Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: guest29835 on December 22, 2021, 11:49:PM
-
Is this Jeremy's last Christmas in prison?
I have information from a source that the CCRC are treating Jeremy's March application on a serious level and there has now been formal contact between the CCRC and Essex Police in a manner that suggests to me the application has not been refused (yet) and the CCRC are investigating further.
I also have information that two new prominent individuals will be backing Jeremy Bamber's campaign.
The claims coming out of the Campaign Team about the evidence and grounds for appeal are extravagant. We will have to see, but as I hear more, I will post to this thread with updates.
I am being vague at the moment as I cannot reveal my source or be more specific at this time.
My view is that Jeremy will have at least one more Christmas in prison. Based on what I have heard, I think it will take time for the CCRC to consider and make inquiries and there may have to be a police investigation. I cannot say what the outcome will be, obviously.
-
Is this Jeremy's last Christmas in prison?
I have information from a source that the CCRC are treating Jeremy's March application on a serious level and there has now been formal contact between the CCRC and Essex Police in a manner that suggests to me the application has not been refused (yet) and the CCRC are investigating further.
I also have information that two new prominent individuals will be backing Jeremy Bamber's campaign.
The claims coming out of the Campaign Team about the evidence and grounds for appeal are extravagant. We will have to see, but as I hear more, I will post to this thread with updates.
I am being vague at the moment as I cannot reveal my source or be more specific at this time.
My view is that Jeremy will have at least one more Christmas in prison. Based on what I have heard, I think it will take time for the CCRC to consider and make inquiries and there may have to be a police investigation. I cannot say what the outcome will be, obviously.
Thanks for that info QC you know what I think about the case though my view matters little, but I hope that justice is seen to be done and we live in a fair and just country.
-
Is this Jeremy's last Christmas in prison?
I have information from a source that the CCRC are treating Jeremy's March application on a serious level and there has now been formal contact between the CCRC and Essex Police in a manner that suggests to me the application has not been refused (yet) and the CCRC are investigating further.
I also have information that two new prominent individuals will be backing Jeremy Bamber's campaign.
The claims coming out of the Campaign Team about the evidence and grounds for appeal are extravagant. We will have to see, but as I hear more, I will post to this thread with updates.
I am being vague at the moment as I cannot reveal my source or be more specific at this time.
My view is that Jeremy will have at least one more Christmas in prison. Based on what I have heard, I think it will take time for the CCRC to consider and make inquiries and there may have to be a police investigation. I cannot say what the outcome will be, obviously.
Thank you QC that would be truly amazing. I just hope you are right
-
The claims of Bamber and his campaign teams have always been "extravagant" / batshit crazy but from my understanding, he has good credible lawyers behind him for once so perhaps there is something behind all the bullshit this time.
The police left a lot of room for reasonable doubt IMO but my observation is that anyone that claims to be either way certain about the case is usually wrong about or placing too much reliance on something. There wouldn't be so much scope for debate otherwise.
-
The claims of Bamber and his campaign teams have always been "extravagant" / batshit crazy but from my understanding, he has good credible lawyers behind him for once so perhaps there is something behind all the bullshit this time.
The police left a lot of room for reasonable doubt IMO but my observation is that anyone that claims to be either way certain about the case is usually wrong about or placing too much reliance on something. There wouldn't be so much scope for debate otherwise.
I agree somewhat with this. The Campaign Team have been guilty of over-claims, and the general vibe I have had is that they have been making Lomax-era points; and so, until a month or two ago, I was inclined to the view that the March 2021 application was Jeremy's last ditch attempt and it would fail.
However, information I have received from an insider persuades me there may be more to the application than it appears and I now have further information that tells me the CCRC are taking the application seriously.
I would also disagree with you in that I think Jeremy's 2002 appeal should have been successful, but wasn't due to a combination of circumstances that we needn't go into here.
-
I agree with this. The Campaign Team have been guilty of over-claims, and the general vibe I have had is that they have been making Lomax-era points; and so, until a month or two ago, I was inclined to the view that the March 2021 application was Jeremy's last ditch attempt and it would fail.
However, information I have received from an insider persuades me there may be more to the application than it appears and I now have further information that tells me the CCRC are taking the application seriously.
Good comment. The only point in isolation I would disagree with you on is that I think Jeremy's 2002 appeal should have been successful, but wasn't due to a combination of circumstances that we needn't go into here.
Welcome to the Forum. You may wish to introduce yourself in the new member section (Foyer).
You must have read a different appeal to the one I did. There is an argument that the jury should have perhaps acquitted him in '86 on the grounds of reasonable doubt but that ship has sailed. Personally, I think the court of appeal is too hard to please and doesn't discourage prosecuting weak cases with it's high bar, but a high bar it has.
The CCRC have been rightly criticised for their conservative approach to previous cases and their huge cut in funding cannot help but as I understand, they took 7 years to dismiss Bambers last application so there is unlikely to be decision soon unless there really is some dynamite in the latest submissions ( and if there is, I can see no good reason for this not to be made public)
I would suggest that the CCRC have a legal obligation to take every submission "seriously" but that is a long way from making a referral to the court of appeal.
Thanks for the welcome. :)
-
You must have read a different appeal to the one I did. There is an argument that the jury should have perhaps acquitted him in '86 on the grounds of reasonable doubt but that ship has sailed. Personally, I think the court of appeal is too hard to please and doesn't discourage prosecuting weak cases with it's high bar, but a high bar it has.
