Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on April 30, 2012, 07:37:AM
-
ìf Jeremy lodges a complaint about the way his application has been handled, the CCRC are duty bound to carry out an internal investigation, that could extend dead line for closing the case for up to two or three months...
-
It will buy some time at best mike , the in between is something else.
-
It will buy some time at best mike , the in between is something else.
Every avenue needs to be exhausted to stand any chance of suceeding at judicial review..
-
In 1997 the CCRC was set up , why were these silencer tests not done before that? jeremy could have been free by now.
-
Every avenue needs to be exhausted to stand any chance of suceeding at judicial review..
I don't think judicial review should be rushed. In an ideal world, further tests should be carried out and further articles in the Guardian are needed for the defence to put across, what they were unable to do prior to the deadline imposed by the CCRC. I believe another documentary is needed, possibly one which is wise to certain machinations / tactics by the opposition. None of this can be done until the final response from the CCRC is studied in minute detail from all angles. Quite a tall order. In my opinion the system is dead set against a referral and so the defence will have to pull off something akin to Agincourt.
-
In 1997 the CCRC was set up , why were these silencer tests not done before that? jeremy could have been free by now.
Certain aspects of evidence were agreed before trial got under way...
-
I don't think judicial review should be rushed. In an ideal world, further tests should be carried out and further articles in the Guardian are needed for the defence to put across, what they were unable to do prior to the deadline imposed by the CCRC. I believe another documentary is needed, possibly one which is wise to certain machinations / tactics by the opposition. None of this can be done until the final response from the CCRC is studied in minute detail from all angles. Quite a tall order. In my opinion the system is dead set against a referral and so the defence will have to pull off something akin to Agincourt.
Applications for JR must be "prompt" and in any case there is a 3 month deadline.
The review is of the decision making process, not the decision itself, so further tests etc are irrelevant to the JR. It could be argued at the JR that the CCRC should have given the defence a further extension to undertake those tests, if they asked and were refused.
-
Applications for JR must be "prompt" and in any case there is a 3 month deadline.
The review is of the decision making process, not the decision itself, so further tests etc are irrelevant to the JR. It could be argued at the JR that the CCRC should have given the defence a further extension to undertake those tests, if they asked and were refused.
I understand the points you are making but there is a wider game at play here than mere due process, in my opinion.
-
Applications for JR must be "prompt" and in any case there is a 3 month deadline.
The review is of the decision making process, not the decision itself, so further tests etc are irrelevant to the JR. It could be argued at the JR that the CCRC should have given the defence a further extension to undertake those tests, if they asked and were refused.
I agree with you on this. The focus now is on the application for JR of the CCRC's final decision. That application can only be based upon the submissions already made, not upon any further material which has become or may become available to the defence. If as a result of the JR application the CCRC are ordered to reconsider the application (which would be by different commissioners) and the CCRC then decide to refer the case to the Court of Appeal, further tests will then be carried out in order to strengthen the grounds of appeal.
-
Applications for JR must be "prompt" and in any case there is a 3 month deadline.
The review is of the decision making process, not the decision itself, so further tests etc are irrelevant to the JR. It could be argued at the JR that the CCRC should have given the defence a further extension to undertake those tests, if they asked and were refused.
Are you a lawyer Bridget? I see you know a few legal things.
-
I agree with you on this. The focus now is on the application for JR of the CCRC's final decision. That application can only be based upon the submissions already made, not upon any further material which has become or may become available to the defence. If as a result of the JR application the CCRC are ordered to reconsider the application (which would be by different commissioners) and the CCRC then decide to refer the case to the Court of Appeal, further tests will then be carried out in order to strengthen the grounds of appeal.
I've been meaning to ask you about that, surely the further tests are required to strengthen the submissions (i.e. to bolster the Arizona tests), otherwise the CCRC are still going to find them wanting. I don't think the CCRC are going to refer on a ground that does not yet have the weight to impress the Court of Appeal. What is the thinking behind waiting for a referral before undertaking the further tests? I appreciate the financial concerns, but that just seems back to front to me.
-
I've been meaning to ask you about that, surely the further tests are required to strengthen the submissions (i.e. to bolster the Arizona tests), otherwise the CCRC are still going to find them wanting. I don't think the CCRC are going to refer on a ground that does not yet have the weight to impress the Court of Appeal. What is the thinking behind waiting for a referral before undertaking the further tests? I appreciate the financial concerns, but that just seems back to front to me.
