Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Hartley on January 17, 2012, 07:53:AM
-
Well I was unaware that Jeremys legal team were actually representing fellow convicted murderers Vinter & Moore. I knew the application to the ECHR referred to all three, but I didn't realise it was because the same legal team were representing them. :o
If what I've been told is actually true of course. :-\
-
I believe the ECHR decision is due to be on the website at 10am Hartley.
-
I believe the ECHR decision is due to be on the website at 10am Hartley.
Yes it appears so, I'll stick my neck out and say that I'd be stunned if the application is successful and accepted by the British government, given the current political climate.
-
It must of course be pointed out that this representation is concerning the whole life tarrif and not as to whether they are guilty or not. The two cases are completely separate. In fact I am wondering why this has been posted at all except to try and devalue Jeremy's defence team?
-
Do such applications need to be submitted in batches? Maybe it's something to do with these cursed 'cuts' we never stop hearing about.
-
Result is - whole life tariff is legal.
-
It must of course be pointed out that this representation is concerning the whole life tarrif and not as to whether they are guilty or not. The two cases are completely separate. In fact I am wondering why this has been posted at all except to try and devalue Jeremy's defence team?
Huh, nobody is saying it has anything to do with guilt or innocence, only a fool could be confused by it. I'm just genuinely surprised that the same legal team would act for all parties, it's probably more to do with sharing the cost than anything else.
You seriously need to stop seeing some sort of conspiracy everywhere you look. ::)
-
Result is - whole life tariff is legal.
Yes, the applications have been refused:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16591164
-
Yes, the applications have been refused:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16591164
Looks as though you can crack open that bottle, Hartley. Make the most of it, as your pleasure will be short lived.
Take heart pros, for the first time Jeremy has an excellent prospect of freedom.
-
So right Keira what it's like to have friends in high places
Hartley enjoy the bubbly and just remember ignorance is bliss
-
Looks as though you can crack open that bottle, Hartley. Make the most of it, as your pleasure will be short lived.
Take heart pros, for the first time Jeremy has an excellent prospect of freedom.
What possible reason do you think I would get pleasure from any of this? ::)
Such a suggestion is bizarre, your continued personal digs and commentary really is just weird. ???
-
The decision is disappointing but, sadly, not surprising
-
Yes, the applications have been refused:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16591164
Sky News article:
http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16150470
-
From what I understand, certain interested parties were allegedly more concerned about the Whole Life Tariff issue than they were about an appeal, as they felt to some extent the appeals process was still in the pocket of the authorities.
-
What possible reason do you think I would get pleasure from any of this? ::)
Such a suggestion is bizarre, your continued personal digs and commentary really is just weird. ???
How about, because some of us feel we practically live with you, Hartley? As fellow campers here, we're forced to know you so well. Every silly shout of, "I rest my case!", every nuance of your over emoticonned being exudes barely suppressed pleasure at the prospect of Jeremy being denied justice.
How does that song go...?
Every single day
Every word you say
Every game you play
Every night you stay
We've been watching you.
-
From what I understand, certain interested parties were allegedly more concerned about the Whole Life Tariff issue than they were about an appeal, as they felt to some extent the appeals process was still in the pocket of the authorities.
Rochy why don't you share who the interested parties are with us?
Lately you appear to contact the official campaign team and they feed you whatever and then send you trotting back here like a tame poodle with cryptic messages
Please do not believe all you are told it is better you trust your own judgement instead of what people decide they want to feed you
What do you think is going to happen with JB s refferal?
-
From what I understand, certain interested parties were allegedly more concerned about the Whole Life Tariff issue than they were about an appeal, as they felt to some extent the appeals process was still in the pocket of the authorities.
Strangely enough I would say it's the other way around, more concern would be given to the application to the CCRC. Basically because even if the ECHR came back in favour of Jeremy, it would actually make little difference to his chances of being released any time soon.
-
Strangely enough I would say it's the other way around, more concern would be given to the application to the CCRC. Basically because even if the ECHR came back in favour of Jeremy, it would actually make little difference to his chances of being released any time soon.
This is a rare occasion where I agree with you Hartley. The CCRC application has always been far more important to Jeremy than the ECHR application.
