Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: BarefootDanC on July 12, 2025, 02:19:PM
-
In the event of an appeal in this case, if the Court of Appeal admits new evidence from the defence - which it might not do, even if the CCRC thinks it does and refers it on this basis - the new evidence would need to make the conviction being unsafe!
Just because there is new evidence which is admissible, that doesn't necessarily mean the conviction is unsafe. The Court of Appeal said this a recent case (R v Norris)!
From the Criminal Appeal Act 1968:
"(1)Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Court of Appeal—
(a)shall allow an appeal against conviction if they think that the conviction is unsafe; and
(b)shall dismiss such an appeal in any other case."
The Aga burns
Take the Aga burns as an example: we are told that this is evidence that the police moved the body because: (a) Boyce says the burns were caused by the Aga (b) the only explanation of Nevill being precariously over a stool is that the police moved him.
Neither of these (a) and (b) are by any means certain. Boyce may be wrong, but even if he is right, why is (b) so?
But even if (a) and (b) are both true, how on earth does this make the conviction safe?
The position of Nevill was not part of the prosecution case (or certainly not a main part of the prosecution case). The main part of the prosecution case was the silencer, along with Mugford's testimony and other reasons put before the jury (e.g. clean hands and feet) which suggested it wasn't Sheila.
-
Aga burns do not go to the heart of the verdict and therefore null and void.
Neither implicate or vindicates Jeremy Bamber or Shelia Caffell.
Suspect in 2002, the grounds that were scathed at by the three judges were added as Jeremy was getting over the top and confident that he was coming home and was just throwing more and more of what he felt was good ammo.
-
Aga burns do not go to the heart of the verdict and therefore null and void.
Neither implicate or vindicates Jeremy Bamber or Shelia Caffell.
Suspect in 2002, the grounds that were scathed at by the three judges were added as Jeremy was getting over the top and confident that he was coming home and was just throwing more and more of what he felt was good ammo.
Since 2002, it has always been the strategy to claim that there are lots and lots of reasons why an appeal should be upheld.
The current campaign team have taken it to an extreme, with a 1,000+ page dossiers submitted in March 2021 with further grounds added.
They even now claim that Sheila's arms were in-fact long enough to shoot herself with the moderator on, although at the same time they say that all the evidence for the sound moderator is null and void because they have lots of evidence to say that it wasn't.
-
Since 2002, it has always been the strategy to claim that there are lots and lots of reasons why an appeal should be upheld.
The current campaign team have taken it to an extreme, with a 1,000+ page dossiers submitted in March 2021 with further grounds added.
They even now claim that Sheila's arms were in-fact long enough to shoot herself with the moderator on, although at the same time they say that all the evidence for the sound moderator is null and void because they have lots of evidence to say that it wasn't.
1000+ pages?
And they say the 101 page PSOR is long winded.
-
Suspect that the current CT on the eventual loss of the final judgement whenever it comes will disband. Either by Jeremy himself or by their own violation.
Whether JB will fight on who knows.