The CCRC have made errors with some cases, therefore Jeremy Bamber is innocent

[Adam]

https://www.maldonandburnhamstandard.co.uk/news/24319601.jeremy-bamber-protestors-take-case-review-panel-birmingham/?ref=rss

“We make impartial, evidence-based decisions. We do not make decisions on the basis of external pressure from anyone.

'A group of supporters believe the CCRC failed to enforce public bodies such as Essex Police to disclose vital evidence to Jeremy Bamber’s trial at Chelmsford Crown Court in 1986'.

----------

Don't understand that. The CCRC were nothing to do with the trial.

[Roch]

https://www.maldonandburnhamstandard.co.uk/news/24319601.jeremy-bamber-protestors-take-case-review-panel-birmingham/?ref=rss

“We make impartial, evidence-based decisions. We do not make decisions on the basis of external pressure from anyone.

That's a generic statement. It means nothing.

[BarefootDanC]

They were defending the release of case evidence.

Bamber already had copies of the evidence. It was access to the original documents which they were requesting as Philip Boyce said the access to the original documents could inform his decision, although he didn't explain why.

[Roch]

Bamber already had copies of the evidence. It was access to the original documents which they were requesting as Philip Boyce said the access to the original documents could inform his decision, although he didn't explain why.

Read Henley on original case documents. 

I think there were unseen photographs as well.

Why spend all that money when the documents and images could have been released?

[Cambridgecutie]

That's a generic statement. It means nothing.

I rather think it means what it states!

[Cambridgecutie]

'A group of supporters believe the CCRC failed to enforce public bodies such as Essex Police to disclose vital evidence to Jeremy Bamber’s trial at Chelmsford Crown Court in 1986'.

----------

Don't understand that. The CCRC were nothing to do with the trial.

I'm assuming it was just poorly worded and means the CCRC failing to enforce disclosure of material that Bamber believes has been withheld pre and post trial.

[ILB]

'A group of supporters believe the CCRC failed to enforce public bodies such as Essex Police to disclose vital evidence to Jeremy Bamber’s trial at Chelmsford Crown Court in 1986'.

----------

Don't understand that. The CCRC were nothing to do with the trial.

Wasn't even formed till 1997, agree an odd statement to make.

[BarefootDanC]

Read Henley on original case documents. 

I think there were unseen photographs as well.

Why spend all that money when the documents and images could have been released?

Who took the unseen photographs?

Why wasn't Bamber's lawyer, Joe Stone QC, challenging refusal of access to these photos at the Judicial Review?

To answer your question "Why spend all that money when the documents and images could have been released?" - a public body should follow their own legal advice, rather than capitulating to a request to save money on defending a Judicial Review.

If they capitulate to Bamber's lawyers, they would have to do the same with everyone, everytime someone writes in to request something.

[Adam]

I'm assuming it was just poorly worded and means the CCRC failing to enforce disclosure of material that Bamber believes has been withheld pre and post trial.

The CCRC do not have the power to tell the police to disclose documents to the public.

They do have the power to get and look at the documents themselves. Of which they have found nothing worthy.