-
Huh, nobody is saying it has anything to do with guilt or innocence, only a fool could be confused by it. I'm just genuinely surprised that the same legal team would act for all parties, it's probably more to do with sharing the cost than anything else.
You seriously need to stop seeing some sort of conspiracy everywhere you look. ::)
The question of course is why are you surprised?
-
How about, because some of us feel we practically live with you, Hartley? As fellow campers here, we're forced to know you so well. Every silly shout of, "I rest my case!", every nuance of your over emoticonned being exudes barely suppressed pleasure at the prospect of Jeremy being denied justice.
How does that song go...?
Every single day
Every word you say
Every game you play
Every night you stay
We've been watching you.
Well that's the thing Chocho, you just come across as being very bitter and confrontational for no particular reason. Fair enough if I was somehow gloating or expressing joy at a particular decision or revelation, but I'm clearly not, so I think that simply highlights elements of your own character.
Every silly shout of 'I rest my case' ? You are clearly on another planet, I've used that particular phrase on a single occasion over the last 12 months (on 19/10/11).
::) ::) ::)
You also appear to be somehow making a derisory comment about the amount of time I have been on the forum. Any mirrors in your house? ???
You really are a very bitter person and madder than a box of frogs on a hot tin roof. ::) ::) ::)
Emoticonned being? You are surely making words up now. ::) :P ::) :P ::) :P :-\
-
Result is - whole life tariff is legal.
Legal but unjust if the sentence has already been decided.
-
The question of course is why are you surprised?
You've lost me, surprised about what? The same legal team for all three, well because I just haven't heard it revealed before, even when I've asked the direct question of why they are all grouped together in the past.
That's all.
-
You've lost me, surprised about what? The same legal team for all three, well because I just haven't heard it revealed before, even when I've asked the direct question of why they are all grouped together in the past.
That's all.
The same legal team acted for all three because the same legal issue arose in each case. It is not uncommon for this to happen.
-
The same legal team acted for all three because the same legal issue arose in each case. It is not uncommon for this to happen.
Yes I understand that.
Read my post in this thread:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1693.msg52001.html#msg52001
And you will see that it has genuinely perplexed me for some time.
-
Now the Home Secretary no longer has the power to impose full life tarriffs, who has?
Is it just the judge that can do this?
-
Now the Home Secretary no longer has the power to impose full life tarriffs, who has?
Is it just the judge that can do this?
Yes, since 2002. Decision rests with the High Court rather than the Home Secretary.
-
Yes, since 2002. Decision rests with the High Court rather than the Home Secretary.
The document in this thread may be worth a read regarding the sentences:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,808.msg21294.html#msg21294
-
The document in this thread may be worth a read regarding the sentences:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,808.msg21294.html#msg21294
It should be noted that in the document linked to above, it indicates that different legal teams were representing each of the applicants at that time.
-
Yes I understand that.
Read my post in this thread:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1693.msg52001.html#msg52001
And you will see that it has genuinely perplexed me for some time.
Sometimes legal representation is shared for cost reasons. In other cases the court indicates that it wishes to hear several cases together as they each raise the same point of law. That happens in the UK courts as well as in the ECHR.
-
Sometimes legal representation is shared for cost reasons. In other cases the court indicates that it wishes to hear several cases together as they each raise the same point of law. That happens in the UK courts as well as in the ECHR.
See my post above, they all had different representatives at one stage.
I'm not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand it a little bit better.
-
See my post above, they all had different representatives at one stage.
I'm not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand it a little bit better.
I do not know the circumstances in this particular case but I imagine that when the ECHR said that they would consider the three cases together it was agreed between the applicants that one set of legal representatives would act for all three.
-
I do not know the circumstances in this particular case but I imagine that when the ECHR said that they would consider the three cases together it was agreed between the applicants that one set of legal representatives would act for all three.
And that happened to be Jeremys legal team (Brown Woods I think?), which then got to concentrate solely on the ECHR application when Simon Mckay took over the application to the CCRC?
Is that correct then?
-
News International know Jeremy Bamber is Innocent
-
im sure they do but then again they don't really care.
