CCRC Demonstration

[ngb1066]

There is an article in the Mail on Sunday today which refers to the demonstration and links Jeremy Bamber's case with that of Andrew Malkinson: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13407833/Jeremy-Bamber-review-convicted-White-House-Far-murderer-backed-supporters-Andrew-Malkinson-wrongly-jailed-17-years.html.

[ILB]

Hopefully the CT post some photos or videos. They advertised it enough.

Perhaps Jeremy needs a celebrity

[Roch]

There is an article in the Mail on Sunday today which refers to the demonstration and links Jeremy Bamber's case with that of Andrew Malkinson: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13407833/Jeremy-Bamber-review-convicted-White-House-Far-murderer-backed-supporters-Andrew-Malkinson-wrongly-jailed-17-years.html.

Good to have their support. 

[Adam]

Seen a few photos. Looks like around 25 people turned up. Which is a few more than for the non disclosure demonstration.

Phillip, Yvonne, Emma & Peter Tatchell were expected.

One banner said CCRC stands for

Content to
Continue
Reinforcing
Convictions

This is a surprise. If anything the CCRC refer too much.

The COA dismiss 30% of what the CCRC send them & were critical of there referral of Bamber's case in 2002.

[Cambridgecutie]

Good to have their support.

The usual dumb morons in the comments though.  Daily Mail readers really are a bunch of knuckle draggers.

One comment:

As long as someone is convicted based upon irrefutable forensic evidence, I'm ok with that; what I'm not ok with, is when people are convicted purely upon circumstantial evidence? Maybe that's just me?

Unfortunately it isn't just that sorry, ignorant individual.

for the record forensic evidence is circumstantial.

DNA evidence for example is forensic evidence, but it is circumstantial because it only infers that someone was there.

Forensic evidence can be weak, and circumstantial evidence can be strong.  The opposite can also be true.

Jeremy Bamber however, creates pieces of fiction and then submits that fiction as proof of his innocence to the CCRC.

And then he runs hate campaigns against the CCRC accusing them of corruption.

[Roch]

The usual dumb morons in the comments though.  Daily Mail readers really are a bunch of knuckle draggers.

One comment:

As long as someone is convicted based upon irrefutable forensic evidence, I'm ok with that; what I'm not ok with, is when people are convicted purely upon circumstantial evidence? Maybe that's just me?

Unfortunately it isn't just that sorry, ignorant individual.

for the record forensic evidence is circumstantial.

DNA evidence for example is forensic evidence, but it is circumstantial because it only infers that someone was there.

Forensic evidence can be weak, and circumstantial evidence can be strong.  The opposite can also be true.

I think all newspapers have moronic readers who add moronic comments on articles.  You do make some good points here though.

[Roch]

Jeremy Bamber however, creates pieces of fiction and then submits that fiction as proof of his innocence to the CCRC.

And then he runs hate campaigns against the CCRC accusing them of corruption.

Some Jeremy Bamber's claims have been weaker than others. In an ideal world, only the stronger claims should be focussed on.

Jeremy Bamber has been very patient with the CCRC on this occasion. That level of tolerance has come to an end.  There are many concerns about the CCRC, expressed by many people.

[Bill Robertson]

Jeremy Bamber however, creates pieces of fiction and then submits that fiction as proof of his innocence to the CCRC.And then he runs hate campaigns against the CCRC accusing them of corruption.

Evidence?
How does Jeremy Bamber, a Category A prisoner with no access to computer equipment or the internet create false evidence?
How does he then persuade professional lawyers with a reputation to preserve, to submit fictional evidence to the CCRC? Do you think that Mark Newby willingly compiles submissions full of falsely created information?
What evidence is there that Jeremy Bamber is running a hate campaign against the CCRC?

Not your opinion - what is the evidence?

[Adam]

Evidence?
How does Jeremy Bamber, a Category A prisoner with no access to computer equipment or the internet create false evidence?
How does he then persuade professional lawyers with a reputation to preserve, to submit fictional evidence to the CCRC? Do you think that Mark Newby willingly compiles submissions full of falsely created information?
What evidence is there that Jeremy Bamber is running a hate campaign against the CCRC?

Not your opinion - what is the evidence?

It will be a joint effort. Bamber, his lawyers, his closest supporters.

He did recently write a long article about the CCRC. So must have access to the internet.

[Cambridgecutie]

Evidence?
How does Jeremy Bamber, a Category A prisoner with no access to computer equipment or the internet create false evidence?
How does he then persuade professional lawyers with a reputation to preserve, to submit fictional evidence to the CCRC? Do you think that Mark Newby willingly compiles submissions full of falsely created information?
What evidence is there that Jeremy Bamber is running a hate campaign against the CCRC?

