Will there ever be another CCRC hearing ?

[lookout]

As he was found to be guilty in a court of law, it's not a point we need to labour. All the convincing necessary has been done. You seem to think that if you keep repeating the mantra, it will be true.

How will you feel if this new lot of legal eagles find him innocent ?

[lookout]

What you're saying is that the new team of legals and forensics aren't as good as those were 30 years ago. That's the clear message I'm getting.

[notsure]

There was a ten year gap between the 2002 appeal and 2012 CCRC application.

This could be because Bamber could not get together enough worthwhile items to submit. Or that he simply had to wait his turn behind the other applications. Probably a bit of both.

So it is optimistic that there will be another CCRC application soon. Especially as the apparent bombshell documents that would free him are being withheld by the police. Or have the police released all documents ? If so, Bamber's team need to make a public announcement saying this.

haha so the bamber ct team must make a public announcement but ep dont have to say a word.

[Jane]

How will you feel if this new lot of legal eagles find him innocent ?

The only way he's likely to be found "innocent" is if one of these "legal eagles" finds a technical point which can be disputed. Whilst such may lead to his conviction being unsafe, it WON'T make him innocent. I wouldn't give a convicted child killer much of a chance on the outside if he's only released on a technicality.

Let me ask you a question. What do you think all these convoluted and different scenarios are about? I've run out of fingers trying to count them. They're all about trying to find a loop hole. That is NOT innocence.

[Adam]

haha so the bamber ct team must make a public announcement but ep dont have to say a word.

Correct. The CT have been claiming the police are withholding specific evidence which would certainly free him.

If the police have released this and an application to the CCRC can now be made, the CT should say 'thank you' in the media.

If there were no withheld documents, and an application is still made to the CCRC, then the CT were lying again. However this will not happen.

Without the alleged major missing documents, there will not be enough new evidence to make a new CCRC application. There has already been a long trial, two appeals and a failed CCRC application.

What will happen is there will not be another CCRC application. The CT will accuse the police of withholding evidence, while simultaneously saying a new application is around the corner.

The police are correct to keep quiet and let the CT go around in circles.  They will not lower themselves to having a public spat with Bamber, 30 years on. They don't with anyone else.

[lookout]

The only way he's likely to be found "innocent" is if one of these "legal eagles" finds a technical point which can be disputed. Whilst such may lead to his conviction being unsafe, it WON'T make him innocent. I wouldn't give a convicted child killer much of a chance on the outside if he's only released on a technicality.

Let me ask you a question. What do you think all these convoluted and different scenarios are about? I've run out of fingers trying to count them. They're all about trying to find a loop hole. That is NOT innocence.

This isn't about a technicality/loophole------something that Jeremy himself doesn't even want. It's about a totally unfair trial where documents were wrongly withheld when it was first decided that it was a murder/suicide,which didn't give the jury nor anyone else the chance to question the reason why it became a murder.

[Jane]

This isn't about a technicality/loophole------something that Jeremy himself doesn't even want. It's about a totally unfair trial where documents were wrongly withheld when it was first decided that it was a murder/suicide,which didn't give the jury nor anyone else the chance to question the reason why it became a murder.

Don't you think it odd that on one hand EP are accused of holding onto documents which could prove innocence, whilst on the other hand they're being accused of DESTROYING things which could have proved innocence?

[David1819]

Correct. The CT have been claiming the police are withholding specific evidence which would certainly free him.

If the police have released this and an application to the CCRC can now be made, the CT should say 'thank you' in the media.

If there were no withheld documents, and an application is still made to the CCRC, then the CT were lying again. However this will not happen.

Without the alleged major missing documents, there will not be enough new evidence to make a new CCRC application. There has already been a long trial, two appeals and a failed CCRC application.

What will happen is there will not be another CCRC application. The CT will accuse the police of withholding evidence, while simultaneously saying a new application is around the corner.

The police are correct to keep quiet and let the CT go around in circles.  They will not lower themselves to having a public spat with Bamber, 30 years on. They don't with anyone else.

