Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Caroline on September 25, 2014, 12:36:PM
-
Last night I emailed Simon McKay for 'further' clarification on the logs (even though there is more than enough to prove they were available in court) and he told me he couldn't help because he longer represents Jeremy.
-
I wonder why that is ? Unless it's to do with funds.
-
I wonder why that is ? Unless it's to do with funds.
Funds Lookout? Jeremy hasn't got any money, he'd be on legal aid.
-
This was bandied about a few weeks ago,but proved to have been unfounded,so we'll see.
-
This was bandied about a few weeks ago,but proved to have been unfounded,so we'll see.
Are you saying that I'm lying Lookout? HE told him HIMSELF I'm not bandying anything and I resent the implication that I'm making it up.
-
I can confirm that this information is correct.
-
I can confirm that this information is correct.
Thank you NGB
-
I haven't seen anything about this on any of Jeremy's sites. I assume we'll be told in time.
-
I haven't seen anything about this on any of Jeremy's sites. I assume we'll be told in time.
It was hinted at some time ago (if you read between the lines) but there was no formal announcement. I think there is unlikely to be an announcement in the near future, although I could be wrong about that. Information flow is very tightly controlled.
-
Are you saying that I'm lying Lookout? HE told him HIMSELF I'm not bandying anything and I resent the implication that I'm making it up.
Caroline,don't be so quick to accuse.I didn't even mention " lying ". I took it as hearsay as it happened before,that's all.
Stop being so neurotic !
-
It was hinted at some time ago (if you read between the lines) but there was no formal announcement. I think there is unlikely to be an announcement in the near future, although I could be wrong about that. Information flow is very tightly controlled.
Yes,I do remember that,ngb.
-
Funds Lookout? Jeremy hasn't got any money, he'd be on legal aid.
He can't get legal aid. He depends upon the generosity of his supporters. I must admit that I do not and have never given him any money personally.
-
I can confirm that this information is correct.
Do we know why ngb? For I remember him saying that he was in for the long haul?
-
Probably the longwindedness of the CCRC. It would put anyone off. Do they by any chance have access to documents that are being held under PII,or EP ?
-
Well it appears that if Bamber is innocent then only a miracle will get him out of gaol now. This is one thing that keeps me doubting his guilt. If he was guilty then I believe he would have confessed by now so that at least he would get a chance to see freedom in his lifetime? Only a guess mind you, for I cannot vouch for the state of his mind.
I am of the opinion that if there is a million to one chance that a convicted person is after all innocent then I will search even to the point of exhaustion to find evidence that may show them to be. But Simon McKay bowing out is indeed gloom and doom for Bamber.
-
Do we know why ngb? For I remember him saying that he was in for the long haul?
Probably due to the CT interfering again?
-
Hello tyler or maybe Simon Mackay has left Jeremy for reasons unknown to any of us and I guess we will never know :(
-
Hello tyler or maybe Simon Mackay has left Jeremy for reasons unknown to any of us and I guess we will never know :(
I expect Jeremy will talk to Ngb but I expect that the conversation would be confidential
Jeremy will deal with this like every other knock back in his life
-
Someone appears desperate that Jeremy shouldn't be freed ??
-
IN MY OPINION, give the huge scale of evidence in this case, if jb is indeed innocent then he needs a far bigger legal team than that provided by Simon McKay. People seem to have the perception that he is some kind of miracle worker who will simply find the evidence to secure jb's freedom.
Let's get in the real world, as it doesn't work anywhere near like that. It's all very well saying jb's previous legal teams have failed him but i don't think people appreciate the sheer scale of the case.
The campaign team or this website aren't going to free jb from jail. IF he is innocent, then REAL, TANGIBLE evidence is required. I still haven't seen any.
It's all well and good debating how the investigation was flawed, trial unfair, evidence weak.........that now means nothing. For jb to overturn his conviction he needs NEW evidence which points to his innocence. It is not enough for him to show that they cannot prove him guilty.
If people on this website genuinely want to try to 'make a difference' if they believe jb is innocent then consider what they can do. eg. jb obviously needs funds, but fundraising for a convicted child killer is not easy. Publicity, high profile support etc. This has all been discussed before but v v v little appears to have been done.
As things stand i still haven's seen anything tangible that point me to jb's innocence despite repeated claims. IF these claims are true It's time for people who have made such claims to stand up and be counted otherwise jb will remain where he is until his death.
-
Do we know why ngb? For I remember him saying that he was in for the long haul?
I understand it was amicable, and by mutual agreement. Somon McKay did not pull away from the case. He was prepared to continue acting as he regards the case as a MoJ. There were apparently different views about the best way forward.
-
Hello tyler or maybe Simon Mackay has left Jeremy for reasons unknown to any of us and I guess we will never know :(
Yes of course Susan,Maybe it was SM's choice. He may have felt that he couldn't do any more for Jeremy without any new evidence?
-
Probably the longwindedness of the CCRC. It would put anyone off. Do they by any chance have access to documents that are being held under PII,or EP ?
