Full rejection of CC's proposed referral grounds to the CCRC:

[Adam]

The PSOR has expired and there is now a full rejection.

The rejection reasons for each ground are below.

[Adam]

GROUND 1:

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


REASON FOR REJECTION: No new evidence supplied.

----------


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.

----------


GROUND 3:

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

REASON FOR REJECTION: No new evidence supplied.

----------


GROUND 4:

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

REASON FOR REJECTION: No new evidence supplied.

----------


GROUND 5:

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

REASON FOR REJECTION: No new evidence supplied.

[Adam]

Threads were created on each ground in March 2026. No new evidence was supplied.

A PSOR was submitted 28 days ago. This gave CC 28 days to respond with new evidence. No new evidence was supplied.

The CCRC would have been very annoyed if there valuable time was wasted by CC. Soundbites with no evidence may work with supporters on forums, but not with the CCRC.

CC's grounds have been looked at in great detail since 1985. At trial, by the CCRC or the COA. They all confirmed Jeremy Bamber as the perpetrator.

Things such as the silencer, nightdress, bible and handswabs were destroyed decades ago. So no new evidence can be supplied.

The CCRC are not going to do a reconstruction to try to support CC's theory on where one victim was shot. 

The more I look at the case, the more I believe the jury were right. CC will now agree with this as she has no counter evidence.

[David1819]

CC's grounds have been looked at in great detail since 1985. At trial, by the CCRC or the COA. They all confirmed Jeremy Bamber as the perpetrator.

CCs "grounds" have been looked at in great detail by nobody since the details are long buried somewhere on the Red forum thanks to 7+ years of Maggie's unrelenting containment efforts.

[Adam]

At least we know CC is a guilter.

She hasn't even got evidence on her proposed CCRC submission !

[BarefootDanC]

CCs "grounds" have been looked at in great detail by nobody since the details are long buried somewhere on the Red forum thanks to 7+ years of Maggie's unrelenting containment efforts.

Why did Maggie do that ?

[Adam]

Hopefully CC confirms she is a guilter when she returns.

She can't be a supporter if she has no evidence.

[Adam]

CC can submit new proposed grounds. I can either reject or accept them as suitable for a CCRC application.

The 5 rejected grounds above covers a lot of areas. So not sure what realistic new grounds can be brought up. But supporters are very determined. If CC is not going to say she is now a guilter, she may come up with something.

As said, a ground must have new compelling evidence which may have influenced the jury at trial.

CC just making soundbites as if they are facts, then going silent, will not get through me let alone the CCRC.

[David1819]

Why did Maggie do that ?

She fought cancer both literally and metaphorically.

[BarefootDanC]

She fought cancer both literally and metaphorically.

metaphorically?

[ILB]

CC can submit new proposed grounds. I can either reject or accept them as suitable for a CCRC application.

The 5 rejected grounds above covers a lot of areas. So not sure what realistic new grounds can be brought up. But supporters are very determined. If CC is not going to say she is now a guilter, she may come up with something.

As said, a ground must have new compelling evidence which may have influenced the jury at trial.

CC just making soundbites as if they are facts, then going silent, will not get through me let alone the CCRC.

Makes good forum fodder.

[Adam]

Makes good forum fodder.

The problem was there was nothing to discuss.

The silencer, nightdress, bible, blood, hands & crime scene were very incrimimating towards Jeremy. CC had no new evidence to challenge these.

[David1819]

metaphorically?

Yes, metaphorically.

Believe it or not, CC is not a giant old tumorous lump stuck on a desk typing away with tentacles while being kept alive with a beer hydration tube.

[Adam]

Still don't understand ground 3 of CC's proposed referral.

Maybe she thinks SJ removed the GSR from Sheila's nightdress before it was tested. Only problem - no evidence.

[Adam]

Hopefully CC gives her theory on why Sheila's nightdress shows 'Sheila as the perp'.

If she has no supporting evidence that is fine. She has no supporting evidence on her silencer theory.

All of the forensic evidence on Sheila's nightdress shows she was 'not' the perp.