A question for Jackie:

[Adam]

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.

Hopefully Jackie will today post what the new information she has received is.

I hope it's a bit better than David's 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.

[Roch]

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.

No that's not what I mean. The evidence has always existed but not necessarily in its correctly disclosed form. The CCRC won't refer - because the case is political. It only referred in 2002 because there was still, at that stage, a good chance of the appeal failing.  Why do you place such trust in the CCRC?

[David1819]

No that's not what I mean. The evidence has always existed but not necessarily in its correctly disclosed form. The CCRC won't refer - because the case is political. It only referred in 2002 because there was still, at that stage, a good chance of the appeal failing.  Why do you place such trust in the CCRC?

There is a way round the CCRC and COA anyway.

"The Royal Prerogative of Mercy remains available as an extraordinary remedy, but is unlikely to be of importance for those seeking to have their convictions quashed except in extremely rare situations. The prerogative, exercised by the Queen on advice of the Justice Secretary, allows the grant of a free pardon, a conditional pardon (whereby the penalty is removed on condition that a lesser sentence is served), or remission of sentence. A pardon does not vitiate the conviction, which remains, but instead relieves the petitioner of the ‘pains and penalties’ which the conviction may entail. With the advent of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, its use seems likely to be confined to truly exceptional cases – for example, where evidence is inadmissible or unsuitable for public disclosure"
CORRECTION OF MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE IN NEW ZEALAND AND ENGLAND.
MALCOLM DAVID BIRDLING, ST CATHERINE’S COLLEGE. PHD THESIS

[Roch]

The evidence I have been posting about has always existed. Therefore it is not new evidence. It is old evidence. It's just that police decided it couldn't be disclosed in its full form.  The reason why they didn't allow this was so that Jeremy could be prosecuted. Jeremy was prosecuted to appease Robert Boutflour. The relatives are responsible for first pressurising and then corrupting police. The police are responsible for allowing such corruptive approaches to be made and acted upon . All of the victims, including Jeremy, are victims of Sheila and of corrupt policing and corrupt relatives. Since a false version of events has been allowed to stand, for the benefit of those who were / are corrupt.

[Caroline]

The evidence I have been posting about has always existed. Therefore it is not new evidence. It is old evidence. It's just that police decided it couldn't be disclosed in its full form.  The reason why they didn't allow this was so that Jeremy could be prosecuted. Jeremy was prosecuted to appease Robert Boutflour. The relatives are responsible for first pressurising and then corrupting police. The police are responsible for allowing such corruptive approaches to be made and acted upon . All of the victims, including Jeremy, are victims of Sheila and of corrupt policing and corrupt relatives. Since a false version of events has been allowed to stand, for the benefit of those who were / are corrupt.

If it's never been disclosed, then how do you know about it?

[guest7363]

Really 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/sarcasm-how-the-lowest-form-of-wit-actually-makes-people-brighter-and-more-creative-10416281.html   

[Roch]

If it's never been disclosed, then how do you know about it?

It was 'disclosed' over time and attempts were made to impede its disclosure.  It existed from day one.  Police knew it existed.  You shouldn't get too hung up about the terms 'disclosure' and claims of 'non-disclosure'.  Unless evidence is fully provided to the defence - in its' correct context and without attempts to manipulate its' meaning or hide its extent - then it cannot be classed as 'disclosed' in any meaningful sense of the term.

If I show you something - but hide its extent or manipulate its meaning or present it out of context - how can I really be showing you it?

[Caroline]

It was 'disclosed' over time and attempts were made to impede its disclosure.  It existed from day one.  Police knew it existed.  You shouldn't get too hung up about the terms 'disclosure' and claims of 'non-disclosure'.  Unless evidence is fully provided to the defence - in its' correct context and without attempts to manipulate its' meaning or hide its extent - then it cannot be classed as 'disclosed' in any meaningful sense of the term.

If I show you something - but hide its extent or manipulate its meaning or present it out of context - how can I really be showing you it?

If it's already in the public domain I'm at a loss to understand why you just can't say what it is, also surely getting it out there would help to get more people interested in the case, and turn guilty supporters into innocent supporters? Surely the more people on side the better for Jeremy? Holding onto information won't help his cause.

[JackiePreece]

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.

I am sure everyone who believes Jeremy is guilty will look forward to a new series on the case. One hour does just not cut it
I hope Diane Keen will be included

[JackiePreece]

The evidence I have been posting about has always existed. Therefore it is not new evidence. It is old evidence. It's just that police decided it couldn't be disclosed in its full form.  The reason why they didn't allow this was so that Jeremy could be prosecuted. Jeremy was prosecuted to appease Robert Boutflour. The relatives are responsible for first pressurising and then corrupting police. The police are responsible for allowing such corruptive approaches to be made and acted upon . All of the victims, including Jeremy, are victims of Sheila and of corrupt policing and corrupt relatives. Since a false version of events has been allowed to stand, for the benefit of those who were / are corrupt.

You know Roch how powerful the public are.  If this case is broadcast in detail the public will be in shock

[JackiePreece]

If it's already in the public domain I'm at a loss to understand why you just can't say what it is, also surely getting it out there would help to get more people interested in the case, and turn guilty supporters into innocent supporters? Surely the more people on side the better for Jeremy? Holding onto information won't help his cause.

As if

[Roch]

If it's already in the public domain I'm at a loss to understand why you just can't say what it is, also surely getting it out there would help to get more people interested in the case, and turn guilty supporters into innocent supporters? Surely the more people on side the better for Jeremy? Holding onto information won't help his cause.

I wouldn't say it was all in the public domain.  It will be up to others whether its' made public and how much is made public.  There are other things coming to.  Something very startling - that I've not been referring to in my posts.

Will just have to see what the coming year brings.

[Caroline]

I wouldn't say it was all in the public domain.  It will be up to others whether its' made public and how much is made public.  There are other things coming to.  Something very startling - that I've not been referring to in my posts.

Will just have to see what the coming year brings.

That's just it - it is always 'all coming soon' and has been, since I joined here. Why is is up to others/ Who are these others and why do they hold the reins? If this shows Jeremy to be innocent, isn't it the duty of anyone 'in the know' to DO SOMETHING?

[Roch]

That's just it - it is always 'all coming soon' and has been, since I joined here. Why is is up to others/ Who are these others and why do they hold the reins? If this shows Jeremy to be innocent, isn't it the duty of anyone 'in the know' to DO SOMETHING?

Not my remit or my evidence. I understand what you mean though.  I think the CT are advised by pro-bono legal team on aspects of evidence. I'm not involved.

[Adam]

That's just it - it is always 'all coming soon' and has been, since I joined here. Why is is up to others/ Who are these others and why do they hold the reins? If this shows Jeremy to be innocent, isn't it the duty of anyone 'in the know' to DO SOMETHING?

Hopefully today Jackie will reveal the new information she said on Saturday she has received. I've asked for it 5 times.