PSOR on CC's proposed referral to the CCRC.

[Adam]

The proposed referral to the CCRC has been rejected.

Each ground rejection reason is below.

[Adam]

GROUND 1:

Silencer: blood and ballistics based on forensics/science: biology and physics.


REASON FOR REJECTION - No new evidence supplied.

[Adam]

GROUND 2:

SOC reconstruction: particular emphasis on NB sustaining upstairs gunshot wounds on landing stairs and main staircase, based on forensics/science, not bedroom as jurors led to believe at trial.

REASON FOR REJECTION - No new evidence supplied.

[Adam]

GROUND 3:

SC's nightdress: consistent with her as perp based on forensics/science.

REASON FOR REJECTION - No new evidence supplied.

[Adam]

GROUND 4:

SC's handswabs: consistent with her as perp based on forensics/science.

REASON FOR REJECTION - No new evidence supplied.

[Adam]

GROUND 5:

SOC around SC: bible, bloodstains, SC moved at SOC based on forensics/science.

REASON FOR REJECTION - No new evidence supplied.

[Adam]

The threshold for the CCRC to refer a case to the COA is very high. The referral rate is very low at less than 2%. A referral can only be considered based on strong new evidence which may have influenced the jury at trial.

It will not refer a case based on an individuals unproven theories, accusations that tests were not done, soundbites or requests that reconstructions are done.

All of the above grounds were looked at in great detail pre trial & during the trial. They have also been looked at in great detail in the 40 years since. By the CCRC & COA. Or both. The issue of the silencer has been looked at more than once and last rejected by the CCRC in 2025..

For CC to want to submit these grounds again without any new evidence is very disappointing & would be wasting the CCRC's valuable time.

[Adam]

This is a PSOR. CC has a generous 28 days to challenge it.

The challenge must be new evidence. Not just a repeat of the above soundbites.   

[Steve_uk]

The threshold for the CCRC to refer a case to the COA is very high. The referral rate is very low at less than 2%. A referral can only be considered based on strong new evidence which may have influenced the jury at trial.

It will not refer a case based on an individuals unproven theories, accusations that tests were not done, soundbites or requests that reconstructions are done.

All of the above grounds were looked at in great detail pre trial & during the trial. They have also been looked at in great detail in the 40 years since. By the CCRC & COA. Or both. The issue of the silencer has been looked at more than once and last rejected by the CCRC in 2025..

For CC to want to submit these grounds again without any new evidence is very disappointing & would be wasting the CCRC's valuable time.

Oh, that won't stop her..

[ILB]

Been some news?

Was hundreds of yards away from Jeremy today as I picked up some powder coating adjacent to HMP Wakefield.

[Adam]

Oh, that won't stop her..

Hopefully we get CC's new evidence soon. She must have some otherwise why make the statements?

I did create seperate threats on each ground but no new evidence was supplied. Resulting in this PSOR 

Jeremy's CCRC applications have been 10 years apart. As he needed to get new evidence. The new DNA evidence got a referral in 2002 but 2012 & 2021 applications were unsuccessful.

CC's 5 statements are certainly big. If there is strong new evidence supporting them it will be a game changer. Otherwise CC will have to retract.

[Jonathan]

maybe this is ongoing preparation for the 2030s CCRC application

[Adam]

maybe this is ongoing preparation for the 2030s CCRC application

If CC has strong new evidence on such important grounds, it needs to go to the CT or CCRC now. They are still looking at the 2021 application.

Waiting until 2030 for the current claim to be dismissed will mean her new evidence will only be included in a 2040 application.

Her first task is getting my PSOR overturned. With new evidence. That would be a start!

At the moment she has just made soundbites with no new supporting evidence even though I created threads on each of her grounds giving her platforms to showcase it.

[Adam]

CC has been silent since posting her proposed CCRC submission.

Maybe she is getting the new evidence together to challenge my PSOR. Although thought she would have it at hand to produce straight away.

All of the above grounds showed Jeremy as the killer. Challenges to them have been rejected by the CCRC & COA. So I suspect they were just soundbites and CC's silence is because she has no new evidence.

A final refusal will be made on the 1st May 2026 unless strong new evidence is provided that may have influenced the jury at trial.

[ILB]

CC has been silent since posting her proposed CCRC submission.

Maybe she is getting the new evidence together to challenge my PSOR. Although thought she would have it at hand to produce straight away.

All of the above grounds showed Jeremy as the killer. Challenges to them have been rejected by the CCRC & COA. So I suspect they were just soundbites and CC's silence is because she has no new evidence.

A final refusal will be made on the 1st May 2026 unless strong new evidence is provided that may have influenced the jury at trial.

Jeremy will just start again.