Article about recent decision

[Roch]

https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/jeremy-bamber-has-been-knellered-the-challenge-ahead-for-dame-vera-baird?fbclid=IwY2xjawLZLnJleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHiyAM5fbuuCmuHs58g0_J_niIH89o_QdlTxxh8Z5twFHF9fTQu9WyTp3Yp0v_aem_ASFeYYlbxrJgrYrdnPXMcg

[Cambridgecutie]

https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/jeremy-bamber-has-been-knellered-the-challenge-ahead-for-dame-vera-baird?fbclid=IwY2xjawLZLnJleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHiyAM5fbuuCmuHs58g0_J_niIH89o_QdlTxxh8Z5twFHF9fTQu9WyTp3Yp0v_aem_ASFeYYlbxrJgrYrdnPXMcg

Do you believe there was a 999 call from inside WHF before TFG entered?  And do you believe Bill and others believe such?  It seems to me the likes of Bill genuinely believe JB to be innocent and think if they throw enough mud at the wall some will stick. Of course the CCRC doesn't operate on this basis so it then becomes a source of frustration for the likes of yourself and Bill.

If JB is innocent then the silencer evidence: blood, paint, scratches and hair was fabricated.  Same for JM's testimony.  Is that not enough?  It is obvious the former underpins the conviction hence the CCRC referred to the CoA in 2002 on this basis.  JB will not be acquitted until such time the silencer evidence can be undermined in a very compelling way.  Vague claims of 2 silencers and marks on NB's back said to represent burns caused by the barrel of the rifle do not in any way explain the blood in the silencer, paint, scratches and hair. 

Going all over the place with claims of a 999 call, Aga burns, swapped bullets, etc, etc is not getting to the heart of the case.  Moreover, none of these claims stand up to scrutiny. 

For those who have been around the case for years I really don't understand why they appear unable or unwilling to take on board these simple facts.

[Bill Robertson]

JB will not be acquitted until such time the silencer evidence can be undermined in a very compelling way. 

I can't speak for the Campaign Team but as far as I am concerned it is not a question of JB being 'acquitted', that is never going to happen. The best he will ever get is for his conviction to be declared unsafe. If the Stokenchurch records indicate that the 999 call did happen then of course his conviction is unsafe, irrespective of any other factors, such as the silencer evidence. To have a supposedly dead victim making a phone call is pretty good evidence that the case outlined by the prosecution must be flawed.

Why won't the CCRC inspect the Stokenchurch records? What are they scared of finding?

[Cambridgecutie]

I can't speak for the Campaign Team but as far as I am concerned it is not a question of JB being 'acquitted', that is never going to happen. The best he will ever get is for his conviction to be declared unsafe.If the Stokenchurch records indicate that the 999 call did happen then of course his conviction is unsafe, irrespective of any other factors, such as the silencer evidence. To have a supposedly dead victim making a phone call is pretty good evidence that the case outlined by the prosecution must be flawed.

Why won't the CCRC inspect the Stokenchurch records? What are they scared of finding?

The resident barrister says otherwise.

But the records don't support a 999 call made from within WHF at a time JB was outside with EP.  The evidence in this regard supports the GPO operative, Jean Rowe, connecting the open line within WHF to the police HQ, Essex, with PC Milibank listening in.   

Why should the CCRC inspect the Stokenchurch records when there's no evidence to support your claims?  If you had your way every member of the judicial system, up and down the country, from the most junior police support officer to the Home Sec would be rooting around dusty old files based on your spurious claims. 

You are totally misguided imo. 

[Bubo bubo]

The resident barrister says otherwise.

But the records don't support a 999 call made from within WHF at a time JB was outside with EP.  The evidence in this regard supports the GPO operative, Jean Rowe, connecting the open line within WHF to the police HQ, Essex, with PC Milibank listening in.   

Why should the CCRC inspect the Stokenchurch records when there's no evidence to support your claims?  If you had your way every member of the judicial system, up and down the country, from the most junior police support officer to the Home Sec would be rooting around dusty old files based on your spurious claims. 





















You are totally misguided imo.

The JR statement is also a fake. It is not signed and she claims that the police were still monitoring the call at 08.00am when she left work. This is false because the logs state that the line was closed at 07.47am. You are also choosing to ignore the fact that whilst the GPO were monitoring the 'Off the hook' line they were asked to notify any changes. The logs show that they told EP that the line was now engaged at 05.47am. For this change in status to happen the receiver had to be closed and another call made.

You should also read this fuller post.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,12282.msg567690.html#msg567690

[Cambridgecutie]

The JR statement is also a fake. It is not signed and she claims that the police were still monitoring the call at 08.00am when she left work. This is false because the logs state that the line was closed at 07.47am. You are also choosing to ignore the fact that whilst the GPO were monitoring the 'Off the hook' line they were asked to notify any changes. The logs show that they told EP that the line was now engaged at 05.47am. For this change in status to happen the receiver had to be closed and another call made.

You should also read this fuller post.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,12282.msg567690.html#msg567690

I really shouldn't be indulging your wild conspiracy theories. 

Most of the statements we have access to are unsigned so nothing unusual about this.

The fact there's a discrepancy of some 13 minutes in a pre-digital age is evidence of authenticity. 

