Television documentary material

[crooner1]

Thanks pete0001, sorry newbury i havent seen your previous post, great minds think alike?  I no there are people out there that can do these sort of things, but how many have to face the police straight away and not become a suspect? We can all go over silencer evidence, bullets here bullets there, sugar on floor, dodgy witness statements ect, im not knocking this but the evidence that gets him off has got to be in there somewhere but the dark forces will never release it im afraid.

[Pete0001]

......but the evidence that gets him off has got to be in there somewhere but the dark forces will never release it im afraid.

Yes.. I'm affriad this is the case too... and if ever they are forced to release more, one must be concerned about what will make it out and what will/or has been already destroyerd.

[Newbury1]

Thanks pete0001, sorry newbury i havent seen your previous post, great minds think alike?  I no there are people out there that can do these sort of things, but how many have to face the police straight away and not become a suspect? We can all go over silencer evidence, bullets here bullets there, sugar on floor, dodgy witness statements ect, im not knocking this but the evidence that gets him off has got to be in there somewhere but the dark forces will never release it im afraid.

Hi crooner1 - simliar again!

Previous post - I agree that the original file SC/688/85 should be made available, along with the remaining undisclosed photo's and any other relevant documentation.

However my feeling here, based on the Essex Polices response to date, is that this is not going to happen and therefore reference to these files/photos/videos/documents (the items) becomes, as frustrating as it is, irrelevant!

It's a simple case that these items need to be accessed or the status quo will prevail!

JB's legal team has so far failed with his appeal on the information currently available - or is there more information/evidence available to be put forward in the latest response period given by the CCRC?.

[Pete0001]

Thanks pete0001, sorry newbury i havent seen your previous post, great minds think alike?  I no there are people out there that can do these sort of things, but how many have to face the police straight away and not become a suspect? We can all go over silencer evidence, bullets here bullets there, sugar on floor, dodgy witness statements ect, im not knocking this but the evidence that gets him off has got to be in there somewhere but the dark forces will never release it im afraid.

Hi crooner1 - simliar again!

Previous post - I agree that the original file SC/688/85 should be made available, along with the remaining undisclosed photo's and any other relevant documentation.

However my feeling here, based on the Essex Polices response to date, is that this is not going to happen and therefore reference to these files/photos/videos/documents (the items) becomes, as frustrating as it is, irrelevant!

It's a simple case that these items need to be accessed or the status quo will prevail!

JB's legal team has so far failed with his appeal on the information currently available - or is there more information/evidence available to be put forward in the latest response period given by the CCRC?.

I reckon they need to hire Donald Macintyre to infiltrait EP records library...

In all seriousness I truly and with regret believe that only an inside job will ever get those files out in any kind of intact way...

[Newbury1]

Thanks pete0001, sorry newbury i havent seen your previous post, great minds think alike?  I no there are people out there that can do these sort of things, but how many have to face the police straight away and not become a suspect? We can all go over silencer evidence, bullets here bullets there, sugar on floor, dodgy witness statements ect, im not knocking this but the evidence that gets him off has got to be in there somewhere but the dark forces will never release it im afraid.

Hi crooner1 - simliar again!

Previous post - I agree that the original file SC/688/85 should be made available, along with the remaining undisclosed photo's and any other relevant documentation.

However my feeling here, based on the Essex Polices response to date, is that this is not going to happen and therefore reference to these files/photos/videos/documents (the items) becomes, as frustrating as it is, irrelevant!

It's a simple case that these items need to be accessed or the status quo will prevail!

JB's legal team has so far failed with his appeal on the information currently available - or is there more information/evidence available to be put forward in the latest response period given by the CCRC?.

I reckon they need to hire Donald Macintyre to infiltrait EP records library...

In all seriousness I truly and with regret believe that only an inside job will ever get those files out in any kind of intact way...

Previous post - Problems (pii rules) are there to be ovecome - surely someone with a strong scense of justice might be inclined to borrow / photo copy file SC/688/85 - this kind of activity has been undertaken many, many times before!!

Maybe it will all appear on Wikileaks in the near future   

[Roch]

Wonder if Sparkfilm's suggestion will ever come to fruition for the defence?  I've always thought a good title for the film on the case would be Bamber/Caffell - as this was the choice given to the jury and nation.  Then I read Colin's piece in the appendix in CAL's book - and for a while, I thought perhaps this wouldn't be a good idea,  due to the impact upon those relatives with the same surname.

There has been so much tripe on telly over the years about this case.  Cliched and flattering portrayals of the relatives' dogged discovery.  Grinning cops peddling anecdotes about Hugo Boss suits. 

I think there are going to be a lot of people made to look FOOLS by their own previous actions, if a decent media company marries-up with the defence.

[Jane]

Wonder if Sparkfilm's suggestion will ever come to fruition for the defence?  I've always thought a good title for the film on the case would be Bamber/Caffell - as this was the choice given to the jury and nation.  Then I read Colin's piece in the appendix in CAL's book - and for a while, I thought perhaps this wouldn't be a good idea,  due to the impact upon those relatives with the same surname.

There has been so much tripe on telly over the years about this case.  Cliched and flattering portrayals of the relatives' dogged discovery.  Grinning cops peddling anecdotes about Hugo Boss suits. 

I think there are going to be a lot of people made to look FOOLS by their own previous actions, if a decent media company marries-up with the defence.