The CCRC have been rightly criticised for their conservative approach to previous cases and their huge cut in funding cannot help but as I understand, they took 7 years to dismiss Bambers last application so there is unlikely to be decision soon unless there really is some dynamite in the latest submissions ( and if there is, I can see no good reason for this not to be made public)
I would suggest that the CCRC have a legal obligation to take every submission "seriously" but that is a long way from making a referral to the court of appeal.
Thanks for the welcome. :)
That sentence in bold seems to me a contradiction. If you acknowledge there may have been reasonable doubt in 1986 (I think there was), that suggests the 2002 appeal should have succeeded. I think the evidence was there for a successful appeal and it was messed up.
I totally understand that the CCRC may not refer the case. I have offered an opinion based on inside information that unfortunately I can't detail at this point but that suggests they are not just going to dismiss the application summarily - which does happen in some cases.
-
That sentence in bold seems to me a contradiction. If you acknowledge there may have been reasonable doubt in 1986 (I think there was), that suggests the 2002 appeal should have succeeded. I think the evidence was there for a successful appeal and it was messed up.
I totally understand that the CCRC may not refer the case. I have offered an opinion based on inside information that unfortunately I can't detail at this point but that suggests they are not just going to dismiss the application summarily - which does happen in some cases.
Nope. The jury made their decision. The court of appeal made theirs on *entirely* different criteria.
If you were to suggest that a CoA that was more inclined toward a holistic approach to cases should have acquitted then I could possibly agree but the 10 days of weak garbage that was presented clearly only served to annoy them into proclaiming him more guilty than ever - far from a usual step from the notoriously harsh CoA.
The DNA evidence was declared "useless" by Bamber's own expert. Everything else was far worse, if not downright laughable. ( Was Bamber not present when his own hands were examined? The fact that possible contamination of Sheila's hand swabs could only have aided Bamber etc)
The problem, if there is one, is the primacy of the jury and the reluctance of an appeal court to go behind their findings of fact - and the problem with that is that there is no use having 12 peers pass judgement if they can be summarily overruled by three judges. Once the jury has passed a verdict, the burden essentially passes to the appellant and there is no way of changing that without fundamentally changing the entire principle of a jury trial *and* doing so while cutting costs lest the daily mail print a load of dogwhistling crap about undeserving criminals while billionaires like Lord Rothermere avoid tax!
-
Of course the CCRC will take all applications seriously.
NGB said the 2012 application took 3 months. That was just on one ground.
This application is on 8 grounds.
Each ground on it's own would be dismissed. The application is relying on quantity over quality.
However each ground must be looked at. If each takes 3 months to look at, that is 2 years.
-
I agree somewhat with this. The Campaign Team have been guilty of over-claims, and the general vibe I have had is that they have been making Lomax-era points; and so, until a month or two ago, I was inclined to the view that the March 2021 application was Jeremy's last ditch attempt and it would fail.
However, information I have received from an insider persuades me there may be more to the application than it appears and I now have further information that tells me the CCRC are taking the application seriously.
I would also disagree with you in that I think Jeremy's 2002 appeal should have been successful, but wasn't due to a combination of circumstances that we needn't go into here.
The COA was very critical of the appeal & of the CCRC for putting it forward.
As with the current CCRC submission the 2002 COA relied on quantity over quality with a massive 16 grounds. Each ground on it's own would have been dismissed.
-
Is this Jeremy's last Christmas in prison?
I have information from a source that the CCRC are treating Jeremy's March application on a serious level and there has now been formal contact between the CCRC and Essex Police in a manner that suggests to me the application has not been refused (yet) and the CCRC are investigating further.
I also have information that two new prominent individuals will be backing Jeremy Bamber's campaign.
The claims coming out of the Campaign Team about the evidence and grounds for appeal are extravagant. We will have to see, but as I hear more, I will post to this thread with updates.
I am being vague at the moment as I cannot reveal my source or be more specific at this time.
My view is that Jeremy will have at least one more Christmas in prison. Based on what I have heard, I think it will take time for the CCRC to consider and make inquiries and there may have to be a police investigation. I cannot say what the outcome will be, obviously.
Who from, Bill?
-
QC likes to pretend he's in the know.
-
That sentence in bold seems to me a contradiction. If you acknowledge there may have been reasonable doubt in 1986 (I think there was), that suggests the 2002 appeal should have succeeded. I think the evidence was there for a successful appeal and it was messed up.
I totally understand that the CCRC may not refer the case. I have offered an opinion based on inside information that unfortunately I can't detail at this point but that suggests they are not just going to dismiss the application summarily - which does happen in some cases.
QC if the conviction is going to be overturned at a guess which part of the case would be the reason
I have been keeping my fingers crossed we didn’t know everything detailed in the submissions
-
The claims of Bamber and his campaign teams have always been "extravagant" / batshit crazy but from my understanding, he has good credible lawyers behind him for once so perhaps there is something behind all the bullshit this time.
The police left a lot of room for reasonable doubt IMO but my observation is that anyone that claims to be either way certain about the case is usually wrong about or placing too much reliance on something. There wouldn't be so much scope for debate otherwise.
I am sceptical because apparently the submission contains 347 pages of evidence! I would have thought after 35 years a successful submission would be narrow and focused. Less is more!
