A question for Jackie:

[Adam]

http://www.bestsongspk.com/watch/FdnAlSBNceM

Susan I have not done much lately but after I received new information I would like a six part documentary made on the murders.  There is only one person for the job so I am pushing for that at the moment

There has to be a series for maximum impact
Above is an old video that got over 1000 views

We have to get the case out there in detail to get to the truth

What new information ?

[Caroline]

What new information ?

Don't hold your breath.

[Adam]

A '6 part' documemtary. Impressive.

One episide will be on Julie identifying the bodies. Which Jackie says shows Bamber is innocent.

One episode on Julie's 1984 minor cheque book fraud. Which shows she wanted Bamber's money.

One episode on Bamber loving farming. Although he did none after the massacre.

One epidode on David's 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. Which has still not freed Bamber.

One episode on AE giving BC Nevill's wallet. Which suggests the relatives framed Bamber.

One episode on Ainsley being brought in to hide the evidence that Sheila was the killer. Although as Roch would say -  it's "not the documentaries job to speculate why the police did this".
 

[Roch]

What new information ?

Don't hold your breath.

The sad thing is, that any 'new' information is merely old information that has always existed.  It hasn't arrived on Earth in a moonbeam projected by higher beings.  It just didn't fit with a prosecution of Jeremy.

So it was either excluded from the record - or other devious means were found to nullify it or incorporate it. 

[Adam]

The sad thing is, that any 'new' information is merely old information that has always existed.  It hasn't arrived on Earth in a moonbeam projected by higher beings.  It just didn't fit with a prosecution of Jeremy.

So it was either excluded from the record - or other devious means were found to nullify it or incorporate it.

It's lucky that Jackie has "received new information" & is trying to get a 6 part documentary made. 

I'm sure both supporters & guilters will watch.

[Caroline]

The sad thing is, that any 'new' information is merely old information that has always existed.  It hasn't arrived on Earth in a moonbeam projected by higher beings.  It just didn't fit with a prosecution of Jeremy.

So it was either excluded from the record - or other devious means were found to nullify it or incorporate it.

If it hasn't been presented then it's new evidence. If it has well ........ thems the rules.

[lookout]

If you read Poppy's new blog about the meeting which was held in Sheffield on Saturday,you'll see just how difficult it is to produce " new " information,let alone that which has already been presented. In fact I applaud anyone who can manage to get beyond the various " ACTS " that the justice system and police have in place. It'll be a clever person who'll break down the barriers that exist in blocking MOJ's from being allowed a re-trial.

[Adam]

If you read Poppy's new blog about the meeting which was held in Sheffield on Saturday,you'll see just how difficult it is to produce " new " information,let alone that which has already been presented. In fact I applaud anyone who can manage to get beyond the various " ACTS " that the justice system and police have in place. It'll be a clever person who'll break down the barriers that exist in blocking MOJ's from being allowed a re-trial.

It's good that Jackie has discovered new information.

Now that Trudi's weekly blogs have stopped, a 6 part documentary from Jackie will be some consolation. 

[lookout]

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit ! Why are guilters so obnoxious ?

[Adam]

It's all true.

I miss Trudi's vlogs. Being interested in the case, I hope Jackie and her new information is screened in a 6 part documentary.

Hopefully the new information Jackie has found will be posted on here before the documentary. I did ask her yesterday what the new information was, but got no response. 

[Caroline]

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit ! Why are guilters so obnoxious ?

Why are some 'innocenters'? 

Why do the innocent supporters use the banner of 'guiltiers' as though 'we' on the guilty side all think the same thing? Like in society, we are all individuals and believe different things - just like those on the innocent side. We aren't a group and we don't all think in the same way. Try reading up on in-group out-group theory.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201012/in-groups-out-groups-and-the-psychology-crowds

[guest7363]

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit ! Why are guilters so obnoxious ?

But the highest form of intelligence 

[Roch]

If it hasn't been presented then it's new evidence. If it has well ........ thems the rules.

I disagree with your reasoning on both counts. On the second count - you sound like have no interest in discovering the truth.

[susan]

But the highest form of intelligence 

Really 

[Caroline]

I disagree with your reasoning on both counts. On the second count - you sound like have no interest in discovering the truth.

Of course I do - more than most however, that is the law, Bamber isn't being singled out. I guess you are saying this because the thing that convinced you of Sheila's guilt, is something that has been in the public domain all along? There is certainly nothing I have seen in the years of being here that shows Sheila to be guilty. However, IF such evidence is 'compelling' enough - the CCRC will consider it so put it to the test.