David1819 - forensic breakthrough claim

[David1819]

So what was Bamber thanking you for in his letter which you posted on here ?

Can't see a problem in you sending it straight to Bamber. You sent it to NGB & AH. Both of whom could have also passed it on.

Anyway it seems you met Bamber's legal team to hand deliver the documents yourself. Hope they bought you a coffee after you're efforts.

You cannot email stuff like that to a prisoner at wakefield. Furthermore, the mail gets vetted.

[Adam]

You cannot email stuff like that to a prisoner at wakefield. Furthermore, the mail gets vetted.

Bamber's letter dated 6th April 2016 asked you to send on you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. Which I assummed you did as well as give it to NGB & AH.

A year later on 17th March 2017 you said you had met with Bamber's lawyers. So I assummed this was on other issues which is why I asked what was discussed. Sadly being stone walled.

But it seems you're post dated 17th March 2017 was referring to when you hand deliveried the 'forensic evidence breakthrough' from a year earlier.

Where did you travel from/to in order to hand deliver you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough' to Bamber's legal team ? 

[buddy]

I fully understand why the defence want to keep the new evidence under wraps.
The problem is that I don't think the ccrc will refer because it will undermine the publics faith in the justice system. What a pay out the public purse would have to pay JB.
If by some chance they did refer then the prosecution would be told the reason for allowing an appeal.
This would give them ample time to counter the evidence.
Even if JB was cleared the guilters would then think it was a miscarriage of justice. [boot on the other foot].
No one will ever convince that all was clear in this case, and it never convinced at least two of the jury.
I wonder how many of the remainder of the jury were a 100%, or coerced by the foreman.

[Adam]

I fully understand why the defence want to keep the new evidence under wraps.
The problem is that I don't think the ccrc will refer because it will undermine the publics faith in the justice system. What a pay out the public purse would have to pay JB.
If by some chance they did refer then the prosecution would be told the reason for allowing an appeal.
This would give them ample time to counter the evidence.
Even if JB was cleared the guilters would then think it was a miscarriage of justice. [boot on the other foot].
No one will ever convince that all was clear in this case, and it never convinced at least two of the jury.
I wonder how many of the remainder of the jury were a 100%, or coerced by the foreman.

Guess Bamber should have 'lobbed Julie overboard'.

What new evidence ? I thought EP were withholding documents. The last appeal for money from 360 was to go over all existing evidence. Again.

The CT haven't kept quiet about alledged new evidence before. Such as Sheila's feet & Nevill's phone call to the fifth furthest away  police station.

How will the CCRC referring to the COA undermine the publics faith in the justice system ? It's what the CCRC are supposed to do if they are given compelling new evidence.

What prosecution ? The CCRC & COA are independent bodies. If it goes to retrial, there will be a defence & prosecution. Which is standard procedure.

Why would the foreman coerce the other jurors ? Is there any evidence this happened in this case ?

[Adam]

Bamber's letter dated 6th April 2016 asked you to send on you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. Which I assummed you did as well as give it to NGB & AH.

A year later on 17th March 2017 you said you had met with Bamber's lawyers. So I assummed this was on other issues which is why I asked what was discussed. Sadly being stone walled.

But it seems you're post dated 17th March 2017 was referring to when you hand deliveried the 'forensic evidence breakthrough' from a year earlier.

Where did you travel from/to in order to hand deliver you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough' to Bamber's legal team ?

David can you answer my question about where you travelled from/to in order to hand you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough' to Bamber's legal advisors.

If it was hundreds or thousands of miles away everyone will applaud you're dedication. It will also be disappointing that the CT didn't praise you. Unless they have not been made aware.

[Adam]

Must admit I'm surprised Bamber couldn't receive David's 'forensic evidence breakthrough' via post.

His prison cell is apparently full with millions of case documents & he receives letters from supporters regulary.

[Caroline]

Must admit I'm surprised Bamber couldn't receive David's 'forensic evidence breakthrough' via post.

His prison cell is apparently full with millions of case documents & he receives letters from supporters regulary.

He could.

[Adam]

He could.

It was eventually established that the meeting with Bamber's legal team, David mentioned in March 2017,  was actually just hand delivering his 'forensic evidence breakthrough' to them. A year earlier.

However if he had to travel thousands of miles & get ships, trains or planes to hand this over, everyone will rise to applaud him.

All will be revealed soon.
 

[David1819]

It was eventually established that the meeting with Bamber's legal team, David mentioned in March 2017,  was actually just hand delivering his 'forensic evidence breakthrough' to them. A year earlier.

However if he had to travel thousands of miles & get ships, trains or planes to hand this over, everyone will rise to applaud him.

All will be revealed soon.

Nope. Over 16,000 posts you still haven't established a single fact. However its clear your desperate to find out what the 'forensic evidence breakthrough' is.

[Adam]

Nope. Over 16,000 posts you still haven't established a single fact. However its clear your desperate to find out what the 'forensic evidence breakthrough' is.

I know you're 'forensic evidence nreakthrough' is a palm print on the bible.

Where did you travel from, & where to.  When you hand delivered it to Bamber's legal team ?

Third request.

[David1819]

I know you're 'forensic evidence nreakthrough' is a palm print on the bible.

Where did you travel from & where to when you hand delivered it to Bamber's legal team.

Third request.

If you believe you know what it is then why are you asking me questions? 

[Adam]

If you believe you know what it is then why are you asking me questions? 

I'm just asking one simple question. Where did you travel from & to when delivering you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough' to Bamber's legal team.

Forth request.

If you have never met Bamber's legal team & just said you did in March 2017 to try to give yourself some gravitas, just say.

[David1819]

I'm just asking one simple question. Where did you travel from & to when delivering you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough' to Bamber's legal team.

Forth request.

If you have never met Bamber's legal team & just said it in March 2017 to try to give yourself some gravitas, just say.

Nice try. But you wont be getting any more info.

Last night I uploaded a photo of a business card that was given to me that had the name and address of the place on it. Shame you were too thick to work that out.

Not sure what you're picture is supposed to be saying.

[Adam]

Yes the picture was in reply 551. Although you've since removed it. A lot of it was crossed out.

You have not said where you travelled from & to after 4 requests from me.

I can only conclude that you didn't travel hundreds or thousands of miles by planes, trains, ships or cars. Just to give Bamber's legal team you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. A year ago. 

You just said you had met Bamber's legal team two months ago to try to give yourself more gravitas.

[David1819]

Yes the picture was in reply 551. Although you've since removed it. A lot of it was crossed out.

You have not said where you travelled from & to after 4 requests from me.

I have answered.

The details were all on that card (Including the address). All that was crossed out was the telephone numbers,  email addresses and fax numbers.

I left it up long enough to serve its purpose. The answer was right in front of you. But you could not work out what it was.

You just said you had met Bamber's legal team two months ago to try to give yourself more gravitas.

I never said I had met Bamber's legal team two months ago. Once again you are putting words in my mouth because you have no valid argument.