The silencer, hand swab, and scratch marks on the aga, Conspiracy...

[andrea]

Thats correct, mat. just read something on the Telegraph site about it.

[andrea]

Wasn't it something along the lines that the person seeking compo has to be shown to be clearly innocent? It appears that simply having your conviction quashed is not enough anymore. That seems odd to me, because if you are innocent until proven guilty, and your guilty verdict is reversed, why are you not innocent?

Something about redefining what a moj is, Bridget.

I would have to read more about it 

[guest154]

Wasn't it something along the lines that the person seeking compo has to be shown to be clearly innocent? It appears that simply having your conviction quashed is not enough anymore. That seems odd to me, because if you are innocent until proven guilty, and your guilty verdict is reversed, why are you not innocent?

It's complicated isn't it? But most of the time if they have been in prison a long, long time there won't be a re-trial. The conviction is just unsafe, so they get out.

[guest154]

Something about redefining what a moj is, Bridget.

I would have to read more about it 

Welcome back Andrea.
To anyone wondering - I checked and confirmed with Andrea on the other forum to make sure this is her and it is. 

[ngb1066]

Wasn't it something along the lines that the person seeking compo has to be shown to be clearly innocent? It appears that simply having your conviction quashed is not enough anymore. That seems odd to me, because if you are innocent until proven guilty, and your guilty verdict is reversed, why are you not innocent?

No it is not.  The change in the law was thought by some to amount to a requirement to prove innocence, but the courts have recently confirmed that this is not the case.  If Jeremy Bamber's convictions are overturned, he will almost certainly receive substantial compensation.

[guest154]

No it is not.  The change in the law was thought by some to amount to a requirement to prove innocence, but the courts have recently confirmed that this is not the case.  If Jeremy Bamber's convictions are overturned, he will almost certainly receive substantial compensation.

It's interesting that you think he'll get compensation. Is this something you've looked into, if I can ask.

[Bridget]

No it is not.  The change in the law was thought by some to amount to a requirement to prove innocence, but the courts have recently confirmed that this is not the case.  If Jeremy Bamber's convictions are overturned, he will almost certainly receive substantial compensation.

Oh ok, do you happen to know what case that was?

[ngb1066]

Oh ok, do you happen to know what case that was?

I will look it up tomorrow and post the details.

[Bridget]

I will look it up tomorrow and post the details.

Thanks.

[ngb1066]

It's interesting that you think he'll get compensation. Is this something you've looked into, if I can ask.

Not in detail, but it is my understanding of how the current law would be applied.

[guest154]

Not in detail, but it is my understanding of how the current law would be applied.

Oh, okay. I see. Thanks NGB

[Roch]

Wasn't it something along the lines that the person seeking compo has to be shown to be clearly innocent? It appears that simply having your conviction quashed is not enough anymore. That seems odd to me, because if you are innocent until proven guilty, and your guilty verdict is reversed, why are you not innocent?

Bridget,

re 'innocent' as it is used above ... do you mean really innocent or would you consider it as only 'technically innocent'?

[susan]

Hi ngb I am sure compensation is the last thing on Jeremy,s mind just now freedom to walk on the beach and try and make up for all the young years he has lost.

[ngb1066]

Hi ngb I am sure compensation is the last thing on Jeremy,s mind just now freedom to walk on the beach and try and make up for all the young years he has lost.

I am sure that is right Susan.

[Bridget]

Bridget,

re 'innocent' as it is used above ... do you mean really innocent or would you consider it as only 'technically innocent'?

I believe they should be treated as if they are really innocent. That doesn't mean that I will personally deep down believe that they are, but I would accept that they are. Put it this way, if JB gets his conviction quashed on some technicality or other I won't begrudge him any compensation he receives.