But the part that I am curious about is that he simply will not contemplate or at least be that bit interested as to why so much evidence and such a great deal of material was held back from the jury at the trial. In my opinion I would think that to be a gross miscarriage of justice in and of itself? And in and of itself amounts to a miscarriage of justice.
You see I find that part of your post to be slightly strange, considering I have made many lengthy posts on the subject.
Whether something was presented to the Jury or not is unimportant and perhaps highlights your lack of understanding. A more relevant argument would be to ask why something had been withheld from the defence team, thus removing their opportunity to present such evidence to the Jury.
As I have said before on many occasions, I believe the phrase 'It's been withheld under PII' to be grossly overused, I believe that many of the documents claimed to be unavailable, were actually very much available at the original trial, this is very clear by the fact that much of the information is actually contained in trial transcripts, applications to the court of appeal and appeal judgements, a long time before they are claimed to have been released.
Another important factor to consider, is that not a single piece of information or evidence which has been released, indicates that a miscarriage of justice has occurred in this case. That is not simply my opinion, but is taken from the fact that despite two appeals and the current submission to the CCRC, Jeremy's conviction and sentence remains intact.
The upcoming decision of the CCRC will likely reaffirm this point.
There is nothing which has come to light which detracts from the prosecutions case and subsequent Appeal Judgements, I do not automatically consider that something may be withheld and may possibly contain something to contradict this. Something cannot be disclosed if it does not exist.
In my humble opinion.
