are the appeal court and the ccrc guilty of double standards

[Caroline]

well when advances in technology bring that evdence into qustion yes.

and thats what normaly happens.

What technology do you think they could now use to prove the silencer wasn't used? They don't have any of the biological evidence to test. Where do you suggest they start?

[Caroline]

dna suggests that its not sheilas.

they can't test for DNA because in 1985 there were precautions taken to preserve DNA because they didn't know about it. That's why the COA ruled in Jeremy's favour to suggest that June's DNA most likely got there from contamination. I'm not sure what tests you imagine they could do to prove the silencer wasn't used?

[nugnug]

they can't test for DNA because in 1985 there were precautions taken to preserve DNA because they didn't know about it. That's why the COA ruled in Jeremy's favour to suggest that June's DNA most likely got there from contamination. I'm not sure what tests you imagine they could do to prove the silencer wasn't used?

thats not the pint dna calls into qustion weather it was sheilas blood in the sleincer

that counted as new evdence wich in most cases would have led to a retrial.

[Adam]

The silencer is a dead duck.

[gringo]

Adam looks like someone's broke into your forensic library and stolen everything!

Oh wait hang on........  its been like that all along! False alarm no need to worry 

There was plenty in it but the police, overseen by DS/DC? Soames of Special Branch destroyed it in 1996. It's almost as if they had something to hide 

[susan]

There was plenty in it but the police, overseen by DS/DC? Soames of Special Branch destroyed it in 1996. It's almost as if they had something to hide 

Gringo   

[Caroline]

thats not the pint dna calls into qustion weather it was sheilas blood in the sleincer

that counted as new evdence wich in most cases would have led to a retrial.

I think you should read the 2002 appeal doc Nugs. It wouldn't have been enough for a retrial in this instance.

[nugnug]

i have read them i dont see what that has to do with it.

[Adam]

You can't have a retrial if one piece of forensic evidence is questioned, if there is a mountain of other forensic evidence. As well as circumstantial evidence which is just important.

To get a retrial the case has to get through the CCRC and the COA then has to recommend one.

[nugnug]

yes you can its normally what happens.

[David1819]

thats not the pint dna calls into qustion weather it was sheilas blood in the sleincer

that counted as new evdence wich in most cases would have led to a retrial.

In 2001 the CCRC referred JB on the basis of new DNA evidence in the silencer.

In 2011 the CCRC denied a referral even thou JB had new evidence the silencer was never even used. Evidence the CCRC couldn't even challenge.

The double standards are as clear as day

[David1819]

There was plenty in it but the police, overseen by DS/DC? Soames of Special Branch destroyed it in 1996. It's almost as if they had something to hide 

Destroyed a few month before a new legislation would make such an act illegal? Sounds legit

Essex Police - There is nothing to suggest Jeremy was wrongly convicted (Because we destroyed it)

[Caroline]

In 2001 the CCRC referred JB on the basis of new DNA evidence in the silencer.

In 2011 the CCRC denied a referral even thou JB had new evidence the silencer was never even used. Evidence the CCRC couldn't even challenge.

The double standards are as clear as day

No, they couldn't challenge the suggestion of contamination, not that it had never been used.

[Adam]

Before I joined, this was a pro Bamber forum. Mike the pied piper.

The silencer was the one piece of forensic evidence everyone accepted. And attacks were made on it. Supporters were not going to look for incriminating forensic evidence.

There is now at least a hundred pieces of incriminating evidence.

[Caroline]

Before I joined, this was a pro Bamber forum. Mike the pied piper.

The silencer was the one piece of forensic evidence everyone accepted. And attacks were made on it. Supporters were not going to look for incriminating forensic evidence.

There is now at least a hundred pieces of incriminating evidence.

You have had ZILCH influence on ANYONE on this forum other than to be a complete irritant!