Who has been allowed to see the CCRC's Provisional Statement of Reasons (PSOR)?

[David1819]

in that case, please would you give us a good example?

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/102/justice-committee/news/206985/ccrc-leadership-unable-to-learn-from-its-own-mistakes-with-root-and-branch-reform-required-justice-committee-warns/

[BarefootDanC]

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/102/justice-committee/news/206985/ccrc-leadership-unable-to-learn-from-its-own-mistakes-with-root-and-branch-reform-required-justice-committee-warns/

I meant an example from the Jeremy Bamber case.

[Jonathan]

I meant an example from the Jeremy Bamber case.

Think they need to be careful about releasing selectively in case the CCRC publicly respond - the Dame Vera Baird statement on the Letby application suggests she's not standing for nonsense from campaigners

[David1819]

I meant an example from the Jeremy Bamber case.

All I will say is that the CCRC make detailed and good counter arguments against some of the CTs theories that have no merit, such as Nevills 999 call and Firearms team in a conversation ect. Despite these arguments not forming part of any submissions. Then they fall short on strong defence arguments that formed the basis of the submission.

I suspect its probably deliberate topic dilution and an effort to stop the CT from wanting it released.

[Jonathan]

All I will say is that the CCRC make detailed and good counter arguments against some of the CTs theories that have no merit, such as Nevills 999 call and Firearms team in a conversation ect. Despite these arguments not forming part of any submissions. Then they fall short on strong defence arguments that formed the basis of the submission.

I suspect its probably deliberate topic dilution and an effort to stop the CT from wanting it released.

what's their reason for refusing Milbank?

[Cambridgecutie]

what's their reason for refusing Milbank?

All right thinking people that have been looking at the case for some time appreicate and understand that there was no 999 call from WHF. 

JB claims he received a tel call from NB which ended abruptly.  When JB relayed this info to EP it asked the GPO to check the line.  The line was found open allowing the GPO to listen in.  Before EP broke into WHF they asked the GPO to transfer the open line at WHF to EP HQ which shows up on documents as a 999 call.  The inference being that someone was alive inside WHF and made a 999 call.  PC Nick Milbank was the officer who handled the above. 

[Cambridgecutie]

All I will say is that the CCRC make detailed and good counter arguments against some of the CTs theories that have no merit, such as Nevills 999 call and Firearms team in a conversation ect. Despite these arguments not forming part of any submissions. Then they fall short on strong defence arguments that formed the basis of the submission.

I suspect its probably deliberate topic dilution and an effort to stop the CT from wanting it released.

Talking of which how do you think the CCRC would handle your theory that AE contaminated the silencer with water from a bucket containing a pair of SC's menstrual stained knickers left to soak?  Someone should have sent this in on 1st April 

[Jonathan]

All right thinking people that have been looking at the case for some time appreicate and understand that there was no 999 call from WHF. 

JB claims he received a tel call from NB which ended abruptly.  When JB relayed this info to EP it asked the GPO to check the line.  The line was found open allowing the GPO to listen in.  Before EP broke into WHF they asked the GPO to transfer the open line at WHF to EP HQ which shows up on documents as a 999 call.  The inference being that someone was alive inside WHF and made a 999 call.  PC Nick Milbank was the officer who handled the above.

Of course. But I'm wondering how the CCRC "fall short on strong defence arguments that formed the basis of the submission" - particularly in relation to Milbank.

[Cambridgecutie]

Of course. But I'm wondering how the CCRC "fall short on strong defence arguments that formed the basis of the submission" - particularly in relation to Milbank.

Milbank is a non-starter as explained above re the 999 call.

I think David is referring to submissions that have been made in the past which included expert evidence from pathologists arguing SC's gunshot wounds were made by the barrel of the rifle as opposed to the silencer. 

From what I know about the submissions post 2002 had I been a CCRC commissioner I would not have referred.

[BarefootDanC]

All I will say is that the CCRC make detailed and good counter arguments against some of the CTs theories that have no merit, such as Nevills 999 call and Firearms team in a conversation ect. Despite these arguments not forming part of any submissions. Then they fall short on strong defence arguments that formed the basis of the submission.

I suspect its probably deliberate topic dilution and an effort to stop the CT from wanting it released.

Really? Neville's alleged call to the local police (not 999) was one of the submissions made in 2010 and repeated in the new 2021 submission!

[BarefootDanC]

Milbank is a non-starter as explained above re the 999 call.

I think David is referring to submissions that have been made in the past which included expert evidence from pathologists arguing SC's gunshot wounds were made by the barrel of the rifle as opposed to the silencer. 

From what I know about the submissions post 2002 had I been a CCRC commissioner I would not have referred.

Yes, the CCRC could simply reply by saying (1) the contemporaneous evidence shows that at 6:09, 999 was being used to listen in to the house and (2) a newspaper report is not reliable evidence, particular a newpaper based on interviews around 40 years after the event!

[David1819]

Really? Neville's alleged call to the local police (not 999) was one of the submissions made in 2010 and repeated in the new 2021 submission!

No, it was not part of the 2010/12 or the 2021 submission. Read my post.

[Adam]

No, it was not part of the 2010/12 or the 2021 submission. Read my post.

The Guardian says this -

The four issues the CCRC examined concerned the existence of a second silencer, which Bamber’s team suggested undermined the significance of the supposed single firearm moderator that proved so significant at his trial; a phone call allegedly made by his father to Essex police saying Caffell had gone “berserk” with a gun; the integrity of the crime scene, which was compromised by Essex police; and a 999 call that police records discovered before Bamber’s 2002 appeal showed had been made from within White House Farm at 6.09am on the day of the murders

[snow66!]

The Guardian says this -

The four issues the CCRC examined concerned the existence of a second silencer, which Bamber’s team suggested undermined the significance of the supposed single firearm moderator that proved so significant at his trial; a phone call allegedly made by his father to Essex police saying Caffell had gone “berserk” with a gun; the integrity of the crime scene, which was compromised by Essex police; and a 999 call that police records discovered before Bamber’s 2002 appeal showed had been made from within White House Farm at 6.09am on the day of the murders

Thats their mistake, Adam, making the Aga evidence part of the integrity of the crime scene!

[Jonathan]

Thats their mistake, Adam, making the Aga evidence part of the integrity of the crime scene!

Do we know if Boyce's experiments with pork crackling were submiited?