I understand the point you are making Bridget and to an extent I agree with it. The problem is that the CCRC have now closed the case and if further tests are carried out and additional experts' reports are submitted to the CCRC there is no guarantee that they would reopen the case. It is likely that they would treat the additional evidence submitted as a fresh application, which would have to take its turn in the queue of cases. That could take a long time. Simon McKay believes strongly that the final submissions presented to the CCRC on 31st January satisfy the statutory test for referal. Upon this basis his judgement is that the best course is to stand on those final submissions and seek to overturn the CCRC decision by way of a JR application.
-
I understand the point you are making Bridget and to an extent I agree with it. The problem is that the CCRC have now closed the case and if further tests are carried out and additional experts' reports are submitted to the CCRC there is no guarantee that they would reopen the case. It is likely that they would treat the additional evidence submitted as a fresh application, which would have to take its turn in the queue of cases. That could take a long time. Simon McKay believes strongly that the final submissions presented to the CCRC on 31st January satisfy the statutory test for referal. Upon this basis his judgement is that the best course is to stand on those final submissions and seek to overturn the CCRC decision by way of a JR application.
Well he's the one with all the information so is best placed to decide the stategy I suppose.
Was there a request for an extension to undertake the further tests, and was it declined? I seem to recall there was a request but can't remember what it was for.
-
Well he's the one with all the information so is best placed to decide the stategy I suppose.
Was there a request for an extension to undertake the further tests, and was it declined? I seem to recall there was a request but can't remember what it was for.
There was a request for further time which was initially refused at the beginning of December 2011. The CCRC then relented under pressure from Simon McKay, but they only gave an extension until 31st January and they made it clear that this was the final deadline.
-
There was a request for further time which was initially refused at the beginning of December 2011. The CCRC then relented under pressure from Simon McKay, but they only gave an extension until 31st January and they made it clear that this was the final deadline.
From my admittedly uninformed stance i think I'd be challenging that decision as well in case the statutory test ground failed. At least the CCRC would then have to accept the further reports as further, rather than new submissions. But as I said, he's best placed to decide.
-
From my admittedly uninformed stance i think I'd be challenging that decision as well in case the statutory test ground failed. At least the CCRC would then have to accept the further reports as further, rather than new submissions. But as I said, he's best placed to decide.
That is a fair point. I will raise it with Simon McKay.
-
If a former member wanted to positively contribute to this forum, I would welcome their contribution. I understand that there may have been some previous issues separate to the forum and I cannot comment on those. Though I would welcome anything behind the scenes which diffused matters.
-
Applications for JR must be "prompt" and in any case there is a 3 month deadline.
The review is of the decision making process, not the decision itself, so further tests etc are irrelevant to the JR. It could be argued at the JR that the CCRC should have given the defence a further extension to undertake those tests, if they asked and were refused.
I can't see how he can go on time tbh Bridget for they did give Jeremy over a year since the original deadline and I'm sure these tests came after that too?? so really the CCRC could have rejected this altogether and said this should be a new submission and join the queue again I'm afraid?? Though i could be wrong? I think CCRC gave Jeremy more time than with others so to cover their backs, because I'm pretty sure they had the idea that he would follow up with this action anyway. They extended the deadline many times and there has to be a final date at sometime. His only way now is new evidence, which i can't see after all this time. Only if someone comes forward like one involed in the cover up etc is his only chance to a new appeal??
-
I can't see how he can go on time tbh Bridget for they did give Jeremy over a year since the original deadline and I'm sure these tests came after that too?? so really the CCRC could have rejected this altogether and said this should be a new submission and join the queue again I'm afraid?? Though i could be wrong? I think CCRC gave Jeremy more time than with others so to cover their backs, because I'm pretty sure they had the idea that he would follow up with this action anyway. They extended the deadline many times and there has to be a final date at sometime. His only way now is new evidence, which i can't see after all this time. Only if someone comes forward like one involed in the cover up etc is his only chance to a new appeal??
I tend to agree with you Ben. I'm not saying that the challenge would be successful, just that if I was in their shoes I'd probably try.
-
I can't see how he can go on time tbh Bridget for they did give Jeremy over a year since the original deadline and I'm sure these tests came after that too?? so really the CCRC could have rejected this altogether and said this should be a new submission and join the queue again I'm afraid?? Though i could be wrong? I think CCRC gave Jeremy more time than with others so to cover their backs, because I'm pretty sure they had the idea that he would follow up with this action anyway. They extended the deadline many times and there has to be a final date at sometime. His only way now is new evidence, which i can't see after all this time. Only if someone comes forward like one involed in the cover up etc is his only chance to a new appeal??
Ben - In accordance with forum policy I would be grateful if you could introduce yourself in the Foyer section. Please tell us a little about yourself and your interest in the case.
-
There was a request for further time which was initially refused at the beginning of December 2011. The CCRC then relented under pressure from Simon McKay, but they only gave an extension until 31st January and they made it clear that this was the final deadline.
