The very best of luck to Jeremy

[JackiePreece]

Neil. Mat is very unlikely to step foot on this forum when you are around as I pointed out last night

[jon]

Two questions for you Mat:

1) Have you read the submissions?

2) are you legally qualified?

Can you post submission's and response from CCRC ?

[ngb1066]

Can you post submission's and response from CCRC ?

It may be that at some stage Jeremy and Simon McKay will decide to make these documents public. However, they are very lengthy documents.  Obviously unless and until they make that decision it would be wrong for me to post the documents.

My own view in general is that openness assists, but there can be other factors that require confidentiality to be maintained.

 

[curiousessex]

Mat  -  I assume by Jeremy's team you mean Simon Mckay.  Simon did not know what the CCRC had decided until yesterday morning, shortly before he tweeted the result at 10.00 am.  He was not the source of the information you leaked.

Upon what basis do you say that Jeremy's legal team "screwed up big time"?    Do you really believe they are "amatures"?  By the way given your comment about spelling mistakes in the submissions (which I will answer in a separate post) you might havve taken the trouble to check how to spell "amateurs". 

What do you mean  by the suggestion that  Jeremy's legal team are "wolves in sheeps clothing"?

Just an observation on spelling mistakes.

My own opinion is no one is perfect and sometimes pointing out spelling mistakes may not be the most constructive method in the use of time.

Additionally spelling mistakes could be interpreted as leaning towards becoming personal which does no one any good at the end of the day.

Please take this post in the lighter manner in which it is intended.

[JackiePreece]

Curious the reasoning behind bringing up spelling mistakes is it  often identifies someones real identity like Mat who is clearly a fake with nothing better to do.

Just like the coward Tim Bennet the coward who joins here under fake id s but will disappear if NGB logs on

NGB doesn't generally pick up on anyone's spelling mistakes

[ngb1066]

Just an observation on spelling mistakes.

My own opinion is no one is perfect and sometimes pointing out spelling mistakes may not be the most constructive method in the use of time.

Additionally spelling mistakes could be interpreted as leaning towards becoming personal which does no one any good at the end of the day.

Please take this post in the lighter manner in which it is intended.

To the best of my knowledge I have never commented on spelling mistakes before.  They really do not matter. As was clear from my post I only referred to Mat's spelling mistake as a response to his cheap (and erroneous) shot suggesting that Simon McKay's submissions to the CCRC contained spelling mistakes.

I understand your humour but I would have thought it was clear that my error which you highlighted was a typo rather than a spelling mistake.  Even I can spell "have".



 

[curiousessex]

To the best of my knowledge I have never commented on spelling mistakes before.  They really do not matter. As was clear from my post I only referred to Mat's spelling mistake as a response to his cheap (and erroneous) shot suggesting that Simon McKay's submissions to the CCRC contained spelling mistakes.

I understand your humour but I would have thought it was clear that my error which you highlighted was a typo rather than a spelling mistake.  Even I can spell "have".

Hence my 'Please take this post in the lighter manner in which it is intended.'

I know it was a typo.

No offence meant.

[ngb1066]

Hence my 'Please take this post in the lighter manner in which it is intended.'

I know it was a typo.

No offence meant.

None taken.

[Nuala]

Mat  -  I assume by Jeremy's team you mean Simon Mckay.  Simon did not know what the CCRC had decided until yesterday morning, shortly before he tweeted the result at 10.00 am.  He was not the source of the information you leaked.

Upon what basis do you say that Jeremy's legal team "screwed up big time"?    Do you really believe they are "amatures"?  By the way given your comment about spelling mistakes in the submissions (which I will answer in a separate post) you might havve taken the trouble to check how to spell "amateurs". 

What do you mean  by the suggestion that  Jeremy's legal team are "wolves in sheeps clothing"?

Excellent points, NGB. I suggested that Mat might be one of Jeremy's extended family yesterday and nothing has yet altered my view regarding this. He could of course be a legal junior or a journalist, but I doubt it.

[G]

Excellent points, NGB. I suggested that Mat might be one of Jeremy's extended family yesterday and nothing has yet altered my view regarding this. He could of course be a legal junior or a journalist, but I doubt it.

I don't know who he is. There are so many cloak and dagger folk on this forum all claiming to have "special powers" that I've just learned to take it in my stride and let anyone be what they want to be, even if it is something akin to Bat Man.

[haughton]

  Simon Mckay may be a very good lawyer, but remember the maxim; " you cannot argue with a closed mind"

[guest154]

Curious the reasoning behind bringing up spelling mistakes is it  often identifies someones real identity like Mat who is clearly a fake with nothing better to do.

