The very best of luck to Jeremy

[Nuala]

Let down simply because the submissions were incomplete. More tests needed to be carried out,

Jeremy couldn't afford any further tests at that time, Matt, because he hasn't any money, his extended family had almost all of it! But then you are well aware of that. The CCRC is well aware of it too.

when you're dealing with paper work like this the dates you state have to be correct, they have to be precise. You can't make mistakes.

Mistakes such as the mistake made by AE in her police statement - where she claimed that Robert Boutflour owned Carbonells Farm when that was untrue?

When you send pages and pages of information off about a silencer and calim that it can not have been fitted on as 100% fact you need to be able to back it up.

The experts in US did back it up. And they've seen thousands of gunshot wounds, unlike the British ballistics expert that the CCRC choose to rely on - an expert who sees just a few gunshot wounds each year...!   

If the CRCC were to get in touch with your expert and your expert claims (both openly and privately) that more tests NEED to be carried out. EVERYTHING that expert has said until more tests have been carried out will be dismissed.

Only by fools.

[Neil]

You are spot on there Maggie

Neil
Our NGB  thinks very highly of Simon and our Ngb is a very experienced Criminal Barrister.
Jeremy decided to change lawyers late in the day but there is every indication from what I have read that Jeremy is very happy with Simon.

I stated in the the poll that I didn't believe the case would be referred this this time but I believe it will when the right people are in place running the campaign

Thanks for that Jackie and Maggie.  Jackie, do you think that funding has been and will be, a major drawback for Jeremy?

[Nuala]

Mat you are rubbishing Simon McKay who is a highly qualified solicitor who has worked on many appeals.  Unfortunately by the time he took on JBs case pro bono there was not very much time left before the cut off from the CCRC.  It was not an appeal but a request for a referral for further work to be done for appeal.

Exactly. Well said, Maggie.

[guest154]

Digesting what you have posted here, it sounds like what has been done is to use any possible excuse not to refer.  Correct me if I am wrong but the further tests needed related to the burn marks upon Nevill?  These further tests were to provide absolute confirmation on that particular issue and were not relevant to the marks upon Sheila that indicated no moderator was involved in the shots she received.

Is there not a danger that this becomes a kind of pedantry, applied solely for the purpose of justifying a refusal and at the expense of recognising that no moderator was used in the shots to Sheila?

answering as fully as I can, from what I know as fact rather than just guessing or using reasonable doubt, there are two things that experts have said that they need more testing done on. One is something to do with Sheila and the main one is the burn marks.


But when you submit something so vital you need it to be 100%.  Saying "The burns were done with the silence on/off" But "more tests are needed" is a huge contradiction.

Hi Mat

The phones were knocked out because of lightening a BT engineer came to collect one of the phone. 

Two ladies that worked there said in their statements that the phones were never in their rightful place and it was usual practise to take the one from the bedroom as June did not get on with the other phone.

One of the ladies was asked by Jeremy to clear all the stuff up and she found a phone underneath some mags. She asked Jeremy about it and he said it might be a spare....at no time did he say it did not work....

So it was usual practice for the upstairs phone to be brought downstairs. Barbara Wilson and the farm secretary said this...

Jeremy did say that the phone did not work. I remember reading this many years ago. And recently a reporter I know wrote a great piece in the DailyMail about this and the quote was the main thing that he went off.

Mat, anyone can take that stance 'if only you knew' well if you know something why don't you tell us. You don't sound like a copper anymore you sound like a relative.........arrogant. Give people a bit of respect then and tell what you claim to know.

It's very easy for you to say that I don't know much about the case. How do you know thaT? i'm sure I have been following it longer than you.



I'll try and speak to as many people as I can here and be as open as I can do - but don't be so hostile or I'll just close up.

Also Mat, are you referring to the submissions prior to McKay's tenure?  The one's partially dismissed in the PSOR Feb2011?  I had thought that that work had been placed on the back burner and that the McKay submissions were a separate submission.

I guess in a way they were put on the back burner. But bascially they were re-written/edited and had more added to them but McKay's actual submissions and the ones in existence ones after him coming aboard aren't all that different other than the fact more tests had been done, yet not complete ones, and they used a lot more hear-say than you'd believe.

[guest154]

No, the U.S expert didn't 100% back up what was in the CRCC forms. He said "He believed but that more tests needed to be completed"

[maggie]

You are spot on there Maggie

Neil
Our NGB  thinks very highly of Simon and our Ngb is a very experienced Criminal Barrister.
Jeremy decided to change lawyers late in the day but there is every indication from what I have read that Jeremy is very happy with Simon.
I stated in the the poll that I didn't believe the case would be referred this this time but I believe it will when the right people are in place running the campaign

Jackie, I really do think that the fact that Simon and ngb are so supportive of JB in a professional sense is very telling. These are professional people who have seen all the evidence, have spoken to Jeremy at length, have many hours of experience behind them. I love the way any old amateur sleuth thinks they know better. .... ie. 'the bedroom telephone was moved'.

