Who has more rights thirty years on: Jeremy or Colin?

[Stephanie]

I think JB's behaviour under the circumstances is exemplary considering he'd had the carpet pulled from under him.

What's exemplary about asking a friend to read a letter to your murdered parents, who you stand guilty of murdering, whilst being filmed then having it published online for the world and his wife to see?

[David1819]

Maybe when you write to Bamber again you can ask him why he's sat on that 'golden nugget' and not allowed anyone to see the assessment report carried out at the request of his defence team - pre trial.

It's not me who hasn't looked at this case thoroughly David. You have publicly stated you do not believe JM's evidence, therefore on that basis you are choosing to ignore all the other evidence that points to guilt.

You have to put the blinkers on in order to appease your confirmation bias; that's hardly looking at the case in its entirety.

If you had actually studied the case thoroughly, you would have better points to make other than your belief he is a psychopath.

I have stated several times that refuting JMs testimony does not establish innocence. I know full well Jeremy could be guilty but the burden of proof is on those who assert he is guilty (The State) and they have not established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, if they did we would not be having this discussion.

[lookout]

What's exemplary about asking a friend to read a letter to your murdered parents, who you stand guilty of murdering, whilst being filmed then having it published online for the world and his wife to see?

That's your view entirely.

[lookout]

 " Projecting " the psychopathy argument doesn't solve anything. There are far more psychopaths walking the street than there are in prison.
The same as there are far more people with mental health issues outside institutions than there are in them.

[JackiePreece]

If you had actually studied the case thoroughly, you would have better points to make other than your belief he is a psychopath.

I have stated several times that refuting JMs testimony does not establish innocence. I know full well Jeremy could be guilty but the burden of proof is on those who assert he is guilty (The State) and they have not established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, if they did we would not be having this discussion.

What a perfect post David

Thank you

[Neil]

If you had actually studied the case thoroughly, you would have better points to make other than your belief he is a psychopath.

I have stated several times that refuting JMs testimony does not establish innocence. I know full well Jeremy could be guilty but the burden of proof is on those who assert he is guilty (The State) and they have not established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, if they did we would not be having this discussion.

As far as the jury were concerned, they did establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.  Remember, they had the massive advantage of hearing from the witnesses in person. 

What makes you think that you are better equipped to judge? 

[David1819]

As far as the jury were concerned, they did establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.  Remember, they had the massive advantage of hearing from the witnesses in person. 

What makes you think that you are better equipped to judge?

Reasonable doubt based on the evidence that was presented to them. We now know what the Jury heard was not at all the full story.

Guilty or not Jeremy's trial was a parody of justice.

[Stephanie]

Reasonable doubt based on the evidence that was presented to them. We now know what the Jury heard was not at all the full story.

Guilty or not Jeremy's trial was a parody of justice.

If Bamber were to be re- tried, I guarantee the end result would remain the same and/or the verdict would be unanimous!

By all means continue down this path David, but go in the knowledge that the path you are treading has been walked by many others before you and they too have all eventually come to the same conclusions at the end of that path - that being; Bamber is guilty as charged!

Nothing you've posted to date hasn't been written numerous times before. Your arguments are old arguments and all worn out. I don't believe you've found anything that will aide a new appeal nor do I believe you are looking at this case with an open mind, as you often suggest you are. I believe you are here for your own agenda and it has nothing to do with innocence or guilt. I believe you are hoping to achieve something someone else hasn't. It won't happen David, as you will eventually find out. Your arguments will take you no where, apart from around in circles.

You've yet to post anything worth any value or to sway the minds of the people who believe in his guilt nor do I expect you will do anytime soon. Best of luck trying though.

[Neil]

Reasonable doubt based on the evidence that was presented to them. We now know what the Jury heard was not at all the full story.

Guilty or not Jeremy's trial was a parody of justice.

We have an appeal system, which Bamber has taken full advantage of.  As time has passed by and the evidence re-examined, the case against Bamber looks stronger than ever. 

[Stephanie]

We have an appeal system, which Bamber has taken full advantage of.  As time has passed by and the evidence re-examined, the case against Bamber looks stronger than ever.

Agreed Neil!

[David1819]

If Bamber were to be re- tried, I guarantee the end result would remain the same and/or the verdict would be unanimous!

They wont dare re-trial Bamber because the case would collapse. Thus all the CCRC does is raise the bar.

By all means continue down this path David, but go in the knowledge that the path you are treading has been walked by many others before you and they too have all eventually come to the same conclusions at the end of that path - that being; Bamber is guilty as charged!

