Book Reviews - Murders/Suicide at WHF

[lookout]

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'.

Nonsense,JR,,it was all too easy to pin the blame on the last surviving member of that family,,,and they got it wrong,,,all in the name of getting and securing a conviction in the most unfair trial in history.

[lookout]

The police aren't always right you know. Or are you one of those people who put their full trust in them.?

[-Harters-]

Nonsense,JR,,it was all too easy to pin the blame on the last surviving member of that family,,,and they got it wrong,,,all in the name of getting and securing a conviction in the most unfair trial in history.

I was referring to your suggestion that if he pleaded guilty then he would have been released by now.

I am categorically stating that "NO, HE WOULD NOT BE".

[Bridget]

I was referring to your suggestion that if he pleaded guilty then he would have been released by now.

I am categorically stating that "NO, HE WOULD NOT BE".

Yes, so he has nothing to lose by continuing to protest his innocence, unlike prisoners on ordinary tariffs.

[lookout]

I was referring to your suggestion that if he pleaded guilty then he would have been released by now.

I am categorically stating that "NO, HE WOULD NOT BE".

Oh,,,I think the police etc would have been delighted to have heard a " guilty " plea,,,and yes,my thoughts are that he would have then been released.

[-Harters-]

Oh,,,I think the police etc would have been delighted to have heard a " guilty " plea,,,and yes,my thoughts are that he would have then been released.

I'm sure that they would have been pleased, but it's not possible that he would have been released if he pleaded guilty. It's just not, sorry. It doesn't matter anyway, because he didn't.

In actual fact, if he was three years younger when he committed the crime, or at least under the age of 21, then a whole life tariff couldn't have been placed on him and he would thus be eligible for parole, whether he would have been released on life licence by now, or not, is anybodies guess, but also irrelevant anyway, due to his actual age.

[lookout]

As an example,,Eddie Gilfoyle,who I knew in a professional capacity,,was released in 2010,but was given a gagging order. Police knew that the man was innocent after serving 18 years,,,because they'd been " sitting on " vital evidence for 16 of those years. The gagging order was eventually lifted,,but to this day,Eddie is still fighting for a pardon. Why.? It's coming up to 2 years,,the man was wholly innocent.
Is this done to save face in the force knowing that mistakes were clearly made,,,and nobody will step down and offer the poor man an apology.?
This,,to my mind,is what's happening to Jeremy. Nobody is ever going to admit blame,,,and a few officers in his case will be getting on in years,,so WHAT HAVE THEY GOT TO LOSE.?

[ngb1066]

It's a prediction NGB.

I am confident that you are wrong about this.  Simon McKay remains committed to the case and he will not drop it, even if the JR application fails.

 

[-Harters-]

As an example,,Eddie Gilfoyle,who I knew in a professional capacity,,was released in 2010,but was given a gagging order. Police knew that the man was innocent after serving 18 years,,,because they'd been " sitting on " vital evidence for 16 of those years. The gagging order was eventually lifted,,but to this day,Eddie is still fighting for a pardon. Why.? It's coming up to 2 years,,the man was wholly innocent.
Is this done to save face in the force knowing that mistakes were clearly made,,,and nobody will step down and offer the poor man an apology.?
This,,to my mind,is what's happening to Jeremy. Nobody is ever going to admit blame,,,and a few officers in his case will be getting on in years,,so WHAT HAVE THEY GOT TO LOSE.?

It's a different case and not comparable, but he wasn't found to be innocent, he was released on a technicality.

Which is also the reason that he didn't receive compensation, although I understand the law has been revised since then.

Perhaps by somehow being able to prove that he is innocent, would allow him to seek compensation, I do not know.

[-Harters-]

I am confident that you are wrong about this.  Simon McKay remains committed to the case and he will not drop it, even if the JR application fails.

Well we'll no doubt look back on this in a few weeks time and see which prediction turns out to be correct.

[lookout]

It's a different case and not comparable, but he wasn't found to be innocent, he was released on a technicality.

Which is also the reason that he didn't receive compensation, although I understand the law has been revised since then.

Perhaps by somehow being able to prove that he is innocent, would allow him to seek compensation, I do not know.

I actually knew that the man was innocent. It happened to have been another one of those botched investigations,,contamination and impaired forensic results.Another case of " too many cooks " where hordes of police are on the scene and true evidence is then gone forever.
Eddie will be compensated eventually,I am confident of that.

I know that you can't compare cases,,although murder was involved with both,,,and where both females had similar " health " problems. Police in both cases seemed to think that they can blame those who know of the  psychiatric problems suffered by the deceased,to put them in the frame,instead of going in-depth into the backgrounds of the deceased. Which happened in both cases.

[-Harters-]

I actually knew that the man was innocent. It happened to have been another one of those botched investigations,,contamination and impaired forensic results.Another case of " too many cooks " where hordes of police are on the scene and true evidence is then gone forever.
Eddie will be compensated eventually,I am confident of that.

I know that you can't compare cases,,although murder was involved with both,,,and where both females had similar " health " problems. Police in both cases seemed to think that they can blame those who know of the  psychiatric problems suffered by the deceased,to put them in the frame,instead of going in-depth into the backgrounds of the deceased. Which happened in both cases.

I don't know much about Eddies case, only that it in no way assists or prejudice, either the guilty or innocent camps views on Jeremy Bambers case.

[Roch]

I really don't know what you want me to say, I wouldn't necessarily expect to see any evidence at all of an episode, unless someone still alive witnessed it. No one did.

I'm not sure what the review has to do with it either - it was a review of the case in general, not of whether or not Sheila had an episode.

You've argued that there was a lack of evidence that Sheila suffered a serious episode, while simultaneously holding the stance that you wouldn't expect to see any evidence of a serious episode even if she'd had suffered one.  That's what I was hoping to clarify, so thanks 

The review of the case would have been inclusive of anything Sheila related, so I'm not buying your other argument as a get out clause.  Unless of course you are arguing that he reviewed all case evidence except that which was linked to Sheila?

[ngb1066]

Well we'll no doubt look back on this in a few weeks time and see which prediction turns out to be correct.

We will.  You are not accepting a bet?

[-Harters-]

We will.  You are not accepting a bet?

It's all a bit 'Public Schoolboyish' isn't it? What would be the purpose?  I could understand it if I was calling you out on something, as you would have the incentive of fighting your own corner, but otherwise it just sounds a bit childish. 

I'm happy to wait and see.