Also in a podcast with Shaun Atwood Yvonne claims "the police know Jeremy is innocent" which is clearly nonsense. Yvonne fails to appreciate that if she perceives something in a certain way eg the phone logs purporting to show a call from Mr Bamber that others are not necessarily going to perceive it in the same way as its open to interpretation and in any event isn't evidence based which is what the CCRC and CoA are looking for.
-
That sentence in bold seems to me a contradiction. If you acknowledge there may have been reasonable doubt in 1986 (I think there was), that suggests the 2002 appeal should have succeeded. I think the evidence was there for a successful appeal and it was messed up.
I totally understand that the CCRC may not refer the case. I have offered an opinion based on inside information that unfortunately I can't detail at this point but that suggests they are not just going to dismiss the application summarily - which does happen in some cases.
It doesn't matter what you think. You didn't attend the full trial and sit through all the evidence and hear witnesses give their testimony. Bamber was found guilty 10-2 = 10 jurors thought Bamber guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
On what basis should the 2002 appeal have resulted in Bamber's conviction being quashed?
The CCRC treat all applications the same and diligently reply to each point put forward.
Have you read the full CCRC report detailing why the 2012 submission failed? Not the brief report for public consumption the full report?
-
Is this Jeremy's last Christmas in prison?
I have information from a source that the CCRC are treating Jeremy's March application on a serious level and there has now been formal contact between the CCRC and Essex Police in a manner that suggests to me the application has not been refused (yet) and the CCRC are investigating further.
I also have information that two new prominent individuals will be backing Jeremy Bamber's campaign.
The claims coming out of the Campaign Team about the evidence and grounds for appeal are extravagant. We will have to see, but as I hear more, I will post to this thread with updates.
I am being vague at the moment as I cannot reveal my source or be more specific at this time.
My view is that Jeremy will have at least one more Christmas in prison. Based on what I have heard, I think it will take time for the CCRC to consider and make inquiries and there may have to be a police investigation. I cannot say what the outcome will be, obviously.
Tom and Ben.
-
Is this Jeremy's last Christmas in prison?
I have information from a source that the CCRC are treating Jeremy's March application on a serious level and there has now been formal contact between the CCRC and Essex Police in a manner that suggests to me the application has not been refused (yet) and the CCRC are investigating further.
I also have information that two new prominent individuals will be backing Jeremy Bamber's campaign.
The claims coming out of the Campaign Team about the evidence and grounds for appeal are extravagant. We will have to see, but as I hear more, I will post to this thread with updates.
I am being vague at the moment as I cannot reveal my source or be more specific at this time.
My view is that Jeremy will have at least one more Christmas in prison. Based on what I have heard, I think it will take time for the CCRC to consider and make inquiries and there may have to be a police investigation. I cannot say what the outcome will be, obviously.
Have you read the full CCRC report setting out exactly why the 2012 submission failed? Not the mini report put out for public consumption.
It isn't in Bamber's/CT's interests to level with the public unless it is referred to CoA. If it fails apart from being honest and transparent they're in a lose-lose situation.
-
QC likes to pretend he's in the know.
I know, Adam. It helps me when I'm out on the pull. Keep it between me and you, though.
-
I know, Adam. It helps me when I'm out on the pull. Keep it between me and you, though.
Whether you're in the know or not can you please answer the following question:
Have you read the full 2012 report detailing why the submission failed?
-
Whether you're in the know or not can you please answer the following question:
Have you read the full 2012 report detailing why the submission failed?
Yes, that was passed to me by someone else, some time ago.
I will not answer your questions on here. You've insulted me without any provocation, you've persisted to do so, and not apologised.
Since it's that time of year, my message to you is that you can get stuffed!
-
Yes, that was passed to me by someone else, some time ago.
Thanks. Just to clarify this is the full CCRC report not the judicial review report?
-
Thanks. Just to clarify this is the full CCRC report not the judicial review report?
What do you think?
-
Yes, that was passed to me by someone else, some time ago.
I will not answer your questions on here. You've insulted me without any provocation, you've persisted to do so, and not apologised.
Since it's that time of year, my message to you is that you can get stuffed!
According to you everyone insults you without any provocation. As I said previously its never you always someone else.
-
What do you think?
What I think has no bearing on whether or not you have actually read the full report.
-
According to you everyone insults you without any provocation. As I said previously its never you always someone else.
He has never accused me ??? I adore him
-
What I think has no bearing on whether or not you have actually read the full report.
Well it's not like you'd listen to anything I have to say whether I had or hadn't, so what difference does it make?
And why would I pretend to have such a report and have read it, if I haven't? I have already told you that somebody gave me a copy some time ago. What more do you want? A handprint?
Is this another Essex Police interrogation? I may need a solicitor.
-
Well it's not like you'd listen to anything I have to say whether I had or hadn't, so what difference does it make?
And why would I pretend to have such a report and have read it, if I haven't? I have already told you that somebody gave me a copy some time ago. What more do you want? A handprint?
Is this another Essex Police interrogation? I may need a solicitor.
Are you willing and able to upload a copy here for discussion?
-
Are you willing and able to upload a copy here for discussion?
You're havin' a larrrrf.
Do you honestly think that I would breach the confidence of the person who shared the document with me, for you? Really? I would hesitate to do that for my best friend, never mind you.
You, Steve, Adam, Jane, Munksa...have I missed anybody out?...you are all utterly contemptible.
I will wish you a blessed Yule, because decency demands it, but please think about things over the break.
