Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: curiousessex on January 17, 2012, 08:02:PM
-
Does today's historic ECHR decision signal the beginning of the end for Jeremy's quest for release?
I pose this question because if the ECHR had found in Jeremy's favour then, in my opinion, there would have been some pressure on the CCRC to refer Jeremy's conviction to the Court of Appeal regardless..... most particularly as Jeremy has already served his original sentence. Some may say that the two cases are not related and are independent.
However if the ECHR had found in Jeremy's favour and given Jeremy has already served his sentence then Jeremy could argue that to keep him in prison having served his original sentence was an abuse of Human Rights given a ECHR ruling. As such every additional day served would have been costly in terms of any state compensation.
With the ECHR ruling as it is then the CCRC have no fear in such a regard. The CCRC can play the game whilst letting Jeremy submit as many applications as he likes. Jeremy can instruct as many different pro bono lawyers, if they are prepared to take on the work. From the CCRC perspective the law appears to become more transparent as countless applications can be made.
Some may say the law is independent from politics. Well not so, the Justice System prosecutes and upholds the laws of the land. The laws of the land are governed and determined by successive governments. As such..... take a look at the political statement which accompanies the EHRC decision.......
'Their claims were also strongly opposed by Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke, who has said the Government has been 'fighting the case vigorously and defending the principle of the whole-life tariff'.' reports the Mail.
Jeremy reacts in 'Jeremy Bamber The Official Blogger' and includes the following 'The evidence upon which the Crown have built their case is no longer credible, yet my imprisonment must continue until I'm dead, as evidence of my innocence cannot be disclosed because the Criminal Cases Review Commission have refused to even request it from Essex Police.'
One could read into this last statement that Jeremy, himself, does not even believe he has the evidence to secure the referral to the Court of Appeal for which he is currently applying with the CCRC.
-
Does today's historic ECHR decision signal the beginning of the end for Jeremy's quest for release?
I pose this question because if the ECHR had found in Jeremy's favour then, in my opinion, there would have been some pressure on the CCRC to refer Jeremy's conviction to the Court of Appeal regardless..... most particularly as Jeremy has already served his original sentence. Some may say that the two cases are not related and are independent.
However if the ECHR had found in Jeremy's favour and given Jeremy has already served his sentence then Jeremy could argue that to keep him in prison having served his original sentence was an abuse of Human Rights given a ECHR ruling. As such every additional day served would have been costly in terms of any state compensation.
With the ECHR ruling as it is then the CCRC have no fear in such a regard. The CCRC can play the game whilst letting Jeremy submit as many applications as he likes. Jeremy can instruct as many different pro bono lawyers, if they are prepared to take on the work. From the CCRC perspective the law appears to become more transparent as countless applications can be made.
Some may say the law is independent from politics. Well not so, the Justice System prosecutes and upholds the laws of the land. The laws of the land are governed and determined by successive governments. As such..... take a look at the political statement which accompanies the EHRC decision.......
'Their claims were also strongly opposed by Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke, who has said the Government has been 'fighting the case vigorously and defending the principle of the whole-life tariff'.' reports the Mail.
Jeremy reacts in 'Jeremy Bamber The Official Blogger' and includes the following 'The evidence upon which the Crown have built their case is no longer credible, yet my imprisonment must continue until I'm dead, as evidence of my innocence cannot be disclosed because the Criminal Cases Review Commission have refused to even request it from Essex Police.'
One could read into this last statement that Jeremy, himself, does not even believe he has the evidence to secure the referral to the Court of Appeal for which he is currently applying with the CCRC.
Hi Curious - this is probably one for ngb, but my take is that the two are independent of each other. ngb has referred to this in some recent posts on another thread.
JB is, I believe, not too dismayed at the ECHR ruling as his bigger and more important goal is the appeal through the CCRC.
Don't forget that JB's sentence at trial was I believe a minimum of 25 years. Even if the ECHR ruling went in JB's favour JB would still have to prove to the prison board that he was eligible for parole, and not having acknowledged his guilt (in the eyes of the law) he would IMO find it difficult to get out.
His only option now being to get the appeal. He is in quite a "catch 22" position, and yes this could go on for ages - except that the pro-bono lawyers could run out.
With regards to JB's reaction referred to in your penultimate paragraph the word on the Forum is that JB is quite upbeat about he next appeal decision, and with SMck joining JB's side there maybe something in that!
