Jeremy's Alibi...

[andrea]

Probably because he was found guilty, Grahame. Whats the latest on JR anyone know?

[boheme]

Believe what you like Steve. Why do think Jeremy would compile thousands upon thousands of files pertaining to the case and how it was handled,if he was guilty.?
He's been gathering evidence over the years to prove his innocence,not his guilt.

Nothing whatsoever was planned on his part at all.     It strikes me that he was the only one who wasn't scheming. !

JB has nothing else to do but try and find anything that might give him a glimmer of hope of release, every possible avenue including Court of Human Rights etc etc... he is in a no win situation with a whole life tarif - if he admits guilt he stays in prison, if he claims innocence in his last dying breath he stays in prison - absolutely nothing to lose...

[mertol22]

JB has nothing else to do but try and find anything that might give him a glimmer of hope of release, every possible avenue including Court of Human Rights etc etc... he is in a no win situation with a whole life tarif - if he admits guilt he stays in prison, if he claims innocence in his last dying breath he stays in prison - absolutely nothing to lose...

Thats right he has nothing to loose because he has already lost it a large part of his adult life .

[grahameb]

Probably because he was found guilty, Grahame. Whats the latest on JR anyone know?

Yes but Andrea that was not the point I was trying to make. What I am saying is that people in order to strengthen their argument the emphasise the facts that appeal courts and the ccrc all uphold the original conviction. What I am trying badly to demonstrate is that all they do is to consider any proposed "new" evidence that could make his conviction unsafe. They do not go over and consider the whole case every time. The law does not work like that. It is designed in such a way that the decision of the original jury is seen as gospel truth. That is both a plus and a negative in British law.
In other words everything is already endorsed by the original trial and all proposed "new" evidence is considered in the light of that.
So what I am actually saying is that it is a very weak argument where justice is concerned to reinforse your view that Bamber is guilty by emphasising that two appeal courts have all found him guilty as charged. Because they haven't. They have just dismissed the new evidence as not being enough to challenge the original conviction. I'm not sure if I am making myself clear or not?

[Bridget]

Yes but Andrea that was not the point I was trying to make. What I am saying is that people in order to strengthen their argument the emphasise the facts that appeal courts and the ccrc all uphold the original conviction. What I am trying badly to demonstrate is that all they do is to consider any proposed "new" evidence that could make his conviction unsafe. They do not go over and consider the whole case every time. The law does not work like that. It is designed in such a way that the decision of the original jury is seen as gospel truth. That is both a plus and a negative in British law.
In other words everything is already endorsed by the original trial and all proposed "new" evidence is considered in the light of that.
So what I am actually saying is that it is a very weak argument where justice is concerned to reinforse your view that Bamber is guilty by emphasising that two appeal courts have all found him guilty as charged. Because they haven't. They have just dismissed the new evidence as not being enough to challenge the original conviction. I'm not sure if I am making myself clear or not?

You are to me, an I agree with you. The only way the 'old' evidence gets extensively re-examined is via a retrial.

[andrea]

Yes i understand what you mean, i know how it works. The evidence from the original trial was strong enough to convict Bamber so that wont be used again, its been argued before.

You said why not judge Jb by the same standard, i said because he was found guilty at his original trial. Go back through the thread Grahame, you will see what i mean. Im ending up confused!

[andrea]

Morning Bridget 

[Bridget]

Morning Bridget 

Morning Andrea, how's sunny Yarkshire?

[andrea]

Its grande lass!! We have a gold post box  :D

[Bridget]

Its grande lass!! We have a gold post box  :D

I imagine Yorkshire has quite a few of those by now!

[susan]

Morning Bridget are you extracting the urine out of good old Yorkshire

[andrea]

If we were a country, we would be 7th in the medals tables!! A little useless fact there for anyone interested.

The two Leeds lads in the triathlon live not far from me. Hence the gold post box.

[mertol22]

Its grande lass!! We have a gold post box  :D

Its not all hunky dory andrea ive read the royal mail are not going to issue stamps for the paralympics, butchers.

[andrea]

They have issued stamps for the medal winners in the standard olypics. Not sure what you mean, mertol.

[Bridget]

Morning Bridget are you extracting the urine out of good old Yorkshire

Not at all, Yorkshire has done us all proud.

Its not all hunky dory andrea ive read the royal mail are not going to issue stamps for the paralympics, butchers.

Really? That doesn't seem right at all.