Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: ngb1066 on September 02, 2011, 11:54:AM
-
It has been announced by the CCRC that they have granted a further extension of time for Jeremy Bamber to make submissions to the CCRC in response to their provisional statement of reasons for refusing to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. The extension of time is to permit some further analysis to be undertaken on behalf of the defence.
In view of this it is likely to be several months before the CCRC announce their final decision.
-
Another one.
BBC Article here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-14762107
-
In a statement, the CCRC said: "Mr Bamber's legal team has very recently suggested that an additional line of enquiry should be pursued.
"In the interests of completeness, we have agreed in principle to explore the potential for the further work suggested and have extended the deadline for submissions in order to facilitate this.
What might the additional line of enquiry be?
-
It has been announced by the CCRC that they have granted a further extension of time for Jeremy Bamber to make submissions to the CCRC in response to their provisional statement of reasons for refusing to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. The extension of time is to permit some further analysis to be undertaken on behalf of the defence.
In view of this it is likely to be several months before the CCRC announce their final decision.
Mor time? At this rate they might as well give him an extention of a life term in prison.
-
In a statement, the CCRC said: "Mr Bamber's legal team has very recently suggested that an additional line of enquiry should be pursued.
"In the interests of completeness, we have agreed in principle to explore the potential for the further work suggested and have extended the deadline for submissions in order to facilitate this.
What might the additional line of enquiry be?
It is misleading of the CCRC to say that this line of enquiry has been "recently suggested" as the recent request only repeated requests made several times over the past few years by Jeremy Bamber. Although the nature of the line of enquiry has not yet been publicly disclosed I do not think it can do any harm for me to reveal that it relates to the logs.
-
In a statement, the CCRC said: "Mr Bamber's legal team has very recently suggested that an additional line of enquiry should be pursued.
"In the interests of completeness, we have agreed in principle to explore the potential for the further work suggested and have extended the deadline for submissions in order to facilitate this.
What might the additional line of enquiry be?
It is misleading of the CCRC to say that this line of enquiry has been "recently suggested" as the recent request only repeated requests made several times over the past few years by Jeremy Bamber. Although the nature of the line of enquiry has not yet been publicly disclosed I do not think it can do any harm for me to reveal that it relates to the logs.
8) Not these logs by any chance? http://youtu.be/8OOC8bmzg7Q?hd=1
::)
-
In a statement, the CCRC said: "Mr Bamber's legal team has very recently suggested that an additional line of enquiry should be pursued.
"In the interests of completeness, we have agreed in principle to explore the potential for the further work suggested and have extended the deadline for submissions in order to facilitate this.
What might the additional line of enquiry be?
It is misleading of the CCRC to say that this line of enquiry has been "recently suggested" as the recent request only repeated requests made several times over the past few years by Jeremy Bamber. Although the nature of the line of enquiry has not yet been publicly disclosed I do not think it can do any harm for me to reveal that it relates to the logs.
8) Not these logs by any chance? http://youtu.be/8OOC8bmzg7Q?hd=1
::)
The very ones!
-
Well, I suppose it is for the best. I sincerely hope Jeremy has a fair chance this time around.
-
Well, I suppose it is for the best. I sincerely hope Jeremy has a fair chance this time around.
Probably be 95 years old when it does come whe all the guilty ones are dead. Then thewy'll realise it was a fit up?
-
Are these extensions requested by the defence or delaying tactics by the ccrc?
-
Are these extensions requested by the defence or delaying tactics by the ccrc?
I would say delaying tactics by the ccrc. They have form for it. ::)
-
Are these extensions requested by the defence or delaying tactics by the ccrc?
The defence has required more time in order for additional work to be carried out. However, the reason the defence needs this extra time is that the CCRC have resisted defence requests for access to evidence such as the photographic negatives, only giving way after several months. It is therefore the CCRC who are responsible for the delays.
-
Are these extensions requested by the defence or delaying tactics by the ccrc?