-
And that happened to be Jeremys legal team (Brown Woods I think?), which then got to concentrate solely on the ECHR application when Simon Mckay took over the application to the CCRC?
Is that correct then?
The two were not connected. Barry Woods of Cousins Tyrer had been representing Jeremy on both matters. Barry Woods was at some stage instructed by the other two ECHR applicants. Separately, and unconnected with that, Jeremy instructed Simon McKay in place of Barry Woods in relation to the CCRC application.
-
The two were not connected. Barry Woods of Cousins Tyrer had been representing Jeremy on both matters. Barry Woods was at some stage instructed by the other two ECHR applicants. Separately, and unconnected with that, Jeremy instructed Simon McKay in place of Barry Woods in relation to the CCRC application.
Okay that's making sense. So for all intents and purposes, at this time, Barry Woods is no longer acting for Jeremy, as his duties in regards to the application to the ECHR are complete.
-
Okay that's making sense. So for all intents and purposes, at this time, Barry Woods is no longer acting for Jeremy, as his duties in regards to the application to the ECHR are complete.
Yes, that is correct.
-
Rochy why don't you share who the interested parties are with us?
Lately you appear to contact the official campaign team and they feed you whatever and then send you trotting back here like a tame poodle with cryptic messages
Please do not believe all you are told it is better you trust your own judgement instead of what people decide they want to feed you
What do you think is going to happen with JB s refferal?
I have only ever contacted the campaign team on two occasions. Once approx July/August last year in relation to a video. I received no response. Once in November / December about a campaign suggestion. I received a positive response and I aim to get back to them. The allegation about interested parties being more concerned re a positive ECHR for Jeremy, rather than a referral to Court of Appeal, did not come from anyone linked to the campaign. In answer to your question Jackie, I remain cautious about a referral to Court of Appeal. Not because I believe Jeremy doesn't have very good grounds. My caution stems from what I have learned about the systems we have.. and from what I believe to be obstruction in this particular criminal case.
Strangely enough I would say it's the other way around, more concern would be given to the application to the CCRC. Basically because even if the ECHR came back in favour of Jeremy, it would actually make little difference to his chances of being released any time soon.
This is a rare occasion where I agree with you Hartley. The CCRC application has always been far more important to Jeremy than the ECHR application.
If what was relayed to me is correct, about some of those who are following events having a reverse view, then it begs the question why they would hold that position?
-
If what was relayed to me is correct, about some of those who are following events having a reverse view, then it begs the question why they would hold that position?
I have no idea, perhaps the information that has been relayed to you is inaccurate?
Of course, nobody (or me at least) knows who you are referring to, so it's difficult to really make much of a comment. :-\
-
I have no idea, perhaps the information that has been relayed to you is inaccurate?
Of course, nobody (or me at least) knows who you are referring to, so it's difficult to really make much of a comment. :-\
I can only say what Jeremy's view is, which is that the CCRC application has always been more important to him than the ECHR application. It is common sense really, in view of the potential outcome in each case.
-
It is common sense really, in view of the potential outcome in each case.
I agree.
-
I will see if I can get any further info on to the thread, direct from source, as opposed to from my own recollection. I'm not arguing with the opinions of Hartley or Neil on this. Simply relaying what was passed to me quite some time ago.
-
Rochy
I dont need to go into detail about the 'Official Campaign Team Bamber' i think everyone knows how I feel I just dont want people laughing behind your back. I have personal experiance
If you have any good ideas you need to go higher up the food chain
Anyway its good to see that Simon McKay has taken over the press interviews himself
We are at last getting somewhere!!!!!!!!!
-
Anyway its good to see that Simon McKay has taken over the press interviews himself
Is there anything on the internet in respect of these press interviews?
-
Is there anything on the internet in respect of these press interviews?
Simon tweeted that he has done interviews for BBC radio and ITV
but I havent found anything else as yet.
-
Simon tweeted that he has done interviews for BBC radio and ITV
but I haven't found anything else as yet.
Thanks Tyler, perhaps Jackie has something, or maybe another member.
I'll have a look too!
-
Good evening all
Simon was on Anglia Tonight this evening, it may be repeated tonight after the main news.