Not your opinion - what is the evidence?

Nice try bill, but what you have to do is to prove me and many others wrong by using examples and going through those examples.  And you know that is impossible. 

The CCRC agree with me and many others that Jeremy Bamber creates 'pure speculation' and 'unsubstantiated allegations', and passes it off as absolute 100 percent proof of innocence.

In other words the CCRC are saying that Jeremy Bamber is a liar.

you can only be a liar if you make stuff up.  Otherwise known as fiction.

And Jeremy Bamber has published that fiction to newspapers over the decades for all to see and analyse and pick apart.  And I thank Jeremy Bamber for that.

What fiction you say? The notorious wet blood images for one.  We can thank Jeremy Bamber's lawyer Giovanni De Stefano for that one.  By the way, is Giovanni De Stefano out of prison yet?  I know the career criminal got a 14 year prison sentence extended by an extra 7 years.  Just wondering if he's out yet, that's all.  At least he got to represent Jeremy Bamber before he got his 21 years in prison.

Anyway, as far as Bamber's legal representation goes, he has a legal right to defend himself, regardless of whether he is guilty or not.  In this respect the law doesn't care about his guilt or innocence, he just has a basic human right to defend himself.

And there are lawyers out there, that on a point of principle will see it as their duty to make sure that that happens.  They will see it as their professional duty. And good for them.

Jeremy Bamber's lawyers are not stupid, and they will know that Jeremy Bamber is guilty, and that his evidence is fiction. But that is irrelevant.  Their job is to represent him legally, because that is his right should he choose to take that path.   

A strong and robust legal system should always be able to find lawyers to defend guilty people, regardless of how hopeless their case is. 

Once you defend/represent someone, you apply a bit of professional discipline and behave as if you believe them to be innocent, regardless of your personal thoughts.  And within the law, you fight tooth and nail for that person.

[Bill Robertson]

Nice try bill, but what you have to do is to prove me and many others wrong by using examples and going through those examples.  And you know that is impossible. 

The CCRC agree with me and many others that Jeremy Bamber creates 'pure speculation' and 'unsubstantiated allegations', and passes it off as absolute 100 percent proof of innocence.

In other words the CCRC are saying that Jeremy Bamber is a liar.

you can only be a liar if you make stuff up.  Otherwise known as fiction.

And Jeremy Bamber has published that fiction to newspapers over the decades for all to see and analyse and pick apart.  And I thank Jeremy Bamber for that.

What fiction you say? The notorious wet blood images for one.  We can thank Jeremy Bamber's lawyer Giovanni De Stefano for that one.  By the way, is Giovanni De Stefano out of prison yet?  I know the career criminal got a 14 year prison sentence extended by an extra 7 years.  Just wondering if he's out yet, that's all.  At least he got to represent Jeremy Bamber before he got his 21 years in prison.

Anyway, as far as Bamber's legal representation goes, he has a legal right to defend himself, regardless of whether he is guilty or not.  In this respect the law doesn't care about his guilt or innocence, he just has a basic human right to defend himself.

And there are lawyers out there, that on a point of principle will see it as their duty to make sure that that happens.  They will see it as their professional duty. And good for them.

Jeremy Bamber's lawyers are not stupid, and they will know that Jeremy Bamber is guilty, and that his evidence is fiction. But that is irrelevant.  Their job is to represent him legally, because that is his right should he choose to take that path.   

A strong and robust legal system should always be able to find lawyers to defend guilty people, regardless of how hopeless their case is. 

Once you defend/represent someone, you apply a bit of professional discipline and behave as if you believe them to be innocent, regardless of your personal thoughts.  And within the law, you fight tooth and nail for that person.

Lots of bluster but you admit that you have no evidence at all to support your claims.

[Adam]

There is a TikTok video of the demonstration. As said, about 50 people.

Seems to be people attached to certain cases who are upset that the CCRC have not referred it. Apart from Tatchell who attends all demonstrations against authority.

[Adam]

It is surprising that people are so convinced of Bamber's innocence. Vlogs, videos, podcasts, demonstrations, official sites.

There is so much incriminating evidence.

Some people may have a beef with the police or justice system. Or want to be part of a cause.

[Steve_uk]

Lots of bluster but you admit that you have no evidence at all to support your claims.

,,and you have no evidence that Jeremy Bamber is innocent.

[Bill Robertson]

,,and you have no evidence that Jeremy Bamber is innocent.

Bollocks.
But hey, interesting that Philip Walker said in his speech outside the CCRC that they did not even start reading the submission until 2 years after it was first submitted. Two years! What a joke they are.