Television documentary material

[Hartley]

As there were no paint flakes / debris on the floor this did seem to back up Sutherst's study of the area.

There is a difference between not having any evidence of something being there, and having evidence that something wasn't there.

[Pete0001]

What I don't understand is.... regardless of who's an expert in what...

Either there is contradictory evidence that there is no scratch in the paint work on the photo's taken on the morning of the murders or there isn't. Full stop, end of.

I don't understand how the evidence can be questionable if it is there... unless we are talking of photo's that requiere you to squint a bit here and there, hold it in a certain light and you might just see it standard.

Either there are pictures taken on that morning that show no scratches or there are pictures taken around that area that just about include the scratch area on a funny angle that could be construde as having no scratches... which is it?

[Hartley]

What I don't understand is.... regardless of who's an expert in what...

Either there is contradictory evidence that there is no scratch in the paint work on the photo's taken on the morning of the murders or there isn't. Full stop, end of.

I don't understand how the evidence can be questionable if it is there... unless we are talking of photo's that requiere you to squint a bit here and there, hold it in a certain light and you might just see it standard.

Either there are pictures taken on that morning that show no scratches or there are pictures taken around that area that just about include the scratch area on a funny angle that could be construde as having no scratches... which is it?

I think that is the crux of the matter, the photographs appear to show no scratches. Appear to is not evidence, Mr Sutherst has then used enhancement methods to try and show the scrratches "really" aren't there. The CCRC don't agree with the methods of photo enhancement.

[Pete0001]

There has always been a fine line between enhancement and manipulation.

A gouge out of paint work from some angles wouldn't show depending how the gouge runs... you have to compare like for like to make it hard evidence in my opinion. Is this what the expert did?

Would be interesting to see the prosecutions image of the scatch and the experts take on the same area.

[Hartley]

On a similar note, the fact that it appears that no paint was found on the floor, it doesn't mean that no paint was on the floor.

It's something the media can pick up on and sensationalise, but it's not evidence.

There has always been a fine line between enhancement and manipulation.

A gouge out of paint work from some angles wouldn't show depending how the gouge runs... you have to compare like for like to make it hard evidence in my opinion. Is this what the expert did?

Would be interesting to see the prosecutions image of the scatch and the experts take on the same area.

I'm not sure how the photographs were  enhanced/investigated. I agree it would be interesting to know.

[Jackiepreece]

With so many questions and no definately answers and someone whole life on the line I think the ccrc have to allow the other 200 photos and 340,000 documents to be released and then give extra time to Jeremy's legal team to go through them.  I don't know the facts of the Guildford 4 but I thought the evidence for the conviction to be unsafe was in undisclosed evidence that the character Emma Thompson played was allowed to see because of a mistake by a clerk (I have no idea if that was fact or fiction). Another important fact for any documentary maker is do I understand ewen smith used to be Jeremy's solicitor and fight to prove him innocent and now one of the ccrc commissioners turning him down for a referral to the appeal court.  I can only feel I have this wrong

[Pete0001]

Enhancement, or atleast when I do it for clients, is usually done to pull out detail that already exists in the image but can not be seen clearly and sometimes at all at its current exposure/light settings etc.

I really would be interested to see the image the expert worked on and compare against...

[Pete0001]

With so many questions and no definately answers and someone whole life on the line I think the ccrc have to allow the other 200 photos and 340,000 documents to be released and then give extra time to Jeremy's legal team to go through them. 

Yes I agree.. and have done since the start... but things need to happen first.. on the evidence what we've seen here I didn't and don't fancy his chances.
I'm not putting a downer on all this evidence because I think he's guilty.. I'm just testing it so as to make up my own mind.

I don't know the facts of the Guildford 4 but I thought the evidence for the conviction to be unsafe was in undisclosed evidence that the character Emma Thompson played was allowed to see because of a mistake by a clerk (I have no idea if that was fact or fiction).

This is my understanding of that particular case too. Purely through a admin error the lawyer was able to look at files the Police never wanted anyone to see. Truly shocking events.

Another important fact for any documentary maker is do I understand ewen smith used to be Jeremy's solicitor and fight to prove him innocent and now one of the ccrc commissioners turning him down for a referral to the appeal court.  I can only feel I have this wrong

Yes I mentioned this on a different thread and never got a reply. I really thought there would be a conflict of interest.. One could argue that he would be bias towards JB or that having seen the evidence he has he no longer thought JB had a case and was in fact guilty... either way it must be a conflict?

[Jackiepreece]

Maybe he really wanted that job and 'decided to believe the prosecution case' if he has more evidence to proof without doubt Jeremy carried out the murders as a commissioner of the ccrc he could put this evidence out there it would save a lot of time and money

To some people a powerful job is everything and they would sell their sold for it

[Jackiepreece]

Two questions if anyone knows

How much would it cost to keep  someone in a high security prison for the next thirty years even though the majority of the british public are unsure that he is really guilty and could someone let me  Know the correct date the silencer was found by the family and exact date Julie mugford first went to the police

Also my last post the word should have been soul not sold !

[Hartley]

Two questions if anyone knows

How much would it cost to keep  someone in a high security prison for the next thirty years even though the majority of the british public are unsure that he is really guilty and could someone let me  Know the correct date the silencer was found by the family and exact date Julie mugford first went to the police

Also my last post the word should have been soul not sold !

That's not true?

[Jackiepreece]

How do you know that and find me one person amongst the general public who would not want all documents regarding the Jeremy BAMBER case released.  Why is this case continually in the media?

[Hartley]

How do you know that and find me one person amongst the general public who would not want all documents regarding the Jeremy BAMBER case released.  Why is this case continually in the media?

The majority of the British public probably aren't even aware of the case or only aware of it's existence and nothing more.

It's a bit of a sweeping statement to say that the majority of the British public are unsure of his guilt, the majority of the British public probably have no opinion.

He's in prison because he was found guilty by a jury verdict.

[Jackiepreece]

For Hartley


Truth never damages a cause that is just

Ghandi.   

[Jackiepreece]

I do not agree I am sure everyone is interested in British Justice and if it is fair can I jog your memory guildford 4, Birmingham 6, Barry George,  Colin Stagg I suppose you want to bring back hanging don't worry about the odd mistake