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

[Stephanie]

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

Says who? And what points are you referring to in Bambers submissions to them?

[David1819]

David you sound like an amateur. Dr Michael Naughton is well versed with regards the CRCC. Have a look at some of 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.

Simon Hall is a totally different case. I don't know were you see any comparisons TBH 
But I can understand why you would be reluctant to listen to JB after your experiences with SH.

Understand, I have never intended to support or help Jeremy, I seldom care about MOJ. My interest in this case is the mystery about it. My motive is to try and establish who done it 100% I want to solve it to the point know one bothers debating it anymore, that is my motive. If I could prove Jeremy is guilty beyond all doubt I would have no problem at all telling everyone. I have no conflict of interest I don't care if Jeremy is guilty or innocent, I only want to know what happened that night and while studying the case I just find more questions than answers this has led me to unintentionally support JB if that makes sense.

[Stephanie]

Simon Hall is a totally different case. I don't know were you see any comparisons TBH 
But I can understand why you would be reluctant to listen to JB after your experiences with SH.

Understand, I have never intended to support or help Jeremy, I seldom care about MOJ. My interest in this case is the mystery about it. My motive is to try and establish who done it 100% I want to solve it to the point know one bothers debating it anymore, that is my motive. If I could prove Jeremy is guilty beyond all doubt I would have no problem at all telling everyone. I have no conflict of interest I don't care if Jeremy is guilty or innocent, I only want to know what happened that night and while studying the case I just find more questions than answers this has led me to unintentionally support JB if that makes sense.

I've always believed Bamber to be guilty therefore Simon Halls confession makes no difference to any reluctance you may perceive I have regarding his innocence. Again your argument is weak.

I've always believed Bamber to be guilty but what Ive learned leading up to and following the confession allows me to understand Bambers psychopathy and his motivations for maintaining his innocence for 3 decades.

Many of us have already established SC was an innocent victim who Bamber attempted to frame for his crimes but failed.

What you mean by you want to solve it to the point no one bothers debating it anymore is that you have a lot of catching up to do.

I do not believe all those maintaining innocence are guilty but I do believe many of the cases I have come into contact with over the years are! There are numerous reasons for my strong beliefs and psychopathy is just one of them. Bambers track record of how he has treated many of those people who have attempted to help him over the years is another. There are numerous reasons I firmly believe in his guilt and by far the most compelling for me is the evidence that shows SC didn't do it!

[Stephanie]

Simon Hall is a totally different case. I don't know were you see any comparisons TBH 
But I can understand why you would be reluctant to listen to JB after your experiences with SH.

Understand, I have never intended to support or help Jeremy, I seldom care about MOJ. My interest in this case is the mystery about it. My motive is to try and establish who done it 100% I want to solve it to the point know one bothers debating it anymore, that is my motive. If I could prove Jeremy is guilty beyond all doubt I would have no problem at all telling everyone. I have no conflict of interest I don't care if Jeremy is guilty or innocent, I only want to know what happened that night and while studying the case I just find more questions than answers this has led me to unintentionally support JB if that makes sense.

It's your choice if you choose to support Bambers claims of innocence. You appear to be suggesting this is a problem for you or a perceived problem? Is that because you aren't certain or because you don't care one way or another or is because you find if difficult when people express opposing views?

You've already fallen for one fallacy and that relates to the CT. If you believe they act independently to Bamber,  you are mistaken. I firmly believe he knows exactly what they do and that he is behind many of the decisions made.

[Adam]

And as I've pointed out to you as a fact, it's not unusual for prisoners to fall under the radar or indeed for mistakes to be made.

You are wrong David! Bamber was diagnosed as a psychopath by the psychiatrist engaged by his defence team!

"He has professed his innocence ever since. However, the psychiatrist engaged by Bamber’s defence team said that his very real belief that he had not committed the murders was a prime reason for diagnosing him as a psychopath.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3157376/Now-know-Bamber-did-Crime-writer-s-definitive-verdict-public-schoolboy-slaughtered-entire-family-30-years-ago-tried-frame-dead-sister-protested-innocence.html#ixzz467nv9aiK

So you see, Bamber was diagnosed as a psychopath pre-trial. He's been retested by Professor Egan since then and part of that assessment was a self assessment. Meaning Bamber completed a series of questions and
Professor Egan based his findings on Bambers own answers.

So it's not difficult to see how easy it would have been for Bamber to answer the questions however he wanted in order to produce the results he wanted.

Reading this Daily Mail article, it seems that Taff was dead against changing stance from the beginning. Vigorously turning down reasonable early requests from respected people to reconsider. Eventually he was overruled by people in Chemlsford.

I suspect Taff realised he was too hasty on the day and wanted to cover himself. He had no evidence to bring to the table to refute the suspicious police, relatives and ultimately his superiors.

[David1819]

There are numerous reasons I firmly believe in his guilt and by far the most compelling for me is the evidence that shows SC didn't do it!

