still time for one last throw of the dice - before CCRC close case...

[Bridget]

In other words, you are only prepared to contemplate the existence of such a photo, if it correlates to a yet another benign mistake by EP?  Anything else that could potentially indicate an alternative version to what place that morning, must mean that no such photo exists!

Also, why would you photograph her not in-situ?

No, what I'm saying is that if one exists I prefer the simple explanation.

I don't know why they would photo her there, but like I said, I don't believe that they did.

[Roch]

No, what I'm saying is that if one exists I prefer the simple explanation.

I don't know why they would photo her there, but like I said, I don't believe that they did.

Point taken.  But actual events in 1985 are not in any way tied to your preference in 2012 are they?  The incident and what took place, is completely independent of the framework we as individuals use to rationalise our lives.   

[Bridget]

Point taken.  But actual events in 1985 are not in any way tied to your preference in 2012 are they?  The incident and what took place, is completely independent of the framework we as individuals use to rationalise our lives.   

Getting all philosophical on me huh?

An appeal court in 2012 will also seek to apply the simple explanation first.

[mike tesko]

We should soon be hearing whether or not the CCRC are going to "review their decision" not to send the case back to the court of appeal? This can be done in one of two ways, as I understand it:-

(1) - because a complaint has been lodged abouit the way the CCRC have failed to apply the right test to determine whether or not the case should be referred, the CCRC could appoint a different set of commissioners to review the findings of the final statement of reasons, which has recently been rejected...

(2) - simply say, the case will not be referred, or re-looked at...

[guest154]

We should soon be hearing whether or not the CCRC are going to "review their decision" not to send the case back to the court of appeal? This can be done in one of two ways, as I understand it:-

(1) - because a complaint has been lodged abouit the way the CCRC have failed to apply the right test to determine whether or not the case should be referred, the CCRC could appoint a different set of commissioners to review the findings of the final statement of reasons, which has recently been rejected...

(2) - simply say, the case will not be referred, or re-looked at...

Yeah, this is right, Mike.

[mike tesko]

Yeah, this is right, Mike.

Once the matter has been decided upon, there could be another period where Bambers legal team could submit further grounds for consideration by the new set of appointed commissioners, this period could be one month, two or even three months in duration - once a decision is made (should there be a review of the decision) the CCRC will issue another final statement of reasons, setting out their decision, either way...

If this avenue does not result in the case being referred back to the court of appeal, the matter will progress to Judicial review based on the original final statement of reasons, decision and grounds, and could be followed up by another judicial review application based upon a second final statement of reason and its grounds, should the new set of Commissioners also refuse to refer the case back to the court of appeal...

Please follow link address for views of David Boutflour about recent CCRC decision not to refer case back to court of appeal:-

It ain't over yet, my old chum, not by a long shot...

(1) - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17855823

[Roch]

Getting all philosophical on me huh?

An appeal court in 2012 will also seek to apply the simple explanation first.

  

What's the most simple explanation for a person passing a lie detector test? 

What's the most simple explanation for a silencer being found when White House Farm is covered in finger print dust?

What's the most simple explanation for a reviewing officer, reporting to the top brass, backing up the lead detective's assessment of the evidence?

What's the most simple explanation for the lead detective having no official connection to the key exhibit?

What's the most simple explanation for there being no record in police schedules of any kind until the 11th September, re the discovery an exhibit supposedly found on 10th Aug?

I could go on but too tired 

 

[Blodwynflower]

Once the matter has been decided upon, there could be another period where Bambers legal team could submit further grounds for consideration by the new set of appointed commissioners, this period could be one month, two or even three months in duration - once a decision is made (should there be a review of the decision) the CCRC will issue another final statement of reasons, setting out their decision, either way...

If this avenue does not result in the case being referred back to the court of appeal, the matter will progress to Judicial review based on the original final statement of reasons, decision and grounds, and could be followed up by another judicial review application based upon a second final statement of reason and its grounds, should the new set of Commissioners also refuse to refer the case back to the court of appeal...

Please follow link address for views of David Boutflour about recent CCRC decision not to refer case back to court of appeal:-

It ain't over yet, my old chum, not by a long shot...

(1) - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17855823

"We've all made it very clear we think he's guilty....."

think.....

THINK.....

[JackiePreece]

It ain't over yet, my old chum, not by a long shot...

(1) - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17855823

"We've all made it very clear we think he's guilty....."

think.....

THINK.....

[Blodwynflower]

Has his view changed then?

[guest154]

Has his view changed then?

No.
I think that Osama Bin Laden was a bad person.

The word THINK doesn't imply anything, unless you try and make it.

[Blodwynflower]

I don't try and make ANYTHING. I listened to the link and posted what was spoken.

[Bridget]

 

What's the most simple explanation for a person passing a lie detector test? 

What's the most simple explanation for a silencer being found when White House Farm is covered in finger print dust?

What's the most simple explanation for a reviewing officer, reporting to the top brass, backing up the lead detective's assessment of the evidence?

What's the most simple explanation for the lead detective having no official connection to the key exhibit?

What's the most simple explanation for there being no record in police schedules of any kind until the 11th September, re the discovery an exhibit supposedly found on 10th Aug?

I could go on but too tired 

Lie detectors are innacurate, which is why they are inadmissable in court.


They thought they were investigating 4 murders and a suicide.


They had not yet realised the significance of the silencer. Had it been tested by the time he made his report?

I don't understand the question.

I haven't looked at the scheduled in any detail so don't know that there isn't. If there isn't maybe they still hadn't realised the significance and thought the relatives were just being a pain in the backside.

[Roch]

Lie detectors are inaccurate, which is why they are inadmissible in court

My point wasn't relative to whether or not they were admissible in court.  They are certainly in use across a range of services both here and the U.S.  Now if the point is that he passed because he is experiencing either self deception about the murders he committed or he somehow manipulated the tester, doesn't it seem a queer stroke of fate that Dr. Vincent Egan tested him for these very same traits and drew a blank?  Is he so brilliant that he can at will, switch on and off his self deception and manipulation towards the tester?  Or perhaps is there is a more simple answer?

They thought they were investigating 4 murders and a suicide.

I'm not sure what you mean by this... is it in relation to the fingerprint question?

They had not yet realised the significance of the silencer.  Had it been tested by the time he made his report?

Pull the other one.  Look at the timing.  Look what else was going on in the case at that time.  Why carry out a review while a bloody silencer awaits testing?

I don't understand the question.

How come DCI taff Jones officially has no connection to the main exhibit in the case, yet it is supposed to have been discovered during his tenure?

I haven't looked at the scheduled in any detail so don't know that there isn't. If there isn't maybe they still hadn't realised the significance and thought the relatives were just being a pain in the backside.

So they falsified a discovery date in the schedules, including the phone call from DB?

[susan]

rochford  I have researched  the polygraph tests and the experts say they are between 85 and 95 percent accurate and very difficult to cheat.  I know they are used in relation to benefit cheats and other matters. I feel had Jeremy failed the test it would have been said "told you he was guilty"  I think I am correct in saying they admissable in the American Courts.  If Jeremy could cheat on every test he was given he is indeed a remarkable man.