The tests and reports commissioned from experts in the US were not planned prior to Simon McKay being instructed.
There were a number of submissions made before Simon McKay was instructed, including those based upon Peter Sutherst's reports about the scratches.
I have read on other threads on the forum that Peter Sutherst did not resist the CCRC’s response to the content of his submission. As such one could read into the situation Peter Sutherst took the money for doing a report within some limited terms of reference but has not since reinforced that report when it was challenged by a counter viewpoint / argument from the CCRC.
I think it has been stated Peter Sutherst is no longer being retained by the defence for the purposes of Jeremy’s bid for freedom / campaign. Such action could indicate the defence do not have much faith in their own strategy or have since lost faith with the argument being presented.
Wherever one looks in this case it appears it is still all about the money.
Sutherst takes the money to do the work but is unable to push his work over the finishing line….. more tests need to be done which I would imagine would mean more fees and yet more money.
I suspect when Simon McKay was instructed he knew / soon became aware the Sutherst angle was an effective dead duck before the CCRC…….. Hence another angle needed to be looked into in order to add some weight to what was fast becoming Jeremy’s ailing CCRC submission. Otherwise it would be back to the beginning of the queue with another further application together with many more years of wait as a new application is progressed.
However, in the meantime the CCRC are playing a blinder.... they offer Jeremy’s team numerous extensions to the CCRC detailed time limits for responses to be prepared. The CCRC also allow more content to be added to the submissions.
If Jeremy was to be successful in getting his conviction quashed I think all would agree a claim for compensation could result in many millions of pounds being received. Not to mention any potential civil claims that might be made on members of the family.
This could be a good business opportunity for a return if someone was prepared to initiate and invest in some forensic tests which could cast some doubt on the safety of Jeremy’s conviction. (Note we are not talking about proving Jeremy to be innocent or proving Sheila to be guilty only the casting of enough doubt on the safety of the conviction which would lead to the conviction being quashed before the Court of Appeal……. then the claims for compensation could begin. Given the historical claims for money that have been made by Jeremy in the civil courts I think it is a very reasonable to assume various claims for compensation would be made by Jeremy if released……… Again all about the money)
Business in general is about a view to risk and the opportunity of making some money in return. As such depending upon the view to risk some may think it might be worth taking a punt on funding some forensic tests in the case of Jeremy Bamber.
Lets play the game...... a budget is allocated.
Should the allocated budget be spent on doing further tests with Peter Sutherst………. No
However, the burn marks on Neville’s back remained unexplained. Could there be any mileage in doing some tests which could provide a possible explanation and cast some doubt on Jeremy’s conviction?
Take a punt.
Spend the allocated budget of say £10,000 on some preliminary tests in Arizona and see what comes back. The full tests could be £100,000 or more which in most people’s book would be a lot of money………In all honesty probably more money than the punt would be worth although this would depend upon ones view to risk and the amount of disposable money available……….. Again all about the money.
The limited Arizona firing tests with pig skin specifically relating to the burn marks on Nevill’s back are conducted. Maybe the allocated budget will generate reports which could provide a possible explanation for the burn marks which would then undermine the original case as heard before the court etc.
The test reports, as issued by the experts, are included within the CCRC submission. The issued reports detail more tests are needed. Such tests I would imagine would need to be funded…………… Again all about the money.
The CCRC issue their final decision / report and detail they will not be referring Jeremy’s conviction to the Court of Appeal.
The CCRC decision becomes the subject of a Judicial Review which is both on paper and then before the Court. The Judicial Review fails and a transcript of the hearing is available and has since been published on the forum.
Maybe if the initial punt money budget had been closer to £100,000 then all the Arizona tests could have been done and a more complete submission could have been made to the CCRC. (However, there is no telling what conclusions all of the necessary Arizona tests would have reached. Such conclusions may have been no good to Jeremy’s defence and may not have cast any doubt on the safety of the conviction)
According to the case of the prosecution the original motive was all about the money.
In my opinion after 27 years nothing appears to have really changed.
However with the passage and in the fullness of time it may be the case Jeremy will need to share any possible compensation with some or a single benefactor who would be prepared to fund some very expensive forensic tests……………. Again all about the money.