The line would have sounded the engaged tone since it was off the hook.  The GPO had the equipment to bypass this, open the line and listen in.

You are more misguided than Bill imo.

[Roch]

Do you believe there was a 999 call from inside WHF before TFG entered?

The jury has always been out for me on that score.  I've tended to be sceptical about it because of documentation to the contrary (if totally genuine).  However, I disagree with you about the CCRC. I believe the handling of JB's submissions present an instant opportunity for Baird put her rhetoric in to real action. 

If she fails to do so it can only be because this particular case is not allowed to progress (which I have believed for several years now).  That will make Baird yet another stooge, for all her tough talk.

I think you misunderstand and misrepresent Bill's articles. He has been on point with regards to his criticisms of the CCRC. His views match those of both Henley and Baird.

[Cambridgecutie]

The jury has always been out for me on that score.  I've tended to be sceptical about it because of documentation to the contrary (if totally genuine).  However, I disagree with you about the CCRC. I believe the handling of JB's submissions present an instant opportunity for Baird put her rhetoric in to real action. 

If she fails to do so it can only be because this particular case is not allowed to progress (which I have believed for several years now).  That will make Baird yet another stooge, for all her tough talk.

I think you misunderstand and misrepresent Bill's articles. He has been on point with regards to his criticisms of the CCRC. His views match those of both Henley and Baird.

But what has been submitted that meets the criteria for a referral to CoA? 

I doubt VB will involve herself in individual cases.

[Roch]

But what has been submitted that meets the criteria for a referral to CoA? 

I doubt VB will involve herself in individual cases.

I think you have allowed yourself to become bloody minded. Tunnel vision that imprisons you into only seeing this single issue of what you think does or doesn't meet some abstract, arbitrary criteria.

[Cambridgecutie]

I think you have allowed yourself to become bloody minded. Tunnel vision that imprisons you into only seeing this single issue of what you think does or doesn't meet some abstract, arbitrary criteria.

I am just being realistic.  You on the other hand are totally misguided along with Bill and Bubo Blue Socks.  The CCRC/CoA criteria for appeals is not abstract and/or arbitary.  It is clearly set out:

Hearing new evidence
The Court of Appeal may hear new evidence that was not adduced in the original proceedings (section 23(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1968), if:

it appears capable of belief;
it may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
it would have been admissible;
it is an issue which is the subject of the appeal;
there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/appeals-court-appeal

Myself and others have said from the off the recent CCRC submission will not go anywhere because it doesn't come close to meeting the above.

[Roch]

I am just being realistic.  You on the other hand are totally misguided along with Bill and Bubo Blue Socks.  The CCRC/CoA criteria for appeals is not abstract and/or arbitary.  It is clearly set out:

Hearing new evidence
The Court of Appeal may hear new evidence that was not adduced in the original proceedings (section 23(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1968), if:

it appears capable of belief;
it may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
it would have been admissible;
it is an issue which is the subject of the appeal;
there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/appeals-court-appeal

Myself and others have said from the off the recent CCRC submission will not go anywhere because it doesn't come close to meeting the above.

That list looks subjective. Baird has pointed out an unwillingness for the CCRC to challenge the COA.

[Bubo bubo]

I really shouldn't be indulging your wild conspiracy theories. 

Most of the statements we have access to are unsigned so nothing unusual about this.

The fact there's a discrepancy of some 13 minutes in a pre-digital age is evidence of authenticity. 

The line would have sounded the engaged tone since it was off the hook.  The GPO had the equipment to bypass this, open the line and listen in.

You are more misguided than Bill imo.

There is no mention in the JR statement about being asked to monitor the line and notify any change in line status. Surely she should have mentioned this in her statement

The time is important. All operators had to record their work and she must have known that the police were not still monitoring when she left work because she knew that the line was closed because  the police asked for the link to be broken. Again no mention of this in her statement.

Operators were only allowed to listen in if directed by the police and strictly speaking they should only do so under warrant. Given the situation a quick listen in was probably OK but it was not necessary to confirm the line status.

I have covered this in other posts. The operators had a light and a sound (known as the howler) to identify the line status without listening in. In fact the operators asked for the 'off the hook' sound to be lowered because it was initially too loud and hurting their ears

You frown on posts from others that do not confirm your ideas and thinking. Only your own posts are the truth. Is it that you do not wish any breakthrough made by someone other than you.

[Bubo bubo]

I think you have allowed yourself to become bloody minded. Tunnel vision that imprisons you into only seeing this single issue of what you think does or doesn't meet some abstract, arbitrary criteria.

Agreed.

[Bubo bubo]

The fact there's a discrepancy of some 13 minutes in a pre-digital age is evidence of authenticity. 

The line would have sounded the engaged tone since it was off the hook.  The GPO had the equipment to bypass this, open the line and listen in.

You are more misguided than Bill imo.

What a load of bollocks. Time precision is vitally important in legal proceedings. You have lost your way in this case.

[Steve_uk]

https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/jeremy-bamber-has-been-knellered-the-challenge-ahead-for-dame-vera-baird?fbclid=IwY2xjawLZLnJleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHiyAM5fbuuCmuHs58g0_J_niIH89o_QdlTxxh8Z5twFHF9fTQu9WyTp3Yp0v_aem_ASFeYYlbxrJgrYrdnPXMcg

Convenient that Sheila never spoke.