Would current approaches by forum supporters been successful at the 1986 trial?

[Adam]

There are different approaches from different people.

Should the defence have used these approaches?

[Adam]

Will list them now. Feel free to help me update.

[Adam]

Jeremy made mistakes so must be innocent.

The justice organisations are corrupt so Jeremy must be innocent.

New scenarios invented with supporting invented evidence. Meaning police staged the scene and did a cover up.

All incriminating evidence defended.

Photos showed injuries on Sheila and June. Meaning the pathologist lied.

[Adam]

I don't think any of these approaches would have worked for the defence.

Incriminating evidence can be defended. But not all of it. As ILB does. Some pieces both sides have to accept.

The judge would have stopped the defence straight away if they started claiming justice organisations are corrupt.

Saying Jeremy made mistakes so must be innocent, as Rob says would not work either. All criminals in prison made mistakes.

[Adam]

The defence could cross examine the pathologist. But doubtful he would budge.

The defence creating a scenario which does not match the crime scene and then saying there was an industrial stage and cover up would not work. The jury would not accept so many people would conspire against an innocent man.

[Roch]

The defence should have got colour lab prints of all the adult victims, including from pathology negatives.  Knight should been instructed to rigourously examine all images using whatever technology was available at the time, even if it was a high quality eye glass.  He should have been instructed to find fault, wherever possible, with Vanezis' disclosed post mortems.

G-A-M-E  O-V-E-R

[Adam]

The other approach is if there was a trial now, there would be enough 'reasonable doubt'. Due to  new evidence. Guest29835 was keen on that.

Not sure about that. A lot of supposed new evidence has been dismissed at appeals. Other things are properganda which the defence would not include.

The defence could not have included it in 1986 as it surfaced afterwards.

[Adam]

JackieD's approach that Jeremy is innocent because Julie identified the twins and committed cheque book fraud was part of the defences strategy in 1986.

[ILB]

What the defence did in a trial almost 37 years ago is neither here or there now. You can't change history. What's done is done.

I don't see the point you are trying to make here ?

[Adam]

BuboBubo's approach would not be allowed in a court of law. Now or in 1986.

A trial covers the evidence and WS's 

[Bubo bubo]

What the defence did in a trial almost 37 years ago is neither here or there now. You can't change history. What's done is done.

I don't see the point you are trying to make here ?

I agree. Just another silly go nowhere thread and plenty of opportunities for Adam to spread dung and improve his post count.

[Adam]

A judge would not allow the defence to invent scenarios and then invent evidence to match it.

Too much rubbish and takes up too much court time.

Even the CT & Bamber would dismiss BuboBubo.

[Adam]

ILB's approach would not work at the 1986 trial. He waits for a post or thread from me, then fire fights it.

The defence needs to be more pro active.

[ILB]

ILB's approach would not work at the 1986 trial. He waits for a post or thread from me, then fire fights it.

The defence needs to be more pro active.

I wasn't on trial. Jeremy Bamber was

[Adam]

Sherlock's approach would not be used by the defence.

He makes suggestions with no supporting evidence. Last month it was that RB hired a hit man and Brett was a hit man.

As with BB's approach, the courts would not allow this.

Suggesting Jeremy hired Brett also incriminates the defences own client!