Why would Ann Eaton need the names of CCRC members who agreed to 2002 Appeal?

[nugnug]

Up to now,the CT have never received any writs for what they've posted.

and its like the people there talking about couldent afford to issue them.

mike and most posters here havent got a lot of money so i can see why they wouldent sue this forum but thats not true of everybody in the offical campaghn.

[Jane]

If we're talking morals,where were the morals of those who lied in court ? Or don't you believe that anyone did lie ?
The whole point of your " distasteful stunt " has made people aware that lies were told and regardless of what your thoughts are,it is hoped that the truth WILL come from the lies.

What 'lies' are you suggesting were told? I feel perfectly certain that their counsel will have coached them and they will probably have known in advance, what questions were going to be put to them. The answer to MANY of those questions would have been "Yes" or "No". The answers to other questions would require ONLY the answer to the question that was put, without any elaboration. Whatever lies you're accusing them of telling will have been those of omission, following questions formed for them by their counsel. I'm perfectly certain that you know that witnesses aren't encouraged to say what they like, ONLY that which they've been coached to say.

[nugnug]

What 'lies' are you suggesting were told? I feel perfectly certain that their counsel will have coached them and they will probably have known in advance, what questions were going to be put to them. The answer to MANY of those questions would have been "Yes" or "No". The answers to other questions would require ONLY the answer to the question that was put, without any elaboration. Whatever lies you're accusing them of telling will have been those of omission, following questions formed for them by their counsel. I'm perfectly certain that you know that witnesses aren't encouraged to say what they like, ONLY that which they've been coached to say.

 are you aware that its ilgal for councel to oach a witness.

[notsure]

Anyway back to the thread, forgetting who is being hypocritical and all that should ep have given AE this info so she could complain,

if she was going to complain why not write a dear sir letter. It's totally wrong for ep to give her the names of the CCRC personel who dealt with the case. That was thier decision and if she had anything to say about it it should have been addressed to the CCRC in general. What ever was she going to do write to each of them personally and give them a bollocking or invite them over to WHF for a whiskey to get them onside for the next time.

Surely none of us can agree that ep should have given her the names of the people at the CCRC who dealt with the Appeal , blimey that just can't be right can it. They are an independent body and not part if EP . Shall we all start writing letters to the actual people that may hear his next CCRC application. And yes I do think there will be another application, wether it goes to appeal or not is a different mater.

[Jane]

are you aware that its ilgal for councel to oach a witness.

I don't, for a moment, imagine they let their witnesses go unprepared into the witness box. They could throw the whole case.

[lookout]

Oh they were prepared alright !

Pity Jeremy's defence weren't.

[Roch]

What purpose is served by Ann Eaton knowing who the CCRC members were? What does she intend to do with this information?

The only purpose served probably related to her own arrogance, vanity and self preservation.  Perhaps she intended to harangue them or send them 'inside info' to show them the error of their decision.   
     

Why are EP indulging this request and making enquiries on her behalf resulting in them giving Ann Eaton the requested information?

Good question.  Has she got something on EP?
   

[lookout]

Anyway back to the thread, forgetting who is being hypocritical and all that should ep have given AE this info so she could complain,

if she was going to complain why not write a dear sir letter. It's totally wrong for ep to give her the names of the CCRC personel who dealt with the case. That was thier decision and if she had anything to say about it it should have been addressed to the CCRC in general. What ever was she going to do write to each of them personally and give them a bollocking or invite them over to WHF for a whiskey to get them onside for the next time.

Surely none of us can agree that ep should have given her the names of the people at the CCRC who dealt with the Appeal , blimey that just can't be right can it. They are an independent body and not part if EP . Shall we all start writing letters to the actual people that may hear his next CCRC application. And yes I do think there will be another application, wether it goes to appeal or not is a different mater.

I imagine that it came as second nature that EP would tell the relatives whatever they were asked or wanted to know------and more,going by how close RWB was to an officer in the Met,who also passed on up to date reviews of the JB case. All pals together !

[nugnug]

Anyway back to the thread, forgetting who is being hypocritical and all that should ep have given AE this info so she could complain,

if she was going to complain why not write a dear sir letter. It's totally wrong for ep to give her the names of the CCRC personel who dealt with the case. That was thier decision and if she had anything to say about it it should have been addressed to the CCRC in general. What ever was she going to do write to each of them personally and give them a bollocking or invite them over to WHF for a whiskey to get them onside for the next time.

Surely none of us can agree that ep should have given her the names of the people at the CCRC who dealt with the Appeal , blimey that just can't be right can it. They are an independent body and not part if EP . Shall we all start writing letters to the actual people that may hear his next CCRC application. And yes I do think there will be another application, wether it goes to appeal or not is a different mater.

well real compliants are supposed to the body itself not to member of the body this obviously wasn't an offiacail compliant.

and that suggests they knew they had no grounds to make an official compliant.

[Adam]

Is the suggestion that AE wanted to make a complaint about the CCRC referring the case to the COA ? As part of the complaint she asked EP for the names of  the people in the CCRC.  EP obliged.

Can't see any problem. It's no secret the relatives were disappointed with the 2002 CCRC decision. The COA agreed with the relatives saying they thought the jury were right.

If AE wants to include names in the complaint & EP are allowed to divulge this, there is no problem.

Bamber makes enough complaints himself & is always naming names.

[nugnug]

Is the suggestion that AE wanted to make a complaint about the CCRC referring the case to the COA ? As part of the complaint she asked EP for the names of  the people in the CCRC.  EP obliged.

Can't see any problem. It's no secret the relatives were disappointed with the 2002 CCRC decision. The COA agreed with the relatives saying they thought the jury were right.

If AE wants to include names in the complaint & EP are allowed to divulge this, there is no problem.

Bamber makes enough complaints himself & is always naming names.

she dident need to know there names to make an official compliant unless she was some sort of compliant about them personaly/

[notsure]

What 'lies' are you suggesting were told? I feel perfectly certain that their counsel will have coached them and they will probably have known in advance, what questions were going to be put to them. The answer to MANY of those questions would have been "Yes" or "No". The answers to other questions would require ONLY the answer to the question that was put, without any elaboration. Whatever lies you're accusing them of telling will have been those of omission, following questions formed for them by their counsel. I'm perfectly certain that you know that witnesses aren't encouraged to say what they like, ONLY that which they've been coached to say.

Eh I have been a witness Caroline and I didn't know what questions I was going to be asked and neither was I coached. What you are saying g isn't right. That isn't how it works Caroline.

[notsure]

Sorry I meant Jane! Lol

[Caroline]

Sorry I meant Jane! Lol

In such a case as the Bamber case and with a strong witness like Julie, if not 'coached' I think she would be told what to expect.

[notsure]

In such a case as the Bamber case and with a strong witness like Julie, if not 'coached' I think she would be told what to expect.

They believe that what you have told them is  a true version of your witness testimony. They in no way brief you on what questions to expect and they only put you on the stand if they truly believe you can help the prosecution/defence because what you are telling them is the truth and will therefore not be caught out.

I'm sure jb was told what to expect but at the end if the day if you tell the truth it won't matter what questions they ask you. If there is something you don't know the answer to you just say you don't know and if you don't remember things ie times dates you say you don't remember.

I don't have a fantastic memory recall so I'm always amazed at the how the police expected everyone to recall things minute by minute including the prosecution witnesses.