Actually, thinking about it some more, if those decisions were made in December he's probably out of time to raise it at JR.
-
Actually, thinking about it some more, if those decisions were made in December he's probably out of time to raise it at JR.
Yes, that must be correct. I think his only JR issue will be the decision itself.
-
Something really annoys me about this because when I used to write to Jeremy and speak to him on the phone he told me the CCRC were bending over backwards to help him and were giving him as much time as he needed but hey presto all of all sudden high profile Simon McKay comes on board and the couldn't pull the shutters down quick enough. If the CCRC wanted to act in a fair and open way considering the way withal evidence had come to light they should have given Simon enough time to finish the Arizona tests
It stinks
Again
But the CCRC are not known for being fair or very competent
-
Something really annoys me about this because when I used to write to Jeremy and speak to him on the phone he told me the CCRC were bending over backwards to help him and were giving him as much time as he needed but hey presto all of all sudden high profile Simon McKay comes on board and the couldn't pull the shutters down quick enough. If the CCRC wanted to act in a fair and open way considering the way withal evidence had come to light they should have given Simon enough time to finish the Arizona tests
It stinks
Again
But the CCRC are not known for being fair or very competent
Do you not feel jackie the ccrc were not altogether being honest with jeremy given what he was told ?
-
Mertol the CCRC were quite happy for Jeremy to have as much time as he wanted until Simon came on board
I am certain of it
-
Mertol the CCRC were quite happy for Jeremy to have as much time as he wanted until Simon came on board
I am certain of it
Probably right Jackie, its par for the course, sadly. I have to sleep. Goodnight.
-
Mertol the CCRC were quite happy for Jeremy to have as much time as he wanted until Simon came on board
I am certain of it
I can see that jackie, Simon clearly means busieness thats for sure you could be right, im sure jeremy would have gone into deep shock and his world finished if simon had walked away post the recent decision by the ccrc, i applaud simon for staying fast and wanting a positive outcome i hope this helps jeremy a little.
-
I can see that jackie, Simon clearly means busieness thats for sure you could be right, im sure jeremy would have gone into deep shock and his world finished if simon had walked away post the recent decision by the ccrc, i applaud simon for staying fast and wanting a positive outcome i hope this helps jeremy a little.
You are so right Mertol, the fact that Simon etc are so comitted to Jb and have pledged to stick with him must have been a massive help to hin. I remember the audio when he speaks about his christmas after losing his appeal. Totally devastated and abandoned. This time the fight goes on.
-
You are so right Mertol, the fact that Simon etc are so comitted to Jb and have pledged to stick with him must have been a massive help to hin. I remember the audio when he speaks about his christmas after losing his appeal. Totally devastated and abandoned. This time the fight goes on.
Sound words maggie if you are going to kippo land i wish you night night.
-
Night night Maggie x x x
-
The ccrc would have been very happy if Simon had walked away from jeremy, this has not happened and hopefully they are now going to be put on the hot spot, i try not to mix political overtones in to the case but if this country is up to its eyeballs in debt then i know where to start to reduce that debt close down the ccrc i say that not out of anger but something that could happen.
-
What would you replace it with Mertol, if anything?
-
Ordinary people who are not affraid to have an open mind, to view cases on the person rather than whats better for the system and should there be the slightest credible element noted then to pass on to the appeal process.
-
That's a nice idea, but you'd probably end up with a 10 year queue for the Court of Appeal.
Personally I'd like to see the CCRC better funded, and its statements of reasons made public.
-
That's a nice idea, but you'd probably end up with a 10 year queue for the Court of Appeal.
Personally I'd like to see the CCRC better funded, and its statements of reasons made public.
Likewise its not going to happen they will never make public such details,if 1 of that panel lived in a council house or drove a basic 1000cc car i might just believe them as it is they are the sort who would use cases of demi sec champers to wash off sand on their feet while chilling out in St Tropez.
-
I don't really see how anyone can criticise a decision if they don't know the reasons behind it.
-
I don't really see how anyone can criticise a decision if they don't know the reasons behind it.
In what form is that panel qualified to review such cases? , like many others in a position of power they do not have the logic to see reason, they are not judge and jury its abuse of position nothing more.
-
I know they state they are there to investigate possible MoJs, but I see them more as a filter. JBs case aside, there are any number of guilty people in prisons who would love to be out. If it became just a matter of persuading a panel of Mondeo men and women that there may be something a little iffy about their conviction the flood gates would open and the justice system would not only grind to a halt, it would go into reverse. So there has to be some system by which those who may genuinely be the victims of a MoJ can have their cases referred, but those who are just chancers are filtered out. That requires some expertise. I don't know what qualifications you expect the panel to have but they don't seem to be exactly thick. You may argue that they have not displayed that expertise, but as I said, unless you know why they came to a particular decision you cannot really criticise it.
