There needs to be a defence based rough justice style documentary which allows some room for the prosecution argument and for prosecution witness / police commentary that is evidence related as opposed to opinion related. What would happen is that the police would struggle to answer such points, possibly refuse to comment. The docu would then allow the public to form an opinion on the lack of response from the police, which is likely to be negative / sceptical towards the police. There is absolutely no way the relatives would cooperate in answering difficult evidence related questions. They would more likely attempt to prevent the programme from happening, which would and should be interpreted as an indicator of collusion with the police stance.
Personally I believe that Jeremy's higher profile supporters should cut to the chase and publicly suggest that the silencer is a deliberately fabricated exhibit as opposed to an accidentially contaminated exhibit.
The trouble is, lawyers put their own respectable position first. Sollecito’s lawyers apparently advised him to return to Italy. Well, I suppose you would expect lawyers to advise their client to turn up. But look where it’s got him!
Bamber’s defence have allowed the CCRC to get away with rejecting scientific evidence without giving an explanation. In fact, by not disclosing the response to a submission they have helped cover up it's lack of logic. A few hints here and there does not allow an expert to comment. The guilters can always just say "But you haven't seen it!" The effect is that the scientific community is being kept out of the case.
Saying that photographic evidence is unreliable is just bunkum. That wasn’t the opinion of the pathologists themselves.
To accuse them of misconduct is just not the way lawyers who anticipate future employment are likely to operate. What I suggest is that a group of Bamber's supporters prepare the script of such a documentary with people on this forum making suggestions as to what they would like to see put in it. Certain facts stand out
You can prove actual innocence.Pathologists and ballistics experts invited to take part would unequivocally support the view that photographs of the victims prove certain things:
1 That Sheila’s time of death was hours later than that of the other victims, giving Jeremy a solid alibi.
2 That the silencer was not on the rifle when Sheila was shot
3 That Nevill Bamber’s body must have already been in rigor mortis when his head was put in the coal bucket, implying that he must have died hours before.
There are certain things which can be proven or virtually proven such as1 That Julie Mugford got the description of Sheila on the bed with the bible on her chest from Ann Eaton and not from Jeremy. Who but a halfwit would believe that it was just a coincidence that Jeremy made up the same description when telling the story
of Matthew McDonald’s involvement?
2 That the silencer evidence was deliberately faked as corroboration in support of Julie Mugford’s testimony.
3 That two bodies were found on entry
4 That Nevill Bamber phoned the police
I’m pretty sure that, otherwise, a “respectable” documentary made in the future would not include most of those things.
Treat the case as a historical subject. Let the specialists have their say on television as they would on some other subject like Scott’s expedition to the Antarctic .
What I suggest is a Timewatch style documentary where experts give their professional opinion on the evidence and the CCRC are frankly accused of judicial misconduct for rejecting evidence without giving an explanation worthy of the name.
Bamber’s lawyers will never make such an accusation and will probably oppose the idea saying that it will only be counter productive, making the CCRC even less sympathetic to Jeremy. They would say that a more professional approach is required, one which has proven in the past to be completely ineffective.
My advice is to stick with american experts who don’t know much about the case and who are impartial and who can’t be got at.
People who hear them come to conclusions which rule out Jeremy as a suspect will tell others. Word gets around.
Here’s an example of what I think is required.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wNSdqys9TcThere can be a big gulf between professional opinion and popular opinion, but it’s not all that difficult to get the scientific view across to the general public. If people get to know that the pathologists view rules out Jeremy, some of them will believe it.
Not everyone is stupid.
