David1819 - forensic breakthrough claim

[guest154]

Do you actually believe Ngb would confide in you?

You have no idea how many emails/messages NGB has exchanged with me about the case?
Ngb is a legal expert and would certainly know what advice or who to contact regarding 'the new evidence'

Knowing Ngb as I do I do not think in a million years he would have supported Jeremy if he believed he was guilty
Never

I've never asked NGB to confide in me, nor would I expect him to. We've never spoken personally about the case. But if I asked him something, he would very likely answer.

I don't care how many messages you and NGB have swapped with each other. Why would I care? If he has confided in you with ANYTHING recently then xxxx xxxx xxx. But I highly doubt he would do.

[sherlock]

As can be seen from the posts in this thread, david1819 has claimed to have unearthed new evidence, of a forensic nature, which supports the defence case.  As david1819 has explained he sent details initially to Andrew Hunter, with a view to the material being reviewed by Jeremy Bamber's legal team.

There have been claims of an imminent breakthrough since the rejection of the last application to the CCRC and the subsequent  Judicial Review, but understandably there has been increasing scepticism in the absence of any detailed information about this.

In view some of the posts above, understandable in the circumstances, casting doubt on david1819's claim, he contacted me and asked if I would be prepared to review the material he had prepared, in confidence, and give him my opinion of it.  I agreed and received the material, reviewed it and gave david1819 my assessment.  david1819 then agreed that I could post my overall opinion of his work, without at this stage disclosing the details.  I am happy to do that and I agree with david1819's firm view, backed by the advice of Andrew Hunter, that Jeremy Bamber's legal team should review it and it should only be made public subject to their approval.

The material sent to me by david1819 is in the form of a report, which includes images and diagrams as well as text.  It is well written and well presented.  It analyses an important part of the evidence in the case, using methods not applied previously.  Although he accepts that he is not an expert in the relevant field, he has researched published works by experts in the field, quoting relevant extracts in support of his conclusions.  He has also studied relevant photographs and made calculations and measurements using techniques which to me seem appropriate.

david1819's conclusions support the defence case on this issue and specifically counter conclusions reached on this by the Court of Appeal in the 2002 appeal.

I am not an expert in the field involved and clearly for this to be presented to the CCRC as part of new submissions david1819's report and conclusions would have to be reviewed and validated by a suitably qualified expert.  However, I can see no reason to doubt the conclusions reached and have given david1819 my view in more detail.

If the report is validated the question is whether it could form the basis for the CCRC to refer the case.  For various reasons, hard to explain without giving more information than I am able to here, I believe it does satisfy the requirement that it is new evidence, not available at trial.  The key question is whether it is on its own sufficient to enable the convictions to be overturned.  I am very cautious about this as I believe the CCRC have now set a very high bar in this case.  Certainly this would form a valid ground of appeal, but ideally it should be joined with other grounds.  I am no longer in the loop as far as Jeremy Bamber's legal team are concerned, and have not been since Simon McKay ceased acting, but I do know of grounds not included in previous submissions which would have been included had the CCRC referred the case to the Court of Appeal on the last application.   I also understand that other work has been undertaken or is contemplated which may lead to additional grounds, but I have very limited knowledge of this.

I am sorry not to be able to give more detail but I hope members will understand why this is not possible  at this stage.  I will say however that david1819 was genuine in his claim to have discovered something new and important and that he has approached this in a serious and careful way.

         

Ten out of Ten David ...

Whether or not your work leads anywhere you have obviously approached this case in exactly the right way ... very well done indeed ...

If by chance your new evidence has anything to do with the silencer have you considered the possibility that IF someone planted the silencer they might also have actually had something to do with the murder ?

And maybe they also forced Julie into her "confession" ?

Just a thought mate ...

[Jane]

Ten out of Ten David ...

Whether or not your work leads anywhere you have obviously approached this case in exactly the right way ... very well done indeed ...

If by chance your new evidence has anything to do with the silencer have you considered the possibility that IF someone planted the silencer they might also have actually had something to do with the murder ?

And maybe they also forced Julie into her "confession" ?

Just a thought mate ...

'Course it is, Mike...

[sherlock]

'Course it is, Mike...

If you think i am Mike then i now know beyond any doubt why you have had trouble with analysing even the most basic of facts in this case - your mind is firmly closed to facts and totally full of one sided bias ...