[guest154]

Maggie. I'm not old, nor am I an amatuer sleuth.

[Nuala]

Oh if you only knew...



The bedroom phone was found hidden in a cupboard, I believe.




Your belief is wrong. You're confusing the location of the phone with where your relation found the silencer.

You need to do some research, Matt



Without the case notes


Aw, come on now, you don't call those crib cards of yours case notes.




I can't rmember


We know you can't




but it was hidden under some magazines.


That is disputed.




It worked although Jeremy did claim it didn't.


You find me the section of the trial transcription where the housekeeper claimed that Jeremy said the phone didn't work and I'll apologise to you for what I am about to say: You are wildly wrong yet again. The housekeeper did not state in her evidence to the trial that Jeremy told her that the phone did not work.



Neil - I have a couple of sources that I trust. But I'm officially involved on neither side of the appeall process.



Not officially, no, but you're hard at it behind the scenes, aren't you?




I'm not rubbishing Simon. But I am rubbishing the CRCC submission completely.

[maggie]

Mat, I think I said you are posting as tho you don't know much about the case. The guy in the Daily Mail Bob Woffenden's (I think sorry don't read that rag), arguments were nothing short of rediculous and I am actually 10 years older than Jeremy Bamber and remember the whole event and all the appeals very well for very particular reasons.  thank you.

[Patti]

Hi Mat

I think you might be wrong about the phones. Those that worked there made statements, you can't alter that...they did say the phones where like musical chairs....Both said Jeremy did not tell them the phone was not working...Where you read this I have no Idea, but I do know Bob W. said it....but he has no solid proof...I read his article yesterday.

Trouble is Mat, there is so much to read on the NET, one never knows what is the truth....Go with the evidence and the statements..Bob made that up....another spoke in the wheel...like the wetsuit...lol

[bob]

Jackie, I really do think that the fact that Simon and ngb are so supportive of JB in a professional sense is very telling. These are professional people who have seen all the evidence, have spoken to Jeremy at length, have many hours of experience behind them. I love the way any old amateur sleuth thinks they know better. .... ie. 'the bedroom telephone was moved'.

To be fair (and all due respect to Neil!) there must be at least as many legal professionals who don't think he's innocent, otherwise they'd have struggled to have put together a case, so I'm not sure this argument holds much water maggie?

[mertol22]

I was going to post my view at lunchtime while out of town but i needed a bit more time to consider it, firstly to some anti jb members i applaud your non gloat of the ccrc verdict for that i thank you, to others i will refrain from further view, for many it was going to be the verdict before it was known, im sure jeremy prepared himself for a no so anything else was a bonus , there is one bad side and one good outcome, the bad one is what jackie touched on the other day,jeremy now has to sort himself out and fast he needs to really ask who he should trust , i urge jeremy to get in touch with mike, yes the tests were not full and further tests were needed , the alternative was not to submit anything at all on them, given they were not complete at least jeremy can still use this to work for him, i hope SM stands by jeremy and both of them decide the next phase, in the meantime i still believe there is a chance of a more positive outcome, the reason i did not reply sooner my thoughts were not so much with the relatives , i was thinking of Colin.

[Patti]

Why are you calling me Matt again? Quit goading me.




Bob didn't make it up. He has his sources. I'm not talking about the hosuekeepers. There is a statement that Jeremy made to the police where he said the bedroom phone did not work. This wasn't brought up in the trial so didn't add to his guilt. Mike Tesko has seen this I'm fairly sure so maybe he can direct us to the scan.

Mat Jeremy didn't live there...he might have thought it did not work...I do know the BT man made a statement to say a phone had been taken away.....The lightening had knocked off the phones....so they were changed around...I sound like a parrot now....

[maggie]

To be fair (and all due respect to Neil!) there must be at least as many legal professionals who don't think he's innocent, otherwise they'd have struggled to have put together a case, so I'm not sure this argument holds much water maggie?

OK Bob I take that on board but you could argue that maybe many other legal professionals have not looked deeply into the case the way Simon McKay and ngb have.  As they have and are committed to Jeremy surely that should carry some weight?

[Nuala]

Digesting what you have posted here, it sounds like what has been done is to use any possible excuse not to refer.  Correct me if I am wrong but the further tests needed related to the burn marks upon Nevill?  These further tests were to provide absolute confirmation on that particular issue and were not relevant to the marks upon Sheila that indicated no moderator was involved in the shots she received.

Is there not a danger that this becomes a kind of pedantry, applied solely for the purpose of justifying a refusal and at the expense of recognising that no moderator was used in the shots to Sheila?

Excellent points, Rocky! It sounds to me as though this has become an ego trip for someone at the CCRC.