Tell me you are conspiract theorist without telling me you are a consp. theorist

[BarefootDanC]

Not sure about that. I've consistently said it won't be referred. I'm with the critics of the CCRC. They do desktop reviews. I also think some stuff will be dismissed because it's not tight enough to get around alternative explanations.

But Roch, if the submissions are so compelling, why do they need to do more than "desktop reviews"? We are told that they already have evidence that sound moderator was not on the gun, that Sheila was still alive at 6:09 and so on.

[BarefootDanC]

Of course they do desktop reviews.  Its not the CCRC's role to carry out an investigation.

This is correct. If you were applying directly to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal (you can do this twice following a conviction, within 28 days or longer if an extension is granted), you wouldn't expect the Court of Appeal to carry out an investigation.

[Cambridgecutie]

Why will they throw out the most recent submissions? Because the submissions have no substance or because "the establishment won't allow it"?

Because they go nowhere near the CPS criteria for an appeal. 

[Roch]

Of course they do desktop reviews.  Its not the CCRC's role to carry out an investigation.

We are the Criminal Cases Review Commission or ‘CCRC’ for short. We investigate miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

If you think you’ve been wrongly sentenced or wrongly convicted of a criminal offence and you’ve lost your appeal, you can apply to us free of charge.

There’s no time limit on your application and we can look at old cases. If our investigation finds something new in your case, we can send it for a fresh appeal.

You can visit our website to use our online application form.

Or you can ask for an application form by contacting us via phone, email or post.

Our application forms are easy to fill in and you don’t need help from a solicitor to apply.

If you’re unable to complete the form yourself, friends and family members can act as your representative.

Asking for an investigation from the CCRC is completely free.

We’re paid for by the Ministry of Justice and we will never ask you or your representatives for money, no matter how long we work on your case. 

The CCRC is independent. This means we don’t work for the police, the courts or the prosecution. But it also means we don’t work for you in the same way that a solicitor would.

Our job is to investigate your case closely, in a fair and impartial way.

We use our special powers to ask for things like police papers and secret materials from all public bodies to investigate your case.

The law says that if we ask for materials, they have to be sent to us.

The CCRC is the only body that can request information in this way. We use our powers carefully and only when we need to.

If our investigation finds something new in your case, like a change in the law, new evidence or a new witness statement we can send your case back to the appeal court.

The CCRC is the only organisation with the power to do this.

The CCRC is the very last stage of the Criminal Justice System.

Anyone who believes they’ve been wrongly convicted of a criminal offence in England, Wales or Northern Ireland can ask the CCRC to review their case.

But you usually need to appeal to the court before applying to us.

If you lose your appeal and apply to us, we can carry out a fair and independent investigation of your case free of charge.

To find out more about the CCRC and how we can help you, give us a call.

[Cambridgecutie]

We are the Criminal Cases Review Commission or ‘CCRC’ for short. We investigate miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

If you think you’ve been wrongly sentenced or wrongly convicted of a criminal offence and you’ve lost your appeal, you can apply to us free of charge.

There’s no time limit on your application and we can look at old cases. If our investigation finds something new in your case, we can send it for a fresh appeal.

You can visit our website to use our online application form.

Or you can ask for an application form by contacting us via phone, email or post.

Our application forms are easy to fill in and you don’t need help from a solicitor to apply.

If you’re unable to complete the form yourself, friends and family members can act as your representative.

Asking for an investigation from the CCRC is completely free.

We’re paid for by the Ministry of Justice and we will never ask you or your representatives for money, no matter how long we work on your case. 

The CCRC is independent. This means we don’t work for the police, the courts or the prosecution. But it also means we don’t work for you in the same way that a solicitor would.

Our job is to investigate your case closely, in a fair and impartial way.

We use our special powers to ask for things like police papers and secret materials from all public bodies to investigate your case.

The law says that if we ask for materials, they have to be sent to us.

The CCRC is the only body that can request information in this way. We use our powers carefully and only when we need to.

If our investigation finds something new in your case, like a change in the law, new evidence or a new witness statement we can send your case back to the appeal court.

The CCRC is the only organisation with the power to do this.

The CCRC is the very last stage of the Criminal Justice System.

Anyone who believes they’ve been wrongly convicted of a criminal offence in England, Wales or Northern Ireland can ask the CCRC to review their case.

But you usually need to appeal to the court before applying to us.

If you lose your appeal and apply to us, we can carry out a fair and independent investigation of your case free of charge.

To find out more about the CCRC and how we can help you, give us a call.

Yes it will investigate if material is submitted meets the criteria.  Eg the photographic evidence from Peter Sutherst.  But its not in the business of wild goose chases on the Aga burns and the like.

[ngb1066]

Yes!  Eg Puglove would go on about the lack of fingerprints on the rifle.  This caused me to go off and find out why.  I then discovered that certain surfaces, especially firearms, are difficult to recover fingerprints from. 