The CCRC have powers to call for all case documents, including material held under PII. Unfortunately experience suggests that they are generally unwilling to use their powers to the full.
-
tyler quite right always a reason for happenings. Hope you are wellX
-
It's pretty difficult to rustle up " new " evidence if the man was nowhere near the place. There'd be neither evidence nor alibi if he was in bed. It's what's known as really hard luck and there's little else anyone can do about it. Jeremy was an easy target and that's that.
It's like any of us if we were in that same situation. Is ANYONE going to believe a word we say ? No,of course not.
-
I understand it was amicable, and by mutual agreement. Somon McKay did not pull away from the case. He was prepared to continue acting as he regards the case as a MoJ. There were apparently different views about the best way forward.
Thank you Ngb that's really good to know
-
IN MY OPINION, give the huge scale of evidence in this case, if jb is indeed innocent then he needs a far bigger legal team than that provided by Simon McKay. People seem to have the perception that he is some kind of miracle worker who will simply find the evidence to secure jb's freedom.
Let's get in the real world, as it doesn't work anywhere near like that. It's all very well saying jb's previous legal teams have failed him but i don't think people appreciate the sheer scale of the case.
The campaign team or this website aren't going to free jb from jail. IF he is innocent, then REAL, TANGIBLE evidence is required. I still haven't seen any.
It's all well and good debating how the investigation was flawed, trial unfair, evidence weak.........that now means nothing. For jb to overturn his conviction he needs NEW evidence which points to his innocence. It is not enough for him to show that they cannot prove him guilty.
If people on this website genuinely want to try to 'make a difference' if they believe jb is innocent then consider what they can do. eg. jb obviously needs funds, but fundraising for a convicted child killer is not easy. Publicity, high profile support etc. This has all been discussed before but v v v little appears to have been done.
As things stand i still haven's seen anything tangible that point me to jb's innocence despite repeated claims. IF these claims are true It's time for people who have made such claims to stand up and be counted otherwise jb will remain where he is until his death.
I guess we will have to aim a bit higher Petey
It's good to know Simon still believed Jeremy to be a moj
-
The CCRC have powers to call for all case documents, including material held under PII. Unfortunately experience suggests that they are generally unwilling to use their powers to the full.
Aha,I see,ngb. Selective,maybe ? I thought they were there to help come what may. I was wrong.
-
I guess we will have to aim a bit higher Petey
It's good to know Simon still believed Jeremy to be a moj
I'd be more worried that jb has chosen to part ways with him as he wanted to go in a different direction.
There is an insinuation that jb thinks he knows better than his legal team which is both worrying and foolhardy.
-
Aha,I see,ngb. Selective,maybe ? I thought they were there to help come what may. I was wrong.
Yes. It can be an uphill struggle dealing with the CCRC. They have a vast caseload and are underfunded. They are supposed to carry out investigations themselves and sometimes they do, but more often they expect the defence to do the work and present them with new evidence. This is very hard to do because there is no legal aid available.
-
How does this affect your involvement NGB?
-
I'd be more worried that jb has chosen to part ways with him as he wanted to go in a different direction.
There is an insinuation that jb thinks he knows better than his legal team which is both worrying and foolhardy.
Ultimately he has to make his own decisions on important matters such as this. He has changed his legal representation several times.
-
How does this affect your involvement NGB?
I have not had any active involvement since the last submissions and the Judicial Review. I remain in contact with Jeremy.
-
Yes. It can be an uphill struggle dealing with the CCRC. They have a vast caseload and are underfunded. They are supposed to carry out investigations themselves and sometimes they do, but more often they expect the defence to do the work and present them with new evidence. This is very hard to do because there is no legal aid available.
Goodness me,what a mess.
-
Ultimately he has to make his own decisions on important matters such as this. He has changed his legal representation several times.
True, but it would appear foolhardy to repeatedly do so.
It obviously becomes much more difficult for a new legal team as in effect they are starting from scratch, with different impetus and focus.
I appreciate in certain cases a fresh look can be what is needed. Equally I don't know how far the line Simon McKay was with regard future submissions but it seems like a lot of his work will now be wasted due to what I consider a poor decision from jb.
Obviously i'm aware work and information can be passed on to the new team but its not the same.
-
True, but it would appear foolhardy to repeatedly do so.
It obviously becomes much more difficult for a new legal team as in effect they are starting from scratch, with different impetus and focus.
I appreciate in certain cases a fresh look can be what is needed. Equally I don't know how far the line Simon McKay was with regard future submissions but it seems like a lot of his work will now be wasted due to what I consider a poor decision from jb.
Obviously i'm aware work and information can be passed on to the new team but its not the same.
You may be right Petey. I suppose time will tell.
-
I understand it was amicable, and by mutual agreement. Somon McKay did not pull away from the case. He was prepared to continue acting as he regards the case as a MoJ. There were apparently different views about the best way forward.
Neil, are you able to shed any light on the divergent approaches that were being discussed? Did you have a personal opinion on the best options for achieving progress?