The defence has required more time in order for additional work to be carried out. However, the reason the defence needs this extra time is that the CCRC have resisted defence requests for access to evidence such as the photographic negatives, only giving way after several months. It is therefore the CCRC who are responsible for the delays.
We need a revolution in this country to oust these criminals in the British "justice" system. I suspect a great number of these legal beagles are crooks?
-
Are these extensions requested by the defence or delaying tactics by the ccrc?
The defence has required more time in order for additional work to be carried out. However, the reason the defence needs this extra time is that the CCRC have resisted defence requests for access to evidence such as the photographic negatives, only giving way after several months. It is therefore the CCRC who are responsible for the delays.
We need a revolution in this country to oust these criminals in the British "justice" system. I suspect a great number of these legal beagles are crooks?
I think they get dragged into the system and effectively become part of it. They seem afraid of challenging the establishment and that inevitably results in them adopting a pro prosecution attitude. It has really opened my eyes reading the documents relating to this case and another one recently. Instead of approaching the two cases with a critical perspective they have viewed them both from a prosecution perspective. An example in this case is the logs. The evidence contained in them has been rejected by the CCRC on any detail where this conflicts with the evidence given at trial by the police.
-
I know this is not the correct thread, but I couldn't find it.
It is a breathe of fresh air that JB has finally mentioned AP.
I have been saying since March that AP is pivotal in this case, and at last JB has seen my way of thinking.
Folks, read his statements they are full of holes.
I am no Shelock Holmes, but to me he was disingenuous.
The family were scared that JB would cut them loose, and he was probably going to do so.
What was the cause of APs breakdown.
I am going away now to study DC Jones, and I bet I will find some sort of corruption.
Happy days smiters. Truth is I couldn't give a F***.
Kind regards, Cliff.
-
In a statement, the CCRC said: "Mr Bamber's legal team has very recently suggested that an additional line of enquiry should be pursued.
"In the interests of completeness, we have agreed in principle to explore the potential for the further work suggested and have extended the deadline for submissions in order to facilitate this.
What might the additional line of enquiry be?
It is misleading of the CCRC to say that this line of enquiry has been "recently suggested" as the recent request only repeated requests made several times over the past few years by Jeremy Bamber. Although the nature of the line of enquiry has not yet been publicly disclosed I do not think it can do any harm for me to reveal that it relates to the logs.
It seems to me the CCRC are preparing the ground to say that everything brought to attention has been considered so that in the possibilty they uphold the provisional decision there will not be any grounds to launch a 4th Appeal.
I also get the general impression the current appeal is being dragged into just identifying admistrative errors and inconsistancy for an investigation which has been admitted to have not been conducted in the best manner. Much of which caused changes in police practices which were detailed in the Home Office review and recommendations on how murder investigations should be conducted.
Much of these errors and inconsistancy relate to evidence / handling of evidence for which it could be argued was available at the original trial and therefore is not regarded as new evidence.
-
Curiousessex yesterday we had another head case on here spouting they knew the secret that Jeremys application to the ccrc granting his leave to appeal had already been turned down
I always like to give these people the benefit of doubt so i went straight back to his campaign team although Ngb had already made it clear it was going to be another fabrication
This is what i was told yesterday
He is talking rubbish the psor is the only document handed out by the commission that was in Feb no other document been issued so the author of this email is a crank
Jeremys team thought it was an email but I had cut and pasted and sent the email but you can quite clearly understand what they are saying
If you have any further knowledge from inside the ccrc please share it with the forum we would all love to know now rather than wait weeks
-
It seems to me the CCRC are preparing the ground to say that everything brought to attention has been considered so that in the possibility they uphold the provisional decision there will not be any grounds to launch a 4th Appeal.
I also get the general impression the current appeal is being dragged into just identifying administrative errors and inconsistency for an investigation which has been admitted to have not been conducted in the best manner. Much of which caused changes in police practices which were detailed in the Home Office review and recommendations on how murder investigations should be conducted.