-
You're havin' a larrrrf.
Do you honestly think that I would breach the confidence of the person who shared the document with me, for you? Really? I would hesitate to do that for my best friend, never mind you.
You, Steve, Adam, Jane, Munksa...have I missed anybody out?...you are all utterly contemptible.
I will wish you a blessed Yule, because decency demands it, but please think about things over the break.
🥰
-
Is this Jeremy's last Christmas in prison?
I have information from a source that the CCRC are treating Jeremy's March application on a serious level and there has now been formal contact between the CCRC and Essex Police in a manner that suggests to me the application has not been refused (yet) and the CCRC are investigating further.
I also have information that two new prominent individuals will be backing Jeremy Bamber's campaign.
The claims coming out of the Campaign Team about the evidence and grounds for appeal are extravagant. We will have to see, but as I hear more, I will post to this thread with updates.
I am being vague at the moment as I cannot reveal my source or be more specific at this time.
My view is that Jeremy will have at least one more Christmas in prison. Based on what I have heard, I think it will take time for the CCRC to consider and make inquiries and there may have to be a police investigation. I cannot say what the outcome will be, obviously.
Interesting. It's worth noting that the most recent generic response from Essex Police, was elaborated upon and I have no doubt that this elaboration was designed to capitalise upon the recent media interest, drama and MindHouse Productions.
All of that, was a last ditch all-out attempt, to sell Jeremy Bamber as the greedy, mass murderer, with the police fulfilling their usual clichéd role, as bumbling along until Stan Jones and the relatives forced to though their own 'correct' narrative and won the day.
This presentation is to gel in the minds of the public a set view of the case, so that a rejection of submissions is made to be less controversial - because there is relatively no sizeable public opinion to bay for a referral. If Priti Patel can set the mood music and the public think that Bamber is guilty, that is the last bastion of hope for those with vested interests, some of whom knew that material had been released to Bamber's defence which could undermine the case.
We can only hope that the CCRC somehow baulk at this clichéd presentation of the case, avoid taking the route of rejection and drop a bombshell in the middle of the lot of them.
-
Interesting. It's worth noting that the most recent generic response from Essex Police, was elaborated upon and I have no doubt that this elaboration was designed to capitalise upon the recent media interest, drama and MindHouse Productions.
All of that, was a last ditch all-out attempt, to sell Jeremy Bamber as the greedy, mass murderer, with the police fulfilling their usual clichéd role, as bumbling along until Stan Jones and the relatives forced to though their own 'correct' narrative and won the day.
This presentation is to gel in the minds of the public a set view of the case, so that a rejection of submissions is made to be less controversial - because there is relatively no sizeable public opinion to bay for a referral. If Priti Patel can set the mood music and the public think that Bamber is guilty, that is the last bastion of hope for those with vested interests, some of whom knew that material had been released to Bamber's defence which could undermine the case.
We can only hope that the CCRC somehow baulk at this clichéd presentation of the case, avoid taking the route of rejection and drop a bombshell in the middle of the lot of them.
So are you questioning QC? It is quite a statement he has made. As far as I can see he hasn’t misled us so far. Ever hopeful that this case makes history and mistakes like this never happen again
-
So are you questioning QC? It is quite a statement he has made. As far as I can see he hasn’t misled us so far. Ever hopeful that this case makes history and mistakes like this never happen again
What I am telling you is based on what I have been told and shown, and represents my interpretation of such. The person I refer to is not within the CCRC, and for all I and he/she knows, Jeremy's application could be rejected today, or next week or next month. That's the best I can do.
There are certain details I cannot provide now as it would compromise my source, but I may elaborate in the coming months, depending on what happens.
What I will say is that there are supporters of Jeremy's, including some who have seen what I have seen, who are going round saying he will definitely be released next year and they express wonderment that the CCRC has not already referred his case to the Court of Appeal, such is the strength of the evidence - as they see it. I think those supporters are foolish. As I stated at the outset of this thread, I expect that this will not be Jeremy's last Christmas in prison. (Of course, I could be the one who is wrong).
Conversely, I think those on the guilt side who dismiss the possibility of a referral may come out looking foolish. There are signs I have seen and heard that there are people within the CCRC who are keen to make a second referral to the Court of Appeal in this case, but that does not mean a referral will happen. Furthermore, it's worth re-emphasising that even if a referral happens, that does not mean the convictions will be overturned. The sneers of the guilt camp may be vindicated, if not at this stage, then ultimately.
Unfortunately, this is one of those cases where, in all respects and on most points, I cannot help but sound like a Liberal Democrat trying to explain what he thinks. It's just the way it is.
-
What I am telling you is based on what I have been told and shown, and represents my interpretation of such. The person I refer to is not within the CCRC, and for all I and he/she knows, Jeremy's application could be rejected today, or next week or next month. That's the best I can do.
There are certain details I cannot provide now as it would compromise my source, but I may elaborate in the coming months, depending on what happens.
What I will say is that there are supporters of Jeremy's, including some who have seen what I have seen, who are going round saying he will definitely be released next year and they express wonderment that the CCRC has not already referred his case to the Court of Appeal, such is the strength of the evidence - as they see it. I think those supporters are foolish. As I stated at the outset of this thread, I expect that this will not be Jeremy's last Christmas in prison. (Of course, I could be the one who is wrong).