-
I would have said that it was rather difficult for S.McKay to have continued as he has so many fingers in the pie at the present moment,and with this case,you really have to devote all your time specifically to this one issue.
-
Neil, are you able to shed any light on the divergent approaches that were being discussed? Did you have a personal opinion on the best options for achieving progress?
I have a fair idea of the issues but do not have any detail. I can say that Jeremy expresses optimism and seems confident that real progress is being made. I would not like to express an opinion without having more information.
-
I would have said that it was rather difficult for S.McKay to have continued as he has so many fingers in the pie at the present moment,and with this case,you really have to devote all your time specifically to this one issue.
It is fair to say that McKay Law is a very small practice and does not have the resources available to a larger firm.
-
Always thought that Simon was a strange fit for the Bamber case - not too suprised he's gone. Bamber has a habit of changing his legal team often.
Thanks for the info, Caroline.
-
Maybe his good work is finished and now handed over to the " bigger chaps " to finish the job. ;D ;D ;D
-
Maybe his good work is finished and now handed over to the " bigger chaps " to finish the job. ;D ;D ;D
Did you read NGb's post?
-
Maybe his good work is finished and now handed over to the " bigger chaps " to finish the job. ;D ;D ;D
No Lookout maybe he has hit a brickwall? SIMON'S PROMISE TO YOU
Simon is entrusted with some of the most serious cases nationally and within the United Kingdom. His preparedness to be available to his clients when needed and to exhaust every line of inquiry has established him as dependable and reliable. He is approachable and effective at understanding quickly the most complex and difficult cases. He makes life simple for the client by working hard and is proven to get results.
-
Hello tyler or maybe Simon Mackay has left Jeremy for reasons unknown to any of us and I guess we will never know :(
Wow! that's a profound answer. Why didn't I think of that. ::)
-
Someone appears desperate that Jeremy shouldn't be freed ??
Or perhaps the case was simply not worth his time any more?
-
You may be right Petey. I suppose time will tell.
Well Bamber unfortunately has just that.
-
Goodness me,what a mess.
Apparently it always has been a mess lookout?
-
Wow! that's a profound answer. Why didn't I think of that. ::)
Why are you being rude to Susan in this topic and April in another? Considering your past actions I think you're lucky to be back Grahame - you recieved a warmer welcome back than you were likely entitled to considering your past attacks on members and the forum.
But you seem hell bent on abusing people, being a smart ass and acting like a dick.
-
Grahame you need to cut the attitude out on me. I have never been abusive to you on or off the forum and I noticed you changed towards me when I changed my stance I have ever right to my opinion and should be allowed to express it providing I remain respectful which I have always done. Next time you find it necessary to send me a pm do not block me and allow me the same right as you to reply.
-
Why are you being rude to Susan in this topic and April in another? Considering your past actions I think you're lucky to be back Grahame - you recieved a warmer welcome back than you were likely entitled to considering your past attacks on members and the forum.
But you seem hell bent on abusing people, being a smart ass and acting like a dick.
Pot----kettle---black,Mat.
-
Pot----kettle---black,Mat.
Thanks for that, Lookout. I guess if it is a case of pot/kettle you agree with my original sentiments.
-
Why are you being rude to Susan in this topic and April in another? Considering your past actions I think you're lucky to be back Grahame - you recieved a warmer welcome back than you were likely entitled to considering your past attacks on members and the forum.
But you seem hell bent on abusing people, being a smart ass and acting like a dick.
I suggest you mind your own business. I remember your post about wanting me to be a moderator. Then your disgusting post about me being the worst person on the forum in which april agreed.
I am here not because of luck but because of the persistent asking of various members and ngb. To be sure it was not my intention in coming back You're nothing but a self righteous hypocrite. So mind your own business. Oh I forgot to put you on ignore.
ps: You are the one who makes aliances with abusers. You know nothing about me or the people who I am disgusted with.
-
Pot----kettle---black,Mat.
I was referring to the " hell bent on abusing people ",of which you're a dab hand.
-
I suggest you mind your own business. I remember your post about wanting me to be a moderator. Then your disgusting post about me being the worst person on the forum in which april agreed.
I am here not because of luck but because of the persistent asking of various members and ngb. To be sure it was not my intention in coming back You're nothing but a self righteous hypocrite. So mind your own business. Oh I forgot to put you on ignore.
Yes, I did say you should be modded. I'm allowed to be wrong - thankfully the request recieved no support. I don't April agreeing with any sort of post like the one you state, I'm not sure that is true.. It may be none of my business but it's boring to read attacks all the time on people who have supported you - hopefully the mods will pick up on it or NGB will have a word and control it before it's allowed to continue.
-
I was referring to the " hell bent on abusing people ",of which you're a dab hand.
Agreed as I said before a self righteous hypocrite. I defend the truly abused, not those who just claim to be abused. I am aware of certain facts that he is not. I hate those who continue to defend their disgusting actions when they know they are in the wrong.
