Author Topic: CCRC decision  (Read 24051 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bubo bubo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3357
Re: CCRC decision
« Reply #195 on: July 07, 2025, 06:04:PM »
But aren't they better to take the simplest route meantime to get a referral, Bubo? just use the Aga evidence in its simplest form to get there, then hopefully the whole truth of what happened shall we say, will follow?
Surely those involved would be more willing to talk after JB is acqitted, but the CT have to get him to that stage first.
I am sure the legal team are in the driving seat. The CT are just working on the bullets and the LT are deciding if and when to fire them and in what sequence. They will be talking strategies with JB and making suggestions. They are bound to be act in accordance with his instructions once they have outlined their views and recommendations.

Online snow66!

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5945
Re: CCRC decision
« Reply #196 on: July 07, 2025, 08:35:PM »
I am sure the legal team are in the driving seat. The CT are just working on the bullets and the LT are deciding if and when to fire them and in what sequence. They will be talking strategies with JB and making suggestions. They are bound to be act in accordance with his instructions once they have outlined their views and recommendations.
What else have the CT got left apart from the Aga burns to gain a referral now, Bubo?
Presuming the Aga evidence hasn't been rejected of course!

Offline ILB

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13152
Re: CCRC decision
« Reply #197 on: July 07, 2025, 09:03:PM »
So how did he exit WHF leaving WHF 'secure from the inside'?

You must have a different narrative to the police and prosevution.

No idea. I wasn't there.

Bamber denies the crime, says he wasn't there.

If you can upload a video of you stood outside a property and banging an interior latch into place. Please be my guest.



« Last Edit: July 07, 2025, 09:04:PM by ILB »
If yesterday you hated me. Then today you can not stop the love that binds from me to you. And you to me

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44402
Re: CCRC decision
« Reply #198 on: July 07, 2025, 09:08:PM »
No idea. I wasn't there.

Bamber denies the crime, says he wasn't there.

If you can upload a video of you stood outside a property and banging an interior latch into place. Please be my guest.

Your claim that he didn't exit out of the kitchen  window has been dismissed.

I have asked you twice for an alternative exit.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2025, 09:36:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44402
Re: CCRC decision
« Reply #199 on: July 07, 2025, 09:11:PM »
The defence at trial had to give a sensible response -

Yes he could bang the kitchen window shut from outside. But that doesn't mean he did.

---------

Supporters on forums can just say the police, relatives, prosecution & defence are all wrong.  With nothing to support this.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2025, 09:12:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Bubo bubo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3357
Re: CCRC decision
« Reply #200 on: July 07, 2025, 09:32:PM »
What else have the CT got left apart from the Aga burns to gain a referral now, Bubo?
Presuming the Aga evidence hasn't been rejected of course!

How would I know.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21102
Re: CCRC decision
« Reply #201 on: July 07, 2025, 09:39:PM »
How would I know.
Well, you do profess at intervals to be a bit of a know-all in this domain.

Offline ILB

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13152
Re: CCRC decision
« Reply #202 on: July 07, 2025, 10:02:PM »
The defence at trial had to give a sensible response -

Yes he could bang the kitchen window shut from outside. But that doesn't mean he did.

---------

Supporters on forums can just say the police, relatives, prosecution & defence are all wrong.  With nothing to support this.

You don't dismiss anything.
If yesterday you hated me. Then today you can not stop the love that binds from me to you. And you to me

Offline ILB

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13152
Re: CCRC decision
« Reply #203 on: July 07, 2025, 10:03:PM »
The defence at trial had to give a sensible response -

Yes he could bang the kitchen window shut from outside. But that doesn't mean he did.

---------

Supporters on forums can just say the police, relatives, prosecution & defence are all wrong.  With nothing to support this.

I can only go by the logic of being unable to stand outside and turn an interior window lock.

Maybe a jury visit could have been beneficial.

Not down to me at the end of the day.
If yesterday you hated me. Then today you can not stop the love that binds from me to you. And you to me

Offline ILB

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13152
Re: CCRC decision
« Reply #204 on: July 07, 2025, 10:05:PM »


I have asked you twice for an alternative exit.

Man says he wasn't there. Have to balance everything from my perspective.
If yesterday you hated me. Then today you can not stop the love that binds from me to you. And you to me

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44402
Re: CCRC decision
« Reply #205 on: July 07, 2025, 10:07:PM »
Bamber said he could also enter/exit out of the lounge window.

