Petey there are a whole raft of KNOWN discrepancies regarding the silencer evidence. The relatives allegedly FOUND the silencer. The silencer along with other, arguably hearsay testimony, convicted JB.
The case is notoriously controversial for having been subjected to significant non disclosure and withholding of evidence and the employment of exemptions to get around disclosure. How likely is it, that absolutely none of this un disclosed material, whether secreted away by means other than PII or whether under the PII umbrella, is NOT exculpatory?
With friends like Petey who needs enemies! Petey gets a lot of praise from the Ian Stephens gang. I wonder why that is? As a general rule, I wouldn’t take advice from a man my enemies praise. I would suspect him.
Notice how Petey doesn’t often (if ever) address particular issues with respect to the evidence. He just keeps reminding us that Jeremy was convicted by a jury and that his appeals have failed and so on and so on. The rejection of exculpatory evidence by the CCRC is taken by him to establish that the evidence was not really strong evidence after all.
If Jeremy Bamber were an american citizen like Amanda Knox, there would be scathing criticism of the CCRC by scientific experts. The reasons given by them for rejecting a submission would be put under close scrutiny. The rejection of evidence requires justification. Bamber’s defence should consider the argument that by withholding the precise explanation for rejection, they are preventing the inadequate reasons from being exposed.
What are the specific reasons for rejecting the evidence of professors Meloni and Cavalli who concurred in the view that Sheila could not have been dead for more that two hours when the photographs showing blood still running were taken? Petey has nothing to say on issues such as that.
Petey and his friends just do their “dismissive” act. They remind us that the CCRC rejected the evidence and use
that as their argument. For the most part, that’s all the pro guilt crowd can do! The evidence was not evidence because the CCRC rejected it. And of course, the same goes for the Arizona tests. Let us be clear about this. These below are two different arguments
To maintain that the CCRC rejected scientific evidence because it was inconclusive is not the same as to maintain that it is inconclusive because they rejected it. The latter is really Petey’s argument, not the former. In logic, it’s recognised as a fallacy and it’s called argument from authority.
The truth is that they have rejected the evidence of expert witnesses without having gained the support of other experts to oppose them. That’s cheating! A television documentary on Bamber! I would say a large part of it should focus upon the conduct of the CCRC in their handling of the case.
