Caravan park shares

[Hartley]

So what I said was true.

Sort of, but only since May last year. Read my previous post again.

[vidvic]

Your last sentence is completely untrue BTW. The letters of support would suggest so anyway. One interview does not make a majority. Wasn't it you that claimed that Ann was spat at in the street? This is a PR Exercise to you. You seem to have no interest in the truth.

[ngb1066]

Sort of, but only since May last year. Read my previous post again.

What do you mean, "sort of"?  I read your post carefully.  I do not know where you copied it from but I am not sure you have fully understood what it means.  In any event it is true what I said, that a defendant does not have to prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt in order to be awarded compensation.  In the event that Jeremy wins an appeal against conviction in my view he is likely to receive substantial compensation.

[vidvic]

What a ridiculous statement Hartley?  Why don't you add up and estimate what Jeremy has lost in earnings!

Have you discussed this with Jeremy I have and I know he would use part of any compensation to go to court to get back anything he rightfully believes is his like caravan park shares

If his conviction is overturned not only will he get compensation there are film and books offers waiting on the table
Money will not be a problem to Jeremy re a court fight and it will then be up to the relatives if they want to challenge Jeremy or if they have the funds to fight Jeremy in court

If it looks like there was a set up by relatives re the silencer and people are charged it will probably become even more complicated

Jeremy might even decide to challenge his grandmothers will

From the horses mouth Jeremys share in the caravan park is one of the first things he will be fighting to get back at any cost if his conviction is overturned

Anyway I doubt the relatives will want to stay in Essex if Jeremys conviction is overturned

This is the post I referred to. And you dare to accuse the family of greed? Where is the word innocent?

[Hartley]

Nobody is jumping the gun on this.  It is a legitimate area for discussion.  Jeremy Bamber's priority is to secure a further appeal and to win that appeal.

Also NGB, you are in danger of irritating me slightly, either intentionally, or through misunderstanding.

Yes a legitimate area for discussion it may be, however I was was directly referring to the types of posts particularly emanating from Jackie which are not discussing the issue at all, but are simply vitriolic fuelled goading aimed at you know who.

I'm sure you now understand my position on this. I am however not asking you to agree with it.

[Hartley]

In the event that Jeremy wins an appeal against conviction in my view he is likely to receive substantial compensation.

I'm not arguing about.

[ngb1066]

Also NGB, you are in danger of irritating me slightly, either intentionally, or through misunderstanding.
Yes a legitimate area for discussion it may be, however I was was directly referring to the types of posts particularly emanating from Jackie which are not discussing the issue at all, but are simply vitriolic fuelled goading aimed at you know who.

I'm sure you now understand my position on this. I am however not asking you to agree with it.

I am not trying to irritate you.  I was only trying to answer the suggestion implied in your comment that Jeremy is focussed upon receiving compensation rather than clearing his name and securing his release.

 

[Chochokeira]

Hmmm, or 8/8/42/42%.

I'm with Hartley!

On the shares issue...

[Jackiepreece]

PII Vic I think it is you who are not interested in the truth

Unless you want to copy any letters you have sent requesting all evidence held under PII is released

I am not frightened of the truth
Jeremys not frightened of the truth (hence lie detector and requesting evidence is released held under PII)

Vic everyone on this forum knows this is a PR exercise for the two of YOU

If the right man is in prison why come on here?

Ngb never irritates m!!!

[Hartley]

I'm with Hartley!

You most certainly are not, that's a vicious rumour. 

[Chochokeira]

It is true that it has become harder than it was in the past to recover compensation as a result of a change in the rules.  For example Sion Jenkins was refused compensation for the 6 years he spent in prison, on the grounds that he had not established his innocence.  He was declared not guilty after his third trial, following two trials in which the jury failed to agree and following established practice the prosecution elected not to pursue the case further.

It is not true that a defendant has to prove himself innocent beyond reasonable doubt.  The standard is a lot lower than that.  If Jeremy's appeal is allowed because a central plank of the prosecution case is undermined by new evidence it is likely that he will be awarded compensation.

Nobody is jumping the gun on this.  It is a legitimate area for discussion.  Jeremy Bamber's priority is to secure a further appeal and to win that appeal.

 

Well said, NGB, thank you for clarifying this.

[jon]

 Vidvic, do you think in the interest of the family , it would be best if they made a public announcement , asking EP to release all document's requested by the defence , so they can live in peace without people questioning whether JB as had a fair trial ?

[TJB65]

Vidvic, do you think in the interest of the family , it would be best if they made a public announcement , asking EP to release all document's requested by the defence , so they can live in peace without people questioning whether JB as had a fair trial ?

Maybe they could even take lie detector tests too?

[Chochokeira]

You most certainly are not, that's a vicious rumour. 

See my modified post.

[Jackiepreece]

That's a brilliant idea Jon a public announcement maybe by mrs Patel