The CCRC is very far from perfect IMO, but should be improved, not disbanded.
-
I know they state they are there to investigate possible MoJs, but I see them more as a filter. JBs case aside, there are any number of guilty people in prisons who would love to be out. If it became just a matter of persuading a panel of Mondeo men and women that there may be something a little iffy about their conviction the flood gates would open and the justice system would not only grind to a halt, it would go into reverse. So there has to be some system by which those who may genuinely be the victims of a MoJ can have their cases referred, but those who are just chancers are filtered out. That requires some expertise. I don't know what qualifications you expect the panel to have but they don't seem to be exactly thick. You may argue that they have not displayed that expertise, but as I said, unless you know why they came to a particular decision you cannot really criticise it.
The CCRC is very far from perfect IMO, but should be improved, not disbanded.
Is anything perfect ? , i thought i was dreaming when i saw the youtube inside black dolphin prison in Russia a hell on earth with no hope .
-
I know they state they are there to investigate possible MoJs, but I see them more as a filter. JBs case aside, there are any number of guilty people in prisons who would love to be out. If it became just a matter of persuading a panel of Mondeo men and women that there may be something a little iffy about their conviction the flood gates would open and the justice system would not only grind to a halt, it would go into reverse. So there has to be some system by which those who may genuinely be the victims of a MoJ can have their cases referred, but those who are just chancers are filtered out. That requires some expertise. I don't know what qualifications you expect the panel to have but they don't seem to be exactly thick. You may argue that they have not displayed that expertise, but as I said, unless you know why they came to a particular decision you cannot really criticise it. In other words a 96 per cent rejection rate.
The CCRC is very far from perfect IMO, but should be improved, not disbanded.
Good post Bridget, the ccrc have been cut from 11 to 9 people and out of 13000 cases reviewed only 4 per cent have been sent to court of appeal if I'm right? So not only the Jeremy bamber case gets rejected.
-
Good post Bridget, the ccrc have been cut from 11 to 9 people and out of 13000 cases reviewed only 4 per cent have been sent to court of appeal if I'm right? So not only the Jeremy bamber case gets rejected.
In other words a 96 per cent rejection rate.
-
I know it's pretty high, but I don't know the figures. There is also a massive difference between referrals of applicants with legal representation and those without. If as they proclaim, the CCRC are doing the investigating, there really shouldn't be a difference.
-
should of not been charged free him now his family no he is not guilty the police no his not guilty the only thing keeping him in prison is money to much to pay out and his is the sole person that gets it all bank of england would fall apart free him now
-
should of not been charged free him now his family no he is not guilty the police no his not guilty the only thing keeping him in prison is money to much to pay out and his is the sole person that gets it all bank of england would fall apart free him now
Boris - please introduce yourself in the Foyer. Give us a bit of information about yourself and your interest in the case.
-
That's a nice idea, but you'd probably end up with a 10 year queue for the Court of Appeal.
Personally I'd like to see the CCRC better funded, and its statements of reasons made public.
When I started to look into it I was surprised to find that the statement isn't made public, I would have expected it to be for transparency, otherwise people speculate in just this way. Do they have a time limit on how long they can withhold it?
-
When I started to look into it I was surprised to find that the statement isn't made public, I would have expected it to be for transparency, otherwise people speculate in just this way. Do they have a time limit on how long they can withhold it?
It is unlikely ever to be released unless the defence choose to publish it.
-
Thank you, that's what I was expecting and no doubt that is unlikely.
-
If the application for judicial review is accepted you may see snippets of it in any decision made by the High Court. I doubt we will ever see the whole thing somehow.
-
Thank you Bridget, I agree with your comment that it is hard to criticise the decision unless we know exactly how it came about. Unfortunately though it seems we will never know.
-
It is unlikely ever to be released unless the defence choose to publish it.
Nick can I ask a question. If a picture of Sheila on the bed could be produced right now, what would be the best course of action and could it subjugate the whole appeal process?
-
Nick can I ask a question. If a picture of Sheila on the bed could be produced right now, what would be the best course of action and could it subjugate the whole appeal process?
If the picture became available now the important thing would be for Simon McKay to see it and to be given as much information about the provenance and context of the photograph as possible. Depending upon the details it could have a dramatic impact upon the appeal process. If for example it showed Sheila with only one wound, with the area of the second wound visible (i.e. not obscured by the photograph angle) it would form the basis for a fresh application to the CCRC which would probably be fast tracked.