-
Grahame you need to cut the attitude out on me. I have never been abusive to you on or off the forum and I noticed you changed towards me when I changed my stance I have ever right to my opinion and should be allowed to express it providing I remain respectful which I have always done. Next time you find it necessary to send me a pm do not block me and allow me the same right as you to reply.
No susan that is not right please do not pride yourself in thinking that you are so righteous that you put blame onto me just because you changed your stance. You know full well why I am mad at you and I hope that you have sorted this out. I will say no more. But what you did was reprehensible in my opinion.
-
Yes, I did say you should be modded. I'm allowed to be wrong - thankfully the request recieved no support. I don't April agreeing with any sort of post like the one you state, I'm not sure that is true.. It may be none of my business but it's boring to read attacks all the time on people who have supported you - hopefully the mods will pick up on it or NGB will have a word and control it before it's allowed to continue.
You started it mat. So finish it now you don't know the full facts.
-
Yes, I did say you should be modded. I'm allowed to be wrong - thankfully the request recieved no support. I don't April agreeing with any sort of post like the one you state, I'm not sure that is true.. It may be none of my business but it's boring to read attacks all the time on people who have supported you - hopefully the mods will pick up on it or NGB will have a word and control it before it's allowed to continue.
Mat, thank-you. I, too, have no recall of saying what Grahame has accused me of....................ALTHOUGH it's feasible that if he'd been uttering some of those things he has earned a reputation for, I MAY have called him rude. I feel sure we've ALL been called much worse but if my use of that word gives him cause to erase me from his life, so be it.
-
I'd guess that Grahame's original comment was intended more as wry humour than as pure sarcasm.
-
I'd guess that Grahame's original comment was intended more as wry humour than as pure sarcasm.
Don't worry reader the REAL abusers only need the slightest excuse to cause trouble. I think the ones on the forum with common sense will see that mat was the true instigator of this little skirmish.
-
Don't worry reader the REAL abusers only need the slightest excuse to cause trouble. I think the ones on the forum with common sense will see that mat was the true instigator of this little skirmish.
I think your posts to Susan/April/Caroline are clear for all to see. There is no skirmish between you and I.
-
Grahame all I can say to you firstly it is none of your business and you should never have been involved. Secondly two sides to every story have you heard both NO and you are not likely to as I have no desire to involve you in my personal issues. As far as I am concerned the subject is closed. as you are making matters worse :'(
-
Reader I guess if you are referring to his post to me that was not meant to be funny. You will have since read what he thinks of me and he knows NOTHING and find him quite insulting.
-
At what point does the act of claiming people to be causing abuse, become abusive in its own right.
I for one think we have passed it. :-\
-
His post beginning "Wow! that's a profound answer." was clearly not intended as a personal insult. I haven't yet had time to read the subsequent posts in detail.
-
Don't worry reader the REAL abusers only need the slightest excuse to cause trouble. I think the ones on the forum with common sense will see that mat was the true instigator of this little skirmish.
Of course all the genuine posters on this forum are not stupid
-
IN MY OPINION, give the huge scale of evidence in this case, if jb is indeed innocent then he needs a far bigger legal team than that provided by Simon McKay. People seem to have the perception that he is some kind of miracle worker who will simply find the evidence to secure jb's freedom.
Let's get in the real world, as it doesn't work anywhere near like that. It's all very well saying jb's previous legal teams have failed him but i don't think people appreciate the sheer scale of the case.
The campaign team or this website aren't going to free jb from jail. IF he is innocent, then REAL, TANGIBLE evidence is required. I still haven't seen any.
It's all well and good debating how the investigation was flawed, trial unfair, evidence weak.........that now means nothing. For jb to overturn his conviction he needs NEW evidence which points to his innocence. It is not enough for him to show that they cannot prove him guilty.
If people on this website genuinely want to try to 'make a difference' if they believe jb is innocent then consider what they can do. eg. jb obviously needs funds, but fundraising for a convicted child killer is not easy. Publicity, high profile support etc. This has all been discussed before but v v v little appears to have been done.
As things stand i still haven's seen anything tangible that point me to jb's innocence despite repeated claims. IF these claims are true It's time for people who have made such claims to stand up and be counted otherwise jb will remain where he is until his death.
A bigger legal team can work faster but a small practice can stioll be up to the task.
I am a realist. Realistically there is no hope at all of finding any documents that will help clear Jeremy. The defense basically hopes and prays police framed Jeremy and that they set out right away to do it. What documents could realistically exist that would demonstrate such? There are none.
Most documented MOJs feature changed testimony and other verbal admissions of wrongdoing. It doesn't matter whether you are a big firm or little firm the only way that would happen is if people decide to come clean. I doubt anyone would drastically change their story and to be honest don't really see anything that police could admit to having done that would clear Jeremy if they did come clean.
Police initially blamed Sheila, thus would not have hid bloody clothing she wore over her gown as she killed everyone or other such evidence to conceal her actions. They would have had such evidence processed to support their view of her guilt.
The biggest problem facing any defense is that all the evidence points to Jeremy's guilt and there is realistically no way to refute such evidence using existing testimony or other documents.
