DocMaker article on Milbank

[snow66!]

'it only takes a couple of days - a week at the most - of reading through the evidence to realise it’s a physical impossibility for Bamber to have committed these crimes.'

---------

It is easy to create several Bamber scenarios.

None are definitive as he had several options at different stages.

Hopefully The Doc Maker creates a Sheila scenario with his next vlog.

Yes, I agree Adam! The CT and the Doc Maker should give a detailed Sheila scenario!

[ILB]

Is that a genuine photo of Bamber with Matt Harris or just another manipulated image con?

I do not believe its genuine.

[Adam]

 (https://thedocmaker.substack.com/p/the-ccrc-needs-to-die-long-live-robot

Here is the latest one.

[ILB]

Its an interesting blog to read but to put things into simple context if the evidence isnt there. He's going nowhere. And the ccrc felt that hence the provisional denial.

[ILB]

In that particular blog that Adam posted hes getting away from the core reason. Jeremy Bamber,  and going on to differences between humans and AI.

[ILB]

"The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) uses a "real possibility" test to determine whether to refer a case to the Court of Appeal. This threshold, defined in section 13 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, requires the CCRC to consider if there's a real possibility that the conviction, verdict, finding, or sentence would not be upheld if referred. It's a relatively low bar, meaning the CCRC may refer a case even if it's less likely than not that the conviction will be overturned, but more than just a remote possibility"

The provisional denial so far suggests that the ccrc didnt even believe Jeremy had a remote chance at a full COA hearing.

[snow66!]

"The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) uses a "real possibility" test to determine whether to refer a case to the Court of Appeal. This threshold, defined in section 13 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, requires the CCRC to consider if there's a real possibility that the conviction, verdict, finding, or sentence would not be upheld if referred. It's a relatively low bar, meaning the CCRC may refer a case even if it's less likely than not that the conviction will be overturned, but more than just a remote possibility"

The provisional denial so far suggests that the ccrc didnt even believe Jeremy had a remote chance at a full COA hearing.

Thats because the CT presented the Aga evidence wrongly, ILB.

[Curiosity]

Thats because the CT presented the Aga evidence wrongly, ILB.

No they didn't because their woeful experiment whichever way you look at it was pants.

[ILB]

Thats because the CT presented the Aga evidence wrongly, ILB.

The AGA burns dont impact the verdict or undermine the conviction Snow.

[ILB]

Thats because the CT presented the Aga evidence wrongly, ILB.

How do you think they presented it wrongly mate?

[snow66!]

How do you think they presented it wrongly mate?

Well, if I am reading things correctly, ILB, then the Aga evidence was presented as 'part' of issue 3, the integrity of the crime scene, and as such was thrown out along with that point.
The campaign team seemed to use the Aga evidence for the sole purpose of proving that the police moved Nevill after entry, and Boyce agreed with this stating in his Aga video that the crime scene or evidence was changed, cant remember exactly how he put it.
So it was obvious that the CT and Boyce were only interested in one scenario, that the police moved Nevill and that the Aga burns proved this, no other possibility was of interest to them, eg, that the burns may have happened earlier on when Nevill was still alive.
In my opinion the CT or whoever submitted the application to the CCRC should have simply given them the Aga evidence on its own and if accepted let the CCRC explain how Aga burns can fit into a JB guilt scenario.
After all, Nevill lying against the Aga for a few hours simply doesn't fit into the JB guilt scenario that was presented in court, does it?
BUT!! By simply tying the Aga evidence solely and exclusively to the claim that the police moved Nevill the CT have managed to 'help out' the CCRC as it were, by ruling out any other scenarios connected to the Aga evidence.
Hence, when the claim that the police moved Nevill from the Aga to the scuttle after entry is/was/has been? thrown out, as it seems to have been, then out goes the Aga evidence along with it! Madness!
No, the Aga evidence should have been presented on its own, and if accepted, then it was up to the CCRC to explain how they fitted into a JB guilt scenario, which in my opinion they couldn't, hence a referel would need to be given?
BUT!! Unless we get to see the document of refusal from the CCRC we can only guess at why the Aga evidence was actually dismissed, if indeed it has been by simply being part of issue 3 as some are claiming.
Anyway thats why I think the CT submitted the Aga evidence wrongly, ILB. Make any sense?

[Adam]

No one who has read the PSOR has said the CCRC agree with the aga evidence.

It would be a surprise if the CCRC said 'we agree the aga caused the burn marks & the police/raid team moved Nevill then lied about it. But we are still not referring'.

Can only think they do not agree that the aga caused the burn marks.

[ILB]

No one who has read the PSOR has said the CCRC agree with the aga evidence.

It would be a surprise if the CCRC said 'we agree the aga caused the burn marks & the police/raid team moved Nevill then lied about it. But we are still not referring'.

Can only think they do not agree that the aga caused the burn marks.

The Aga burns has absolutely no impact in rendering the convictions of Jeremy Bamber unsafe.

[ILB]

The only way we are going to see that document is if Jeremy Bamber himself releases it or we ask the CT to release it. ( both extremely unlikely)

Jeremy made a criticism of the recent PSOR, " the first 15 pages is just them making excuses " Without reading it for ourselves we are clueless.

[Adam]

The Aga burns has absolutely no impact in rendering the convictions of Jeremy Bamber unsafe.

If the CCRC were satisfied the aga caused the burns, then that would mean a 40 year cover up by the raid team/EP. Saying Nevill was found in the coal scuttle.

NGB can confirm if that would have been sufficient to refer & whether the aga burn ground has been dismissed