17th. April 2025 - A rather different D-Day.

[Curiosity]

Will Jeremy Bamber's battle-barge be sunk in the English Channel and disappear without trace or will it arrive safely at Caen Beach on the way to Saint-Tropez? -

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2025/apr/17/the-murders-at-white-house-farm-should-jeremy-bamber-still-be-in-prison

[ILB]

The last time he came over the channel and touched at Dover he didn't get a good result.

The start of a 40 year nightmare.

[Adam]

So far, the commission has spent four years dealing with four of these pieces of evidence.

At this rate, it would take another six years to consider the case, by which time Bamber would be 70.

It is believed that the decision to accelerate his case has been made to save the CCRC from further criticism.

----------

So they have gone through all 10 grounds in 4 years instead of 10.

Don't know why he should get preferential treatment in his forth application to the CCRC/COA. His choice to submit 10 grounds.

[ILB]

Is today an announcement?

[Curiosity]

Is today an announcement?

Simon Hattenstone seems to think so, being a supporter in the know. Maybe the CCRC have now appointed an interim leader who can sign-off the submission today specially for Easter. Or could be a group decision by those lower down the ladder.

[ILB]

Interesting article, enjoyed it.

Bamber seems as resilient as ever even after 40 years.

[lookout]

It's always been the blasted phone-calls, in fact,it's always been one word against the other and without evidence set in stone how on earth does anyone get past that. ?

[ILB]

Am I right in saying If he gets a knock back it will be a provisional decision as in the same as it was in 2011?

Does he then get three months to submit more grounds?

[ILB]

----------

So they have gone through all 10 grounds in 4 years instead of 10.

Don't know why he should get preferential treatment in his forth application to the CCRC/COA. His choice to submit 10 grounds.

Wouldn't call it preferential treatment as such although do agree with you they may have speeded the process to save themselves from further criticsm. He does have a long history with the CCRC.

If the grounds don't meet the standard he will be back to square one again. Perhaps quicker than expected,

[Steve_uk]

Interesting article, enjoyed it.

Bamber seems as resilient as ever even after 40 years.

A well-written article from a former Salford teacher, but he skirts round the difficult issues, probably led by the Bamber charisma and manipulation which allows the latter to set the agenda, any disquisition even minorly critical running the risk of disownment. So no mention of the turbulent relationship he had with parents and sister, his intense dislike of the twins, he accepts Bamber's feeble justification of the Osea Road robbery and his indecision about the order of the telephone calls.

One would also have to accept that police withheld the knowledge of speaking to Nevill that fateful morning at an early stage in the investigation when there was no reason to and Bamber wasn't in the frame.

[Adam]

A well-written article from a former Salford teacher, but he skirts round the difficult issues, probably led by the Bamber charisma and manipulation which allows the latter to set the agenda, any disquisition even minorly critical running the risk of disownment. So no mention of the turbulent relationship he had with parents and sister, his strong dislike of the twins, he accepts Bamber's feeble justification of the Osea Road robbery and his indecision about the order of the telephone calls.

One would also have to accept that police withheld the knowledge of speaking to Nevill that fateful morning at an early stage in the investigation when there was no reason to and Bamber wasn't in the frame.

To highlight poor security but agrees he should not have spent the money.

Feeble?

He did not say it was him the following day. And had staged the scene to make it look like an outside job.

[ngb1066]

Am I right in saying If he gets a knock back it will be a provisional decision as in the same as it was in 2011?

Does he then get three months to submit more grounds?

Yes.

[Steve_uk]

To highlight poor security but agrees he should not have spent the money.

Feeble?

He did not say it was him the following day. And had staged the scene to make it look like an outside job.

But why not tell his parents and the Boutflours that they were in danger of being robbed, instead of fleecing the joint himself? It was Jeremy who persuaded Nevill not to deposit the past month's takings in the bank as was customary, but to lock them in the safe, so I don't accept Jeremy's explanation. It was a symbolic microcosm of the crime to come, as he was striking whilst the funds were at their zenith, untouched by hospitalization fees for Sheila at St. Andrews, Northampton and possible private schooling for Nicholas and Daniel when they reached a similar age to when Jeremy himself was packed off to Greshams.

[Adam]

But why not tell his parents and the Boutflours that they were in danger of being robbed, instead of fleecing the joint himself? It was Jeremy who persuaded Nevill not to deposit the past month's takings in the bank as was customary, but to lock them in the safe, so I don't accept Jeremy's explanation. It was a symbolic microcosm of the crime to come, as he was striking whilst the funds were at their zenith, untouched by hospitalization fees for Sheila at St. Andrews, Northampton and possible private schooling for Nicholas and Daniel when they reached a similar age to when Jeremy himself was packed off to Greshams.

Not sure how there were security issues.

Thieves would have to get into the caravan site and then a safe. They would only do that if they knew there was good money inside.

Most of the time the safe was empty or had minimal money. Bamber's robbery was on a jackpot day of around £900.00.

[ILB]

A well-written article from a former Salford teacher, but he skirts round the difficult issues, probably led by the Bamber charisma and manipulation which allows the latter to set the agenda, any disquisition even minorly critical running the risk of disownment. So no mention of the turbulent relationship he had with parents and sister, his intense dislike of the twins, he accepts Bamber's feeble justification of the Osea Road robbery and his indecision about the order of the telephone calls.

One would also have to accept that police withheld the knowledge of speaking to Nevill that fateful morning at an early stage in the investigation when there was no reason to and Bamber wasn't in the frame.

He states in that article that one of the reasons he robbed the site is because he believes he was owed money.

I do recall him mentioning having a dispute over AE over bonuses and him complaining she got more than he did. Whether that be a genuine justified grievance or not , but the two reasons he gave back in 1985 highlifed were part greed and to highlight the lacklustre security of the site.