Bleatings From Bamber And His Supporters

[killingeve]

Bamber and the likes of Roch seem to think his case is somehow different; that the police have deliberately destroyed exhibits and the CCRC will not refer because of its lengthy history with the judicial system.  However a look at other cases suggests his case is treated no differently

Eg the following refers to the case of Roger Kearney (no idea of guilt or innocence).

https://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/41037/1/Evidence%20Retention%20post-peer-review%20version%20IJPSM.pdf

When the conviction was reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC),3 seven years
into his life sentence, advances in DNA techniques meant scientists identified new tests to be
undertaken on crime scene samples, assumed to be in storage. But investigations by the CCRC
discovered that exhibits had been lost, contaminated and destroyed.

https://vlex.co.uk/vid/roger-kearney-v-the-839136076

Subsequently, in December 2012 the Appellant made an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (“the CCRC”) to refer his conviction to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division.

By a decision dated 31 October 2017, the CCRC concluded that there are no grounds to refer the Appellant's conviction to the Court of Appeal and declined to do so.

[Rob_]

What are you rambling on about Cc?

The CCRC is not fit for purpose.

Internal CCRC documents obtained by the Centre under the Freedom of Information Act confirm as much. In its September 2017 Board Minutes, one of the CCRC’s own Commissioners expressed doubts about its ability to discover instances of non-disclosure in cases.

[Roch]

What are you rambling on about Cc?

The CCRC is not fit for purpose.

Internal CCRC documents obtained by the Centre under the Freedom of Information Act confirm as much. In its September 2017 Board Minutes, one of the CCRC’s own Commissioners expressed doubts about its ability to discover instances of non-disclosure in cases.

Cambridge is prepared to do painstaking academic research..  but not about the CCRC.  Actually I suspect Cambridge knows full well the relevant issues - but will not let that slip on this forum, as she likes to have a bit of fun getting reactions from the likes of me and you.

[Bubo bubo]

Bamber and the likes of Roch seem to think his case is somehow different; that the police have deliberately destroyed exhibits and the CCRC will not refer because of its lengthy history with the judicial system.  However a look at other cases suggests his case is treated no differently

Eg the following refers to the case of Roger Kearney (no idea of guilt or innocence).

https://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/41037/1/Evidence%20Retention%20post-peer-review%20version%20IJPSM.pdf

When the conviction was reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC),3 seven years
into his life sentence, advances in DNA techniques meant scientists identified new tests to be
undertaken on crime scene samples, assumed to be in storage. But investigations by the CCRC
discovered that exhibits had been lost, contaminated and destroyed.

https://vlex.co.uk/vid/roger-kearney-v-the-839136076

Subsequently, in December 2012 the Appellant made an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (“the CCRC”) to refer his conviction to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division.

By a decision dated 31 October 2017, the CCRC concluded that there are no grounds to refer the Appellant's conviction to the Court of Appeal and declined to do so.

Thanks for this excellent work CC. I have no feelings one way or the other on this case. However it is interesting that the DNA evidence was destroyed.

I seem to remember watching a Crimewatch programme on this case and believe PV provided blood information for the programme.

My negative take would be that the police got the wrong guy and are trying to cover up their mistake.

On the other side the CCTV is pretty but not wholly conclusive and further disclosure would help me understand whether this is a MOJ.

[Rob_]

Cambridge is prepared to do painstaking academic research..  but not about the CCRC.  Actually I suspect Cambridge knows full well the relevant issues - but will not let that slip on this forum, as she likes to have a bit of fun getting reactions from the likes of me and you.

Oh she knows the issues Roch 

[killingeve]

What are you rambling on about Cc?

The CCRC is not fit for purpose.

Internal CCRC documents obtained by the Centre under the Freedom of Information Act confirm as much. In its September 2017 Board Minutes, one of the CCRC’s own Commissioners expressed doubts about its ability to discover instances of non-disclosure in cases.

The above does not relate to what I have posted.

[killingeve]

Cambridge is prepared to do painstaking academic research..  but not about the CCRC.  Actually I suspect Cambridge knows full well the relevant issues - but will not let that slip on this forum, as she likes to have a bit of fun getting reactions from the likes of me and you.

I haven't done any painstaking academic research.  I am simply pointing out that other appellants experience the same difficulties Bamber claims he has experienced.  Ie it is not peculiar to Bamber as he and his supporters would have us believe.

[killingeve]

Thanks for this excellent work CC. I have no feelings one way or the other on this case. However it is interesting that the DNA evidence was destroyed.

I seem to remember watching a Crimewatch programme on this case and believe PV provided blood information for the programme.

My negative take would be that the police got the wrong guy and are trying to cover up their mistake.

On the other side the CCTV is pretty but not wholly conclusive and further disclosure would help me understand whether this is a MOJ.

As I said I have no views on the case of Kearney.  My reason for posting up the link was to show other appellants experience the same difficulties Bamber claims he expriences ie destroyed exhibits, long waits for CCRC SoR only to spell out the obvious ie no referral.

[Roch]

I haven't done any painstaking academic research.  I am simply pointing out that other appellants experience the same difficulties Bamber claims he has experienced.  Ie it is not peculiar to Bamber as he and his supporters would have us believe.

Can you point out where 'he and his supporters' have had us believe it is unique to his case?

[Roch]

As I said I have no views on the case of Kearney.  My reason for posting up the link was to show other appellants experience the same difficulties Bamber claims he expriences ie destroyed exhibits, long waits for CCRC SoR only to spell out the obvious ie no referral.

There's no 'claims' about it.  As for 'the obvious' I really do wish you would educate yourself on the CCRC.  You keep referring to them as if they should be heralded as some kind of supreme court of higher consciousness.

I expect that the DVLA and HMRC are more efficient.