Alan George Dovey Statement - 20/03/2002

[lookout]

It's a complete stalemate. Nothing to prove he did and even less to prove he didn't.A no win situation.

[Patti]

It is awful to say this, but I have given up hope that Jeremy Bamber will ever be able to prove he did not commit those murders. As I feel right now, he will stay in prison until the day he dies. Sorry, I feel bad saying this, but his case is going nowhere and never has been even close to.
There are some serious mishandlings, destruction of evidence, obvious lies etc etc which are looked upon with indifference by authorities. What chance does he stand in all this?
I do believe he would stand a better chance if he had family fighting for him, but he doesn´t.The family he grew up with all work against him and don´t even consider him a family member.
A sad fate.

Hi Alias

I don't think you are alone in those thoughts.   I feel very strongly about finding the truth which can sometimes be twisted which spoils it for Jeremy....to get things right and spot on is and always has been essential to his case. 

If ever there were to be a 3rd appeal knowing the truth in every detail is paramount and its things like the Dovey situation that holds good argument should ever there be a future appeal....I am with you I think this would be very difficult to achieve without any new evidence or legal argument....We need honestly and not BS....imo....

[Alias]

Hi Alias

I don't think you are alone in those thoughts.   I feel very strongly about finding the truth which can sometimes be twisted which spoils it for Jeremy....to get things right and spot on is and always has been essential to his case. 

If ever there were to be a 3rd appeal knowing the truth in every detail is paramount and its things like the Dovey situation that holds good argument should ever there be a future appeal....I am with you I think this would be very difficult to achieve without any new evidence or legal argument....We need honestly and not BS....imo....

Well. the biggest BS happened when all evidence was destroyed back in 1996 - illegally, but still without any consequence for the involved. I don´t know how much more rotten it can get. I know of a similar case from a state in the US - the involved police people were prosecuted and punished.

[Jane]

Hi Alias

I don't think you are alone in those thoughts.   I feel very strongly about finding the truth which can sometimes be twisted which spoils it for Jeremy....to get things right and spot on is and always has been essential to his case. 

If ever there were to be a 3rd appeal knowing the truth in every detail is paramount and its things like the Dovey situation that holds good argument should ever there be a future appeal....I am with you I think this would be very difficult to achieve without any new evidence or legal argument....We need honestly and not BS....imo....



".........to get things right and spot on is and always has been essential to his case"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Patti, What irony!!!!!!! There was NOTHING "right and spot on" about the things that convicted him.

[Patti]

Well. the biggest BS happened when all evidence was destroyed back in 1996 - illegally, but still without any consequence for the involved. I don´t know how much more rotten it can get. I know of a similar case from a state in the US - the involved police people were prosecuted and punished.

I agree and I will never understand why this can't be address in a court of law....maybe NGB can tell us why ...I have also read in that happening in the USA....

[Caroline R]

Yeah, but what I am saying, is that it can't be used in any new submissions to the CCRC because its already been used...if that makes sense....or have I got that wrong?   

No, that's right Patti, I think we are saying the same thing but in a different way!! 

[Caroline R]

Caroline it stinks really.....its not fair that this was ignored in the appeal and not taken seriously. 

Having heard Mr Dovey, we had to decide whether it was necessary to hear further evidence from the prosecution witnesses. We concluded that it was not. In our judgment it is now impossible after such a long lapse of time to resolve this factual conflict. Material which might have been of critical importance has been destroyed. All concerned, and not simply Mr Dovey, are relying on memories which in matters of detail are almost certainly imperfect. But even if the court could resolve the factual conflict, we think it impossible to draw any satisfactory conclusion as to what was happening at the time. As, Lord Woolf, CJ observed in Hanratty [2002] EWCA Crim 1141; [2002] 2 Cr App R 30 at paragraph 99:

I wholeheartedly agree Patti which is why I ram this point home to Steve whenever he defends Julie.