Only a drastic change in testimony that amounts to a bombshell admission could do so but a bombshell admission might not even be credible if it makes no sense and no evidence to support it were to materialize.
The allegation from Jeremy supporters is that police did things right away to frae Jeremy and yet the evidence indicates that for several weeks the police believed Sheila did it. Only after Julie came forward with her tale and after the lab fully processed the evidence finding that Sheila was shot while sitting up then moved flat after her death, shot with the moderator attached and then the killer put it away and had no GSR or elevated lead levels so clearly could not have killed herself did police change their theory of the crime.
Jeremy's supporters are being extremely unrealistic alleging police immediately set out to conceal evidence and frame Jeremy which of course is not true. Take for instance Reader who keeps insisting PC West decided to conceal from Jeremy that his father had called in case police wanted to later blame Jeremy so this way Nevill's call could be completely hidden and it would not be able to be used by Jeremy as part of his defense. These kind of claims where police set out to distort the very second Jeremy called are absurd.
Other than a bombshell change in testimony only a major scientific breakthrough could result in the conviction being overturned. For instance proof that blood was planted in the moderator. If the blood was planted though it was done so expertly there is no way to prove it was planted through science it would require a credible bombshell admission by those who did it explaining when and how.
Aside from trying to bother witnesses to see if they will change their story- and they can refuse all contact from the appellate lawyers if they choose they don't have to correspond if they don't want to- there is little a defense team can do.
The only other thing that can be done is to have experts try to speak to Vanezis more about the damage he saw from the fatal wound that indicated to him it was a contact wound and try to figure out a way to establish it was not a contact wound.
But such could and should have been done at trial. You lose all arguments you fail to make at trial so it would be hard to raise such on appeal unless new science were involved in questoning his assessment and it would have to be pretty strong evidence that it definitely was not a contact wound.
The implication of such would be to argue such proves the blood in the moderator was June and Nevill's. That means for all of Jeremy's claims to be true and Sheila to be the killer she had to go to the closet to get the moderator and attach it before attacking anyone. Then after killing everyone she removed it and put it away in the closet. Why would she do that? It conflicts with her being in the throes of a crazy rage. She also had to have decided that though 30 bullets remained in the kitchen supply she had been using, to go to the closet to grab 5-7 bullets more. That makes no sense. Then there is still the question of how she could fial to get blood spatter from the victims on her clothing, especially spatter from Nevill as he was beaten, how she woudl not get her prints in the blood on the weapon and how her clothing could fail to get even a single particle of GSR or hwo she coudl move her body flat after death.
So saying it was June and Nevill's blood is still not going to convince a court that Jeremy is innocent.
For Jeremy to be innocent requires a conspiracy on a grand scale AND a great number of extremely unlikely things to have occurred. The chances of such are basically nil and the chance of finding a way to prove it even less. The size of the firm isn't the problem the task is.
-
You're no realist,you're just a pessimistic blighter. I'm a realist because I fully expected your usual tripe.
-
skippy could make your posts a tiny bit shorter pleas.
-
I am a realist. Realistically there is no hope at all of finding any documents that will help clear Jeremy. The defense basically hopes and prays police framed Jeremy and that they set out right away to do it. What documents could realistically exist that would demonstrate such? There are none.
Realistically you have no idea what's been witheld or what has been 'destroyed' or not
Realistically you don't know if Jeremy is innocent or guilty
Your just a poster on a forum with no inside information or no legal background
-
the 30 year rule will kick in soon though.
-
I am a realist. Realistically there is no hope at all of finding any documents that will help clear Jeremy. The defense basically hopes and prays police framed Jeremy and that they set out right away to do it. What documents could realistically exist that would demonstrate such? There are none.
Realistically you have no idea what's been witheld or what has been 'destroyed' or not
Realistically you don't know if Jeremy is innocent or guilty
Your just a poster on a forum with no inside information or no legal background
I have a legal background but it only gives me general expertise in the field not inside information in this case.
I have the same information everyone else does here.
You ignore all tha tinformaiton and know absolutely nothing at all about the facts of this case You are too uninterested in facts to actually read the archive section and become informed.
I give an informed, logical view of things while you do the complete opposite.
-
the 30 year rule will kick in soon though.
What does that mean in England?
-
I wonder if Simon Mckay has taken it as far as he could and I also wonder whether the amount of different legal teams that JB has had has jeopardised his appeal because it's been passed round so much and has so much information in it.
-
What does that mean in England?
it means the documents will have to be released unless another pii notice is issued.
-
it means the documents will have to be released unless another pii notice is issued.
That´s what I thought, thanks Nug.
I have a feeling that will not happen though - I mean the case documents being released; but if they were, how would it happen "practically"?
-
I wonder if Simon Mckay has taken it as far as he could and I also wonder whether the amount of different legal teams that JB has had has jeopardised his appeal because it's been passed round so much and has so much information in it.
Nice to see you back, Jo.
-
Ngb is Gareth Peirce still practising?
