CCRC have proof of additional wounds

[Zoso]

   You don't know much about the charity, APPEAL? Erm... Andy Malkinson? You started the thread about Andy Malkinson, Roch, whose conviction was overturned because of their work. The smiley face at the end should have alerted you that the suggestion was "tongue in cheek". I assumed you would "get" the APPEAL reference having previously commented on them.
   

  - Roch does have a bad memory. He takes on too many anti-establishment ventures 

[Roch]

Many of those associated with Sheila are very fuzzy. Also to call those blood stains on Junes hand 'grazes' - please!!!! The amount of assumption made in the text is ridiculous and just reads like an armchair detective on acid. No disrespect but there is no way it will be taken seriously.

Would June have distinct linear marks merely from smudging or her gunshot wounds?  What edge caused the lines, if only smudges?

Pretty sure Bill's report was a pre-cursor. A preliminary investigation, which resulted in an expert being sought by the defence.

[gringo]

Yes, sorry I know about their involvement. I just meant I didn't know anything about their organisation etc. I did read on here that you suggested they could probably do a better job then the CCRC.

    They demonstrably do a better job. I know that they are a small charity as Bill says. It is not a serious suggestion that Appeal take over the CCRC role, Roch. This would obviously be absurd. It is sarcasm, in order to point out the obvious need for the abolishing of the CCRC as it stands. If a small charity are performing better than them, as Andy Malkinson demonstrates, then they are not fit for purpose. I don't really think that we should place the responsibility of investigating miscarriages with a few well meaning volunteers, however good they are.

[Roch]

In one particular picture, whilst the size of the arm can be matched to mine, the 'wounds' appear to have grown exponentially!!!

Which picture Jane?

[Bill Robertson]

Sorry, they won't have to get used to anything - the CT saying something (and yourself) really isn't proof of anything. I would love to know HOW the defence missed such wounds because they would have had access to autopsy photographs. The pictures you posted on the CCRC site are fuzzy beyond credibility and those you have identified as wounds on the crime scene photo's are nothing of the sort.

Oh dear, a rant in the face of overwhelming evidence. Okay, one more time. The images are not fuzzy or indistinct. Maybe it’s your eyesight or computer screen that’s causing the problem. Anyway, here we go again. My report has been verified by forensic scientists paid for their work. Their report is submitted to the CCRC by the lawyers. Their photos are better than mine, although mine are perfectly clear anyway. Nobody is trying to fool the CCRC or Court of Appeal. The game is nearly over Guilters.

[Adam]

- Roch does have a bad memory. He takes on too many anti-establishment ventures 

Yes Roch's support of Bamber is based on his distrust of justice departments. Maybe he had a bad experience himself.

[Adam]

Have the CT added this to the CCRC?

The amount of add ons, it will be 2030 before a refusal is made.

[Adam]

So Bill was right all the time

How do you think June got her non gun shot injuries?

Was Sheila too powerful for both her and Nevill?

[Adam]

Seems Sheila got non gun shot injuries but was able to kill everyone and attack Nevill.

Nevill got 40+ non gun shot injuries but was able to phone Bamber's AM & Chelmsford Police.

June got non gun shot injuries and didn't do much else apart from get overpowered by Sheila. 

[Adam]

In a physical confrontation between June & Sheila, I would back June to win. Going by the photos.

June looks a bit bulkier than Sheila. At 61 she would still be able to put up a fight. Doesn't have to be a 12 rounder. Just enough to negate Sheila.

I do not believe June had any physical disabilities. Sheila was very docile and un cordinated.

[Roch]

Have the CT added this to the CCRC?

The amount of add ons, it will be 2030 before a refusal is made.

The CCRC have had the wounds evidence for 2.5 years. 

[Adam]

The CCRC have had the wounds evidence for 2.5 years.

It wasn't one of the 8 grounds submitted in 2021.

[Adam]

Seems that one person has sent a tweet yesterday.

[Roch]

    They demonstrably do a better job. I know that they are a small charity as Bill says. It is not a serious suggestion that Appeal take over the CCRC role, Roch. This would obviously be absurd. It is sarcasm, in order to point out the obvious need for the abolishing of the CCRC as it stands. If a small charity are performing better than them, as Andy Malkinson demonstrates, then they are not fit for purpose. I don't really think that we should place the responsibility of investigating miscarriages with a few well meaning volunteers, however good they are.

I wonder if the Malkinson volunteers are 'armchair detectives on acid'. 😏

[Roch]

- Roch does have a bad memory. He takes on too many anti-establishment ventures 

I'm not surprised, can we believe anything official these days? 😏