[Patti]

.........to get things right and spot on is and always has been essential to his case"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Patti, What irony!!!!!!! There was NOTHING "right and spot on" about the things that convicted him.or=april1 link=topic=1165.msg191004#msg191004 date=1378650569]

April my lovely I was referring us/we......not them. lol  I sometime don't come across very well and I'm aware of it...sorry me chuck.  Please don't shout at me hahahahahahaha I know I can be a cow. Mooooooooooooooooooooooo 

[lebaleb]

The Judge summing up:
'She told you that she went there voluntarily and re-paid the money that had obtained, and it seems, does it not, that without her voluntary revelation of her own part in those offences, she would never have been caught for them. They would have never come to light, and it was in those circumstances that she was not in fact prosecuted for them.'

Yes she would have been caught. Jeremy knew all about it. Had they not confessed, it wouldn't take Sherlock Holmes to trace the items JM had given to Jeremy and have the girls identified.
It's obvious that the statement prepared for Dovey to sign would have been very carefully worded. If only we could see it, it would have the officers name on it. Let me guess... disappeared?
Interesting how the banks policy was to keep documents related to fraud for 50 years and yet once again they have been distroyed.

[Caroline R]

The Judge summing up:
'She told you that she went there voluntarily and re-paid the money that had obtained, and it seems, does it not, that without her voluntary revelation of her own part in those offences, she would never have been caught for them. They would have never come to light, and it was in those circumstances that she was not in fact prosecuted for them.'

Yes she would have been caught. Jeremy knew all about it. Had they not confessed, it wouldn't take Sherlock Holmes to trace the items JM had given to Jeremy and have the girls identified.
It's obvious that the statement prepared for Dovey to sign would have been very carefully worded. If only we could see it, it would have the officers name on it. Let me guess... disappeared?
Interesting how the banks policy was to keep documents related to fraud for 50 years and yet once again they have been distroyed.

And that's why they had to play out the bank facade. Nothing to do with her conscience - just SJ dotting the I's and crossing the T's.

[Steve_uk]

The Judge summing up:
'She told you that she went there voluntarily and re-paid the money that had obtained, and it seems, does it not, that without her voluntary revelation of her own part in those offences, she would never have been caught for them. They would have never come to light, and it was in those circumstances that she was not in fact prosecuted for them.'

Yes she would have been caught. Jeremy knew all about it. Had they not confessed, it wouldn't take Sherlock Holmes to trace the items JM had given to Jeremy and have the girls identified.
It's obvious that the statement prepared for Dovey to sign would have been very carefully worded. If only we could see it, it would have the officers name on it. Let me guess... disappeared?
Interesting how the banks policy was to keep documents related to fraud for 50 years and yet once again they have been distroyed.

Most of the stolen stuff was thrown away or given to charity shops. The crime wouldn't have come out otherwise and Julie wasn't treated any differently than anyone else at the time who had defrauded a bank.

[susan]

Hello steve I don't remember one charity shop nearly 30 years ago must be different where Julie lived not as affluent as Yorkshire are you sure you don't mean a jumble sale at the local Church.

[Jane]

Most of the stolen stuff was thrown away or given to charity shops. The crime wouldn't have come out otherwise and Julie wasn't treated any differently than anyone else at the time who had defrauded a bank.

Who told YOU that "most of the stolen stuff was thrown away" and did they also tell you to where it was thrown? I don't recall that, at that point, in the country created by Margaret Thatcher, there was the need for charity shops.

[Caroline R]

Most of the stolen stuff was thrown away or given to charity shops. The crime wouldn't have come out otherwise and Julie wasn't treated any differently than anyone else at the time who had defrauded a bank.

Of course it would, Jeremy knew about it and SJ knew he knew. Julie and Susan Battersby didn't attend the bank of their own accord, they were taken their by SJ who knew with his intervention, the manager would not press charges. He needed to make sure that the defence couldn't use it to discredit Julie and if they did, that they had the facade of their so called 'confession' to hide behind.

[Steve_uk]

Of course it would, Jeremy knew about it and SJ knew he knew. Julie and Susan Battersby didn't attend the bank of their own accord, they were taken their by SJ who knew with his intervention, the manager would not press charges. He needed to make sure that the defence couldn't use it to discredit Julie and if they did, that they had the facade of their so called 'confession' to hide behind.

I don't recall Jeremy venturing much information under interrogation about Julie,if anything. It was far too dangerous a topic for him and one which he would much rather eschew.