The window catch issue

[guest2181]

Really. The 2002 appeal had 16 grounds.

Are you saying they just used one of these grounds to get through the CCRC. I can't believe that. It's too risky.

Yes, once leave to appeal is granted, additional grounds can put forward. That was the case with 2002 appeal which was originally granted on a single ground.

[Adam]

They are not being specific at all.

1. The CT are not the ones who produce and submit the application.

2. The CT as far as I know don't know what the 'forensic evidence breakthrough' is.

So the £3,990.00 I have submitted may not be used in a CCRC or COA application ?

Do they do refunds ?

[guest2181]

Yes, once leave to appeal is granted, additional grounds can put forward. That was the case with 2002 appeal which was originally granted on a single ground.

Adam, read point 3.

http://www.homepage-link.to/JUSTICE/judgements/Bamber/index.html

[Adam]

Yes, once leave to appeal is granted, additional grounds can put forward. That was the case with 2002 appeal which was originally granted on a single ground.

What ground was that ?

Do you know what ground or grounds they had for the 2012 CCRC application ?

[Adam]

Adam, read point 3.

http://www.homepage-link.to/JUSTICE/judgements/Bamber/index.html

It says it was based 'soley on fresh scientific evidence'. The silencer I assume.

[guest2181]

What ground was that ?

Do you know what ground or grounds they had for the 2012 CCRC application ?

NGB could be more specific but there were a number of grounds put forward prior to Simon Mckays involvement, he was then given an extension of time by the CCRC and put forward a completely new ground based on the burn marks to Nevill. He chose not to further any of the original grounds which were already provisionally refused.

That's how I understand it anyway. As I say, NGB would be able to be more precise.

[guest2181]

It says it was based 'soley on fresh scientific evidence'. The silencer I assume.

Yes I believe so.

There was a 17th ground which they chose not to pursue, which may have been associated with Julie Mugford who was brought over for the appeal and then sent home.

I'm guessing a bit there though, so don't quote me on it.

[Adam]

NGB could be more specific but there were a number of grounds put forward prior to Simon Mckays involvement, he was then given an extension of time by the CCRC and put forward a completely new ground based on the burn marks to Nevill. He chose not to further any of the original grounds which were already provisionally refused.

That's how I understand it anyway. As I say, NGB would be able to be more precise.

Oh yes, the 'Tonight' programme just before the 2012 CCRC application mentioned the burn marks.

It's been agreed that Bamber would take the silencer off. Either to burn Neville's back. Or when he realised the rifle with the silencer on was too long for Sheila. So he took it off before burning Neville's back.

[guest2181]

Oh yes, the 'Tonight' programme just before the 2012 CCRC application mentioned the burn marks.

It's been agreed that Bamber would take the silencer off. Either to burn Neville's back. Or when he realised the rifle with the silencer on was too long for Sheila. So he took it off before burning Neville's back.

Yes there was a TV programme about it.

I'll leave others to discuss what has or hasn't been 'agreed'.

[Caroline]

NGB could be more specific but there were a number of grounds put forward prior to Simon Mckays involvement, he was then given an extension of time by the CCRC and put forward a completely new ground based on the burn marks to Nevill. He chose not to further any of the original grounds which were already provisionally refused.

That's how I understand it anyway. As I say, NGB would be able to be more precise.

This is what I understand also.

[Steve_uk]

Steve,it's those who charge through the nose for these tests to be done that have a cheek. They know that legal aid fizzled out and that folk want justice done and the only thing that they can do is try and raise funds. I personally think it's disgusting that people who are struggling and find themselves needing legal help as well have to find a way of obtaining finances.   

Yes there can't be so much work involved. You'd think they could find someone who would volunteer to do it for free.

[lookout]

Yes there can't be so much work involved. You'd think they could find someone who would volunteer to do it for free.

I don't know anyone who will do 'owt for n'owt these days.

[David1819]

Oh yes, the 'Tonight' programme just before the 2012 CCRC application mentioned the burn marks.

It's been agreed that Bamber would take the silencer off. Either to burn Neville's back. Or when he realised the rifle with the silencer on was too long for Sheila. So he took it off before burning Neville's back.

The burns on Nevills back point to Sheila being the killer. All the evidence shows the silencer was off

[David1819]

So the £3,990.00 I have submitted may not be used in a CCRC or COA application ?

Do they do refunds ?

what are you on about?

[lookout]

what are you on about?

Take no notice,David,he thinks he's being facetious and needs to be pitied ! Losing the plot springs to mind.