-
That´s what I thought, thanks Nug.
I have a feeling that will not happen though - I mean the case documents being released; but if they were, how would it happen "practically"?
well jeremys legal team will have to request them.
-
it means the documents will have to be released unless another pii notice is issued.
I think that is incorrect with regards to this case.
-
I think that is incorrect with regards to this case.
Why? Because it is a life tariff?
-
Why? Because it is a life tariff?
Because the case is, in a sense, still current.
The files are not about to be issued to the national archive any time soon.
Has this come from the Campaign Team by any chance? ???
-
Because the case is, in a sense, still current.
The files are not about to be issued to the national archive any time soon.
Has this come from the Campaign Team by any chance? ???
I'm not convinced it even applies to criminal cases.
-
I am a realist. Realistically there is no hope at all of finding any documents that will help clear Jeremy. The defense basically hopes and prays police framed Jeremy and that they set out right away to do it. What documents could realistically exist that would demonstrate such? There are none.
Realistically you have no idea what's been witheld or what has been 'destroyed' or not
Realistically you don't know if Jeremy is innocent or guilty
Your just a poster on a forum with no inside information or no legal background
I agree with you Jackie. But scipio has got a legal background. He was in the US Marine Corps Judges Advocate Division.
-
I wonder if Simon Mckay has taken it as far as he could and I also wonder whether the amount of different legal teams that JB has had has jeopardised his appeal because it's been passed round so much and has so much information in it.
Unfortunately Bamber hasn't a very good record in keeping legal teams.
-
Jeremy wants things doing yesterday,I'm afraid. I know it's no picnic being locked up all this time but he has to realise that there is a ton of red-tape to get through before you reach the real issue of him being there in the first place.
As the law stands,and although Paul Chadwick ( schizophrenic murderer ) lost his case appealing for the estate that his murdered ex-partner left,it was still allowed to be heard in court ?? How come ?
-
I wonder if Simon Mckay has taken it as far as he could and I also wonder whether the amount of different legal teams that JB has had has jeopardised his appeal because it's been passed round so much and has so much information in it.
I do believe the appeals have gone as far as they can go there is little else than can be done.
Juggling defense counsel loses some time as a new counsel gets up to speed but otherwise is not a major deal.
I have a feeling that the juggling is that Jeremy wants them to allege things that can't ethically be alleged based on the evidence available and he is shopping for peopel who are willing to do so.
At this point they already searched through everything that can be of value. There is no realistic chance of finding evidence that can establish his innocence and it is readily apparent he is guilty and that they had simply been looking for ways to argue for a new trial based on a "technicality".
-
There could never be a retrial with evidence destroyed and many witnesses now deceased. And Jeremy has made it clear that he does not wish to be released on any 'technicality'. He would only want to be released as an innocent man.
-
But it isn't readily apparent that he's guilty. If a known schizophrenic murderer who killed his partner and their little boy in a frenzied knife attack can get away with being allowed to appeal for the estate which was left after her death,then why can't someone hear Jeremy out once and for all.?
After all,the Bamber murders was supposed to have been the worst crime of the century and it must have been expected to have received a unanimous verdict,so why wasn't it ?
What DOES happen when and if a person IS telling the truth and ends up in this situation ?
-
So now we have 3 unpublished books and Jeremy is" solicitorless". Mmmmm.
-
well hes not solicitousness hes sacked his solicter so i asume hes got a new one i mind.
-
Not so easy to come by for nothing,nugs.
-
But it isn't readily apparent that he's guilty. If a known schizophrenic murderer who killed his partner and their little boy in a frenzied knife attack can get away with being allowed to appeal for the estate which was left after her death,then why can't someone hear Jeremy out once and for all.?
After all,the Bamber murders was supposed to have been the worst crime of the century and it must have been expected to have received a unanimous verdict,so why wasn't it ?
What DOES happen when and if a person IS telling the truth and ends up in this situation ?
The evidence is ploud and clear. There is considerable evidence that Sheila can't have killed herself, can't have killed anyone else, that Nevill can't have called Jeremy and that Jeremy lied about leaving the gun and bullets out before leaving the house. Evidence proves he staged the bullets after he murdered eveyrone.
You just don't want ot face the eivdence so you simply say it doesn't exist. You can't refute it you just lie and say there is none. That just makes you living in a sad state of denail it doesn't sugges tJeremy is innocent.
-
well hes not solicitousness hes sacked his solicter so i asume hes got a new one i mind.
I don't imagine there's a queue of solicitors' firms knocking on his door to take over.
-
The evidence is ploud and clear. There is considerable evidence that Sheila can't have killed herself, can't have killed anyone else, that Nevill can't have called Jeremy and that Jeremy lied about leaving the gun and bullets out before leaving the house. Evidence proves he staged the bullets after he murdered eveyrone.
You just don't want ot face the eivdence so you simply say it doesn't exist. You can't refute it you just lie and say there is none. That just makes you living in a sad state of denail it doesn't sugges tJeremy is innocent.