-
Good evening all
Simon was on Anglia Tonight this evening, it may be repeated tonight after the main news.
Thanks Blodwyn, I don't get Anglia Tonight in Newbury :(
I take it he was talking about JB's case?
-
Thanks Blodwyn, I don't get Anglia Tonight in Newbury :(
I take it he was talking about JB's case?
Yes he was Nick. In the meantime, this is from BBC Essex.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00mr0kn/Drivetime_on_BBC_Essex_17_01_2012/
Fast forward to 1 minute 59 seconds and listen.....
-
Thanks Blodwyn, I don't get Anglia Tonight in Newbury :(
I take it he was talking about JB's case?
Just googled it and saw the clip - thanks again.
-
I don't know if the same interview will be on other channels?
-
Yes he was Nick. In the meantime, this is from BBC Essex.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00mr0kn/Drivetime_on_BBC_Essex_17_01_2012/
Fast forward to 1 minute 59 seconds and listen.....
I was listening to this earlier on the local radio, and one of the things he said was that they're building a case against Sheila.
-
Yes he was Nick. In the meantime, this is from BBC Essex.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00mr0kn/Drivetime_on_BBC_Essex_17_01_2012/
Fast forward to 1 minute 59 seconds and listen.....
That should be 1 hour 59 minutes.... and listen
-
I was listening to this earlier on the local radio, and one of the things he said was that they're building a case against Sheila.
At what point , does it say this ?
-
That should be 1 hour 59 minutes.... and listen
Well spotted Nick!
-
At what point , does it say this ?
Jon, I think the bit you are referring to wasn't included in the actual news bulletin. I believe it was mentioned a little time earlier..... I'll try and find it.
-
Jon, I think the bit you are referring to wasn't included in the actual news bulletin. I believe it was mentioned a little time earlier..... I'll try and find it.
Try 1hour and 9 minutes of same link
-
Try 1hour and 9 minutes of same link
Thx very much Blodwyn !! I thought SM spoke very calmly and assuring !!
-
Thx very much Blodwyn !! I thought SM spoke very calmly and assuring !!
Absolutely!
-
Thx very much Blodwyn !! I thought SM spoke very calmly and assuring !!
Rather measured, I thought. He knows what he is up against.
-
What did you think of Bob Miller in the interview? He seems to be fronting the Masons' final redoubt? ;)
-
http://www.itv.com/anglia/fullprogramme/
10 minutes into the programme.....
-
What did you think of Bob Miller in the interview? He seems to be fronting the Masons' final redoubt? ;)
I always ask myself , why bother ? He knows JB is guilty , why the need to tell everyone over and over . Do you think he would do a question and answer programme with MT in front of the TV camera's ?
-
I always ask myself , why bother ? He knows JB is guilty , why the need to tell everyone over and over . Do you think he would do a question and answer programme with MT in front of the TV camera's ?
He thinks by telling everyone over and over will somehow make it true.
Either that,or he's trying to convince himself!
-
I think next time SM as an opportunity in a interview , he should bring up the CCRC not obtaining all the material , that the defence as requested , it's a prime time to draw it to people's attention with the Gilfoyle case getting so much media attention !!
-
I think next time SM as an opportunity in a interview , he should bring up the CCRC not obtaining all the material , that the defence as requested , it's a prime time to draw it to people's attention with the Gilfoyle case getting so much media attention !!
I fear that most legal people tie themselves up in so much red tape that they never seem to ask such questions as those?
-
He thinks by telling everyone over and over will somehow make it true.
Either that,or he's trying to convince himself!
...that he's the one putting his neck on the line to save the necks of all his cohorts, who, unlike him, Bews and to a lesser extent Jones, haven't got the bottle to do the dirty work.
-
I fear that most legal people tie themselves up in so much red tape that they never seem to ask such questions as those?
I was hoping SM was different !!
-
What did you think of Bob Miller in the interview? He seems to be fronting the Masons' final redoubt? ;)
whose bob miller
-
He thinks by telling everyone over and over will somehow make it true.
Either that,or he's trying to convince himself!
Such a common mistake, as most people see through this ploy ;)
-
whose bob miller
Police Inspector Miller.