I can't help wondering if his defense actually believe that he's innocent. It's the job of the defense to defend. According to friends whose daughters are barristers, whether or not their client is innocent is irrelevant. They don't actually want to know. What they need is a story a jury will believe. I can well imagine the spin that would be put on the tale if "a decent media company marries up with the defense".

[Roch]

I can't help wondering if his defense actually believe that he's innocent. It's the job of the defense to defend. According to friends whose daughters are barristers, whether or not their client is innocent is irrelevant. They don't actually want to know. What they need is a story a jury will believe. I can well imagine the spin that would be put on the tale if "a decent media company marries up with the defense".

Even if that were true..  you seem to think it's OK for one side to have 30 years of spin on telly, virtually without reply from the other side.  I mean - in terms of spin - it's not very even is it?

Tall tales about silencers and the like.

I will rephrase.  If a decent media company marries-up with those in possession of the facts and a proficient and accurate case knowledge.   

Bit of a mouthful that though.

[Jane]

Even if that were true..  you seem to think it's OK for one side to have 30 years of spin on telly, virtually without reply from the other side.  I mean - in terms of spin - it's not very even is it?

Tall tales about silencers and the like.

I will rephrase.  If a decent media company marries-up with those in possession of the facts and a proficient and accurate case knowledge.   

Bit of a mouthful that though.

Not at all. There's been the same BS on television docudramas as there's been on this forum. They ALL claim to be "in possession of the facts and a proficient and accurate case knowledge". What's a bit more from a different view point. Ya pays ya money. Ya takes ya choice.

[Roch]

Not at all. There's been the same BS on television docudramas as there's been on this forum. They ALL claim to be "in possession of the facts and a proficient and accurate case knowledge". What's a bit more from a different view point. Ya pays ya money. Ya takes ya choice.

How much air time given to prosecution police / relative bullshit and how much airtime given to defence bullshit?  and regarding the defence - haven't they at least tried to question the actual facts, for example gunshot wounds and logs content - whereas the others just get free reign to spout anything.  For example, did Babs Wilson go on telly and repeat that she told police  - that she had never seen Jeremy and Nevill argue apart from farm matters and treated Jeremy a bit like as if he were her own son?  Or did she just go on telly and say 'he never showed any remorse'. 

David Boutflour was allowed to go on one documentary and spout absolute piffle.  Literally.  It's incredible how they have got away with it so far.

[Jane]

How much air time given to prosecution police / relative bullshit and how much airtime given to defence bullshit?  and regarding the defence - haven't they at least tried to question the actual facts, for example gunshot wounds and logs content - whereas the others just get free reign to spout anything.  For example, did Babs Wilson go on telly and repeat that she told police  - that she had never seen Jeremy and Nevill argue apart from farm matters and treated Jeremy a bit like as if he were her own son?  Or did she just go on telly and say 'he never showed any remorse'. 

David Boutflour was allowed to go on one documentary and spout absolute piffle.  Literally.  It's incredible how they have got away with it so far.

Well, unless you see things only in terms of black or white, you'll realize that the opinions we hold aren't the result of only one thing. BW isn't a particularly reliable witness but it MAY be true that she gave Jeremy a character witness because she thought it would help him. It equally possible that she'd felt bullied/threatened into it. She MAY have given a sigh of relief when he was convicted and realized she could tell the truth. DB ISN'T particularly erudite, NOR is he trained in public speaking. He isn't the only one to falter in front of a camera. It must be remembered that your hostility comes from your implacable stance. It's perfectly possible that those who believe Jeremy guilty would be as pedantic about a defense docudrama.

[Roch]

Well, unless you see things only in terms of black or white, you'll realize that the opinions we hold aren't the result of only one thing. BW isn't a particularly reliable witness but it MAY be true that she gave Jeremy a character witness because she thought it would help him. It equally possible that she'd felt bullied/threatened into it. She MAY have given a sigh of relief when he was convicted and realized she could tell the truth. DB ISN'T particularly erudite, NOR is he trained in public speaking. He isn't the only one to falter in front of a camera. It must be remembered that your hostility comes from your implacable stance. It's perfectly possible that those who believe Jeremy guilty would be as pedantic about a defense docudrama.

Points taken.  But they could hardly be pedantic about indisputable facts or obvious and blatant acts of omission brought to the public's attention. 

He may not be particularly erudite but DB seems well trained in bullshit.   

[notsure]

I can't help wondering if his defense actually believe that he's innocent. It's the job of the defense to defend. According to friends whose daughters are barristers, whether or not their client is innocent is irrelevant. They don't actually want to know. What they need is a story a jury will believe. I can well imagine the spin that would be put on the tale if "a decent media company marries up with the defense".

Yes but that also goes forr the prosecution Jane, they just need a story the jury will believe which is what I've been saying all along. They don't want to know either because no one knows in cases with mainly circumstantial evidence.

who tells the best story on the day wins!

[Adam]

Yes but that also goes forr the prosecution Jane, they just need a story the jury will believe which is what I've been saying all along. They don't want to know either because no one knows in cases with mainly circumstantial evidence.

who tells the best story on the day wins!

That's it. Forget about forensic & circumstantial evidence. It's who tells the best story.

[Jane]

Yes but that also goes forr the prosecution Jane, they just need a story the jury will believe which is what I've been saying all along. They don't want to know either because no one knows in cases with mainly circumstantial evidence.

who tells the best story on the day wins!

I couldn't agree more, Notsure. ANY one of our great actors would be in their element.