Simon McKay No Longer Representing Jeremy

[nugnug]

What does that mean in England?

it means the documents will have to be released unless another pii notice is issued.

[Alias]

it means the documents will have to be released unless another pii notice is issued.

That´s what I thought, thanks Nug.

I have a feeling that will not happen though - I mean the case documents being released; but if they were, how would it happen "practically"?

[Neil]

I wonder if Simon Mckay has taken it as far as he could and I also wonder whether the amount of different legal teams that JB has had has jeopardised his appeal because it's been passed round so much and has so much information in it.

Nice to see you back, Jo.

[JackiePreece]

Ngb is Gareth Peirce still practising?

[nugnug]

That´s what I thought, thanks Nug.

I have a feeling that will not happen though - I mean the case documents being released; but if they were, how would it happen "practically"?

well jeremys legal team will have to request them.

[No-Bits]

it means the documents will have to be released unless another pii notice is issued.

I think that is incorrect with regards to this case.

[Alias]

I think that is incorrect with regards to this case.

Why? Because it is a life tariff?

[No-Bits]

Why? Because it is a life tariff?

Because the case is, in a sense, still current.

The files are not about to be issued to the national archive any time soon.

Has this come from the Campaign Team by any chance? 

[No-Bits]

Because the case is, in a sense, still current.

The files are not about to be issued to the national archive any time soon.

Has this come from the Campaign Team by any chance? 

I'm not convinced it even applies to criminal cases.

[Mr. Gee]

I am a realist.  Realistically there is no hope at all of finding any documents that will help clear Jeremy.  The defense basically hopes and prays police framed Jeremy and that they set out right away to do it.  What documents could realistically exist that would demonstrate such?  There are none.


Realistically you have no idea what's been witheld or what has been 'destroyed' or not

Realistically you don't know if Jeremy is innocent or guilty

Your just a poster on a forum with no inside information or no legal background

I agree with you Jackie. But scipio has got a legal background. He was in the US Marine Corps Judges Advocate Division.

[Mr. Gee]

I wonder if Simon Mckay has taken it as far as he could and I also wonder whether the amount of different legal teams that JB has had has jeopardised his appeal because it's been passed round so much and has so much information in it.

Unfortunately Bamber hasn't a very good record in keeping legal teams.

[lookout]

 Jeremy wants things doing yesterday,I'm afraid. I know it's no picnic being locked up all this time but he has to realise that there is a ton of red-tape to get through before you reach the real issue of him being there in the first place.
As the law stands,and although Paul Chadwick ( schizophrenic murderer ) lost his case appealing for the estate that his murdered ex-partner left,it was still allowed to be heard in court ?? How come ?

[scipio_usmc]

I wonder if Simon Mckay has taken it as far as he could and I also wonder whether the amount of different legal teams that JB has had has jeopardised his appeal because it's been passed round so much and has so much information in it.

I do believe the appeals have gone as far as they can go there is little else than can be done.

Juggling defense counsel loses some time as a new counsel gets up to speed but otherwise is not a major deal. 

I have a feeling that the juggling is that Jeremy wants them to allege things that can't ethically be alleged based on the evidence available and he is shopping for peopel who are willing to do so.

At this point they already searched through everything that can be of value.  There is no realistic chance of finding evidence that can establish his innocence and it is readily apparent he is guilty and that they had simply been looking for ways to argue for a new trial based on a "technicality".

[tyler]

There could never be a retrial with evidence destroyed and many witnesses now deceased. And Jeremy has made it clear that he does not wish to be released on any 'technicality'. He would only want to be released as an innocent man.

[lookout]

But it isn't readily apparent that he's guilty. If a known schizophrenic murderer who killed his partner and their little boy in a frenzied knife attack can get away with  being allowed to appeal for the estate which was left after her death,then why can't someone hear Jeremy out once and for all.?
After all,the Bamber murders was supposed to have been the worst crime of the century and it must have been expected to have received a unanimous verdict,so why wasn't it ?

What DOES happen when and if a person IS telling the truth and ends up in this situation ?