Channel 5 documentary 8th June 9.00 pm - 10.30 pm

[Adam]

There were 10 grounds identified on the 'official' site when the application was submitted to the CCRC in March 2021 none of which, imo, were capable of going anywhere with CCRC/CoA.  I can no longer find the the info.  As I said I am unsure where its at in terms of what has already been rejected and what has subsequently been added but I have not heard or seen anything that imo is capable of going anywhere with the CCRC/CoA.

What do you think would get a referral to the COA.

[Cambridgecutie]

the Sun recently had this

Would be good for a trial to sow seeds of doubt in the minds of jurors but its not a trial its a 40 year old conviction and turning the heads of 3 appeal court judges is a different matter.  None of it will go anywhere.

[Adam]

the Sun recently had this

Throwing the kitchen sink as usual.

Don't understand the 'Forensic Wound Analysis' ground.

[Cambridgecutie]

What do you think would get a referral to the COA.

I have identified aspects of the case in the past, you know this. 

[Adam]

The two phone call grounds are proof of innocence. Both have received a PSOR.

The other grounds are looking for a technicality/unsafe conviction.

[Adam]

I have identified aspects of the case in the past, you know this.

Are they the grounds you submiited in April? They did not have any new evidence.

[Jonathan]

Does JB and those that support him actually believe all this stuff or do they think I'm/he's innocent and we will attempt to 'fight fire with fire' and throw anything at it?  Or are they just anti-establishment type figures?  Or do they suffer learning dissabilities to some degree and simply not understand how high the bar is set for a successful appeal?  I am genuinely at a loss to understand. 

I believe JB is innocent but if I couldn't hold this belief based on anything I heard/saw in the C5 docu.

It's just grifters and attention seekers - not interested in the truth. What self-respecting investigative journalist would fail to ask Nick Milbank about the records which showed the call was patched through by the operator - or include them in a documentary about the call? Shamelessly trying to spin a narrative.

[Cambridgecutie]

Are they the grounds you submiited in April? They did not have any new evidence.

Evidenced by?

[Zoso]

It's just grifters and attention seekers - not interested in the truth. What self-respecting investigative journalist would fail to ask Nick Milbank about the records which showed the call was patched through by the operator - or include them in a documentary about the call? Shamelessly trying to spin a narrative.

They actually showed the log in the documentary but it's incredible if you tell someone something like 'there was a 999 call' and thats what they see, even though it says nothing of the sort. The same as the entry where it states there was a 'conversation with a person (Jeremy) inside the farm' BUT 'challenges to persons inside the house, were met with no response'. The CT (therefore JEREMY) have manipulated both statements to mean something completely different. People miss words like 'set-up' and 'open line' and miss completely that there is a distinction between 'person' and 'persons' and 'farm' and 'house' and they become conditioned to see what Bamber wants.

[Rob_]

They actually showed the log in the documentary but it's incredible if you tell someone something like 'there was a 999 call' and thats what they see, even though it says nothing of the sort. The same as the entry where it states there was a 'conversation with a person (Jeremy) inside the farm' BUT 'challenges to persons inside the house, were met with no response'. The CT (therefore JEREMY) have manipulated both statements to mean something completely different. People miss words like 'set-up' and 'open line' and miss completely that there is a distinction between 'person' and 'persons' and 'farm' and 'house' and they become conditioned to see what Bamber wants.

5.45 GPO asked to recheck line

5.47 Phone engaged at scene

Just another mistake? Engaged and off the hook are completely different.

[Adam]

5.45 GPO asked to recheck line

5.47 Phone engaged at scene

Just another mistake? Engaged and off the hook are completely different.

Why do you think Sheila rang 999 & then said nothing? The police had been outside with a loud speaker for hours.

Thought she wanted to commit suicide & had written a suicide note.

[snow66!]

Why do you think Sheila rang 999 & then said nothing? The police had been outside with a loud speaker for hours.

Thought she wanted to commit suicide & had written a suicide note.

What do you make of the farewell letters, Adam?

[Adam]

What do you make of the farewell letters, Adam?

Not seen them.

If they are not legible people will look at that in different ways. Guilters will say she could not function. Supporters will say she wanted to commit suicide.

[Jane]

What do you make of the farewell letters, Adam?

I don't believe it's known who wrote them. Surely, the obvious person to ask would be Colin? It's doubtful he ever saw them, let alone asked about their provenance.

[Cambridgecutie]

Not seen them.

If they are not legible people will look at that in different ways. Guilters will say she could not function. Supporters will say she wanted to commit suicide.

And more importantly in terms of CCRC/CoA they will say:

- they're undated and SC's mood was improved shortly before the events of 7th Aug evidenced by Len Foakes observing SC skipping down the lane with the twins.

- Jurors heard about SC's suicide ideation and mental illness but still found JB guilty.