Will there ever be another CCRC hearing ?

[Jan]

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

well as two children were included in the murders I think they would, because otherwise if they had small doubts that fact, would make it more likely to convict.

[Jan]

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

Yes you are right if an appeal court always believe the police you don't stand a chance do you .

[Caroline]

well as two children were included in the murders I think they would, because otherwise if they had small doubts that fact, would make it more likely to convict.

Why?

[David1819]

Why?

Murdering children is always taken more seriously, Its nothing to do with the law its the mentality people have if that makes sense 

[Caroline]

Murdering children is always taken more seriously, Its nothing to do with the law its the mentality people have if that makes sense 

My point was that we can't KNOW what the jury thought - whether they had SERIOUS doubts or just weren't sure. I don't think we can assume BUT, none have come forward to talk about their doubts so, they must be pretty happy with the out-come.

[David1819]

My point was that we can't KNOW what the jury thought - whether they had SERIOUS doubts or just weren't sure. I don't think we can assume BUT, none have come forward to talk about their doubts so, they must be pretty happy with the out-come.

someone must know someone who was a juror at his trial. I find it hard to believe they would not bring it up with friends now and then 

I want to hear from some jurors

[Caroline]

someone must know someone who was a juror at his trial. I find it hard to believe they would not bring it up with friends now and then 

I want to hear from some jurors

They probably have - back in 1985 and now it's just something they did way back when. Some may have even died. I don't think any will be joining the forum though and if they did - they would just be abused by certain members.

[Adam]

someone must know someone who was a juror at his trial. I find it hard to believe they would not bring it up with friends now and then 

I want to hear from some jurors

Don't we all.

[Adam]

When first reading up on the case, it quickly becomes apparent that not only had there been a conviction, but also several failed appeals, with the 2012 effort not even getting past the CCRC. Bamber constantly chipping away.

So it would have to be something pretty mind blowing to believe everyone got it wrong except Bamber. Claims that movement was seen inside WHF or Julie lied because she was jilted are incredibly weak.

[Jane]

someone must know someone who was a juror at his trial. I find it hard to believe they would not bring it up with friends now and then 

I want to hear from some jurors

If I'd been one of those jurors and read what you've just posted, I rather imagine I'd keep my head down. It can't be easy for any juror to convict, only to have the convicted claim innocence for the next 30 years. Better, I feel, for those still living, to distance themselves from it rather than risk being hounded for it.

[Adam]

Jurors after the OJ case spoke out within minutes of the verdict.

Saying they believed he was guilty but voted 'not guilty' due to the policeman who used the 'N' word. Believing he may have fabricated evidence.

DNA was up & running in 1995. But not a massive thing. People say DNA hindered the OJ case. There was a mountain of incriminating DNA evidence  against OJ, but that just confused the jury as it was not explained clearly. So it is weak claiming the police disposed of items in the Bamber case in the mid 90's because of DNA.

[lookout]

Of course there'll be another attempt. After all,the majority of paperwork which is accumulated during such a case, it's the Police and CPS who " select " the documents which they believe will secure a conviction,leaving those documents which SHOULD have been shown to the defence which WOULD have helped the defendant.
It's fraudulent for the prosecution to withhold any evidence which would help in the defence,and a case where the prosecution themselves are prosecuted if this is proved to be the case.

[lookout]

There is DEFINITE doubt that Jeremy is guilty.

[Jan]

Jurors after the OJ case spoke out within minutes of the verdict.

Saying they believed he was guilty but voted 'not guilty' due to the policeman who used the 'N' word. Believing he may have fabricated evidence.

DNA was up & running in 1995. But not a massive thing. People say DNA hindered the OJ case. There was a mountain of incriminating DNA evidence  against OJ, but that just confused the jury as it was not explained clearly. So it is weak claiming the police disposed of items in the Bamber case in the mid 90's because of DNA.

We don't know that they did - but why is it a weak argument?

[David1819]

If I'd been one of those jurors and read what you've just posted, I rather imagine I'd keep my head down. It can't be easy for any juror to convict, only to have the convicted claim innocence for the next 30 years. Better, I feel, for those still living, to distance themselves from it rather than risk being hounded for it.

Yes I did consider that, A juror coming forward would be opening a can of worms in their lives.