I'm sure he also tried that window to see if it could be banged from outside so the lever falls into place.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline ILB

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13152
Re: CCRC decision
« Reply #206 on: July 08, 2025, 07:18:AM »
Don't get why Adam is arguing the practicalities of the inability to turn an interior lock mechanism from outside.
If yesterday you hated me. Then today you can not stop the love that binds from me to you. And you to me

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44402
Re: CCRC decision
« Reply #207 on: July 08, 2025, 07:50:AM »
Don't get why Adam is arguing the practicalities of the inability to turn an interior lock mechanism from outside.

Sorry I go by the police, relatives, prosecution & defence.

They checked the kitchen window in 1985.

You didn't.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline ILB

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13152
Re: CCRC decision
« Reply #208 on: July 08, 2025, 09:59:AM »
Sorry I go by the police, relatives, prosecution & defence.

They checked the kitchen window in 1985.

You didn't.

It's been dressed up wrongly.

Rivlin by his own admission went to the scene " sporadically "
If yesterday you hated me. Then today you can not stop the love that binds from me to you. And you to me

Offline Hardy Boy

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3925
Re: CCRC decision
« Reply #209 on: July 08, 2025, 04:57:PM »
What else have the CT got left apart from the Aga burns to gain a referral now, Bubo?
Presuming the Aga evidence hasn't been rejected of course!
Wasn’t this the list of submissions Snow?

Issue 1 - The silencers – The corpus of evidence that two silencers featured in the case and were forensically examined. There are multiple grounds regarding chain of evidence and contaminate issues.
 
Why is this important? One example of the many grounds here is on the Crown’s assertions that a tiny flake of blood inside one of the silencers was a match for Sheila Caffell only. The jury were not told it was also an exact match for the beneficiary Robert Boutflour. This links to Issue 6 and Issue 8.

 
Issue 2 – The telephone calls – Substantial fresh evidence regarding the telephone call from Nevill Bamber to Jeremy and two phone calls to the police, one made by Nevill at 03:26, one made by Jeremy at 03:36.
 
Why this is important? This is Jeremy’s alibi. The Crown told the jury that a single phone call was made from Jeremy to the police. Proving that Jeremy and the police had a call from Nevill Bamber to alert them to the unfolding incident is Jeremy’s alibi.
 
 
Issue 3 – The integrity of the scene – Detailed grounds including fresh evidence regarding the police interference with the scene and the exhibits.
 
Why this is important? Movement of items and the deceased by the police prior and during crime scene photographs being taken which contradicted evidence in disclosed police statements.  An untruthful and inaccurate scenario was then created by the police at a later stage in an attempt to implicate Jeremy Bamber.
 
 
Issue 4 – The windows at White House Farm - Multiple grounds in relation to the kitchen and the downstairs shower room windows that undermines the Crown’s evidence at trial.

Why this is important? The windows were supposedly Jeremy Bamber’s means of entry and exit to the locked house. The fresh evidence proves there was no signs of forced entry and therefore, no one entered the house.
 
 
Issue 5 – Sheila Caffell – Multiple grounds which prove Sheila was alive until after the raid team entered the house. In addition, fresh evidence regarding Sheila at the scene.

Why this is important? Jeremy Bamber was standing outside the house in the company of many police officers when activity was logged as occurring within the house. Therefore, he cannot have been involved. 
 
 
Issue 6 - Photographic issues – Multiple, very focused grounds regarding the non-disclosure of case photographs in respect of many individual case issues.

 
Why this is important? One example is that Essex police and scientists took lots of photographs of the case silencers which have never been disclosed. These would prove two featured in the case but were merged into one exhibit which the crown claimed was on the gun and had blood inside from Sheila Caffell. This links to Issue 1.
 
 
Issue 7 - Complaints against police officers – Detailed and focused on the actions of two key police officers and their interference in the case from 1985 to date.
 
Why this is important? The senior Scenes of Crime officer, DI Cook, and the Senior Investigating Officer, DSI Ainsley, retained undisclosed case material and exhibits they later supplied to members of the public. They were responsible for a range of actions in manipulating the case including lying to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
 

Issue 8 - Inheritance issues – Multiple grounds regarding the actions of the beneficiaries in the case and how the jury were deceived. 
 
Why this is important? The wealth of evidence shows that there was clear motive for witnesses, including Jeremy Bamber’s Uncle, Robert Boutflour to lie on oath in order to achieve the conviction. This was the only way they would inherit from June’s, Nevill’s and Sheila’s estates. This was undisclosed to the court when the jury asked if they had motive. This links to issue 1.

 

Brand new forensic reports have been obtained to support a range of grounds within the main Issues.