Myster and I mass debated quite happily together and spent hours going over the scene of crime evidence which then led to the soc reconstruction.

They were both dreadful.  In particular Puglove was an obnoxious abusive alcoholic who should have been prosecuted for some of her online trolling and abuse which went well beyond the limits of online banter.  Myster was part of forum sock puppet dual identity on that forum. For a long time that forum was a vehicle for trolling behaviour and the police were involved several times within my direct knowledge.  If you want details I can tell you.
 

[BarefootDanC]

Yes it will investigate if material is submitted meets the criteria.  Eg the photographic evidence from Peter Sutherst.  But its not in the business of wild goose chases on the Aga burns and the like.

Did you know the Peter Sutherst report is back with the CCRC in the latest submission !! I am told (by Simon Kelly of the Campaign Team) that "we know have high resolution images* and these prove that Sutherst was right all along".

Incredible these people! They will never admit that any of their predecessors arguments were wrong!


* high resolution = enlargements

[BarefootDanC]

They were both dreadful.  In particular Puglove was an obnoxious abusive alcoholic who should have been prosecuted for some of her online trolling and abuse which went well beyond the limits of online banter.  Myster was part of forum sock puppet dual identity on that forum. For a long time that forum was a vehicle for trolling behaviour and the police were involved several times within my direct knowledge.  If you want details I can tell you.

Have you seen some of the trolling which takes place in the Facebook groups?

[ILB]

Have you seen some of the trolling which takes place in the Facebook groups?

Yes, even at some point having one individual who is staunch " pro jeremy "  post a derogatory remark on my business page. The guy was a weirdo.

I think you have a good idea who the person is!, and I lean to innocence!

I can't personally be doing with the FB groups, like a mothers meeting tit for tat load of bollocks if I'm honest. Although " banter "  between members can exist on here. This is the best forum by a country mile.

Believe many of the FB posters are influenced by the 2020 drama. Just my opinion. It's not a serious place for discussion.

[Cambridgecutie]

They were both dreadful.  In particular Puglove was an obnoxious abusive alcoholic who should have been prosecuted for some of her online trolling and abuse which went well beyond the limits of online banter.  Myster was part of forum sock puppet dual identity on that forum. For a long time that forum was a vehicle for trolling behaviour and the police were involved several times within my direct knowledge.  If you want details I can tell you.

You are just miffed because Puglove didn't appreciate your hairstyle 

To the best of my knowledge Myster was someone with the initials P? (can't immediately find old emails from him).  I am pretty sure he was not part of a forum sock puppet. 

[Roch]

Yes it will investigate if material is submitted meets the criteria.  Eg the photographic evidence from Peter Sutherst.  But its not in the business of wild goose chases on the Aga burns and the like.

'and the like' is stretching it a bit, as an accurate label for the rest of the submissions other than the aga burns. You can only really pretend to ignore Henley's general findings regarding the CCRC. And his findings are in tune with the concerns writ large all over the CCRC Watch articles. Ergo CCRC Watch was and is on the right track. It pre-dates Henley..

[snow66!]

Surgical hardware.

Didn't Vanezis say 'recent', strongly hinting that they were made on the night of the murders, Cutie?
Indeed, why get experts to try and work out what made the marks and discuss them at trial unless they were quite sure the marks were made to Nevills back that night?
Surely the CCRC will have to keep this in mind?

[BarefootDanC]

'and the like' is stretching it a bit, as an accurate label for the rest of the submissions other than the aga burns. You can only really pretend to ignore Henley's general findings regarding the CCRC. And his findings are in tune with the concerns writ large all over the CCRC Watch articles. Ergo CCRC Watch was and is on the right track. It pre-dates Henley..

The CCRC watch articles on Bamber are incredible cranky.

[Cambridgecutie]

Did you know the Peter Sutherst report is back with the CCRC in the latest submission !! I am told (by Simon Kelly of the Campaign Team) that "we know have high resolution images* and these prove that Sutherst was right all along".

Incredible these people! They will never admit that any of their predecessors arguments were wrong!


* high resolution = enlargements

Well at least they were on the right track with PS ie attempting to discredit the silencer.  I thought the CCRC employed the services of its own expert who undermined PS's work.  But the upshot was that PS needed to undertake further work and for whatever reason(s) this wasn't done, perhaps due to costs. 

[Jane]

They were both dreadful.  In particular Puglove was an obnoxious abusive alcoholic who should have been prosecuted for some of her online trolling and abuse which went well beyond the limits of online banter.  Myster was part of forum sock puppet dual identity on that forum. For a long time that forum was a vehicle for trolling behaviour and the police were involved several times within my direct knowledge.  If you want details I can tell you.

But Red isn't the only forum to harbour trolls, is it? Why are theirs any worse than others?