Conversely, I think those on the guilt side who dismiss the possibility of a referral may come out looking foolish. There are signs I have seen and heard that there are people within the CCRC who are keen to make a second referral to the Court of Appeal in this case, but that does not mean a referral will happen. Furthermore, it's worth re-emphasising that even if a referral happens, that does not mean the convictions will be overturned. The sneers of the guilt camp may be vindicated, if not at this stage, then ultimately.
Unfortunately, this is one of those cases where, in all respects and on most points, I cannot help but sound like a Liberal Democrat trying to explain what he thinks. It's just the way it is.
What have you & others seen?
You can give this information out without compromising your source.
Please don't say you can't say. It's a discussion forum, not a cabinet meeting. The case is already with the CCRC.
-
What have you & others seen?
You can give this information out without compromising your source.
Please don't say you can't say. It's a discussion forum, not a cabinet meeting. The case is already with the CCRC.
You'd be the last person that anyone with any sense would divulge anything to !
-
What have you & others seen?
You can give this information out without compromising your source.
Please don't say you can't say. It's a discussion forum, not a cabinet meeting. The case is already with the CCRC.
I can't do it. I have thought it over already. I will try to reveal more as events develop. Based on what I have seen and heard, it does appear to me that the CCRC will not make a decision in 2022. There's a long wait yet.
-
You'd be the last person that anyone with any sense would divulge anything to !
It's a forum. There has been enough hush hush info supporters have.
David's forensic evidence breakthrough.
Mike's photos.
Roch saying he has seen evidence which shows Jeremy is definatly innocent.
Lookout with her daily unsourced claims.
Hopefully QC will be not be like the rest. Otherwise best not say anything.
-
I can't do it. I have thought it over already. I will try to reveal more as events develop. Based on what I have seen and heard, it does appear to me that the CCRC will not make a decision in 2022. There's a long wait yet.
I said that this week. No matter how weak each ground is, the CCRC must spend weaks going through it.
So the forum will have a year of QC saying he has seen something but can't say what it is. Great.
-
It's a forum. There has been enough hush hush info supporters have.
David's forensic evidence breakthrough.
Mike's photos.
Roch saying he has seen evidence which shows Jeremy is definatly innocent.
Lookout with her daily unsourced claims.
Hopefully QC will be not be like the rest. Otherwise best not say anything.
Exactly. It's a discussion forum. So, having weighed things up, I've revealed what I know to the extent I'm able to. Just giving you a heads up, Adam, so that if things do go pear-shaped for the guilt camp, you can't say you weren't warned. The least I can do after all the moral support you've given me via the PM system.
-
What I am telling you is based on what I have been told and shown, and represents my interpretation of such. The person I refer to is not within the CCRC, and for all I and he/she knows, Jeremy's application could be rejected today, or next week or next month. That's the best I can do.
There are certain details I cannot provide now as it would compromise my source, but I may elaborate in the coming months, depending on what happens.
What I will say is that there are supporters of Jeremy's, including some who have seen what I have seen, who are going round saying he will definitely be released next year and they express wonderment that the CCRC has not already referred his case to the Court of Appeal, such is the strength of the evidence - as they see it. I think those supporters are foolish. As I stated at the outset of this thread, I expect that this will not be Jeremy's last Christmas in prison. (Of course, I could be the one who is wrong).
Conversely, I think those on the guilt side who dismiss the possibility of a referral may come out looking foolish. There are signs I have seen and heard that there are people within the CCRC who are keen to make a second referral to the Court of Appeal in this case, but that does not mean a referral will happen. Furthermore, it's worth re-emphasising that even if a referral happens, that does not mean the convictions will be overturned. The sneers of the guilt camp may be vindicated, if not at this stage, then ultimately.
Unfortunately, this is one of those cases where, in all respects and on most points, I cannot help but sound like a Liberal Democrat trying to explain what he thinks. It's just the way it is.
"People within the CCRC who are keen to make a second referral to the Court of Appeal". The CCRC need fresh evidence or legal argument that meets the criteria laid out by the CPS. If its forthcoming they will refer; if it isn't they won't.
-
"People within the CCRC who are keen to make a second referral to the Court of Appeal". The CCRC need fresh evidence or legal argument that meets the criteria laid out by the CPS. If its forthcoming they will refer; if it isn't they won't.
The CCRC won't refer unless there's evidence. I didn't know that, thanks. I just assumed they'd refer it if me and Roch turn up and ask them nicely.
-
QC is covering himself.
Saying other people he has aledgedly spoken to, believe the evidence will free Bamber - but he is not so sure.
Not sure how the aledged evidence can be so good, if QC believes the CCRC will not make a decision in 2022.
-
QC is covering himself.
Saying other people he has aledgedly spoken to, believe the evidence will free Bamber - but he is not so sure.
Not sure how the aledged evidence can be so good, if QC believes the CCRC will not make a decision in 2022.
As usual, you tell lies.
I have not stated that the evidence will free Jeremy. In fact, I have expressed caution and scepticism.
Why do you continually lie on here about what people say?
I realise, by the way, that the Forum Rules state you should not accuse somebody of lying, but really, can you expect me to say anything other than this?
-
The CCRC won't refer unless there's evidence. I didn't know that, thanks. I just assumed they'd refer it if me and Roch turn up and ask them nicely.
Why use the word 'keen' then?
-
QC is covering himself.
Saying other people he has aledgedly spoken to, believe the evidence will free Bamber - but he is not so sure.