-
If the picture became available now the important thing would be for Simon McKay to see it and to be given as much information about the provenance and context of the photograph as possible. Depending upon the details it could have a dramatic impact upon the appeal process. If for example it showed Sheila with only one wound, with the area of the second wound visible (i.e. not obscured by the photograph angle) it would form the basis for a fresh application to the CCRC which would probably be fast tracked.
Would there not be a problem if the corresponding negative was retained elsewhere, i.e. not available to the defence?
-
The negative is needed too not just the photograph. And yeah, NGB the area of the neck where the second gun shot wound is would need to be clearly visible, which it isn't. There would be no way to prove she was placed onto the bed after ebing found, or was killed there, or anything. It is a non starter. But no fast tracking would happen.
-
The negative is needed too not just the photograph. And yeah, NGB the area of the neck where the second gun shot wound is would need to be clearly visible, which it isn't. There would be no way to prove she was placed onto the bed after ebing found, or was killed there, or anything. It is a non starter. But no fast tracking would happen.
Possibly or possibly not, depending upon what would be depicted in such a photograph. Why would anyone in attendance at the scene, photograph her in anything other than the position she was originally found in?
What is being claimed here? Police or somebody took photos with another camera, which could then not be used to take any further photographs, due to the nature of how she received her second gunshot wound? A different camera was needed to begin a 'new' crime scene set up?
Or is it being alleged that the same camera was used throughout but the negatives were cut from the beginning of the strip?
-
Possibly or possibly not, depending upon what would be depicted in such a photograph. Why would anyone in attendance at the scene, photograph her in anything other than the position she was originally found in?
What is being claimed here? Police or somebody took photos with another camera, which could then not be used to take any further photographs, due to the nature of how she received her second gunshot wound? A different camera was needed to begin a 'new' crime scene set up?
Or is it being alleged that the same camera was used throughout but the negatives were cut from the beginning of the strip?
Same camera. I've heard of missing negatives in this case before, always assumed that they were the pictures of the twisn, which are held under PII, and one or two pictures of Sheila on the bed which are not held under PII.
Doubt the negatives are out there still - the pictures of her on the bed were a mistake so I'd expecte the negativea and the actual pictures to be destroyed, apparently though the picture on the bed still exists.
-
Doubt the negatives are out there still - the pictures of her on the bed were a mistake so I'd expect the negative and the actual pictures to be destroyed, apparently though the picture on the bed still exists.
Mat, what kind of mistake? Surely not yet another mistake, to go along with all the other mistakes :-\
Does nobody on your side of the fence ever get suspicious about the staggering amount of so called 'mistakes'?
-
Mat, what kind of mistake? Surely not yet another mistake, to go along with all the other mistakes :-\
Does nobody on your side of the fence ever get suspicious about the staggering amount of so called 'mistakes'?
I think I posted about this before? Sheila being moved to the bed - for whatever reason. Photogrpahed and then realising a mistake.
It's a mess yes. And it is perfect cannon fodder for anyone to try and muddy the waters. EP didn't help themselves at all.
-
And it is perfect cannon fodder for anyone to try and muddy the waters. EP didn't help themselves at all.
Moving to the bed is one thing, moving from the bed and /or photographing is another.
If we take the line that you and Bridget seem to take, all of these blunders were hidden to prevent embarrassment to EP. Since 2003, there seems to have been a drip fed exposure of stuff previously not known / withheld. The defence reaction to this information is interpreted as 'muddying the waters'.
Is there no restriction upon the amount of room you allow EP to manoeuvre? You might as well say to them... "here, just do what you want... no restrictions. We'll cover you all the way".
I shudder to think what might happen if people like you were ever tasked with investigating police corruption....
-
Moving to the bed is one thing, moving from the bed and /or photographing is another.
If we take the line that you and Bridget seem to take, all of these blunders were hidden to prevent embarrassment to EP. Since 2003, there seems to have been a drip fed exposure of stuff previously not known / withheld. The defence reaction to this information is interpreted as 'muddying the waters'.
Is there no restriction upon the amount of room you allow EP to manoeuvre? You might as well say to them... "here, just do what you want... no restrictions. We'll cover you all the way".
I shudder to think what might happen if people like you were ever tasked with investigating police corruption....
Can I just say that I don't believe there is a picture of Sheila on the bed. If there is, I think it would have been taken after the photos on the floor, possibly at a time when she was being readied for removal, and therefore is evidence of nothing at all.
-
Can I just say that I don't believe there is a picture of Sheila on the bed. If there is, I think it would have been taken after the photos on the floor, possibly at a time when she was being readied for removal, and therefore is evidence of nothing at all.