So where is ALL this evidence that puts Jeremy in the picture then ?
Either June or Neville shot Sheila.
I'm far from being a saddo or an idiot ! I'm telling you that the murders were carried out by the three adults inside the farmhouse after Jeremy had left.!!
-
nugnug maybe the Campaign Team think they can manage I read ages and ages ago on a site I was on Jeremy Bamber Is Innocent that a guy on the CT said he was in the middle of preparing the submissions :'(
-
I don't imagine there's a queue of solicitors' firms knocking on his door to take over.
he might have one allready that might be why he sacked simon mckay.
-
So where is ALL this evidence that puts Jeremy in the picture then ?
Either June or Neville shot Sheila.
I'm far from being a saddo or an idiot ! I'm telling you that the murders were carried out by the three adults inside the farmhouse after Jeremy had left.!!
The evidence has already been posted numerous times, you keep saying it is too long to read or that you simply refuse to believe it. That just means you are living in denial and you just proved it lound and clear with you claim that June or Nevill killed Sheila.
Even if one of the parents killed Sheila why would they kill their spouse and they surely would have to have committed suicide then. Neivll coudl nto have shot himself in the head 4 times to commit suicide. June can't have shot herself multiple times to comit suicide.
They especially can't have shot and killed themselves with a rifle that was no where near their bodies and then after dying have place it near Sheila.
What you are demonstrating is that you refuse to face Jeremy committed the murders and will accept anyone except him committed the murders no matter how silly and contrary to the evidence such claim is.
You are not operating on the basis of facts and evidence simply bias. You choose to live in denial.
-
The evidence has already been posted numerous times, you keep saying it is too long to read or that you simply refuse to believe it. That just means you are living in denial and you just proved it lound and clear with you claim that June or Nevill killed Sheila.
Even if one of the parents killed Sheila why would they kill their spouse and they surely would have to have committed suicide then. Neivll coudl nto have shot himself in the head 4 times to commit suicide. June can't have shot herself multiple times to comit suicide.
They especially can't have shot and killed themselves with a rifle that was no where near their bodies and then after dying have place it near Sheila.
What you are demonstrating is that you refuse to face Jeremy committed the murders and will accept anyone except him committed the murders no matter how silly and contrary to the evidence such claim is.
You are not operating on the basis of facts and evidence simply bias. You choose to live in denial.
Have you forgotten about the children?
-
nugnug maybe the Campaign Team think they can manage I read ages and ages ago on a site I was on Jeremy Bamber Is Innocent that a guy on the CT said he was in the middle of preparing the submissions :'(
well actually need a solicter to make submissions though its best if it is done by solicter.
-
Have you forgotten about the children?
No I assume she was asserting Sheila killed the kids before the parents killed her. Of course she attacks June enough that she could have suggested June killed them too. I think it is sufficient to point out the problems with either parent committing suicide without needing to complicate matters with who killed the boys.
-
nugnug you are right it is better if a Solicitor makes the submissions but the Campaign Team were preparing them I read that from the guy doing them maybe this is why the split occurred.
-
Ngb is Gareth Peirce still practising?
You could telephone Birnberg Peirce & Partners and ask about her! Their number is 020 7911 0166.
-
personally i thought mckay on to much work for one man to handell anyway.
-
Unfortunately Bamber hasn't a very good record in keeping legal teams.
One of the worst things I have seen done is Ewen Smiths behaviour
Unbelievable
-
I don't imagine there's a queue of solicitors' firms knocking on his door to take over.
Why not?
It didn't take very long to find Simon
-
You could telephone Birnberg Peirce & Partners and ask about her! Their number is 020 7911 0166.
I think I will but I will ask Ngb first he knows her
-
Why not?
It didn't take very long to find Simon
I think you found Simon. Good work Jackie. I think you have done more than the Campaign team have in finding influential people.
-
Could we have expected anything else from the red forum regarding this news ?
No,not at all.It must have made their day !
May I also remind them that it was EP who first blamed June,or as they put it " the grandmother ". Please refer to Claire Powells' book !!
Also,HG,I DIDN'T get you banned from here,and I DON'T do knitting. That's for anoraks and oldies !!
Finally,I'm nowhere near as " odious " as some of you characters !
-
What a pity that nobody was in the courtroom when Lindy Chamberlain and her husband were charged with the murder of their baby daughter. I was in that courtroom with the MOB ! The most heartbreaking scenes I'll ever experience where people were shouting,booing,shaking their fists at this couple who were completely innocent of the crime they had been accused of.
They had no witnesses or alibis' but the world didn't believe their word that wild dingo's had taken baby Azaria. I must have been one of only a handful who'd believed that they were telling the truth. The media were out in force,as was the stench of bias which is ALWAYS present when the media are there,which immediately puts paid to any fairness in a trial and affects the outcome greatly.
If I'd been the judge at the trial,I'd have chased everyone out of the courtroom quick fast. Half of them there I'm sure were just sent there to jeer. Thinking back at some of the scenes,it was like going back to ancient times---------cave-men days.