Not sure how the aledged evidence can be so good, if QC believes the CCRC will not make a decision in 2022.
There was a case in the US where the defence got a report from a world renowned fire expert saying a fire was caused by a faulty radiator and was not started deliberately. They still executed the poor chap anyway and only latter was he exonerated.
So having evidence is one thing you still need people to be honest and do the right thing.
-
As usual, you tell lies.
I have not stated that the evidence will free Jeremy. In fact, I have expressed caution and scepticism.
Why do you continually lie on here about what people say?
I realise, by the way, that the Forum Rules state you should not accuse somebody of lying, but really, can you expect me to say anything other than this?
You said -
'What I will say is that there are supporters of Jeremy's, including some who have seen what I have seen, who are going round saying he will definitely be released next year'
----------
I didn't say 'you believe'.
Keep up.
-
There was a case in the US where the defence got a report from a world renowned fire expert saying a fire was caused by a faulty radiator and was not started deliberately. They still executed the poor chap anyway and only latter was he exonerated.
So having evidence is one thing you still need people to be honest and do the right thing.
Cameron Todd Willingham? He has not been formally exonerated. However he probably was innocent.
-
It's disappointing QC has gone the same way of Mike, Lookout, David, Roch & Bill - has seen but can't reveal.
But his choice.
-
Its probably already been thrown out and they're scrambling around trying to conjure something up in the '28 day window of opportunity' before the door is finally slammed shut!
-
You said -
'What I will say is that there are supporters of Jeremy's, including some who have seen what I have seen, who are going round saying he will definitely be released next year'
----------
I didn't say 'you believe'.
Keep up.
I think you've gone back and edited that post. I think you and Cambridgecutie are just trying to wind me up, so you're now on Ignore. I was reluctant to do this, but it's just become a waste of time engaging with you and I also think the case has moved on.
-
I think you've gone back and edited that post. I think you and Cambridgecutie are just trying to wind me up, so you're now on Ignore. I was reluctant to do this, but it's just become a waste of time engaging with you and I also think the case has moved on.
Not at all. You simply don't take kindly to having your posts challenged.
-
I think you've gone back and edited that post. I think you and Cambridgecutie are just trying to wind me up, so you're now on Ignore. I was reluctant to do this, but it's just become a waste of time engaging with you and I also think the case has moved on.
If I have, it will say.
It doesn't.
-
I think you've gone back and edited that post. I think you and Cambridgecutie are just trying to wind me up, so you're now on Ignore. I was reluctant to do this, but it's just become a waste of time engaging with you and I also think the case has moved on.
I'm certain ngb will feel relieved. He must weary of receiving your constant complaints.
-
Not at all. You simply don't take kindly to having your posts challenged.
TBF, you have been on a wind up from day one. As has Adam. That does not mean that all of your posts are wind ups. Some are worth reading.
-
TBF, you have been in a wind up from day one. As has Adam. That does not mean that all of your posts are wind ups. Some are worth reading.
Have you considered I might find some of the posts here a 'wind up'?
- David's diluted menstrual blood theory contaminating the silencer
- Lookout's daily factually incorrect posts
- JackieD's one-trick pony (which the jury was warned about)
- Your claims that two highly qualified pathologists of long experience called it wrong over routine matters
-
I think you've gone back and edited that post. I think you and Cambridgecutie are just trying to wind me up, so you're now on Ignore. I was reluctant to do this, but it's just become a waste of time engaging with you and I also think the case has moved on.
Roch has challenged me to go through your early posts and critique them which I intend to do.
-
Have you considered I might find some of the posts here a 'wind up'?
- David's diluted menstrual blood theory contaminating the silencer
- Lookout's daily factually incorrect posts
- JackieD's one-trick pony (which the jury was warned about)
- Your claims that two highly qualified pathologists of long experience called it wrong over routine matters
Well if I am a one trick pony regarding Julie Mugford and the bloody money deal take it up with the moderator.
He’s an expert. Furthermore for all the friend of the family etc etc the golden nugget in this case is the notes regarding Julie Mugford. If a documentary maker here or America everything will fall down like a pack of cards and you will see a number of people in the dock charged with perjury
Nothing will be acceptable to people in this country after such a massive conspiracy
Also any tiny piece of good news regarding the case is so welcome. I wouldn’t expect QC to share a source on this forum
-
Its probably already been thrown out and they're scrambling around trying to conjure something up in the '28 day window of opportunity' before the door is finally slammed shut!
Why should you be bothered ? ::)
-
Well if I am a one trick pony regarding Julie Mugford and the bloody money deal take it up with the moderator.
He’s an expert. Furthermore for all the friend of the family etc etc the golden nugget in this case is the notes regarding Julie Mugford. If a documentary maker here or America everything will fall down like a pack of cards and you will see a number of people in the dock charged with perjury
Nothing will be acceptable to people in this country after such a massive conspiracy
Also any tiny piece of good news regarding the case is so welcome. I wouldn’t expect QC to share a source on this forum
???
-
Have you considered I might find some of the posts here a 'wind up'?
- David's diluted menstrual blood theory contaminating the silencer
- Lookout's daily factually incorrect posts
- JackieD's one-trick pony (which the jury was warned about)
- Your claims that two highly qualified pathologists of long experience called it wrong over routine matters
What about your own posts ? Screwy to say the least, neither one thing nor the other.
-
I just assumed they'd refer it if me and Roch turn up and ask them nicely.