-
Jeremy reacts in 'Jeremy Bamber The Official Blogger' and includes the following 'The evidence upon which the Crown have built their case is no longer credible, yet my imprisonment must continue until I'm dead, as evidence of my innocence cannot be disclosed because the Criminal Cases Review Commission have refused to even request it from Essex Police.'
One could read into this last statement that Jeremy, himself, does not even believe he has the evidence to secure the referral to the Court of Appeal for which he is currently applying with the CCRC.
Curious, you could as you say, read that in to JB's statement. You could also read in to the same statement, an abject loss of respect regarding the integrity of the appeals process. Especially around the failure of the CCRC to discharge their powers under S17 of the Criminals Appeals Act. From what I have seen, the reasons given are embarrassing.
-
i doubt if it would have lead to his release anyway.
-
Curious, you could as you say, read that in to JB's statement. You could also read in to the same statement, an abject loss of respect regarding the integrity of the appeals process. Especially around the failure of the CCRC to discharge their powers under S17 of the Criminals Appeals Act. From what I have seen, the reasons given are embarrassing.
Personally I have absolutely no respect for the CCRC. You may even say that I have completely lost all respect for the law in Britain today. I think a lot of people have? They can see that the whole system is corrupt with corrupt men in charge of the laws of this land. These are wicked men and women as far as I am concerned and nothing will change until there is a complete purge and men with a sense of justice replace these corrupt puppets of government.
-
One could read into this last statement that Jeremy, himself, does not even believe he has the evidence to secure the referral to the Court of Appeal for which he is currently applying with the CCRC
I believe that Jeremy and his defence team believe that they have the evidence to prove that a miscarriage of justice has occured,by way of Jeremy having not received a fair trial etc...
But that will not prove his innocence.
I think that what he is trying to convey,is that the CCRC and EP are hampering his chances to clear his name?
-
seeing as the court of human and the crcc are not in any way connected i don't see how its the beginning of the end.
-
seeing as the court of human and the crcc are not in any way connected i don't see how its the beginning of the end.
Just what I was about to say, nugnug.
However, from what I can see on different news sites, comments are more to do with people not wanting ECHR -which they link with the EU - interferring with UK laws and court sentences. Some are, sarcastically, more up in arms that Abu Qatada cannot be sent back to Jordan by ruling of the same ECHR.
There are only a few comments from the many I have read that actually refer to Jeremy's wrongful conviction. I don't think, as yet, his case is even on the radar of the general public.
-
Hi Curious - this is probably one for ngb, but my take is that the two are independent of each other. ngb has referred to this in some recent posts on another thread.
JB is, I believe, not too dismayed at the ECHR ruling as his bigger and more important goal is the appeal through the CCRC.
Don't forget that JB's sentence at trial was I believe a minimum of 25 years. Even if the ECHR ruling went in JB's favour JB would still have to prove to the prison board that he was eligible for parole, and not having acknowledged his guilt (in the eyes of the law) he would IMO find it difficult to get out.
His only option now being to get the appeal. He is in quite a "catch 22" position, and yes this could go on for ages - except that the pro-bono lawyers could run out.
With regards to JB's reaction referred to in your penultimate paragraph the word on the Forum is that JB is quite upbeat about he next appeal decision, and with SMck joining JB's side there maybe something in that!
I suppose a or the main part of the ECHR decision, having been made, actually relates to whether a sovereign state should have the legal power and right to give someone a life sentence where life means life i.e. never to be released, as opposed to anything specific about Jeremy and his sentence being extended at the direction of a then Home Secretary.
Last night, I did note during the BBC regional news at the end of the 10 o'clock news, Simon McKay was interviewed and he stated tests were currently being carried out which 'may' prove Jeremy to be innocent. I got the impression these tests were being carried out in other parts of the world. Whilst Simon McKay did not say too much, I got the impression, from the way questions were answered / not answered that it could be the case that these tests were being conducted from the perspective of Sheila being the killer.
I guess we will find out in the not too distant future.
-
Curious, he did mention Sheila Caffell in a radio interview yesterday. It does sound like they have gone in that direction.
-
Curious, he did mention Sheila Caffell in a radio interview yesterday. It does sound like they have gone in that direction.
