'The New Yorker' dishing the dirt.

[David1819]

I agree. 17000 words is akin to the word requirement for a 'Masters' dissertation. It is going to be a long read. The extent to which it permeates the UK discourse is going to depend largely but not exclusively on two factors. The depth of coverage in the various UK media outlets. The extent to which people engage with the story.

There are many issues at this time which people engage with. When your prime objective is to put food on the table, a story from 1985 might not be your priority. The amount of 'Cut through' is unlikely to emulate 'Spycatcher'. We will have to wait and see.

17,000 words? that will be interesting.

[Steve_uk]

Behind a paywall

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/28/jeremy-bamber-detectives-may-have-lied-about-evidence/

The Telegraph article goes on to discuss his Category A status:

In 2020, he lost an appeal to be downgraded from maximum security prison.





Bamber sought permission for a High Court challenge over a decision taken in March by the director of the long-term and high-security estate - part of the Prison and Probation Service - not to downgrade him from a Category A inmate, or to direct that an oral hearing on the issue take place.

Category A prisoners are considered the most dangerous to the public and are held in maximum security conditions.

At a remote hearing in October that year, lawyers for Bamber asked Mr Justice Julian Knowles to give the go-ahead for a full hearing of Bamber’s claim, arguing that the decision was “unreasonable”.

Mr Justice Knowles refused Bamber permission to bring the challenge.

Bamber had an appeal against his convictions dismissed by the Court of Appeal in 2002 and had a High Court challenge to the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s (CCRC) refusal to refer his case for another appeal rejected in 2012.

A spokesman for the Jeremy Bamber campaign of innocence told the Mail on Sunday: “The CCRC have had Jeremy Bamber’s latest submissions since March 2021 and… they have not investigated any of the key exculpatory issues they contain, which demonstrate Jeremy Bamber’s innocence.”

A spokesman for Essex Police said: “In August 1985 the lives of five people, including two children, were needlessly, tragically and callously cut short when they were murdered in their own home by Jeremy Bamber.

“In the years that followed, this case has been the subject of several appeals and reviews by the Court of Appeal and the Criminal Cases Review Commission – all of these processes have never found anything other than Bamber is the person responsible for killing his adoptive parents Nevill and June, sister Sheila Caffell and her two sons Nicholas and Daniel.

“Essex Police have continued to comply with all legal requirements in this case and will continue to assist the CCRC as required.”

[Roch]

This is a generic statement rolled out by a police force that simply cannot answer difficult questions. It is called stonewalling.

[ILB]

From Bambers tweets. Jeremy's twitter page

[ILB]

Whether it's pie in the sky or damning I suppose only time will tell.

[Zoso]

I think k not happy as a group means two spoke out but the rest shared concerns. You don't have a group of two.

And you can't name who 'the group' are, just two of them. You would need to know who the 'group' were before calling it that!

[Steve_uk]

Of course all this would come out just as the anniversary of the tragedy approaches.

[Roch]

And you can't name who 'the group' are, just two of them. You would need to know who the 'group' were before calling it that!

I don't understand this post.  The names have been mentioned several times on here.  Nobody describes 2 as a group.  He may have used the word team, not certain as I haven't looked. His team was TFG.

My theory of them having been gaslighted is correct.  Davidson has proven my theory. Unless the seniors did not know about Cook's blunder.

[Zoso]

I don't understand this post.  The names have been mentioned several times on here.  Nobody describes 2 as a group.  He may have used the word team, not certain as I haven't looked. His team was TFG.

My theory of them having been gaslighted is correct.  Davidson has proven my theory. Unless the seniors did not know about Cook's blunder.

There are statements from 2 officers who claim they bible may have been moved. There isn't a group of statements, if there are more than two named officers, then who are they?

[Roch]

There are statements from 2 officers who claim they bible may have been moved. There isn't a group of statements, if there are more than two named officers, then who are they?

.

Without trawling through I can't say. But pretty sure it is expressed that the team or group had concerns. As stated in this country we don't say group of two.  And the team that both officers were in was TFG.  Like I say, Davidson has just corroborated.

[Zoso]

.

Without trawling through I can't say. But pretty sure it is expressed that the team or group had concerns. As stated in this country we don't say group of two.  And the team that both officers were in was TFG.  Like I say, Davidson has just corroborated.

I didn't say we did say 'group of two' - I said only two NAMED officers put 'concerns' in their statement. I have asked you before who the others that form the 'group' are but as yet you haven't replied. It also seems off to me that Davidson is only just saying this stuff now and Cook recently died.

[Roch]

Davidson probably didn't want to be responsible for Cook finding himself facing the UK media, with regard to the bible.

It was a debrief where TFG were shown crime scene images. Hence 'team or group' is TFG.  It's not difficult to work out. They are saying hey! This isn't how we left the scene!

[Zoso]

Davidson probably didn't want to be responsible for Cook finding himself facing the UK media, with regard to the bible.

It was a debrief where TFG were shown crime scene images. Hence 'team or group' is TFG.  It's not difficult to work out. They are saying hey! This isn't how we left the scene!

So he waits for him to die? I guess he can't have thought it was important. This actually doesn't help Bamber because the open page was supposed to indicate that the killer was Sheila, given what the text states. Davidson is suggesting that Cook - having picked it up, didn't recall what page it lay open and basically it was he, not Sheila who placed it open at that page. Which is certainly interesting to me 

[Roch]

So he waits for him to die? I guess he can't have thought it was important. This actually doesn't help Bamber because the open page was supposed to indicate that the killer was Sheila, given what the text states. Davidson is suggesting that Cook - having picked it up, didn't recall what page it lay open and basically it was he, not Sheila who placed it open at that page. Which is certainly interesting to me 

I doubt we can blame the defence for that. They've kept it secret all this time. And apparently signed sworn statements that they never moved anything in the crime scene.

[Zoso]

I doubt we can blame the defence for that. They've kept it secret all this time. And apparently signed sworn statements that they never moved anything in the crime scene.

That's not why I'm smiling.