Will there ever be another CCRC hearing ?

[David1819]

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

without the silencer all you have is the word the Julie Mugford.

The Jury asked the Judge to go over the blood in silencer evidence again then. Not long after they reached their verdict.

[Caroline]

without the silencer all you have is the word the Julie Mugford.

The Jury asked the Judge to go over the blood in silencer evidence again then. Not long after they reached their verdict.

That's not true, you also have the lack of evidence on Sheila and if Sheila didn't do it, then Jeremy did.

[David1819]

That's not true, you also have the lack of evidence on Sheila and if Sheila didn't do it, then Jeremy did.

The Judge never instructed the Jury that they could find Jeremy guilty on lack of evidence on Shelia.

They could find him guilty on Blood in the silencer, Paint on the silencer and Julie Mugford

[Caroline]

The Judge never instructed the Jury that they could find Jeremy guilty on lack of evidence on Shelia.

They could find him guilty on Blood in the silencer, Paint on the silencer and Julie Mugford

Unless  you have a transcript of the full trial, you can't say what did or what didn't influence the jury - regardless of what instructions were given, the jury would have been influenced by the WHOLE trial and it was made clear from the start that the phone call Bamber insisted happened meat that the killer was eaither Sheila or Jeremy. There was more to consider than Julie and the silencer.

[John]

''The Criminal Cases Review Commission said that despite a lengthy and complex investigation, it "has not identified any evidence or legal argument that it considers capable of raising a real possibility that the Court of Appeal would quash the convictions".

Quite right too, there is no evidence of Bamber's innocence, just a load of bull and much wishful thinking.

[Jan]

Quite right too, there is no evidence of Bamber's innocence, just a load of bull and much wishful thinking.

that's opinion and obviously 2 jurors who sat through the whole thing had serious doubts .

[lookout]

As of a post written in 2011 regarding the CCRC. Grounds for not referring JB's case back to the court of appeal. An extract. Quote,

"  Photographs showing Sheila Caffell's body had been moved were not accurate as the police officers on the scene all made statements saying that they didn't touch or move anything and this is stronger evidence than the photographs.

" Photographs showing that the gun was moved on Sheila Caffell's body were also inaccurate as the police officers on the scene all made statements saying that they didn't touch or move anything and this is stronger evidence than the photographs.  Unquote. "

I can only conclude by saying that we all need to go to Spec-Savers.
Yes-------------the camera never lies.It's the people who do.

[notsure]

As of a post written in 2011 regarding the CCRC. Grounds for not referring JB's case back to the court of appeal. An extract. Quote,

"  Photographs showing Sheila Caffell's body had been moved were not accurate as the police officers on the scene all made statements saying that they didn't touch or move anything and this is stronger evidence than the photographs.

" Photographs showing that the gun was moved on Sheila Caffell's body were also inaccurate as the police officers on the scene all made statements saying that they didn't touch or move anything and this is stronger evidence than the photographs.  Unquote. "

I can only conclude by saying that we all need to go to Spec-Savers.

Yes-------------the camera never lies.It's the people who do.

thats terrible isnt it. He must feel like hes banging his head against a brick wall.

[lookout]

He doesn't stand a chance against the " word of the law ".Safety in numbers,eh ?

[notsure]

The body of sc was clearly moved and so was the rifle.

I think its a disgrace they took the word of the police over the photos.

you dont have to be a brain of Britain to see whats right in front of ur eyes.

I would be incensed if i was in that situation.

[Caroline]

that's opinion and obviously 2 jurors who sat through the whole thing had serious doubts .

Well, we don't know if they had SEROUS doubts.

[Jane]

The body of sc was clearly moved and so was the rifle.

I think its a disgrace they took the word of the police over the photos.

you dont have to be a brain of Britain to see whats right in front of ur eyes.

I would be incensed if i was in that situation.

And just to confuse you a bit more, how do you KNOW the correct order of the pictures? You only know what you've been told. You don't have to be Brain of Britain to QUESTION what's right in front of your eyes.

[lookout]

Alligator sandwiches for tea.

[Caroline]

The body of sc was clearly moved and so was the rifle.

I think its a disgrace they took the word of the police over the photos.

you dont have to be a brain of Britain to see whats right in front of ur eyes.

I would be incensed if i was in that situation.

No, you don't 

[notsure]

And just to confuse you a bit more, how do you KNOW the correct order of the pictures? You only know what you've been told. You don't have to be Brain of Britain to QUESTION what's right in front of your eyes.

dont really matter does it jane. The point i was making was the ccrc saying the police were to be believed etc.