Author Topic: Why would Ann Eaton need the names of CCRC members who agreed to 2002 Appeal?  (Read 10152 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gringo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
    This is a very odd request made by Ann Eaton to the EP and hints at something sinister.
    What purpose is served by Ann Eaton knowing who the CCRC members were? What does she intend to do with this information?
     Why are EP indulging this request and making enquiries on her behalf resulting in them giving Ann Eaton the requested information?
   
   So keen were EP to indulge this request for confidential information that DC McDonnell passed it over to DS Oliver to deal with whilst he was involved in a protracted case at Crown Court.
     McDonnell then completed the enquiries going so far as to ringing the CCRC to confirm the names.
     The request by Ann Eaton was dealt with by EP expeditiously, seemingly without EP's curiosity being piqued by this odd request or Ann Eaton's motives for requiring it.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2017, 02:56:PM by gringo »

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33771
Well,....... their may a reason to question it.

I can't see that there is one. We have the information. No one has sought to hide it. I fail to see anything underhand.

Offline buddy

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1296
I can't see that there is one. We have the information. No one has sought to hide it. I fail to see anything underhand.
Perhaps I am more suspecting than you Jane 8)

Offline gringo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Well,....... their may a reason to question it.
   I wonder why Ann Eaton didn't just write to or telephone the CCRC herself if everything was above board.

Offline buddy

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1296
Jane
, what reason do you think that AE wanted this information?

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33771
Jane
, what reason do you think that AE wanted this information?


Please refer to reply 1. I feel perfectly certain that, HAD it been surreptitious, she'd have found a way of doing it that wouldn't be detected. I find it hard to believe she'd have left herself open to criticism and condemnation.

Offline buddy

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1296

Please refer to reply 1. I feel perfectly certain that, HAD it been surreptitious, she'd have found a way of doing it that wouldn't be detected. I find it hard to believe she'd have left herself open to criticism and condemnation.
That's quite telling Jane. "she would have found a way".

Offline gringo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414

Please refer to reply 1. I feel perfectly certain that, HAD it been surreptitious, she'd have found a way of doing it that wouldn't be detected. I find it hard to believe she'd have left herself open to criticism and condemnation.
  It was surreptitious and only discovered much later. Why do you think she didn't contact the CCRC directly if it was a legitimate enquiry?
     

Offline buddy

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1296
"she would have found a way without being detected" hmm.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33771
  It was surreptitious and only discovered much later. Why do you think she didn't contact the CCRC directly if it was a legitimate enquiry?
   

If you read my first reply (1) I suggested that she may have wanted to write to the personally which would have been a little difficult without first knowing their names.

Offline buddy

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1296
That just doesn't make sense.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
What's the matter with" To whom it may concern " when not formally addressing an individual ?

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33771
What's the matter with" To whom it may concern " when not formally addressing an individual ?


Lookout, please STOP trying to make everything about you. You use every opportunity to say how YOU'D have done/said and then it becomes personal. It makes debating very difficult.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44294
    This is a very odd request made by Ann Eaton to the EP and hints at something sinister.
    What purpose is served by Ann Eaton knowing who the CCRC members were? What does she intend to do with this information?
     Why are EP indulging this request and making enquiries on her behalf resulting in them giving Ann Eaton the requested information?
   

Have you got a source for this ?

The relatives were very disappointed that the CCRC referred the case to the COA in 2002. The COA made an indirect swipe at the CCRC by saying 'the more we have looked at the case, the more we believe the jury was right'.

The CCRC did not make the same mistake in 2012 despite it being a high profile case & the liklihood  Bamber would winge to the media.

It won't be anything sinister from AE. But supporters will try to turn it into this.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2017, 03:42:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline gringo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
"she would have found a way without being detected" hmm.
    She thought she had "found a way". EP acting as her proxies