Julie would have been called up:

[Adam]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=f3k6VY30F5Tdar6pgKAK&url=http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/city-woman-key-witness-if-uk-judge-allows-appeal-148056175.html%3Fdevice%3Dmobile&ved=0CDAQFjAGOFA&usg=AFQjCNHAsOJwosaQEVQ2IJtHAyDGya-JwA&sig2=ooc6J90jvguYhWzDGU9HEw

[scipio_usmc]

If the CCRC had referred the matter to the COA then the Defense would have wanted to question her before the COA. 

So?

[susan]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=f3k6VY30F5Tdar6pgKAK&url=http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/city-woman-key-witness-if-uk-judge-allows-appeal-148056175.html%3Fdevice%3Dmobile&ved=0CDAQFjAGOFA&usg=AFQjCNHAsOJwosaQEVQ2IJtHAyDGya-JwA&sig2=ooc6J90jvguYhWzDGU9HEw

Adam thank you for the links.  I was wondering what point you were trying to make if any am I missing something.

[Alias]

"City woman" - why is Julie called that?

[Adam]

What would be the reason for calling Julie up ?

She is not new evidence. It's her word against this.

Jeremy's lawyers must assume that they could pressurise her enough on her testimony to make her retract. But she didn't retract 30 years ago as a 21 year old, so unlikely to do so now. Anyway the appeal can't be a repeat of the 1986 trial.

She didn't testify at the 2002 appeal. Although she made herself available. Voluntarily.  Wasn't it ruled that there was not suitable evidence to get her in the dock. So what has changed ?

Jeremy's lawyers would need good grounds to get an order for her to travel across the world.

[Adam]

'McKay has had several highly publicized murder convictions overturned, and is representing several clients victimized in the ongoing hacked telephone and email scandal in Britain'.

Does anyone know what murder convictions he overturned ?

[Adam]

"She was a key witness," McKay said, though he emphasized, "No one considered that her evidence alone convicted Bamber."

That is correct, there really is a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence against Bamber.

[susan]

"She was a key witness," McKay said, though he emphasized, "No one considered that her evidence alone convicted Bamber."

That is correct, there really is a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence against Bamber.

Adam whilst I am of the opinion that Jeremy is guilty of murdering his entire family I was not aware a mountain of forensic evidence existed IMO the evidence that convicted him was flimsey.

[Adam]

McKay said he believes he can compel Smerchanski to testify at an appeal.

"We're fairly certain we can issue a subpoena upon her," and that extradition treaties would force her to testify, he said.

'Fairly certain' ? Again, is Julie new evidence ? An appeal is not about getting old witnesses in and cross examining them. That was done at trial.

[Alias]

What would be the reason for calling Julie up ?

She is not new evidence. It's her word against this.

Jeremy's lawyers must assume that they could pressurise her enough on her testimony to make her retract. But she didn't retract 30 years ago as a 21 year old, so unlikely to do so now. Anyway the appeal can't be a repeat of the 1986 trial.

She didn't testify at the 2002 appeal. Although she made herself available. Voluntarily.  Wasn't it ruled that there was not suitable evidence to get her in the dock. So what has changed ?

Jeremy's lawyers would need good grounds to get an order for her to travel across the world.

It always was - her word against his; and as you correctly point out, not evidence (at all <--- my addition.)

[Adam]

Bamber's supporters have often claimed there was no forensic evidence linking him to the massacre. 

Is it correct that there was no forensic evidence ? 

Bamber's footprints and fingerprints will be all over the house. He was a regular visitor. Either sneaking through windows to look at wills, or popping over for supper and a rabbit massacre. So no possible joy for the police here. 

Bamber had a month to dispose of clothes. Even so John Hayward found human blood on Bamber's jacket, bathrobe and in his car. 

The crime was committed by Sheila or Bamber. There is a lot of forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. Which automatically shows it was Bamber. 

June being shot with her head on the pillow is forensic evidence pointing to Bamber rather than Sheila. 

There is the silencer evidence. 

There is the found hack saw which Bamber admitted using to get in and out of WHF. But apparently not on the massacre night. As well as the discovery that the kitchen window could be banged shut from outside is more  forensic evidence. 

[Adam]

I suspect Mckay was just saying this as bravado. As well as to have a dig at Julie.

[susan]

It always was - her word against his; and as you correctly point out, not evidence (at all <--- my addition.)

Alias it was always her word against his and her evidence alone would not have convicted him they needed the silencer evidence as well and that was nearly not enough he could have walked had he had one more jury member on his side.

[susan]

I suspect Mckay was just saying this as bravado. As well as to have a dig at Julie.

Adam think Simon MacKay was too much a professional to be into that nonsense.

[Adam]

Well he said he would be able to 'force her to testify'. But didn't she attend voluntarily last time ?