Maybe me you and Tatchell should take them for a business lunch?
-
Maybe me you and Tatchell should take them for a business lunch?
You may have misunderstood what I meant by 'nicely'. I just assumed the rumours about you and knuckledusters are true.
On a more serious note, it is a pity that I should have to ignore/block other members. I am against it on principle because you could end up with us splitting into essentially two fora, each side an echo chamber, but quite honestly I think I have learned what I can from engaging with these people (whoever they are) and I don't have time to play silly buggers.
I must say that both Adam and Cambridgecutie do have their qualities and both can post sensibly when the mood takes them, but I have to draw the line.
I don't want to get into a Who's Who, but it would not surprise me if Cambridgecutie is Holly Goodhead. Holly is head and shoulders above the rest of the Red Forum. I don't agree with all of her theories, but some of what she says coincides with my reading of the evidence, which is reassuring. Cambridgecutie has shown a similar level of understanding of certain things, while at the same time also having similar blind spots to those of Holly. At the same time, Holly does have certain negative posting traits (as we all do), and for one reason or another, this seems to have blossomed into Cambridgecutie (if they are one and the same).
Or rather, as George Galloway said of Christopher Hitchens back in 2005:
"What we have witnessed is something unique in natural history. The first metamorphosis of a butterfly back into a slug."
Galloway also mentioned a trail of slime.
What a shame! But I have little choice.
-
You may have misunderstood what I meant by 'nicely'. I just assumed the rumours about you and knuckledusters are true.
On a more serious note, it is a pity that I should have to ignore/block other members. I am against it on principle because you could end up with us splitting into essentially two fora, each side an echo chamber, but quite honestly I think I have learned what I can from engaging with these people (whoever they are) and I don't have time to play silly buggers.
I must say that both Adam and Cambridgecutie do have their qualities and both can post sensibly when the mood takes them, but I have to draw the line.
I don't want to get into a Who's Who, but it would not surprise me if Cambridgecutie is Holly Goodhead. Holly is head and shoulders above the rest of the Red Forum. I don't agree with all of her theories, but some of what she says coincides with my reading of the evidence, which is reassuring. Cambridgecutie has shown a similar level of understanding of certain things, while at the same time also having similar blind spots to those of Holly. At the same time, Holly does have certain negative posting traits (as we all do), and for one reason or another, this seems to have blossomed into Cambridgecutie (if they are one and the same).
Or rather, as George Galloway said of Christopher Hitchens back in 2005:
"What we have witnessed is something unique in natural history. The first metamorphosis of a butterfly back into a slug."
Galloway also mentioned a trail of slime.
What a shame! But I have little choice.
Ditto you. Unless you are posting about windsurfing, moral support or thanking me.
-
You may have misunderstood what I meant by 'nicely'. I just assumed the rumours about you and knuckledusters are true.
On a more serious note, it is a pity that I should have to ignore/block other members. I am against it on principle because you could end up with us splitting into essentially two fora, each side an echo chamber, but quite honestly I think I have learned what I can from engaging with these people (whoever they are) and I don't have time to play silly buggers.
I must say that both Adam and Cambridgecutie do have their qualities and both can post sensibly when the mood takes them, but I have to draw the line.
I don't want to get into a Who's Who, but it would not surprise me if Cambridgecutie is Holly Goodhead. Holly is head and shoulders above the rest of the Red Forum. I don't agree with all of her theories, but some of what she says coincides with my reading of the evidence, which is reassuring. Cambridgecutie has shown a similar level of understanding of certain things, while at the same time also having similar blind spots to those of Holly. At the same time, Holly does have certain negative posting traits (as we all do), and for one reason or another, this seems to have blossomed into Cambridgecutie (if they are one and the same).
Or rather, as George Galloway said of Christopher Hitchens back in 2005:
"What we have witnessed is something unique in natural history. The first metamorphosis of a butterfly back into a slug."
Galloway also mentioned a trail of slime.
What a shame! But I have little choice.
If you want to go down the road of who's who I'm pretty certain you're not QC Cheavalier! There are so few people interested in the Bamber case I wouldn't mind taking a punt on your authentic id, but unlike you I don't bring it onto the forum. And if I'm right the media has had you down far worse than your George Galloway quote!
You have zero room to talk about posting sensibly after your angry outburst when you told the moderator to go suck ****.
-
What I am telling you is based on what I have been told and shown, and represents my interpretation of such. The person I refer to is not within the CCRC, and for all I and he/she knows, Jeremy's application could be rejected today, or next week or next month. That's the best I can do.
There are certain details I cannot provide now as it would compromise my source, but I may elaborate in the coming months, depending on what happens.
What I will say is that there are supporters of Jeremy's, including some who have seen what I have seen, who are going round saying he will definitely be released next year and they express wonderment that the CCRC has not already referred his case to the Court of Appeal, such is the strength of the evidence - as they see it. I think those supporters are foolish. As I stated at the outset of this thread, I expect that this will not be Jeremy's last Christmas in prison. (Of course, I could be the one who is wrong).
Conversely, I think those on the guilt side who dismiss the possibility of a referral may come out looking foolish. There are signs I have seen and heard that there are people within the CCRC who are keen to make a second referral to the Court of Appeal in this case, but that does not mean a referral will happen. Furthermore, it's worth re-emphasising that even if a referral happens, that does not mean the convictions will be overturned. The sneers of the guilt camp may be vindicated, if not at this stage, then ultimately.