Nothing you've posted to date hasn't been written numerous times before. Your arguments are old arguments and all worn out. I don't believe you've found anything that will aide a new appeal nor do I believe you are looking at this case with an open mind, as you often suggest you are. I believe you are here for your own agenda and it has nothing to do with innocence or guilt. I believe you are hoping to achieve something someone else hasn't. It won't happen David, as you will eventually find out. Your arguments will take you no where, apart from around in circles.

When I first got interested in the case, I believed he was guilty. I then became doubtful the more I dug deeper. People underestimate the complexity of the case. Those who say it is straight forward simply allow the Courts and the CCRC to make their minds up for them i.e "Bamber is guilty because he is still in prison"

[Stephanie]

They wont dare re-trial Bamber because the case would collapse. Thus all the CCRC does is raise the bar.


When I first got interested in the case, I believed he was guilty. I then became doubtful the more I dug deeper. People underestimate the complexity of the case. Those who say it is straight forward simply allow the Courts and the CCRC to make their minds up for them i.e "Bamber is guilty because he is still in prison"

How would the case collapse David?

I do not believe Bamber is guilty because he is still in prison. I once believed cases like this were complex but they are not.

Here is an article regarding Simon Halls appeal rejection http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2010/7432.html. He duped many people into believing he was innocent David. Do some research into their backgrounds and look at their qualifications. He was represented by Michael Mansfield QC. Private Eye supported his cause as did numerous other eminent professionals.

No court or independent body set up to investigate MOJ's have made my mind up for me David...

[Neil]

They wont dare re-trial Bamber because the case would collapse. Thus all the CCRC does is raise the bar.


When I first got interested in the case, I believed he was guilty. I then became doubtful the more I dug deeper. People underestimate the complexity of the case. Those who say it is straight forward simply allow the Courts and the CCRC to make their minds up for them i.e "Bamber is guilty because he is still in prison"

I have been left with the impression that the opposite is true of the CCRC.

I obviously know nothing about the workings of the CCRC.  Perhaps NGB could tell us if, in his considered opinion, Bamber was treated as fairly as any other applicant.  They did seem to give the impression that they had spent an awful lot of time and energy considering the last application.  As well as extending deadlines, they seemed anxious that Bamber was not left feeling aggrieved. 

I do wonder if the mauling they received at the last CoA hearing, has affected their subsequent actions/attitude.

[David1819]

We have an appeal system, which Bamber has taken full advantage of.  As time has passed by and the evidence re-examined, the case against Bamber looks stronger than ever.

No it does not. The CCRC could not challenge most of the evidence given to them in 2011.

"the Commission and the Court of Appeal, in short, is that they are concerned with safety, not instead whether the accused is guilty of any conviction"
John Cooper QC

"It is better an innocent man serves a life sentence than the law is seen to be making grave errors"
Former Lord Chief Justice

If you want to see how appauling the appeal courts can be I suggest you watch this documentary film if you have the time. The trials of Darrell Hunt (2006)
http://putlocker.is/watch-the-trials-of-darryl-hunt-online-free-putlocker.htm

[Stephanie]

No it does not. The CCRC could not challenge most of the evidence given to them in 2011.

"the Commission and the Court of Appeal, in short, is that they are concerned with safety, not instead whether the accused is guilty of any conviction"
John Cooper QC

"It is better an innocent man serves a life sentence than the law is seen to be making grave errors"
Former Lord Chief Justice

If you want to see how appauling the appeal courts can be I suggest you watch this documentary film if you have the time. The trials of Darrell Hunt (2006)
http://putlocker.is/watch-the-trials-of-darryl-hunt-online-free-putlocker.htm

David you sound like an amateur. Dr Michael Naughton is well versed with regards the CRCC. Have a look at some of his research then come back when you have. Following that of course you will need to take into consideration Simon Hall's confession, as I'm not aware of this fact having been included in any current research.


David Jessell;
"My CCRC friends tell me that this just shows how ‘unsafety’ rather than innocence should be the criterion. I’ve never bought that. Such a view simply entrenches that bloodless tendency which reduces injustice to the formulaic, tick box exercise so comfortable for lawyers (one extremely grand lawyer believed the CCRC should be ‘the anteroom to the Court of Appeal’) I wanted to refer Simon Hall because I believed (wrongly) that he didn’t do it. I know it’s not very lawyerly, but I’m rather less interested in giving the guilty a get-out-of-jail-free card.http://thejusticegap.com/2013/09/simon-hall-confession-a-time-to-take-stock/


There is a large amount of misinformation in the public domain David therefore until that misinformation is corrected people like you will continue to be mislead.