Much of these errors and inconsistency relate to evidence / handling of evidence for which it could be argued was available at the original trial and therefore is not regarded as new evidence.
This view does seem depressingly stark to me. I think anybody who has followed the case from a pro JB perspective should always prepare themselves for major disappointment. Personally I find JB's blog an excellent read but at times he may be way too optimistic about the results of unearthing discoveries or confirming previously held suspicions.
Curious, I have to take issue with your point about the administrative errors. Couldn't there be an equal trail of 'errors' in a case were fabrication had been employed? If we go down the line of 'mistakes', are we not allowing Essex Constabulary an enormous berth for errors, right from the logs on entry, all through the original investigation and onwards through to the administration of the 2nd investigation? The number of errors must be staggering. Suspiciously so? Where are the peaks and troughs along the way regarding these errors and edits and retypes and crossed out labels and dates? I suspect that if somebody was to plot a graph, you might see that the peaks are linked to the most questioned areas of the prosecutions evidence and exhibits.
Also, I cannot see how a great many of these 'admin errors' were available at trial as you suggest, if any of these very same inconsistencies have been discovered and cross referenced with earlier known documents, only in the wake of statements and docs being sourced by FOI requests in the intervening years.
-
One thing I would further add about this case. It seems where the authorities are presented with a whiff of skullduggery and a less obvious benign explanation, they will plum for the latter every time.
-
+1 roch!
-
It seems to me the CCRC are preparing the ground to say that everything brought to attention has been considered so that in the possibilty they uphold the provisional decision there will not be any grounds to launch a 4th Appeal.
I also get the general impression the current appeal is being dragged into just identifying admistrative errors and inconsistancy for an investigation which has been admitted to have not been conducted in the best manner. Much of which caused changes in police practices which were detailed in the Home Office review and recommendations on how murder investigations should be conducted.
Much of these errors and inconsistancy relate to evidence / handling of evidence for which it could be argued was available at the original trial and therefore is not regarded as new evidence.
With the Bamber case, the key issue has been, and remains, the non-disclosure of evidence to the defence. Early in 2004, Bamber's new defence team looked at the evidence again, and exhibit 29 caught their attention in particular. It was a document listing some radio messages from the scene of the crime. The defence wondered whether it might be the first page of a longer document rather than a complete document in itself, so they sought clarification. Essex constabulary was adamant that exhibit 29 was a whole document and had been available to the defence for the trial. Unconvinced, Bamber's defence team took the matter to court in March 2004. It was successful, and the police produced the entire document. Exhibit 29, it transpired, was not a single-page document, and Bamber's solicitors received by fax a 24-page summary of radio communications. They then took the unusual step of writing to both the trial judge and the chief prosecution counsel, inquiring if either had known at the time of the trial of the existence of the lengthier log of radio messages. Both replied that they had not.
On receiving the 24 pages, the defence immediately noticed that the first two pages had not only been re-written on different paper from the rest, but had been edited. A comparison with police witness statements revealed that several key radio messages that were made had been left out. Why? The defence therefore asked for the original document so that it could be sent for electrostatic document analysis testing, but Essex constabulary refused. The request has been repeated many times, and on each occasion the constabulary has refused.
However, perhaps inadvertently, the police also provided evidence that had not been requested—pages from a contemporaneous telephone log and from a contemporaneous incident report. The defence had not known that either existed. It was immediately apparent that the two logs and the incident report that the police had withheld contained details that were entirely inconsistent with the case put by the prosecution at Bamber's trial. I will give just two examples; others might be used by Bamber's defence on another occasion.
....four entries in the logs and incident report flatly contradict the prosecution's account that Neville Bamber's body was found downstairs in the kitchen and the other four bodies upstairs. An entry in the radio message log, which the police withheld for nearly 19 years, reads:
"0737: one dead male and one dead female in kitchen".