Just like the coward Tim Bennet the coward who joins here under fake id s but will disappear if NGB logs on

NGB doesn't generally pick up on anyone's spelling mistakes

Dissappear when NGB logs on? Are you serious? I've been at work.  I don't know why just because I haven't logged on for like 8 hours you think I am avoiding anyone. I'm a fake? Okay whatever. Suppose it is better to be called a fake, then be known as someone who does more damage to Jeremy's case than she does good


NGB.

Hard to reply to your posts because they were in seperate posts. Sure I made spelling mistakes here, but this isn't a submission for the CRCC so isn't that important. Ask Mckay to re-check all the submissions that were made - not noly are there spelling mistakes but there are date mistakes too.

The U.S expert was contacted independantly by the CRCC.. and the conversation of "is this 100% or must more tests need to be carried out" "I believe more tests are needed"....."Would you as of today stand up in court and swear this as concrete evidence?" ".....No, first I would do more tests and then I believe I'd be able to do that".      With that, the whole part about the US expert was null and void.

Jeremy was let down by his legal team because of how easy anyone who wanted to would be able to pick apart all of the submissions. Also because of how this has been handled in the press, I can think of only one reporter that has Jeremy as innocent and is willing to write about it. Most of the others believe Jeremy not only to be guilty but to be wasting money with his CRCC and all of the smoke screens he's setting off, there is to be a piece in the Mail this summer that will slate Bamber and will turn public opinion once and for all - this isn't good for Bamber or his team.


This isn't a perosnal attack NGB, because I know you're not involved at the highest level but that CRCC submission was flawed, they all were.

I've seen photocopies yes and on those were the yellow highlighted sections that caused concern to either :
Be in complete.
Not co-exist with other evidence.
to be hear say.
Not match up to the originak trial material/testimonies.


Once again though, I am not a member of the Bamber family....neither true or adopted. Nor am I a member of thos forum that has returned after having a previous username. Some people know who I am, they've pm'd me and asked - which is always better then accusing on the forum and being a fool!

[JackiePreece]

You are a fake Mat and you will not have seen the submissions and nobody is taking you seriously but you know that anyway

You keep us amused every now and then but that's about how useful to this forum

[ngb1066]

NGB.

Hard to reply to your posts because they were in seperate posts. Sure I made spelling mistakes here, but this isn't a submission for the CRCC so isn't that important. Ask Mckay to re-check all the submissions that were made - not noly are there spelling mistakes but there are date mistakes too.

The U.S expert was contacted independantly by the CRCC.. and the conversation of "is this 100% or must more tests need to be carried out" "I believe more tests are needed"....."Would you as of today stand up in court and swear this as concrete evidence?" ".....No, first I would do more tests and then I believe I'd be able to do that".      With that, the whole part about the US expert was null and void.

Jeremy was let down by his legal team because of how easy anyone who wanted to would be able to pick apart all of the submissions.

This isn't a perosnal attack NGB, because I know you're not involved at the highest level but that CRCC submission was flawed, they all were.

I've seen photocopies yes and on those were the yellow highlighted sections that caused concern to either :
Be in complete.
Not co-exist with other evidence.
to be hear say.
Not match up to the originak trial material/testimonies.

Mat - there are several points upon which I have to challenge you.

1) I stand by my assertion that Simon McKay's final submissions were professional and well presented.  I do not believe those submissions contained any spelling or date mistakes.  Can you confirm that your comments about errors relate to submissions made before Simon McKay was instructed?  If so, we have no real issue between us on this.

2) Which US expert was contacted by the CCRC?  There were several experts involved and this resulted in reports being submitted with the final submissions.

3) You repeat the assertion that Jeremy was let down by his legal team but give no details.  You have not answered my earlier question about whether or not you are legally qualified.  Are you?

4) You can not know what involvement I may have had in this process.  What I can say is that in my opinion the submissions made by Simon McKay were of a high standard, they were based upon new evidence which was credible and as a result the statutory test for referral was met. This is now to be tested in court proceedings.

5) You say you have seen photocopies of submissions which were highlighted in yellow indicating errors. Can you confirm that the highlighted sections were in submissions made before Simon McKay was instructed?  Simon only made one set of submissions, on 31st January.

 

[Roch]

I can think of only one reporter that has Jeremy as innocent and is willing to write about it. Most of the others believe Jeremy not only to be guilty but to be wasting money with his CRCC and all of the smoke screens he's setting off, there is to be a piece in the Mail this summer that will slate Bamber and will turn public opinion once and for all - this isn't good for Bamber or his team.

Mat, I do hope that this article will be balanced.  If Mark Williams-Thomas has to produce a balanced programme in which DB can potentially mislead viewers, then whoever is in charge of this piece in the Mail had better make concessions to the defence.  Who is the editor with overall control over this piece?