In other words, you are only prepared to contemplate the existence of such a photo, if it correlates to yet another benign mistake by EP? Anything else that could potentially indicate an alternative version to what took place that morning, must mean that no such photo exists!
Also, why would you photograph her not in-situ?
-
In other words, you are only prepared to contemplate the existence of such a photo, if it correlates to a yet another benign mistake by EP? Anything else that could potentially indicate an alternative version to what place that morning, must mean that no such photo exists!
Also, why would you photograph her not in-situ?
No, what I'm saying is that if one exists I prefer the simple explanation.
I don't know why they would photo her there, but like I said, I don't believe that they did.
-
No, what I'm saying is that if one exists I prefer the simple explanation.
I don't know why they would photo her there, but like I said, I don't believe that they did.
Point taken. But actual events in 1985 are not in any way tied to your preference in 2012 are they? The incident and what took place, is completely independent of the framework we as individuals use to rationalise our lives.
-
Point taken. But actual events in 1985 are not in any way tied to your preference in 2012 are they? The incident and what took place, is completely independent of the framework we as individuals use to rationalise our lives.
Getting all philosophical on me huh? ;)
An appeal court in 2012 will also seek to apply the simple explanation first.
-
We should soon be hearing whether or not the CCRC are going to "review their decision" not to send the case back to the court of appeal? This can be done in one of two ways, as I understand it:-
(1) - because a complaint has been lodged abouit the way the CCRC have failed to apply the right test to determine whether or not the case should be referred, the CCRC could appoint a different set of commissioners to review the findings of the final statement of reasons, which has recently been rejected...
(2) - simply say, the case will not be referred, or re-looked at...
-
We should soon be hearing whether or not the CCRC are going to "review their decision" not to send the case back to the court of appeal? This can be done in one of two ways, as I understand it:-
(1) - because a complaint has been lodged abouit the way the CCRC have failed to apply the right test to determine whether or not the case should be referred, the CCRC could appoint a different set of commissioners to review the findings of the final statement of reasons, which has recently been rejected...
(2) - simply say, the case will not be referred, or re-looked at...
Yeah, this is right, Mike.
-
Yeah, this is right, Mike.
Once the matter has been decided upon, there could be another period where Bambers legal team could submit further grounds for consideration by the new set of appointed commissioners, this period could be one month, two or even three months in duration - once a decision is made (should there be a review of the decision) the CCRC will issue another final statement of reasons, setting out their decision, either way...
If this avenue does not result in the case being referred back to the court of appeal, the matter will progress to Judicial review based on the original final statement of reasons, decision and grounds, and could be followed up by another judicial review application based upon a second final statement of reason and its grounds, should the new set of Commissioners also refuse to refer the case back to the court of appeal...
Please follow link address for views of David Boutflour about recent CCRC decision not to refer case back to court of appeal:-
It ain't over yet, my old chum, not by a long shot...
(1) - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17855823
-
Getting all philosophical on me huh? ;)
An appeal court in 2012 will also seek to apply the simple explanation first.
:)
What's the most simple explanation for a person passing a lie detector test?
What's the most simple explanation for a silencer being found when White House Farm is covered in finger print dust?
What's the most simple explanation for a reviewing officer, reporting to the top brass, backing up the lead detective's assessment of the evidence?
What's the most simple explanation for the lead detective having no official connection to the key exhibit?
What's the most simple explanation for there being no record in police schedules of any kind until the 11th September, re the discovery an exhibit supposedly found on 10th Aug?
I could go on but too tired :)
-
Once the matter has been decided upon, there could be another period where Bambers legal team could submit further grounds for consideration by the new set of appointed commissioners, this period could be one month, two or even three months in duration - once a decision is made (should there be a review of the decision) the CCRC will issue another final statement of reasons, setting out their decision, either way...
If this avenue does not result in the case being referred back to the court of appeal, the matter will progress to Judicial review based on the original final statement of reasons, decision and grounds, and could be followed up by another judicial review application based upon a second final statement of reason and its grounds, should the new set of Commissioners also refuse to refer the case back to the court of appeal...
Please follow link address for views of David Boutflour about recent CCRC decision not to refer case back to court of appeal:-
It ain't over yet, my old chum, not by a long shot...
(1) - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17855823
"We've all made it very clear we think he's guilty....."
think.....
THINK.....
-
It ain't over yet, my old chum, not by a long shot...
(1) - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17855823
"We've all made it very clear we think he's guilty....."
think.....
THINK.....
-
Has his view changed then?
-
Has his view changed then?
No.
I think that Osama Bin Laden was a bad person.
The word THINK doesn't imply anything, unless you try and make it.
-
I don't try and make ANYTHING. I listened to the link and posted what was spoken.
-
:)
What's the most simple explanation for a person passing a lie detector test?