...So, almost immediately on entering the farmhouse, the police had found two bodies downstairs in the kitchen, and later three more bodies had been found upstairs.
Most emphatically, that is not what the prosecution said during the trial.
Debate in Parliament 9 Feb 2005. Andrew Hunter MP
Adminstrative errors my foot!
-
"Bamber's defence team has repeatedly asked for access to the following: first, the notebooks and other papers of Inspector Jones, who headed the initial investigation and firmly believed in Bamber's innocence; secondly, the findings of the coroner who inquired into Inspector Jones's sudden death, which have never been made public; thirdly, the audio recordings of all telephone and radio messages from White House farm; fourthly, the audio recordings describing the scene of the crime; fifthly, the video recordings of the scene of the crime; and sixthly, the original radio and telephone messages log and incident report.
All are still being withheld from the defence. On every occasion on which the defence team has asked for them, Essex constabulary has refused to provide them. I put it directly to the Minister—and ask her to respond—that that is surely an intolerable state of affairs."
Debate in Parliament 9 Feb 2005. Andrew Hunter MP
Key evidence is not being withheld due to admin errrors but due to the determined refusal of EP to provide the defence with the evidence it should have!
-
I thought the audio recordings had all been destroyed, is that not the case then?
-
"In December I tabled a written question asking the Home Secretary to instruct Essex constabulary to give Mr. Bamber's solicitors all audio tapes relating to events at White House farm. The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety replied:
"The disclosure of information held by Essex Constabulary is a matter for the Chief Officer of the force".
Unfortunately, the chief constable has made his position clear: he will not co-operate. One wonders why not."
Debate in Parliament 9 Feb 2005. Andrew Hunter MP
Adminstrative errors?
Nonsense! The key issue is one of deliberately withheld evidence which has precluded Jeremy Bamber from having a fair trial!
-
"At Bamber's trial, the prosecution argued that if Sheila had committed the murders and then killed herself, she would have trodden in blood as she moved about the house; but no trace of blood was found on her feet. Interestingly, no photographic evidence was produced at the trial to support that assertion. Curiously, the first bundle of photographs contained no pictures of Sheila's feet. That is not so with the second bundle of photographs, which were withheld. In that bundle were photographs, which were not available at the time of the trial, clearly showing blood on Sheila's feet."
Debate in Parliament 9 Feb 2005. Andrew Hunter MP
-
"The points that I have made—I could make many others if we had more time—give rise to grave concern about Bamber's conviction. Their common theme is the non-disclosure of evidence by the police. Nearly 16 years after the White House farm murders, the defence first saw the second bundle of photographs. After nearly 19 years, the defence team discovered that there was a full radio log, a telephone log and an incident report, of which it had previously been unaware. It is the understatement of all understatements to say that such non-disclosure is deeply worrying. Even worse, it is still going on."
Debate in Parliament 9 Feb 2005. Andrew Hunter MP
-
"Bamber's defence team has repeatedly asked for access to the following: first, the notebooks and other papers of Inspector Jones, who headed the initial investigation and firmly believed in Bamber's innocence; secondly, the findings of the coroner who inquired into Inspector Jones's sudden death, which have never been made public; thirdly, the audio recordings of all telephone and radio messages from White House farm; fourthly, the audio recordings describing the scene of the crime; fifthly, the video recordings of the scene of the crime; and sixthly, the original radio and telephone messages log and incident report.
All are still being withheld from the defence. On every occasion on which the defence team has asked for them, Essex constabulary has refused to provide them. I put it directly to the Minister—and ask her to respond—that that is surely an intolerable state of affairs."
Debate in Parliament 9 Feb 2005. Andrew Hunter MP
Key evidence is not being withheld due to admin errrors but due to the determined refusal of EP to provide the defence with the evidence it should have!
Compounding the injustice here is the reluctance of the CCRC to use the powers available to them to compel Essex Police to disclose the withheld evidence. The CCRC have powers which defeat Public Interest Immunity and other grounds used by Essex Police as the basis for non disclosure.
