Yes, the Aga evidence! Words that strike fear into the guilters!!!

I'm absolutly terriefied Snow................................ And Yet,  You think Boyce and the CT are talking a load of clap yourself,  your HALF in and HALF out,  "do you believe what Boyce and the CT are saying Snow"    "ERR well only bits of it"    "But it's a major breakthrough" 

[Hardy Boy]

Only one appellant is listed and that's Jeremy, his trial not Sheila's. If you want to split hairs then go ahead but the trial wasn't Sheila's, it was Jeremy's.

Everyone has the right to a fair trial,  how is it fair if your Dead and can't defend yourself, 

[Roch]

Sheila was effectively on trial but with withheld evidence so that the blame could only be pointed away from her, towards Jeremy , who was actually ON TRIAL. Sheila was on trial by being the only other person who could have committed the killings. Sheila was on trial in the back of the jury's minds.

[snow66!]

Accepted is not proof Snow,  before anyone can stand trial they have to be charged and enter a plea and they have a right to defend and to give evidence themselves.  The charge was against Jeremy Bamber himself.............R V JEREMY BAMBER......................Doesn't say and Sheila Caffell

under s.37B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has the power to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to charge a person with an offence. The statutory provision clearly contemplates that any charging decision is in relation to a LIVING  person, as following the decision that person must be charged or cautioned or given notice of a decision not to charge.


I still stand by what the CPS website say.........Since deceased persons cannot be prosecuted, the CPS will not make a charging decision in respect of a suspect who is deceased.

This applies in all cases where the suspect is deceased, including cases in which the police made a referral to the CPS for a charging decision prior to the suspect's death.

The CPS will also not make hypothetical charging decisions. For instance, it will not indicate:

What the charging decision would have been if the suspect were still alive;
Whether a different charging decision would be made now, in relation to a deceased suspect, as compared with the charging decision that was made previously in relation to the same suspect.

Fair enough HB.

[snow66!]

Sheila was effectively on trial but with withheld evidence so that the blame could only be pointed away from her, towards Jeremy , who was actually ON TRIAL. Sheila was on trial by being the only other person who could have committed the killings. Sheila was on trial in the back of the jury's minds.

Yes thats all true Roch.

[snow66!]

Complete and utter 'wishful thinking'.

Ha ha,time will tell Zoso,time will tell!

[snow66!]

I'm absolutly terriefied Snow................................ And Yet,  You think Boyce and the CT are talking a load of clap yourself,  your HALF in and HALF out,  "do you believe what Boyce and the CT are saying Snow"    "ERR well only bits of it"    "But it's a major breakthrough"

Yes,thats true HB.
Personally I think the CT should concentrate on the Aga evidence and keep it seperate from the police moving Nevill.
If they have merely included the Aga evidence with crime scene manipulation it may be dismissed along with that point.
But yes,I am half in half out with the CT scenario,but 100% in with the Aga evidence.