It can be established that the evidence that shows SC didn't do it was manufactured, Its a long story but it can be.

Simon Hall confessed after 12 years Jeremy is still protesting after 30!

Lets look at other convicts who are convicted of murdering their families and accused of blaming someone else

Dana Ewell - Does not protest innocence
Sef Gonzales - Does not protest innocence
Ronald DeFeo - Does not protest innocence
The Whitehead Twins - Pleaded Guilty
Brain Blackwell - Pleaded Guilty
Jeffrey Macdonald - Protests his innocence

That's just a few I know of. Dana Ewell is a psychopath no doubt, he has never adamantly protested his innocence while in Jail, Neither has Sef Gonzales.
 

[Stephanie]

It can be established that the evidence that shows SC didn't do it was manufactured, Its a long story but it can be.

Simon Hall confessed after 12 years Jeremy is still protesting after 30!

Lets look at other convicts who are convicted of murdering their families and accused of blaming someone else

Dana Ewell - Does not protest innocence
Sef Gonzales - Does not protest innocence
Ronald DeFeo - Does not protest innocence
The Whitehead Twins - Pleaded Guilty
Brain Blackwell - Pleaded Guilty
Jeffrey Macdonald - Protests his innocence

That's just a few I know of. Dana Ewell is a psychopath no doubt, he has never adamantly protested his innocence while in Jail, Neither has Sef Gonzales.

I don't think the length of time makes much difference. I can explain this further but after the inquest.

So in most of these cases they have accepted their guilt; only Jeffrey McDonald protests his innocence. What are the similarities between Macdonald and Bamber, if any?


I can already see similarities https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_R._MacDonald any guesses for what they may be   

[lookout]

 I wonder if Whittingdale's services will be requested if there is another appeal ? Each time there's been mention of an appeal,the relatives have been very vocal in calling upon their local or known MP's to throw their weight behind the argument that JB's a " very dangerous and bloody murderer who they all live in fear of " and should remain behind bars.
RWB used to write to EP explaining his disappointment towards the justice system that the family had been let down by the fact that JB was even allowed to appeal.

[John]

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

I don't agree, there is more than enough evidence to convict him even now.  Nobody has been able to provide any evidence which can show a miscarriage has occurred and that is what counts.  I'm afraid Mike Tesko's wild claims and speculations have all fallen on stony ground.

[lookout]

It would have appeared that evidence was provided by everyone else barring EP themselves ?
Where is their evidence to say that JB actually committed the crime ?

[Steve_uk]

Following the "What you want to interview li'l ol' me?" video featuring Trudi Benjamin as centrepiece we now get Marvellous Matt Paddock and Harriet Harman-lookalike Heidi Hawkins resuming the campaign, with Jeremy relying on Matt's marketing skills and Harriet-sorry Heidi's "extensive secretarial and administrative skills" to move this case forward. The message is to "get the evidence out there", which they conspicuously fail to do in all these video attempts; it seems that the Campaign Team is relying heavily on purportedly undisclosed documents after thirty years finally coming out into the public domain.   https://twitter.com/bambertweets

[John]

Following the "You want to interview li'l ol' me?" video featuring Trudi Benjamin as centrepiece we now get Marvellous Matt Paddock and Harriet Harman-lookalike Heidi Hawkins resuming the campaign, with Jeremy relying on Matt's marketing skills and Harriet-sorry Heidi's "extensive secretarial and administrative skills" to move this case forward. The message is to "get the evidence out there", which they conspicuously fail to do in all these video attempts; it seems that the Campaign Team is relying heavily on purportedly undisclosed documents after thirty years finally coming out into the public domain.   https://twitter.com/bambertweets

They're in for a huge disappointment then.

[guest154]

Following the "You want to interview li'l ol' me?" video featuring Trudi Benjamin as centrepiece we now get Marvellous Matt Paddock and Harriet Harman-lookalike Heidi Hawkins resuming the campaign, with Jeremy relying on Matt's marketing skills and Harriet-sorry Heidi's "extensive secretarial and administrative skills" to move this case forward. The message is to "get the evidence out there", which they conspicuously fail to do in all these video attempts; it seems that the Campaign Team is relying heavily on purportedly undisclosed documents after thirty years finally coming out into the public domain.   https://twitter.com/bambertweets

They're in for a huge disappointment then.

am I right in thinking that the CT beleive the 30 year rule will lead to 'undisclosed evidence' being revealed? That it will be in the public domain once the 30 years is up?

[Steve_uk]

I find them so distasteful. I just hope Colin has the sense not to view them.

[David1819]

am I right in thinking that the CT beleive the 30 year rule will lead to 'undisclosed evidence' being revealed? That it will be in the public domain once the 30 years is up?

The CT have an electronic document database that holds over several million pages of evidence. Why they are busy baking cakes and reading letters in grave yards god only knows.