you can chill here

[Hartley]

The difference ie that JM's testimony has been heard and accepted by a Jury, David Shaws account has not.

    What makes you think that a jury in 1986, railroaded with a hugely one-sided case*, is more clued up than the posters on this forum, who are being presented with a far less one-sided than the original purported to be?

*A case that has never stopped being controversial for 26 years and a case in which the prosecuting authorities held considerable power, control and influence.  Are 26 years of controversy a compete fantasy fabricated by people who have nothing better to do?

Quite simply because there isn't a single person on here has has listened to all the witnesses and cross examiners, nobody on here has even read the entire court transcript.
That and 26 years indicate to me that the jury were in a somewhat better position to comment on JM's evidence.

But the jury were not aware that JM had signed a contract with the News of the World entitling her to £25,000 in the event of a conviction of Jeremy Bamber.  Do you not agree that their view of JM's evidence might have been affected by that knowledge?

The appeal Judges in 2002 however were aware.

They were and they rejected every ground of appeal in an unusually lengthy and detailed judgement.  That is one of the reasons in my view why the CCRC appear now to be very resistant to a second referral back to the Court of Appeal and have been, to say the least, less than helpful in using the powers at their disposal to obtain evidence still witheld, and very unhelpful towards the defence for example in relation to the release of photographic negatives.  However, getting back to the original point I made, do you not accept that the jury's assessment of JM's evidence might have been different had they been aware of the NOW contract?

Yes it's a valid point of course, but you would surely agree that we couldn't possibly know what effect it would have had on the mind set of the jurors.

It would be incorrect to state that had they been aware they would have come to a different verdict.

[Roch]

I am considering posting all my communications with David Shaw, out of interest to members and any other interested parties...

ASAP please !!

Mike, is there any more background that you can give us on Shaw, in relation to this case? Such as how he got involved and whether a 'source' lies within EP or as I suspect, COLP?  I know you have directed a previous similar enquiry to Mr. Shaw himself but there's very little about him on the internet, other than he wrote a book about steroids in sport.

[mike tesko]

I am considering posting all my communications with David Shaw, out of interest to members and any other interested parties...

ASAP please !!

Mike, is there any more background that you can give us on Shaw, in relation to this case? Such as how he got involved and whether a 'source' lies within EP or as I suspect, COLP?  I know you have directed a previous similar enquiry to Mr. Shaw himself but there's very little about him on the internet, other than he wrote a book about steroids in sport.

------------

I am considering your request...

[Roch]

I am considering posting all my communications with David Shaw, out of interest to members and any other interested parties...

ASAP please !!

Mike, is there any more background that you can give us on Shaw, in relation to this case? Such as how he got involved and whether a 'source' lies within EP or as I suspect, COLP?  I know you have directed a previous similar enquiry to Mr. Shaw himself but there's very little about him on the internet, other than he wrote a book about steroids in sport.

------------

I am considering your request...

Thanks Mike.   This would be of no small interest to many posters, if not all.

[Jackiepreece]

Hartley I bet you cant wait for the next documentary coming out  that will feature Julie Mugford and the relatives in detail. Prime time tv I bet the relatives will get really excited being the main focal part of the stor.  But then it is a brilliant story no wonder everyone is fighting over the production.
But it will be factual so they have nothing to worry about.  I just wondered do they have big screens in your local pubs.

[Hartley]

Hartley I bet you cant wait for the next documentary coming out  that will feature Julie Mugford and the relatives in detail. Prime time tv I bet the relatives will get really excited being the main focal part of the stor.  But then it is a brilliant story no wonder everyone is fighting over the production.
But it will be factual so they have nothing to worry about.  I just wondered do they have big screens in your local pubs.

I think it'd be best for you to stay away from the bookies to be honest. 

[grahameb]

Hartley I bet you cant wait for the next documentary coming out  that will feature Julie Mugford and the relatives in detail. Prime time tv I bet the relatives will get really excited being the main focal part of the stor.  But then it is a brilliant story no wonder everyone is fighting over the production.
But it will be factual so they have nothing to worry about.  I just wondered do they have big screens in your local pubs.

If it's being made into a movie I bet there'll be a shark attack in it somewhere.

[bob]

Whilst you are spitting feathers in your anger, consider the 2002 appeal and JM's evidence, the defence having the opportunity to question her, declined to do so.

Not so long ago you wanted her dragged back to the UK for questioning, it's already been done love, and her evidence stands.

I think this is a really interesting point. Does anyone have any knowledge (or even any theories) as to why she was not called by the defence? The fact she was flown over from Canada suggests that they did have some intention of calling her at some stage.

Jackie - you are the main person on here asking for her to be called to account, and yet JB clearly did not see this as a constructive avenue to persue, when he had the opportunity. Why is that?

[Jackiepreece]

Bob I dont know the answer to that question but I will try to find out.  Hartley has hinted he knows but he hasnt posted it and I wish he would.
Mike might know but if you start looking at the appeal documents there were some very strange decisions made and Jeremy was confident of winning the appeal.

You only have to look at the history of the Appeal Court Decisions and many famous cases of miscarriages of justice to know some very strange things happen at appeals.  Mike will know more but I know there were only a few people allowed to be present at Jeremys appeal I dont know the significance of this

[Roch]

Does anyone ever check this?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=who

I love having a sly deek at who's checking what.

[bob]

Does anyone ever check this?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=who

I love having a sly deek at who's checking what.

I do. It's a good place to spot the smiters. I even grabbed a few amusing screen shots in fact, but thought better of posting them 

[Roch]

Does anyone ever check this?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=who

I love having a sly deek at who's checking what.

I do. It's a good place to spot the smiters. I even grabbed a few amusing screen shots in fact, but thought better of posting them 

I hadn't thought of that bob.  I've had loads of smites lately.  I couldn't give monkey about them but they did seem to coincide with a certain 'new' poster. 

[Roch]

By the way bob, it's gone a bit pro again.  No hartley or vic.  Need a few battles on here

[bob]

By the way bob, it's gone a bit pro again.  No hartley or vic.  Need a few battles on here

Are you suggesting I should stir things up a bit Rochy with a dissenting post? That could prove suicidal with our new army of moderators 

[chochokeira]

By the way bob, it's gone a bit pro again.  No hartley or vic.  Need a few battles on here

Are you suggesting I should stir things up a bit Rochy with a dissenting post? That could prove suicidal with our new army of moderators 

I hope you'll soon see that we're the same old lot we always were, Bob and Rochy. As a life-long protester, I certainly don't see myself as a member of any 'forum police' and I don't believe the new mods are intended to be forum police at all.

I see our role as encouraging debate and supporting Mike, who has been doing an extraordinary, exemplary and very demanding job here for some time largely on his own. There may be times when people join the forum merely to disrupt and damage it, to post spam, adverts or personal attacks on other members. Those who do that may have to be excluded, but that's a rare occurence.

What's changed then? Nothing, as I see it, except that Mike now has some help, that's all. Mike is still the supreme numero uno here too, thank goodness.

I welcome all views, pro and anti Bamber and don't knows, and I know that Mike and other mods do too because this creates a lively and interesting forum and the forum exists to hear, debate and analyse all views. The forum would soon become so boring if only pro Bamber views were posted.

I miss Harters too, by the way. Come back, Hartley!