Unfortunately, this is one of those cases where, in all respects and on most points, I cannot help but sound like a Liberal Democrat trying to explain what he thinks. It's just the way it is.
This is typical of the pompous statements of some, effectively disparaging and sidelining this site.
-
If you want to go down the road of who's who I'm pretty certain you're not QC Cheavalier! There are so few people interested in the Bamber case I wouldn't mind taking a punt on your authentic id, but unlike you I don't bring it onto the forum. And if I'm right the media has had you down far worse than your George Galloway quote!
You have zero room to talk about posting sensibly after your angry outburst when you told the moderator to go suck ****.
How right CC.
-
This is typical of the pompous statements of some, effectively disparaging and sidelining this site.
I don't how QC releasing details will 'compromise his source'.
How the heck will we be able to work out who the source is?
-
You have zero room to talk about posting sensibly after your angry outburst when you told the moderator to go suck ****.
He got time in the cooler for that one. You can't keep bringing up the same single event as a stick to beat him with, imo.
-
This is typical of the pompous statements of some, effectively disparaging and sidelining this site.
Blocked as well. Don't have time for it, sorry.
-
He got time in the cooler for that one. You can't keep bringing up the same single event as a stick to beat him with, imo.
I'm afraid we can and we will.
-
Blocked as well. Don't have time for it, sorry.
This might be for the best. If you can't stand the heat of Kransekake then get out of the kitchen.
-
I'm afraid we can and we will.
For what purpose?
-
For what purpose?
To remind members and passing traffic that he is no independent arbiter of the Forum's rules. We never had a problem of lewdness before his arrival and I don't see why we should endure it now.
-
He got time in the cooler for that one. You can't keep bringing up the same single event as a stick to beat him with, imo.
Roch CC has had so many alias Egan Naughty Nun Holly Goodhead and been banned and thrown the most horrendous insults from over on the Red about Lookout so it actually her taking the piss when she has been banned herself. I can’t be bothered dealing with a drunk with issues coming on here to cause disputes
-
Well Jackie, many of us have had our moments over the years.
-
So are you questioning QC? It is quite a statement he has made. As far as I can see he hasn’t misled us so far. Ever hopeful that this case makes history and mistakes like this never happen again
I was just thinking that it would be brave of the CCRC to refer. Not that that is a good thing. If anything it's a bad thing. Bravery shouldn't come in to it. There should be no pressure whatsoever for them not to refer.
-
Maybe the CCRC are currently looking at the information 'Agent QC' knows about but can't divulge on here.
-
I'm afraid we can and we will.
On two occasions recently you have used foul language on this Forum against me without any provocation and the moderator had to intervene.
This behaviour must stop.
You will also be receiving a PM from me now, copied to the moderator and Mike.
Thank you.
-
On two occasions recently you have used foul language on this Forum against me without any provocation and the moderator had to intervene.
This behaviour must stop.
You will also be receiving a PM from me now, copied to the moderator and Mike.
Thank you.
I deleted it before reading. Don't ever contact me via PM: have the guts to discuss the case in open forum.
-
I deleted it before reading. Don't ever contact me via PM: have the guts to discuss the case in open forum.
Steve, maybe it's time to end the feud? It is after all the season of goodwill. There's been enough insults traded back and forth for several months now. Nobody has lost face on that score. Why not just call it a score draw and move on.
-
Steve, maybe it's time to end the feud? It is after all the season of goodwill. There's been enough insults traded back and forth for several months now. Nobody has lost face on that score. Why not just call it a score draw and move on.
There is no feud. I'm responding to posts a member writes. I don't care who that member happens to be.
-
Merry Christmas one and All. x
-
Not sure that posting in The LAST Christmas is entirely appropriate!!!, but I hope you all enjoy a happy, healthy, and safe one.
-
Not sure that posting in The LAST Christmas is entirely appropriate!!!, but I hope you all enjoy a happy, healthy, and safe one.
Merry Christmas to Jeremy Bamber. I hope that those who have employed darkness and tyranny to ensure his continued incarceration, are soon exposed for what they are. Liars, cowards and crooks. 👍
-
Steve, maybe it's time to end the feud? It is after all the season of goodwill. There's been enough insults traded back and forth for several months now. Nobody has lost face on that score. Why not just call it a score draw and move on.
I will not be 'moving on'. The moderator will have to deal with him, or not, as the case may be. We will see.
-
Merry Christmas one and All. x
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSbkHZd7MQE
-
Merry Christmas to Jeremy Bamber. I hope that those who have employed darkness and tyranny to ensure his continued incarceration, are soon exposed for what they are. Liars, cowards and crooks. 👍
Ditto time to make history and headlines
-
Not sure that posting in The LAST Christmas is entirely appropriate!!!, but I hope you all enjoy a happy, healthy, and safe one.
I did think about that Jane given my own advancements in years ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Merry Christmas to Jeremy Bamber. I hope that those who have employed darkness and tyranny to ensure his continued incarceration, are soon exposed for what they are. Liars, cowards and crooks. 👍
My own sentiments too Roch. Let justice be done----properly this time. Innocent before Proven Guilty and not the other way round !
-
I did think about that Jane given my own advancements in years ;D ;D ;D ;D
Aww! I wasn't pointing a finger, Lookout. I'm getting there!!! :)) :)) :))
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSbkHZd7MQE
:-\