-
I thought the audio recordings had all been destroyed, is that not the case then?
I believe I have read that there are copies of these, Steve.
-
I thought the audio recordings had all been destroyed, is that not the case then?
Essex Police say that the audio recordings were wiped after one month, in accordance with normal practice. The defence believe that copies were retained.
-
"Bamber's defence team has repeatedly asked for access to the following: first, the notebooks and other papers of Inspector Jones, who headed the initial investigation and firmly believed in Bamber's innocence; secondly, the findings of the coroner who inquired into Inspector Jones's sudden death, which have never been made public; thirdly, the audio recordings of all telephone and radio messages from White House farm; fourthly, the audio recordings describing the scene of the crime; fifthly, the video recordings of the scene of the crime; and sixthly, the original radio and telephone messages log and incident report.
All are still being withheld from the defence. On every occasion on which the defence team has asked for them, Essex constabulary has refused to provide them. I put it directly to the Minister—and ask her to respond—that that is surely an intolerable state of affairs."
Debate in Parliament 9 Feb 2005. Andrew Hunter MP
Key evidence is not being withheld due to admin errrors but due to the determined refusal of EP to provide the defence with the evidence it should have!
Compounding the injustice here is the reluctance of the CCRC to use the powers available to them to compel Essex Police to disclose the withheld evidence. The CCRC have powers which defeat Cand other grounds used by Essex Police as the basis for non disclosure.
Excellent point, NGB. Why, oh, why, do the CCRC refuse to use these powers so that this crucial evidence - which should never have been placed under Public Interest Immunity in the first place - is properly examined as it should be?
-
I thought the audio recordings had all been destroyed, is that not the case then?
I believe I have read that there are copies of these, Steve.
Well if there are, then that would clear up the one dead male, one dead female thing. Surely it's in their best intrest to disclose them.
-
Don't the CCRC want justice ???
-
It always sticks in my mind that brilliant film in the name of the father where Emma Thompsons character by mistake manages to get to see the hidden evidence thats frees the guildford four. I know its not completely accurate but I have always thought I would like to meet Gareth Pierce the solicitor whos part Emma Thompson played. I love to read her stuff.
I bet sitting in the vaults is hidden evidence that JB could walk out of prison tomorrow
-
I thought the audio recordings had all been destroyed, is that not the case then?
I believe I have read that there are copies of these, Steve.
Well if there are, then that would clear up the one dead male, one dead female thing. Surely it's in their best intrest to disclose them.
You and I would think so. Any reasonable person would agree.
Yet, aside from a drip feed of very limited amounts of evidence released many years after the trial, such release being solely due to legal or public pressure, the majority of this crucial evidence is still withheld from defence and or CCRC.
If the CCRC continue to refuse to use their powers to access this evidence then the public will make up their own minds about what possible reason the CCRC might have for that refusal.
-
It always sticks in my mind that brilliant film in the name of the father where Emma Thompsons character by mistake manages to get to see the hidden evidence thats frees the guildford four. I know its not completely accurate but I have always thought I would like to meet Gareth Pierce the solicitor whos part Emma Thompson played. I love to read her stuff.
I bet sitting in the vaults is hidden evidence that JB could walk out of prison tomorrow
I was instructed in several cases in the Crown Court by Gareth Pierce. She was always totally dedicated to her clients and was very thorough in her case preparation. She is a surprisingly modest person who is very easy to get on with.
I suspect you are right about hidden evidence. If the defence team could have access to all the withheld material I am sure they would find evidence which would be extremely useful in an appeal. The fact that Essex Police have consistently resisted disclosure speaks volumes in my view.
-
information and evidence Which is/has been withheld under pii, which claims to be Withheld in the public interest, is not being withheld in the public interest at all, it is being withheld in the interests of Essex police, the DPP/CPS, and the integrity of the judicial system...
