He is saying that while on remand he was fortunate enough to be able to read the material of the case brought against him. I was fortunate enough to be able to do this but for many people charged with criminal offences it’s not an option because they cannot read and write.
He then goes on about the problems of facing charges if you cannot read or write.
The bigger issue of course is that some people go through police interviews facing often very serious charges, and end up tried and convicted without really knowing the many factors of how this came about.
He then goes onto say that prisoners who cannot read or write wont be able to understand the evidence against them, and as a result some will think its worth while protesting innocence.
Many of the accused won't understand the nature of the evidence against them and will not make confessions, where as if they had been able to read they might have done.
The whole blog post is about the importance of being able to read.
And shows, in Bambers own words, that he was able to
formulate a defence strategy prior to his trial.
What this blog also solidifies for me is that Bamber knows there is no evidence being held by the police which will prove his innocence. This is just another tactic of Bambers to keep his campaign going and yet another opportunity to pull the wool over his supporters eyes.
Bamber has stated he read through all of the disclosed evidence prior to his trial, therefore it was during this time when he had the option available to him, and his defence team, to request further disclosure that may have assisted him.
Although I do not have copies of what was disclosed to Bamber, I have a good working knowledge of the documents gathered in a police murder investigation and of the 'template' the police use in relation to their investigations.
This wasn't the first time Bamber had been in trouble with the police so he had the added advantage of having knowledge of the criminal justice system.