What's the most simple explanation for a silencer being found when White House Farm is covered in finger print dust?
What's the most simple explanation for a reviewing officer, reporting to the top brass, backing up the lead detective's assessment of the evidence?
What's the most simple explanation for the lead detective having no official connection to the key exhibit?
What's the most simple explanation for there being no record in police schedules of any kind until the 11th September, re the discovery an exhibit supposedly found on 10th Aug?
I could go on but too tired :)
Lie detectors are innacurate, which is why they are inadmissable in court.
They thought they were investigating 4 murders and a suicide.
They had not yet realised the significance of the silencer. Had it been tested by the time he made his report?
I don't understand the question.
I haven't looked at the scheduled in any detail so don't know that there isn't. If there isn't maybe they still hadn't realised the significance and thought the relatives were just being a pain in the backside.
-
Lie detectors are inaccurate, which is why they are inadmissible in court
My point wasn't relative to whether or not they were admissible in court. They are certainly in use across a range of services both here and the U.S. Now if the point is that he passed because he is experiencing either self deception about the murders he committed or he somehow manipulated the tester, doesn't it seem a queer stroke of fate that Dr. Vincent Egan tested him for these very same traits and drew a blank? Is he so brilliant that he can at will, switch on and off his self deception and manipulation towards the tester? Or perhaps is there is a more simple answer?
They thought they were investigating 4 murders and a suicide.
I'm not sure what you mean by this... is it in relation to the fingerprint question?
They had not yet realised the significance of the silencer. Had it been tested by the time he made his report?
Pull the other one. Look at the timing. Look what else was going on in the case at that time. Why carry out a review while a bloody silencer awaits testing?
I don't understand the question.
How come DCI taff Jones officially has no connection to the main exhibit in the case, yet it is supposed to have been discovered during his tenure?
I haven't looked at the scheduled in any detail so don't know that there isn't. If there isn't maybe they still hadn't realised the significance and thought the relatives were just being a pain in the backside.
So they falsified a discovery date in the schedules, including the phone call from DB?
-
rochford I have researched the polygraph tests and the experts say they are between 85 and 95 percent accurate and very difficult to cheat. I know they are used in relation to benefit cheats and other matters. I feel had Jeremy failed the test it would have been said "told you he was guilty" I think I am correct in saying they admissable in the American Courts. If Jeremy could cheat on every test he was given he is indeed a remarkable man.
-
My point wasn't relative to whether or not they were admissible in court. They are certainly in use across a range of services both here and the U.S. Now if the point is that he passed because he is experiencing either self deception about the murders he committed or he somehow manipulated the tester, doesn't it seem a queer stroke of fate that Dr. Vincent Egan tested him for these very same traits and drew a blank? Is he so brilliant that he can at will, switch on and off his self deception and manipulation towards the tester? Or perhaps is there is a more simple answer?
I'm not sure what you mean by this... is it in relation to the fingerprint question?
Pull the other one. Look at the timing. Look what else was going on in the case at that time. Why carry out a review while a bloody silencer awaits testing?
How come DCI taff Jones officially has no connection to the main exhibit in the case, yet it is supposed to have been discovered during his tenure?
So they falsified a discovery date in the schedules, including the phone call from DB?
He passed because lie detector tests are inaccurate. He may also have deceived himself into believing he was telling the truth. Are the further tests accepted as being accurate, and if so, to what extent?
I thought you were asking why the silencer wasn't found when they fingerprinted the house - they weren't looking for it.
I don't know why they had the review when they did. Maybe it was standard procedure, or maybe stan jones had been making waves.
What sort of connection are you expecting to see with Taff jones?
What makes you say they falsified the discovery date?
-
Since we have not heard anything to the contrary, CCRC could be reviewing the final statement of reason to see if Bambers legal team arguments might stand up at judicial review?
-
Since we have not heard anything to the contrary, CCRC could be reviewing the final statement of reason to see if Bambers legal team arguments might stand up at judicial review?
They could be Mike.
-
They could be Mike.
if yes, they could still refer case to court of appeal to save face, and let court of appeal deal with the matter...
-
if yes, they could still refer case to court of appeal to save face, and let court of appeal deal with the matter...
They could do that.
-
He passed because lie detector tests are inaccurate. He may also have deceived himself into believing he was telling the truth. Are the further tests accepted as being accurate, and if so, to what extent?
I thought you were asking why the silencer wasn't found when they fingerprinted the house - they weren't looking for it.
I don't know why they had the review when they did. Maybe it was standard procedure, or maybe stan jones had been making waves.
What sort of connection are you expecting to see with Taff jones?
What makes you say they falsified the discovery date?
