Look what you could have won....

[ngb1066]

Ok, even though I am fairly certain I have seen it written, you're right I can't find it and I must have paraphrased - but when you post the full 89 page document - I'll be looking out for that word.

I hope that if the JR fails, NGB, you'll say you were wrong with good grace too.

Mat - I will not be posting the document as it has not been made public.  Why do you suggest I would post it?

Why will I be wrong if the JR fails?

[guest154]

Mat - I will not be posting the document as it has not been made public.  Why do you suggest I would post it?

Didn't you say that you have no problems with it being posted, but only after the JR?

Why will I be wrong if the JR fails?

If the JR fails it means they are in favour of the CCRC, meaning that your accusations that the CCRc were wrong not to refer, were not correct.

Or if the JR falls in favour of the CCRC will you then call the CCRC wrong and the JR wrong?

[Bridget]

Didn't you say that you have no problems with it being posted, but only after the JR?


If the JR fails it means they are in favour of the CCRC, meaning that your accusations that the CCRc were wrong not to refer, were not correct.

Or if the JR falls in favour of the CCRC will you then call the CCRC wrong and the JR wrong?

It's not NGB's decision whether or not to post publicise it though.

The JR is a review of the decision making process, not the decision itself, as you know.

[guest154]

The JR is a review of the decision making process, not the decision itself, as you know.

Yeah, but he disagrees with it - hence the review - but if the JR finds that the CCRC acted fairly would he then accept this or would he go agaisnt the CCRC and the JR, is what my question is.

It's not NGB's decision whether or not to post publicise it though.

True. But I think at the moment if someone else was to post it on here, he'd use his role as admin to remove it because he's involved with the case, which may be fair, but he said that he think it should be posted WHILST it is under review. How about after?

[Bridget]

I would hope that if anyone posted it without permission he would remove it, as much as I'd like to read it.

[ngb1066]

Didn't you say that you have no problems with it being posted, but only after the JR?


If the JR fails it means they are in favour of the CCRC, meaning that your accusations that the CCRc were wrong not to refer, were not correct.

Or if the JR falls in favour of the CCRC will you then call the CCRC wrong and the JR wrong?

I would have no problem with it being posted after the JR, but that would not be a decision I would feel able to make on my own.  If it is posted it there will also need to be a lot of other material posted in order for it to be understood.  Again, I have no problem with that because I think transparency in cases like this is positive.

If the JR application fails and the CCRC decision is therefore not overturned I will still retain my criticisms of the CCRC's entire approach to the case.  I think you are wrong to equate this with your factual mistake relating to the use of the word hearsay.  It really is not important so I will not press you on it further.

 

[Steve_uk]

Sorry I lost the drift of this thread about the time of the Frederick Wilhelm reference. Could members perhaps put a recapitulation in their writing and avoid acronyms where possible?

[susan]

Hi steve  be so kind as to speak in a language that we Yorkshire/Scottish folk understand.  Many thanks for your assistance.

[lookout]

Sorry I lost the drift of this thread about the time of the Frederick Wilhelm reference. Could members perhaps put a recapitulation in their writing and avoid acronyms where possible?

Steve,all you have to do is glance at the start of the thread. That should jostle your memory.

[petey]

Hi Petey,

I have just noticed this post you made and it appears your percentages are a little out - MOJ's are not a tiny tiny percentage - you being a solicitor and all that, I would have thought you would be more up to speed.

Michael Mansfield QC recenlty gave an interview on the subject and compared MOJ's today, as bad if not more so, than they were in the 80's.

Petey can I ask you where you stand on JB's case? The red foum say you believe he's guilty but your earlier posts suggest you think he's Innocent?

If you consider every single case in every single court, including supreme court, c of a, High court, mags court, youth court, county court...... then miscarriages of justice are a tiny tiny percentage. Of course it is difficult to provide a completely accurate percentage as many victims of miscarriages of justices do not have their sentences overturned, so it is not known that it is a miscarriage of justice. For example JB, Simon, Duane could well all be miscarriages of justice, but they currently are not recorded as such.

I work in corporate / commercial law and touched upon employment law during my tc, so not an expert in criminal law.

I first covered the course during my degree at which point I thought JB 90% innocent. Interest reawakened when I read Scott Lomax book and though him 80% innocent.  Did further internet research and joined this forum about 14 months ago thinking JB about 70-80% innocent.  Have yet to see any tangible evidence which proves the case either way, so currently I prob about 60% think JB is innocent. But want to see compelling evidence either way.

[petey]

Hi Petey,

I have just noticed this post you made and it appears your percentages are a little out - MOJ's are not a tiny tiny percentage - you being a solicitor and all that, I would have thought you would be more up to speed.

Michael Mansfield QC recenlty gave an interview on the subject and compared MOJ's today, as bad if not more so, than they were in the 80's.

Petey can I ask you where you stand on JB's case? The red foum say you believe he's guilty but your earlier posts suggest you think he's Innocent?

Petey, no offence but I take it work is a little slow at the moment... You've been on here all day and night for several days now.. are you waitng for something in particular....

Not quite sure what you mean?

Just because I'm signed in does not necessarily mean Im actively engaged in debate.

What do you perceive I may be waiting for?

[petey]

I strongly diasgree with what you have written here. I take it you do not know anything about 'appellents' then nor it seems have you done research?

What course are you referring to, where you say you covered it in your degree? I went to Uni - little bit of trivia there for you - but gullible me doesn't normally mention these things.

We will have to agree to disagree then.

Sorry typo i meant case, not course!

[petey]

You must have one of those extra special computers where an alarm goes off when your name is mentioned then... 

Goodness only knows what you are writing; I wasn't trying to pity.

Btw - great news for Jackie P the other day don't you think; what with you and your corporate and commercial law background - in my opinion she was getting ripped off. But thankfully the Chairman ruled in her favour - several breaches were broken as well. tut tut. I guess you deal with that sort of thing as well.

Haven't got a clue about her case so don't know what happened or how this was for her i'm afraid. Don't know anything about Jackie as a person either.

It doesn't sound like an area I specialise in no, if you are interested.

[petey]

Thanks for your reply Petey....

What about Jackie P's result - you appeared to show a lot of interest in Jackie when you joined about 14 months ago, so I wondered what you thought of the LVT decisions ruling that she was quite clearly being 'ripped off' by her managing agent?

Seems the demands for money were in excess of over 5k too much?

Read my previous post at 2.20!  I haven't got a clue about Jackie, her case, her personal life or whether it was good / bad or anything.

My only interest in Jackie was when I thought she was negatively impinging on JB on this forum.

[petey]

Really, that surprises me. I would have thought you of all people, being a solicitor wouldn'r make such a judgement?

From what I gather Jackie's made a huge contribution to JB's case and even helped to find his current lawyer.

She excelled herself on twitter, you only have to search on google and it's all there.

I'm not sure how she would have 'negatively impinged on JB' - This seens to be the case since she's been banned.

No disrepsect to other members, but they seem to prefer to want to talk about music and other off topic subjects.

Maybe Jackie was weary and thought you weren't a genuine poster? Who knows?

Personally Ive never doubted that Jackie did lots of good work off the forum. It was some of her overly critical posts on this forum and her war of words with posters on the other forum that i didn't like.

From day 1 Jackie told me to go and play with the traffic and her opinion of me barely improved. She thought I knew the family or knew people related to the case. Then said I had some kind of agenda. None of which are true. I'm on this site to debate issues and look for further evidence of whether JB suffered an appalling miscarriage or whether he is in fact guilty and evil almost beyond belief.