Book Reviews - Murders/Suicide at WHF

[-Harters-]

A hyperthetical thought has just struck me and because I don't know where to post it, I guess here is as good a place as any.

Pre 1960something there was a death sentence, which undoubtedly Jeremy would have received. This would not have stopped people fighting to clear his name, as some of us now are. This being accomplished, I imagine it would give Jeremy a choice about reclaiming his lost assets, which, if he is said to be innocent, must be seen as being having been illegally gained.

Upon the granting of a Queen's Pardon, what would happen to those assets? Surely a QP wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on if there were those still allowed to profit from the proceeds gained from the imprisonment and execution, possibly with their help, of an innocent man?

That's not likely for a number of reasons.

You have used the wrong terminology, only a guilty person could receive a 'Pardon', if evidence showed him to be innocent then his conviction could be quashed and he could apply for compensation from the state, a successful application would depend on a number of factors.

If his conviction was quashed, it would not indicate that assets were illegally denied to him. In law, the assets were never his to start with. Also the relatives didn't inherit from the estate directly, so unless they were found to be directly responsible for giving false evidence, then I'm not quite sure that they would have anything to answer for.

Other assets, such as the caravan shares, which used to pay legal fees following a civil hearing against the relatives where the relatives were awarded costs, would not be affected by his conviction being quashed.

To be honest I'm entirely convinced he could take any action at all.

[Jane]

That's not likely for a number of reasons.

You have used the wrong terminology, only a guilty person could receive a 'Pardon', if evidence showed him to be innocent then his conviction could be quashed and he could apply for compensation from the state, a successful application would depend on a number of factors.

If his conviction was quashed, it would not indicate that assets were illegally denied to him. In law, the assets were never his to start with. Also the relatives didn't inherit from the estate directly, so unless they were found to be directly responsible for giving false evidence, then I'm not quite sure that they would have anything to answer for.

Other assets, such as the caravan shares, which used to pay legal fees following a civil hearing against the relatives where the relatives were awarded costs, would not be affected by his conviction being quashed.

To be honest I'm entirely convinced he could take any action at all.

Thank-you, Hartly. I'm still recovering from the sore throat I suffered after our long "conversation" the other day!!!

[lookout]

All that I've got to say at this juncture is that it's little wonder that those concerned ( altered statements,etc ) are not looking forward to the day of Jeremys' release,,,complete with both Pardon and quashed conviction.
Good job he's not the retaliatory type.

[-Harters-]

Thank-you, Hartly. I'm still recovering from the sore throat I suffered after our long "conversation" the other day!!!

Sorry about that. 

[susan]

Hi Jam  I think Jeremy would just like to be vindicated of the horrendous crime he was found guilty of and be a free man don,t think he would be looking for anything other than that.  I think after serving 27 years in prison material things and money become secondary.

[-Harters-]

Hi Jam  I think Jeremy would just like to be vindicated of the horrendous crime he was found guilty of and be a free man don,t think he would be looking for anything other than that.  I think after serving 27 years in prison material things and money become secondary.

I don't believe it matters what he wants.  But I obviously believe him to be guilty of those horrendous crimes.

My prediction is that in a few weeks time, leave to apply for a Judicial Review will be refused, then it will all go quiet for a while, until a new application to the CCRC for leave to appeal is made and then we'll all start back at the beginning, no doubt with the same outcome as that which has gone before.

Time will tell I guess.

[susan]

Hi Jam  you probably know more about the Jeremy Bamber case than me thus thinking so differently about the crime  I only first heard of Jeremy Bamber after the programme on the TV this year and that is when I joined the forum in April any information I have gleaned is from the forum.

Nothing in life is certain other than taxes and death so as you said time will tell.

[-Harters-]

Hi Jam  you probably know more about the Jeremy Bamber case than me thus thinking so differently about the crime  I only first heard of Jeremy Bamber after the programme on the TV this year and that is when I joined the forum in April any information I have gleaned is from the forum.

Nothing in life is certain other than taxes and death so as you said time will tell.

So true.

Another prediction I have, whilst I'm in the mood, is that following a refusal of leave to apply for a Judicial Review, Jeremy's current legal team will no longer be representing him.

[ngb1066]

So true.

Another prediction I have, whilst I'm in the mood, is that following a refusal of leave to apply for a Judicial Review, Jeremy's current legal team will no longer be representing him.

Do you want a bet on that Hartley?

[susan]

Hi The Jam  do you read tea leaves as well as make predictions

[-Harters-]

Hi The Jam  do you read tea leaves as well as make predictions

Strictly stick to coffee beans I'm afraid. 

[-Harters-]

Do you want a bet on that Hartley?

It's a prediction NGB.

[lookout]

Never say never.

As I and many others have said before,,,that had he decided to plead guilty,then he'd have been released.
Now the part in all this is that Jeremy would have,,,and will know of this procedure,,so why has he forfeited his freedom by not saying one word?. Because he's standing by his own principles for the reason that he's not guilty.
He could have been released a few years ago.
What would everyone else consider under the circumstances.? Lies or Justice.? ( though I'm beginning to think that the two go hand in hand )
 I imagine that the powers that be have been waiting for a guilty plea from Jeremy to justify their own shortcomings in all of this,,,but it hasn't come forthwith.

[lookout]

Hi Jam  you probably know more about the Jeremy Bamber case than me thus thinking so differently about the crime  I only first heard of Jeremy Bamber after the programme on the TV this year and that is when I joined the forum in April any information I have gleaned is from the forum.

Nothing in life is certain other than taxes and death so as you said time will tell.

Hi Susan,,,I remember the case vividly,,and also remember the bewildered look on Jeremy when he was arrested. That's when I said to myself that he didn't do it. He'd been made a scapegoat.

[-Harters-]

As I and many others have said before,,,that had he decided to plead guilty,then he'd have been released.

Yourself and many others may well have said that, but it doesn't mean it is true.

In fact it's a complete fantasy, as defined by the definition of  a 'Whole Life Tariff'.