In fairness, this has been the defence position all along, save for a brief period when GDS was involved and an alternative theory was proposed. Simon McKay's involvement has not changed the defence case, but he is actively pursuing further evidence to support that case.
-
In fairness, this has been the defence position all along, save for a brief period when GDS was involved and an alternative theory was proposed. Simon McKay's involvement has not changed the defence case, but he is actively pursuing further evidence to support that case.
I believe it has been Jeremy's position all along and I think the Judge in his summing up the original trial identified this point and asked for the jury, in a nutshell, to decide whether they believed Julie's version of events or Jeremy's version of events.
-
Does today's historic ECHR decision signal the beginning of the end for Jeremy's quest for release?
I pose this question because if the ECHR had found in Jeremy's favour then, in my opinion, there would have been some pressure on the CCRC to refer Jeremy's conviction to the Court of Appeal regardless..... most particularly as Jeremy has already served his original sentence. Some may say that the two cases are not related and are independent.
However if the ECHR had found in Jeremy's favour and given Jeremy has already served his sentence then Jeremy could argue that to keep him in prison having served his original sentence was an abuse of Human Rights given a ECHR ruling. As such every additional day served would have been costly in terms of any state compensation.
With the ECHR ruling as it is then the CCRC have no fear in such a regard. The CCRC can play the game whilst letting Jeremy submit as many applications as he likes. Jeremy can instruct as many different pro bono lawyers, if they are prepared to take on the work. From the CCRC perspective the law appears to become more transparent as countless applications can be made.
Some may say the law is independent from politics. Well not so, the Justice System prosecutes and upholds the laws of the land. The laws of the land are governed and determined by successive governments. As such..... take a look at the political statement which accompanies the EHRC decision.......
'Their claims were also strongly opposed by Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke, who has said the Government has been 'fighting the case vigorously and defending the principle of the whole-life tariff'.' reports the Mail.
Jeremy reacts in 'Jeremy Bamber The Official Blogger' and includes the following 'The evidence upon which the Crown have built their case is no longer credible, yet my imprisonment must continue until I'm dead, as evidence of my innocence cannot be disclosed because the Criminal Cases Review Commission have refused to even request it from Essex Police.'
One could read into this last statement that Jeremy, himself, does not even believe he has the evidence to secure the referral to the Court of Appeal for which he is currently applying with the CCRC.
Jeremy knows that he does have the evidence, he has simply phrased this badly.
"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
Sir Winston Churchill, Speech in November 1942
British politician (1874 - 1965)
-
Brilliant Keira
For the first time in 26 years Jeremy couldn't be in safer hands
-
Brilliant Keira
For the first time in 26 years Jeremy couldn't be in safer hands
I still feel that for people who believe an MOJ has occurred and Jeremy Bamber is innocent, it's worth keeping your feet on the ground and preparing for a negative outcome to the final submissions.
-
Rochy the legal team will do all they can with what evidence they have
The campaign is still sadly missing any kind of publicity campaign and worst of all in the papers today headlines are something like monsters caged for live
Not the best headlines leading up to any decision by the CCRC
On Loose Women today they were discussing the ruling yesterday and Jeremy Bamber but they were talking in the context Jeremy was a convicted killer
I tweeted the 4 panellists the videos we have made
-
Rochy the legal team will do all they can with what evidence they have
The campaign is still sadly missing any kind of publicity campaign and worst of all in the papers today headlines are something like monsters caged for live
Not the best headlines leading up to any decision by the CCRC
On Loose Women today they were discussing the ruling yesterday and Jeremy Bamber but they were talking in the context Jeremy was a convicted killer
I tweeted the 4 panellists the videos we have made
As it currently stands and in the eyes of the law, like it or not, Jeremy has been convicted of the cold blooded killing of 5 innocent people.
-
As it currently stands and in the eyes of the law, like it or not, Jeremy has been convicted of the cold blooded killing of 5 innocent people.
There were times when cases like th Birmingham six, Guildford four and many others, who were convicted of crimes which they later were cleared of having done...
Yes, Jeremy is convicted at the momentt of these crimes, but that could change in the not too distant future...