It is actually possible for the COA to summon Jeremy out the blue and quash his conviction without them giving a detailed reason why 

This has happened before in other cases thou its a rare.

[lookout]

It is actually possible for the COA to summon Jeremy out the blue and quash his conviction without them giving a detailed reason why 

This has happened before in other cases thou its a rare.

I've thought that for a while now.The least fuss the better,eh ?

[Jane]

It is actually possible for the COA to summon Jeremy out the blue and quash his conviction without them giving a detailed reason why 

This has happened before in other cases thou its a rare.

Rarer still, I imagine, in the case of someone convicted of murdering 3 adults -his parents and sister- and 2 small boys -his nephews.

[Caroline]

It is actually possible for the COA to summon Jeremy out the blue and quash his conviction without them giving a detailed reason why 

This has happened before in other cases thou its a rare.

Shall we take bets now? 

[notsure]

Correct. The CT have been claiming the police are withholding specific evidence which would certainly free him.

If the police have released this and an application to the CCRC can now be made, the CT should say 'thank you' in the media.

If there were no withheld documents, and an application is still made to the CCRC, then the CT were lying again. However this will not happen.

Without the alleged major missing documents, there will not be enough new evidence to make a new CCRC application. There has already been a long trial, two appeals and a failed CCRC application.

What will happen is there will not be another CCRC application. The CT will accuse the police of withholding evidence, while simultaneously saying a new application is around the corner.

The police are correct to keep quiet and let the CT go around in circles.  They will not lower themselves to having a public spat with Bamber, 30 years on. They don't with anyone else.


Correct. The CT have been claiming the police are withholding specific evidence which would certainly free him.

Well how do you know they don't hold that specific evidence. Do you know for certain?

If the police have released this and an application to the CCRC can now be made, the CT should say 'thank you' in the media.

Well if the information had been released they wouldn't be asking for it would they so why say thanks ?

If there were no withheld documents, and an application is still made to the CCRC, then the CT were lying again. However this will not happen.

Once again you don't know if there are or not any withheld evidence. Your opinion only> they may feel that the new evidence they already have is sufficient and they are hardly going to talk about it on the CT site are they.

Without the alleged major missing documents, there will not be enough new evidence to make a new CCRC application. There has already been a long trial, two appeals and a failed CCRC application.

Again you don't know if there is any new evidence that they already have. Why do you assume that you would know about it. We know how many appeals that has been made we dont need reminding

What will happen is there will not be another CCRC application. The CT will accuse the police of withholding evidence, while simultaneously saying a new application is around the corner.

They have already accused them of withholding evidence,.there is withheld evidence in every trial Adam, how do you know what is in that evidence doesn't relate to his innocence.

The police are correct to keep quiet and let the CT go around in circles.  They will not lower themselves to having a public spat with Bamber, 30 years on. They don't with anyone else.

With everything that you hear on the news lately about the police then surely you must agree that there is a possibility that evidence that could have been helpful to the defence was withheld.

[notsure]

Don't you think it odd that on one hand EP are accused of holding onto documents which could prove innocence, whilst on the other hand they're being accused of DESTROYING things which could have proved innocence?

i dont find it odd jane. Ep could quite easily do both. Michael obrien, deepcut, avery and many many more , police were quite capable of skulduggery no question. Why not in this case.

[Jane]

i dont find it odd jane. Ep could quite easily do both. Michael obrien, deepcut, avery and many many more , police were quite capable of skulduggery no question. Why not in this case.

One VERY simple reason, Notsure. NONE of it was necessary. There was no need to frame anyone. They had a culprit. It was an open and shut case. It really didn't matter what the relatives said, they weren't there. All the police had to do was stick to their story. Why would it have been challenged any more, at this point, 30 years on, than the changed story is?

[guest154]

i dont find it odd jane. Ep could quite easily do both. Michael obrien, deepcut, avery and many many more , police were quite capable of skulduggery no question. Why not in this case.

Listing MOJ's, or potential MOJ's which some of them are, doesn't create a thoughtful or convincing argument.

If I was to list GUILTY men and women in prison it wouldn't make Bamber guilty, or the argument of his guilt anymore firm.