telephone logs.

[lookout]

There are documents held under PII, which I believe the CCRC can insist on looking at.

There are documents that have been withheld but which are not under PII.  Can the CCRC insist on seeing these or have they already done so?  How can these documents be legitimately withheld?

Why can't a court order be served to release these documents.? It's not right,,,and it's not justice either.
The longer they hang on to them,,the bigger the bill they're going to have to be faced with on Jeremy's release. It's obvious why they're being kept under wraps. It's a wonder they weren't destroyed back in 1996 with other vital evidence. How dare they.!

[Neil]

It is a recorded fact that the CCRC have not used their powers to demand that the police give up certain documents. The police have simply refused to hand them over and the CCRC have gone along with this. THAT IS THEIR FAILURE as far as I am concerned and they can be condemned for that obstruction of justice as far I I am concerned. It was that act that lost all my respect for that body.

Thanks for that Grahame.  In a case that is far from clear cut, quite the opposite in fact, in the interest of justice and transparency, they MUST be forced to release EVERYTHING.  Justice must be seen to be done, it certainly hasn't happened here.  What possible justification can they have for withholding it? 

[Steve_uk]

The problem is it wouldn't prove that it was actually Nevill speaking at White House Farm. Julie Mugford had already given a statement in which she mentioned a hitman who was to make such a call on the digital telephone so it could be traced back,so unless Julie breaks down and confesses one day that she has framed Jeremy then the conviction will stand.

[grahameb]

Thanks for that Grahame.  In a case that is far from clear cut, quite the opposite in fact, in the interest of justice and transparency, they MUST be forced to release EVERYTHING.  Justice must be seen to be done, it certainly hasn't happened here.  What possible justification can they have for withholding it?

I don't know? But notice that this does not trouble the BGB. Are they really interested in seeing justice done? Or to see an innocent man being held behind bars for the rest of his life? Surely if someone is truly interested in justice than that air of doubt must be in their minds. But I rather think it to be only prejudice that stops the BGB really investigating why so much evidence is still being witheld and seen to be witheld and to rather close their blinkered eyes so they cannot see it. Therefore I feel that all those who have made up their minds that Bamber is guilty think that way because of some prejudice withing their own minds. For so many legal people even can see that there are so many holes and anomalies in this case to let it rest and give up on a man who may well be innocent?

[grahameb]

The problem is it wouldn't prove that it was actually Nevill speaking at White House Farm. Julie Mugford had already given a statement in which she mentioned a hitman who was to make such a call on the digital telephone so it could be traced back,so unless Julie breaks down and confesses one day that she has framed Jeremy then the conviction will stand.

Absolutely no one could corroberate JM's story. That is why he could not be convicted on her testimony alone.

[andrea]

How could anyone back up Julies story? Bamber only told her of his plans, nobody else.

[Neil]

How could anyone back up Julies story? Bamber only told her of his plans, nobody else.

From what I have read about Julie Mugford, I would have to have completely disregarded her evidence.  Perhaps if I had heard her evidence first hand, in court, I might have felt differently.  I don't think you can underestimate the importance of hearing a witness in person, under cross examination.  Having said that, how would the jury's opinion of her changed, if they had known about her news paper deal?

[andrea]

Not a clue. Her evidence cant be dismissed though can it, regardless of the NOWT story. Bamber also was going to do a deal with a newspaper, he wanted alot more cash than what Mugford got!

Neil, how do you think Sheila managed to get upstairs without getting blood down her front? Its one i ponder alot 

[Neil]

Not a clue. Her evidence cant be dismissed though can it, regardless of the NOWT story. Bamber also was going to do a deal with a newspaper, he wanted alot more cash than what Mugford got!

Neil, how do you think Sheila managed to get upstairs without getting blood down her front? Its one i ponder alot 

Well, I'm not sure I buy into the theory that she shot herself first downstairs.  I'm also interested in the bloodied hand print on her nightdress, that somebody mentioned earlier, whose hand print was this?

[Bridget]

Well, I'm not sure I buy into the theory that she shot herself first downstairs.  I'm also interested in the bloodied hand print on her nightdress, that somebody mentioned earlier, whose hand print was this?

Vanezis was of the opinion that it was hers, and only her blood was on her nightie.

[andrea]

Thats right, Bridget. Surley had Sheila committed the murders, other blood would have been found.

[lookout]

Not a clue. Her evidence cant be dismissed though can it, regardless of the NOWT story. Bamber also was going to do a deal with a newspaper, he wanted alot more cash than what Mugford got!

Neil, how do you think Sheila managed to get upstairs without getting blood down her front? Its one i ponder alot 

Andrea,,don't forget that her clothes were soaking in buckets,,,so Sheila could have removed her " bloodied " day clothes into her nightie,,,which wouldn't have been as bad as the clothes/trousers that she'd removed.

[mertol22]

I have a few issues with JM and her statement, other than in writing following an oral account , there seems to be no pysical evidence to support what she said, such as a diary with times and dates what jeremy said , a tape with him saying such things, given her testonomy in effect sent him prison forever , all on no concrete evidence he said such things, in the presence of another person that would be quite different , there we have more than one witness, if jb was under the influence of alchohol when he said such things , that could not be taken as evedence, even if he did say such things as a pass of view and not to act , tells me she did not think he was serious , only after she was dumped did this move up a level to now being serious, why?

[andrea]

Andrea,,don't forget that her clothes were soaking in buckets,,,so Sheila could have removed her " bloodied " day clothes into her nightie,,,which wouldn't have been as bad as the clothes/trousers that she'd removed.

you think after the first shot she changed her clothes?

[Bridget]

Andrea,,don't forget that her clothes were soaking in buckets,,,so Sheila could have removed her " bloodied " day clothes into her nightie,,,which wouldn't have been as bad as the clothes/trousers that she'd removed.

Was she running around topless then?