Will there ever be another CCRC hearing ?

[Jan]

I bet it wont be taken that way though

[notsure]

Mmmmm i think it should have been referred based on the evidence about the sound moderator and mark thomas williams expert who said it wasnt used. After all the judge said if it was on ghe gun then he was guilty but there is definately doubt in mind opinion about that.

I think i read somewhere that the ccrc had asked for further expert stuff to be done but refused to pay for it and bamber couldnt afford it. Think i read it on bambers own website,

[lookout]

 I must refrain from reading your posts as the  terrible,weak and unsubstantiated-ness is rubbing off on me.

[guest154]

Mmmmm i think it should have been referred based on the evidence about the sound moderator and mark thomas williams expert who said it wasnt used. After all the judge said if it was on ghe gun then he was guilty but there is definately doubt in mind opinion about that.

I think i read somewhere that the ccrc had asked for further expert stuff to be done but refused to pay for it and bamber couldnt afford it. Think i read it on bambers own website,

I think you've a very unique interpretation of the tests and what the results actually showed. 

I bet it wont be taken that way though

I'll join you on that bet. 

[notsure]

I think you've a very unique interpretation of the tests and what the results actually showed. 

I'll join you on that bet. 

not unique at all, the expert clearly says "in his expert opinion he was sure the moderator wasnt on the gun" 

the expert hadnt got an ulterior motive so not sure what ur getti g at.

[guest154]

not unique at all, the expert clearly says "in his expert opinion he was sure the moderator wasnt on the gun" 

the expert hadnt got an ulterior motive so not sure what ur getti g at.

I think the points you mentioned in your first posts tells you all you need to know about the tests and why they weren't enough to get Jeremy past the CCRC.

But for the record :

1. The expert wasn't Mark William Thomas (Nor Mark Thomas Williams as you called him) he is an investgative journailist that worked on the documentary.

2 Not too sure why you put  "in his expert opinion he was sure the moderator wasnt on the gun"   in quotes as that isn't a direct quote from anyone. 

[JackiePreece]

Well it looks quite possible if you read the red forum and learn the consequences for destroying evidence
At bloody last maybe the Keystone cops cock up could come back to haunt them

By the way it is Martin Luther Kings birthday so lots of shops, etc are closed today

[Caroline]

Mmmmm i think it should have been referred based on the evidence about the sound moderator and mark thomas williams expert who said it wasnt used. After all the judge said if it was on ghe gun then he was guilty but there is definately doubt in mind opinion about that.

I think i read somewhere that the ccrc had asked for further expert stuff to be done but refused to pay for it and bamber couldnt afford it. Think i read it on bambers own website,

If it was on the gun, yes, he is definitely guilty but is it wasn't - that doesn't mean he's innocent.

[Jan]

If it was on the gun, yes, he is definitely guilty but is it wasn't - that doesn't mean he's innocent.

But if it was not it would mean the evidence was introduced to put it kindly and therefore in the eyes of the law it would be an MOJ . And why was it introduced ? Because there was insufficient evidence to convict.

It actually I think have been very difficult for Bamber if the silencer evidence had not been there because of Julies evidence. I think he would have been found  innocent but there would have been a doubt hanging over the case and then a subsequent fight over the estate /land and the family who no doubt still would have told the world that the jury were wrong. But it would have died down for a while.

As much as I would not want a guilty man walking free, I am afraid that I feel we  have one of the best justice systems in the world , but it should stand on its merits and  rely on a great police force  with the highest morals . I find that in general, framing for the noble cause, leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth as far as I am concerned.

[Adam]

"His latest request for an appeal was based on a fresh analysis of three burn marks found on his father and gunshot wounds on his sister which suggested they were not killed with a weapon fitted with a "moderator", which suppresses the sound of a gunshot"

This is from a BBC article on the application.

[Adam]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17851314&ved=0ahUKEwieuO3tlrTKAhUG7g4KHXWEDnwQFggrMAM&usg=AFQjCNFoVkCq6EdaCCCM6Mr9XRsTT6dfxw&sig2=24cHQl68RbqNAqE5BQBaQg

This relates to the TV documentary just prior to the CCRC verdict. And also relates to what the OS says. 

If the application was based on this it's an incredibly weak argument. Thread already created by me, on another forum several weeks ago.

[David1819]

Mmmmm i think it should have been referred based on the evidence about the sound moderator and mark thomas williams expert who said it wasnt used. After all the judge said if it was on ghe gun then he was guilty but there is definately doubt in mind opinion about that.

I think i read somewhere that the ccrc had asked for further expert stuff to be done but refused to pay for it and bamber couldnt afford it. Think i read it on bambers own website,

The expert was Dr David Fowler. His conclusions remain unchallenged however the CCRC did challenge Peter Suthurst's findings and found them to be inconclusive via the analysis of Andrew Laws.   

[Caroline]

But if it was not it would mean the evidence was introduced to put it kindly and therefore in the eyes of the law it would be an MOJ . And why was it introduced ? Because there was insufficient evidence to convict.

It actually I think have been very difficult for Bamber if the silencer evidence had not been there because of Julies evidence. I think he would have been found  innocent but there would have been a doubt hanging over the case and then a subsequent fight over the estate /land and the family who no doubt still would have told the world that the jury were wrong. But it would have died down for a while.

As much as I would not want a guilty man walking free, I am afraid that I feel we  have one of the best justice systems in the world , but it should stand on its merits and  rely on a great police force  with the highest morals . I find that in general, framing for the noble cause, leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth as far as I am concerned.

Guilty murders walking free leaves a nasty taste in mine. I don't agree with planting evidence , but I think he would have been convicted anyway.

[Jan]

Guilty murders walking free leaves a nasty taste in mine. I don't agree with planting evidence , but I think he would have been convicted anyway.

without the silencer? when it was 10-2 ?  I am not sure about that .

[Caroline]

without the silencer? when it was 10-2 ?  I am not sure about that .

Yep, even without the silencer. I don't believe the silencer evidence but I do believe he's guilty and I'm not the only one.