Hello Nickos excellent post other than of course I believe Jeremy Bamber to be innocent but you made sense in much of what you said. I strongly feel so much evidence was destroyed or withheld and why was this necessary if everything was as it should have been. I feel again very strongly that much will be revealed in the near future and Jeremy Bamber will be found innocent of the horrendous crimes he was charged with. The trial was a shambles and he would not be convicted in a court of law at this present time.xx
Hi Susan, thanks, and of course you’re entitled to your opinion, even if you're wrong
.
The reality, as I’m sure in other cases, is that evidence does unfortunately get destroyed (deliberately / accidentally!?), lost, etc, but don’t overlook the position that some of the evidence in this case presented on the Forum as withheld was in fact available at trial, but not spotted by the defence (so in some way it really is a case of what was the Defence doing). If some evidence was photocopied by the Prosecution on the back of another piece of evidence, it is quite a weak case of the Defence to say we didn’t turn a page over so missed this evidence.
It is I believe trial protocol that the defence get to see what the Prosecution is going to present, so can then base their defence accordingly. It is also the Defence position to collate as much evidence themselves to secure a not guilty outcome.
However some information in the JB case has been presented as new or controversial - the “2nd telephone log” being one – but none of this, in fact all the appeal evidence presented to date, is considered by the CCRC as not strong enough to order a re-trial.
One of the aspects of the Nat Fraser appeal, and subsequent re-trial, was that it was presented at trial by the Prosecution that Arlene’s wedding, engagement and eternity rings turned up at the Fraser house a short while after her disappearance, the Prosecution therefore alleging that Nat Fraser had access to her body and had removed the rings.
The Defence then found out from certain police officers (yes, police officers) that the officers had in fact seen the rings in the house on the day of her disappearance, thereby undermining the Prosecutions account. As we know Nat Fraser (and his team) managed to get this and no doubt other points to the English Supreme Court who quashed Nat’s original conviction and ordered a re-trial – so there is a route to a re-trial with the right support and evidence – even if the person is then proved guilty a second time.
It seems to me that JB can’t even get over the CCRC start line with what he has available – it’s a no hoper!!
The jury in JB’s case (as with the Nat Fraser case) believed imo there was enough smoke, so there had to be fire - I believe there is a strong possibility JB (as with Nat Fraser) could still be found guilty a second time (especially if I was on the Prosecution team
) .