-
Rochy the legal team will do all they can with what evidence they have
The campaign is still sadly missing any kind of publicity campaign and worst of all in the papers today headlines are something like monsters caged for live
Not the best headlines leading up to any decision by the CCRC
On Loose Women today they were discussing the ruling yesterday and Jeremy Bamber but they were talking in the context Jeremy was a convicted killer
I tweeted the 4 panellists the videos we have made
Thanks for that image jack. I'm trying to picture 'Loose Women' watching the logs video.
-
Rochy yours is a top quality vid I think they will probably all watch as they were talking about the case
It's all about getting people talking
There is no public outrage about this case yet through ignorance
Those four on the programme presenting would be gobsmacked if they knew the facts about this case
It would be interesting what they would think of Mugford
I definitely think Janet Street Porter would be interested in the case and we know what a big mouth she is. I would say she knows everyone worth knowing in the media.
I think I will follow up on her tomorrow. Do a bit of stalking on twitter
-
Rochy yours is a top quality vid I think they will probably all watch as they were talking about the case
It's all about getting people talking
There is no public outrage about this case yet through ignorance
Those four on the programme presenting would be gobsmacked if they knew the facts about this case
It would be interesting what they would think of Mugford
I definitely think Janet Street Porter would be interested in the case and we know what a big mouth she is. I would say she knows everyone worth knowing in the media.
I think I will follow up on her tomorrow. Do a bit of stalking on twitter
You're probably right about JSP. I've never been a fan of hers nor for that matter 'Loose Women'. I think JSP holds the intellectual high ground between the two.
-
Rochy yours is a top quality vid I think they will probably all watch as they were talking about the case
It's all about getting people talking
There is no public outrage about this case yet through ignorance
Those four on the programme presenting would be gobsmacked if they knew the facts about this case
It would be interesting what they would think of Mugford
I definitely think Janet Street Porter would be interested in the case and we know what a big mouth she is. I would say she knows everyone worth knowing in the media.
I think I will follow up on her tomorrow. Do a bit of stalking on twitter
Well done Jackie. There's no harm in asking, she may take an interest and read up about Jeremy's case.
-
As it currently stands and in the eyes of the law, like it or not, Jeremy has been convicted of the cold blooded killing of 5 innocent people.
If that was me who was locked up for life I'd become like Charles Bronson who is currently locked up indefinitely. And I would not share my pinapple with anyone. I'd be going bonkers by now. If I was innocent and people were calling me names like child killer I'd start a terror campaign on everyone. I don't know how he stays so controlled. These courts are comprised of just men and women who are just as fallible as anyone else. There's nothing special about them. In the old testament a person could not be convicted withour two or three witnesses. Awitness was someone who saw the actual crime committed, or someone who was completely independent and unrelated and unbiased towards to accused. None of the chief witnesses who testified against Jeremy were unbiased towards him. Our law needs changing.
-
Rochy the legal team will do all they can with what evidence they have
The campaign is still sadly missing any kind of publicity campaign and worst of all in the papers today headlines are something like monsters caged for live
Not the best headlines leading up to any decision by the CCRC
On Loose Women today they were discussing the ruling yesterday and Jeremy Bamber but they were talking in the context Jeremy was a convicted killer
I tweeted the 4 panellists the videos we have made
Well done Jackie. Keep up the good work.
-
Well done Jackie. Keep up the good work.
None of them have watched it yet. You can tell by clicking on 'analytics'.
I expect if I'd made 'French Implants Scandal' it would have taken 200 hits off them.
-
I will send them a reminder about 2 am this morning
-
Yes its a setback but not the end, it gets a bit harder thats all, we do have to look at things in the framework of the law, its not a case of if JB is guilty or not , this was decided way back its dealing with the present, i dont know Jeremys daily routine i can only think its a mixture of gym and going through his data he has recieved and as and when time permits replying to letters.i would not think he mixes much he may be like myself keeps himself to himself,nothing wrong in that, in a answer to how he keeps sane after all this time i can only think he is driven by the right to justice,which as yet has not come his way , for now at least.
-
Rochy yours is a top quality vid I think they will probably all watch as they were talking about the case
It's all about getting people talking
There is no public outrage about this case yet through ignorance
Those four on the programme presenting would be gobsmacked if they knew the facts about this case
It would be interesting what they would think of Mugford
I definitely think Janet Street Porter would be interested in the case and we know what a big mouth she is. I would say she knows everyone worth knowing in the media.
I think I will follow up on her tomorrow. Do a bit of stalking on twitter
This should win her over!!