David1819 - forensic breakthrough claim

[guest7363]

I am sure I never said the words highlighted in blue Hartley.  I agree that I believed that the submissions made by Simon McKay had a good chance of success but the CCRC decided otherwise.  I am generally cautious in my predictions, particularly in this case.

Hi Neil, is Simon McKay a Barrister now. 

[lookout]

 According to " The Justice Gap " Simon is a barrister.

[lookout]

This next appeal now depends on the advanced techniques of up to date forensic science, some of which wasn't available in 1985/6,and sadly accounted for those whose innocence couldn't be proved.
 With different procedures of forensic science now in place, important discoveries have been found in the detection of criminals as well as proving someone's innocence.
It all rests on this and not " he said,she said,etc ".

[ngb1066]

Hi Neil, is Simon McKay a Barrister now.

Yes he is. 

[guest7363]

Yes he is.

Thanks Neil

[guest2181]

Yeah I kinda get all of that, people certainly can't comment on something that they haven't seen, well at least not with any authority.

NGB's view on something is perhaps of interest but hardly anything more, he doesn't have a good track record in this case of his belief of 'grounds for appeal' coming to fruition.

The 2012 submission was a strong case, compelling, almost a dead cert. In fact it wasn't going to go to another appeal, the charges were simply going to be dismissed. The CCRC decided otherwise and NGB then declared that the tests were incomplete. Clearly it was the CCRC's fault for dictating a deadline.

I don't actually believe NGB thinks Jeremy is innocent but rather he thinks there is a legal argument against his convictions.

I'm certainly not calling NGB out in any way or asking him to explain his position, nor indeed do I have any intention of being derisive towards him and I hope this isn't taken as such. We all have our opinions, I'm sure he'd be the first to agree. 

Regarding David's "new" evidence, I'm of the opinion that it's nothing of the sort, it may be another angle or 'Mikeism' theory which hasn't previously been presented, but highly subjective and requires the reader to have a leap of faith in order to entertain.

I don't buy the secrecy for the benefit of reducing the CPS's ability to prepare a rebuttal, that sounds somewhat delusional to me. It also appears to me that David is desperate for recognition and fame, why else boast about something which he has decided not to disclose?

I believe that this will all amount to nothing, time will tell, but how long do we give it.

Can somebody remind me in a years time and we'll reassess.

Nobody reminded me! 

[guest7363]

Nobody reminded me! 

You are a month overdue Hartley, we have to give him time, look how long Walt Disney took to create his Fantasy Cartoons?

[David1819]

You are a month overdue Hartley, we have to give him time, look how long Walt Disney took to create his Fantasy Cartoons?

No need to wait. Just refer Hartley to your wedding tipster.  Knows all you need to know.

[guest7363]

No need to wait. Just refer Hartley to your wedding tipster.  Knows all you need to know.

No, Hartley is not in need of therapy

[Adam]

Don't knock David's 'forensic evidence breakthrough' just because the CT have not mentioned it.

David's had apparently had meeting/s with Bamber's lawyers. What's been said in these meetings has not been disclosed on here. Probably because it will give the crown more time to prepare.

[Roch]

What's been said in these meetings has not been disclosed on here. Probably because it will give the crown more time to prepare.

Perhaps The Crown might decline to contest the appeal. Is there any precedent for this?

[Adam]

I have previously asked David what was said in his meeting/s with Bamber's lawyers. The forum will find it interesting.

Hopefully he will now tell us or say why it can't be disclosed.

[lookout]

I would rather not know until all other relevant information becomes available,as every little " breakthrough " is ripped to shreds.

[Adam]

I would rather not know until all other relevant information becomes available,as every little " breakthrough " is ripped to shreds.

Hopefully David will give some basic information on his meeting/s with Bamber's lawyers. 

It doesn't have to be the minutes of his meetings. But what approach they are taking & if there will ever be another CCRC application will be interesting. 

It will be a pity if he uses the same tactic as his 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. Which was to make a broad & major annoncement but then not give any further information.

[lookout]

Hopefully David will give some basic information on his meetings with Bamber's lawyers. 

It doesn't have to be the minutes of his meetings. But what approach they are taking & if there will ever be another CCRC application will be interesting. 

It will be a pity if he uses the same tactic as his 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. Which was to make a broad & major annoncement but then not give any further information.

It's clearly bothering you more than it is me. Why the impatience ??