The Arizona tests:

[ngb1066]

Are you saying the tests are being further carried out?

I am not saying that.  It has certainly been discussed.

With what you posted the other day about the attempt to show the wounds on Sheila were without silencer you'd think that Jeremy apparent lack of funding couldn't fund those tests and further the previous ones from the last CCRC rejection.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make here.

As for a deadline, it has to come at some point. It can't just be allowed to drag on for years and years can it? Are you saying the CCRC should take on cases but have no deadline for the defence in which they need to submit their findings?

It is reasonable to set a timetable, but if the defence presents a proper reason for needing more time, as happened in this case, it is unreasonable for the CCRC to set such a tight deadline.  The interests of justice are not served by this attitude.

[Neil]

Confused/mixed up - same thing, Patti? 

As for NGB.
Are you saying the tests are being further carried out? A couple of posts ago you said that you agree they should be. With what you posted the other day about the attempt to show the wounds on Sheila were without silencer you'd think that Jeremy apparent lack of funding couldn't fund those tests and further the previous ones from the last CCRC rejection.

As for a deadline, it has to come at some point. It can't just be allowed to drag on for years and years can it? Are you saying the CCRC should take on cases but have no deadline for the defence in which they need to submit their findings?

I don't see why there should be a deadline.  This case has 'dragged on' for nearly 30 years.  The CCRC should consider each point, as and when raised by the defence. 

[Jane]

I don't see why there should be a deadline.  This case has 'dragged on' for nearly 30 years.  The CCRC should consider each point, as and when raised by the defence.

Going by what you say, Neil, it seems it would work in their favour to let it drag on because if Jeremy should die in the interim they could say that the case was still being considered.

[guest154]

It is reasonable to set a timetable, but if the defence presents a proper reason for needing more time, as happened in this case, it is unreasonable for the CCRC to set such a tight deadline.  The interests of justice are not served by this attitude.

When Bamber applied to have his case heard and was accepted by the CCRC I am sure he knew the deadline and the rules for his application, he was given an extension - he then waned d further extension - that's attempting to change the rules halfway through a match.

Perhaps the CCRC didn't agree that it was a "proper reason".  They didn't have to grant the first extension but they did I don't think it's fair to criticise them when they followed their rules and acted lawfully.

Going by what you say, Neil, it seems it would work in their favour to let it drag on because if Jeremy should die in the interim they could say that the case was still being considered.

That's a good point.
With all the cases the CCRC is backed up with it's not viable to think a case can be given as much time as they want.

[ngb1066]

When Bamber applied to have his case heard and was accepted by the CCRC I am sure he knew the deadline and the rules for his application, he was given an extension - he then waned d further extension - that's attempting to change the rules halfway through a match.

Perhaps the CCRC didn't agree that it was a "proper reason".  They didn't have to grant the first extension but they did I don't think it's fair to criticise them when they followed their rules and acted lawfully.

That's a good point.
With all the cases the CCRC is backed up with it's not viable to think a case can be given as much time as they want.

We will have to agree to differ on this Mat.  I think the arguments have all been made and members here can make their own conclusions.  Perhaps we should have a poll?

 

[Neil]

Going by what you say, Neil, it seems it would work in their favour to let it drag on because if Jeremy should die in the interim they could say that the case was still being considered.

Just my poor grammar!

What I really meant to say was, they should readily examine any new submissions that are put before them, whenever they are produced. 

[Jane]

Just my poor grammar!

What I really meant to say was, they should readily examine any new submissions that are put before them, whenever they are produced.

In a perfect world, Neil. In a perfect world :D

[lookout]

Does anyone think that people would go to all this trouble if they didn't think there was the slightest chance that Jeremy could be innocent ? Even Jeremy himself,I'm sure he's not that thick to realise that he could have been wasting peoples time over the years.
He doesn't strike me as being a person to take advantage of peoples willingness to help. He obviously gets frustrated at times,wouldn't we all ?

[guest154]

We will have to agree to differ on this Mat.  I think the arguments have all been made and members here can make their own conclusions.  Perhaps we should have a poll?

Happy to agree to differ. Think a poll would be a little useless/waste of time as it is just different opinions and doesn't really bother me whos opinion is more popular.

[Adam]

Happy to agree to differ. Think a poll would be a little useless/waste of time as it is just different opinions and doesn't really bother me whos opinion is more popular.

I thought the CCRC submission was Jeremy's application. So he had control over the time scale and when he submitted it. 

He had ten years between 2002 - 2012 to prepare his submission.

When the CCRC rejected it, the CCRC generously extended the appeal deadline. Which was again rejected.

[Adam]

The CCRC set a final deadline which was very difficult as Simon McKay had not long been instructed.  If further tests were completed and finished reports prepared, this could form part of the basis for a fresh application.

So the basis of a fresh application would be that the marks on Neville may not be from the silencer.

They may not be from the gun either. And the silencer may have been taken off and put at the back of the gun cupboard beforehand anyway.

Wouldn't it be obvious it is not from the silencer. It would have surely melted if it had been burnt to such a high degree.