Your answer regarding the tests suggests you have not read properly the post that you are replying to? It seems to completely ignore the points I made. That's an extremely bold statement you have made re him passing the test. Are you suggesting that the Lafayette Instrument software or paraphenalia incorrectly read or processed the data?
White House Farm was fingerprinted on around the 8th September, if memory serves me correctly. So how could the discovery of the silencer be linked to fingerprint dust, if the silencer was found on 10th August?
The discovery date for the silencer is in a police schedule. It relates to a telephone conversation on 11th September, curiously, three days after the premises had been fingerprinted, thereby tying in with the info received from prosecution witness to the effect that there was fingerprint dust all over the shop.
Some sort of connection, wouldn't you think? Unless of course, he was not part of the plans that were being hatched. He certainly does not seem to want to be involved in gunning for Bamber. Yet it's a bit far fetched that he would during his tenure, fail to realise the significance of a blood stained silencer. Unless of course, it was bogus?
-
Your answer regarding the tests suggests you have not read properly the post that you are replying to? It seems to completely ignore the points I made. That's an extremely bold statement you have made re him passing the test. Are you suggesting that the Lafayette Instrument software or paraphenalia incorrectly read or processed the data?
White House Farm was fingerprinted on around the 8th September, if memory serves me correctly. So how could the discovery of the silencer be linked to fingerprint dust, if the silencer was found on 10th August?
The discovery date for the silencer is in a police schedule. It relates to a telephone conversation on 11th September, curiously, three days after the premises had been fingerprinted, thereby tying in with the info received from prosecution witness to the effect that there was fingerprint dust all over the shop.
Some sort of connection, wouldn't you think? Unless of course, he was not part of the plans that were being hatched. He certainly does not seem to want to be involved in gunning for Bamber. Yet it's a bit far fetched that he would during his tenure, fail to realise the significance of a blood stained silencer. Unless of course, it was bogus?
Roch, I've been posting from a phone, have you any idea how difficult it is to sort out your enormous posts on a thing less that the size of the palm of your hand? :)
What point are you trying to make about the LD test? You seem to be saying that he can't have passed by self deceit because he passed some other test for that. I'm asking how accurate the further tests are known to be - you know, like a court would?
I didn't link the silencer to the fingerprinting, you did.
Maybe you could provide a link to the schedule with the discovery date?
What I'm asking you is why do you think there is no connection - what do you think you should be seeing? For example, the reference numbers given to each item bear he initials of the finder, not the DCI, what is it that you are not seeing that you think you should?
-
Your answer regarding the tests suggests you have not read properly the post that you are replying to? It seems to completely ignore the points I made. That's an extremely bold statement you have made re him passing the test. Are you suggesting that the Lafayette Instrument software or paraphenalia incorrectly read or processed the data?
White House Farm was fingerprinted on around the 8th September, if memory serves me correctly. So how could the discovery of the silencer be linked to fingerprint dust, if the silencer was found on 10th August?
The discovery date for the silencer is in a police schedule. It relates to a telephone conversation on 11th September, curiously, three days after the premises had been fingerprinted, thereby tying in with the info received from prosecution witness to the effect that there was fingerprint dust all over the shop.
Some sort of connection, wouldn't you think? Unless of course, he was not part of the plans that were being hatched. He certainly does not seem to want to be involved in gunning for Bamber. Yet it's a bit far fetched that he would during his tenure, fail to realise the significance of a blood stained silencer. Unless of course, it was bogus?
-
Excellent points Rochy !!!
-
For the attention of all members and visitors:-
Please note that the CCRC decision is not yet final, and as such those who are trying to force my hand because I said I would undertake certain actions once it was given, they should think long and hard about how they are wrongly interpreting what I have been saying...
It's not over yet...
-
Mike I totally agree
-
Roch, I've been posting from a phone, have you any idea how difficult it is to sort out your enormous posts on a thing less that the size of the palm of your hand? :)
What point are you trying to make about the LD test? You seem to be saying that he can't have passed by self deceit because he passed some other test for that. I'm asking how accurate the further tests are known to be - you know, like a court would?
I didn't link the silencer to the fingerprinting, you did.
Maybe you could provide a link to the schedule with the discovery date?
What I'm asking you is why do you think there is no connection - what do you think you should be seeing? For example, the reference numbers given to each item bear he initials of the finder, not the DCI, what is it that you are not seeing that you think you should?
My apologies, I hadn't factored in you were restricted in that way ;) We will continue this another time, over different threads no doubt. In the meantime, it's the 10th Aug RB diary re the fingerprinting.
Telephone message report 44 and telephone message 38 are in relation to the discovery of the silencer. I'm not sure if this doc relates to either of those...