Open your mind Jane - look at things logicaly and think them through properly ...

You might be surprised how much clearer you see things 

[JackiePreece]

'Course it is, Mike...

I have just reported you April for goading
Again !!!

[Adam]

Ten out of Ten David ...

Whether or not your work leads anywhere you have obviously approached this case in exactly the right way ... very well done indeed ...

If by chance your new evidence has anything to do with the silencer have you considered the possibility that IF someone planted the silencer they might also have actually had something to do with the murder ?

And maybe they also forced Julie into her "confession" ?

Just a thought mate ...

David won't give any details about this mysterious new evidence he has discovered after 30 years. 

He's sent it to Andrew Hunter and got NGB to say it was 'well written'. That is enough to get supporters excited. So no point in spoiling things by divulging information for the sceptics to savage. 

Hopefully it's not another thing Bob Woffinden mentioned in 2011. And hopefully he can now explain how Sheila committed the massacre.

[JackiePreece]

If you think i am Mike then i now know beyond any doubt why you have had trouble with analysing even the most basic of facts in this case - your mind is firmly closed to facts and totally full of one sided bias ...

Open your mind Jane - look at things logicaly and think them through properly ...

You might be surprised how much clearer you see things 

Sherlock she is goading again and interesting she called you Mike because she is actually called April

[JackiePreece]

If you think i am Mike then i now know beyond any doubt why you have had trouble with analysing even the most basic of facts in this case - your mind is firmly closed to facts and totally full of one sided bias ...

Open your mind Jane - look at things logicaly and think them through properly ...

You might be surprised how much clearer you see things 

Excellent posts Sherlock
Spot on

[sherlock]

I have just reported you April for goading
Again !!!

She isn't goading Jackie - she is just showing herself up ...

Only an obsessed person could confuse me with Mike ...

I am more than happy to let other forum members reach their own conclusions as to her very obvious lack of reasoning abilities regarding her silly comment

[Jane]

I have just reported you April for goading
Again !!!

You STUPID woman!!! NOW REPORT THAT

[JackiePreece]

She isn't goading Jackie - she is just showing herself up ...

Only an obsessed person could confuse me with Mike ...

I am more than happy to let other forum members reach their own conclusions as to her very obvious lack of reasoning abilities regarding her silly comment

I know and she had just done it again

[Jane]

She isn't goading Jackie - she is just showing herself up ...

Only an obsessed person could confuse me with Mike ...

I am more than happy to let other forum members reach their own conclusions as to her very obvious lack of reasoning abilities regarding her silly comment

I think you'll find I'm not the only one to reach the conclusion as to who you are.

[Jane]

Sherlock she is goading again and interesting she called you Mike because she is actually called April

I am indeed -I've never tried to hide that- and I don't need to change persona.

[Jane]

She isn't goading Jackie - she is just showing herself up ...

Only an obsessed person could confuse me with Mike ...

I am more than happy to let other forum members reach their own conclusions as to her very obvious lack of reasoning abilities regarding her silly comment

If you want to be recognized as Mike, a word of advice. Stop using his phraseology. Stop using his grammar. Stop using his style. Stop using his punctuations......................or you could find yourself accused of being obsessed with him.

[sherlock]

David won't give any details about this mysterious new evidence he has discovered after 30 years. 

He's sent it to Andrew Hunter and got NGB to say it was 'well written'. That is enough to get supporters excited. So no point in spoiling things by divulging information for the sceptics to savage. 

Hopefully it's not another thing Bob Woffinden mentioned in 2011. And hopefully he can now explain how Sheila committed the massacre.

David is 100% correct to give this to the lawyers before putting it on an internet forum Adam ...

Surely you can see the reasons for that being the correct course of action ?

Maybe it wasn't Sheila or Jeremy Adam ...

One unexplained factor of this case is the 3 burn marks on Nevilles back ...

No one has an explanation for that - it is a mystery to every one ...

The most likely explanation is he was tortured / threatened to make that call ...

You yourself have pointed out that it is VERY strange that Neville must have waited some time for Jeremy to answer the phone and yet when Jeremy answered he only had time to say a very few words before the phone went dead - sort of fits with the torture theory don't you think ?

Like i have said before keep an open mind Adam ...

One of the very best lawyers in the UK once said to me that it is dangerous to assume anything ...

He said that for very good reason ...