The delay in the submission to the 2012 CCRC application. Why ?

[Adam]

The Official Site has refrained from including a chapter on what was submitted in the 2012 CCRC application. Unlike the 2002 COA, there are no other points of reference.

It is certain that the results from the Arizona tests were included. This has been discussed before on here. It is not really evidence as Neville's burn marks could have been acquired at any time.

The scratches on the mantle piece were probably included. As experts have been speaking about it since the 2002 appeal.

Neville's alleged call to the police was not included.

The CCRC gave Jeremy's lawyers extensions to submission deadlines. With the case always in the media, it would be assumed that this was due to there being so much evidence they had to get together. However it could be because there was not enough evidence. This is backed up by the fact that the CCRC did not pass the submission to the COA.

Accusations against Julie, the police and relatives cannot be included in a CCRC application. It is not evidence. Just accusations.

The 2002 appeal had a lot of points. None of these points can be included in the 2012 CCRC application. As they have already been discussed before and dismissed by the COA.

To find new points of evidence highlighting innocence will be hard for a case that has already been so comprehensively investigated over 30 years.

So it seems likely the delay could be there was not enough evidence, rather than too much.

It will be good if information can be supplied on what was in the CCRC application and why there were deadline extensions given. 

[Adam]

Hopefully NGB can give us a run down of the main points submitted in Jeremy's 2012 CCRC application. Once we know then posters can make their own mind up on why Bamber's lawyers asked for more time.

He kindly confirmed it did not include Neville's alleged call to the police.

After ten years there must have been more in the application than scratches and burn marks.

[lookout]

Are you going to write to EP and PII to release the hundreds of documents that are still being held ??

[Adam]

Are you going to write to EP and PII to release the hundreds of documents that are still being held ??

You mean you haven't ?

[Adam]

The relatives and COA were critical of the CCRC for referring the case to the COA in 2002. It must have been a weak claim.

I suspect the time extension given by the CCRC in 2012 was because the campaign team knew they had another weak case. And were praying they could dream up something at the last minute to bulk it up. Which didn't happen.

The extension was also reported in the media. This actually creates good publicity. It is a high profile case and people will assume the delay is because the campaign team has too much information to meet the original deadline. The official line being that 'it was a complex case'.

Even if they had a mountain of evidence, they should have been able to meet the deadline as it was ten years in the making. The new claims by Bamber in the media after 2002 had been made years before the 2012 CCRC deadline.

[lookout]

You mean you haven't ?

I was asking you.

[Adam]

I was asking you.

I have not as I don't believe it would contain anything which highlights innocence. But if you do, get writing.

[scipio_usmc]

Well the obvious answer for the delay was they were not ready.

NGB said that he changed counsel shortly before the deadline so they needed more time.

Even if they didn't change counsel they still could have needed more time since the evidence they had was more speculative than definite.

[Adam]

There is a chapter on the OS criticising the CCRC. After they generously gave him more time, but dismissed his application.

But there are no details on what was in the application. Surely it deserves a chapter.

[Patti]

This might help.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/3768.html&query=jeremy+and+bamber&method=boolean