-
Wow Ngb you have met Gareth Pierce so everything I have read about her is true because I read she hates being in the limelight and she just lives in a normal semi detached house in south London. What a girl certainly someone special
-
It always sticks in my mind that brilliant film in the name of the father where Emma Thompsons character by mistake manages to get to see the hidden evidence thats frees the guildford four. I know its not completely accurate but I have always thought I would like to meet Gareth Pierce the solicitor whos part Emma Thompson played. I love to read her stuff.
I bet sitting in the vaults is hidden evidence that JB could walk out of prison tomorrow
Have you ever seen those war movies where the Germans are on the back foot and about to vacate the swankiest building in whatever European city they've been occupying? Cue frantic emptying of cabinets, all destined for the bonfire out the back. I reckon half the stuff that JB's been asking for has gone up in smoke already.
-
Curiousessex yesterday we had another head case on here spouting they knew the secret that Jeremys application to the ccrc granting his leave to appeal had already been turned down
I always like to give these people the benefit of doubt so i went straight back to his campaign team although Ngb had already made it clear it was going to be another fabrication
This is what i was told yesterday
He is talking rubbish the psor is the only document handed out by the commission that was in Feb no other document been issued so the author of this email is a crank
Jeremys team thought it was an email but I had cut and pasted and sent the email but you can quite clearly understand what they are saying
If you have any further knowledge from inside the ccrc please share it with the forum we would all love to know now rather than wait weeks
Jackie
Are you politely saying I am a head case given your opening sentence?
Curiousessex yesterday we had another head case on here spouting they knew the secret that Jeremys application to the ccrc granting his leave to appeal had already been turned down
For the avoidance of doubt I was just expressing an opinion hence my use of the words 'It seems to me the CCRC are preparing the ground to say........'
If you have gone straight back to Jeremy's campaign team on the basis of my post I must apologise for appearing to have wasted your time.
My opinioned statement is neither pro nor anti Jeremy.
-
It always sticks in my mind that brilliant film in the name of the father where Emma Thompsons character by mistake manages to get to see the hidden evidence thats frees the guildford four. I know its not completely accurate but I have always thought I would like to meet Gareth Pierce the solicitor whos part Emma Thompson played. I love to read her stuff.
I bet sitting in the vaults is hidden evidence that JB could walk out of prison tomorrow
Have you ever seen those war movies where the Germans are on the back foot and about to vacate the swankiest building in whatever European city they've been occupying? Cue frantic emptying of cabinets, all destined for the bonfire out the back. I reckon half the stuff that JB's been asking for has gone up in smoke already.
I have seen many such a film Roch, however i still believe whatever there is under PII relating to this case still exists.
-
Curiousessex
I have never called you a head case I think you know exactly who I am talking about people who come on this forum and say they have worked on the farm and think the relatives are wonderful
How stupid do people think we are
The relatives aren't wonderful or they would be pushing for everything to be released under PII to put this case to bed once and for all
I can actually even imagine Anne eaton sitting at the computer tapping in the post who did they call thereselves someone from tollesbury
If the relatives have nothing to hide they could have put this to bed years ago
-
Curiousessex
I have never called you a head case I think you know exactly who I am talking about people who come on this forum and say they have worked on the farm and think the relatives are wonderful
How stupid do people think we are
The relatives aren't wonderful or they would be pushing for everything to be released under PII to put this case to bed once and for all
I can actually even imagine Anne eaton sitting at the computer tapping in the post who did they call thereselves someone from tollesbury
If the relatives have nothing to hide they could have put this to bed years ago
Jackie
Thank you for the head case clarification.
Unfortunately I will have to plead innocence with regard to knowing to whom you are referring. Maybe I have misread / misunderstood your post.
On the point of the relatives and PII I would doubt even if the relatives have made written requests for details to be released under PII this would have little or no bearing on securing the release of such information.
-
CCRC has gone from being 'open ended' re submissions.. to 9th December deadline?