When I was in Oz in 1998,there was yet another dingo attack on a child. I don't ever remember hearing a peep out of anyone !!
-
Ngb is Gareth Peirce still practising?
I believe she is. I think she moved to Birnbergs.
-
he might have one allready that might be why he sacked simon mckay.
He does have a new legal team.
-
I would imagine that there'd have been a few " learned " solicitors who have studied this case,and I feel pretty sure that Jeremy wouldn't have been short of offers in which to assist. All is not lost.
-
What a pity that nobody was in the courtroom when Lindy Chamberlain and her husband were charged with the murder of their baby daughter. I was in that courtroom with the MOB ! The most heartbreaking scenes I'll ever experience where people were shouting,booing,shaking their fists at this couple who were completely innocent of the crime they had been accused of.
They had no witnesses or alibis' but the world didn't believe their word that wild dingo's had taken baby Azaria. I must have been one of only a handful who'd believed that they were telling the truth. The media were out in force,as was the stench of bias which is ALWAYS present when the media are there,which immediately puts paid to any fairness in a trial and affects the outcome greatly.
If I'd been the judge at the trial,I'd have chased everyone out of the courtroom quick fast. Half of them there I'm sure were just sent there to jeer. Thinking back at some of the scenes,it was like going back to ancient times---------cave-men days.
When I was in Oz in 1998,there was yet another dingo attack on a child. I don't ever remember hearing a peep out of anyone !!
Reiterating on the dingo case,there were several books written,one which wasted no time in being published about " Evil " something or other,damning the parents to Hell.Much the same as the publications about Jeremy. Lindy no doubt would have sued the breeches off the authors,a possibility why the books regarding Jeremy won't come into fruition. Films and videos' too.
There'd be no need to recoup any of his inheritance,unless he wanted to persue it as a matter of ptinciple.
-
Reiterating on the dingo case,there were several books written,one which wasted no time in being published about " Evil " something or other,damning the parents to Hell.Much the same as the publications about Jeremy. Lindy no doubt would have sued the breeches off the authors,a possibility why the books regarding Jeremy won't come into fruition. Films and videos' too.
There'd be no need to recoup any of his inheritance,unless he wanted to persue it as a matter of ptinciple.
Jeremy isn't in a position to sue anyone Lookout - being called a murderer when you are serving a sentence for murder, doesn't give him much of a leg to stand on. However, as we don't know the gist of these books it's just pure speculation and just because the books in question haven't been launched yet - doesn't mean they won't
-
Jeremy isn't in a position to sue anyone Lookout - being called a murderer when you are serving a sentence for murder, doesn't give him much of a leg to stand on. However, as we don't know the gist of these books it's just pure speculation and just because the books in question haven't been launched yet - doesn't mean they won't
Obviously the books themselves will be speculation too with information either gleaned, or imaginations running riot. However,I'm looking at the suspected guilt ones where you'd think that there'd have been a mad rush to get them published as the general public have a penchant for blood.gore and the " accused ".Sensationalism sells--------------Innocence doesn't. So I'm wondering. :-X
I'm fully aware that Jeremy can do Jack while he's where he is,though there seems to be a set of laws which allows a murderous schizophrenic to appeal against his dead ex-partners estate ?
-
Obviously the books themselves will be speculation too with information either gleaned, or imaginations running riot. However,I'm looking at the suspected guilt ones where you'd think that there'd have been a mad rush to get them published as the general public have a penchant for blood.gore and the " accused ".Sensationalism sells--------------Innocence doesn't. So I'm wondering. :-X
I'm fully aware that Jeremy can do Jack while he's where he is,though there seems to be a set of laws which allows a murderous schizophrenic to appeal against his dead ex-partners estate ?
Sensationalism does indeed sell but I suspect that there are a lot of legal issues to settle before a book can go on sale - especially when people mentioned in it are still alive. Jeremy might not be able to sue, but others just might.
-
Could we have expected anything else from the red forum regarding this news ?
No,not at all.It must have made their day !
May I also remind them that it was EP who first blamed June,or as they put it " the grandmother ". Please refer to Claire Powells' book !!
Also,HG,I DIDN'T get you banned from here,and I DON'T do knitting. That's for anoraks and oldies !!
Finally,I'm nowhere near as " odious " as some of you characters !
Do as I do lookout. Just don't go over there. Leave them in their sty to eat their swill alone. The red forum must be the most pathetic place on earth.
-
Do as I do lookout. Just don't go over there. Leave them in their sty to eat their swill alone. The red forum must be the most pathetic place on earth.
Yes,good advice,Mr G. Next time I'll carry a cross and a adorn myself with a garlic necklace. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes,good advice,Mr G. Next time I'll carry a cross and a adorn myself with a garlic necklace. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Yes the garlic would work. Then again that would repel your friends as well. ;D
-
Yes the garlic would work. Then again that would repel your friends as well. ;D
My REAL friends know me well. ;D ;D
-
I wonder how much business has been lost without legal aid. That was a bad move to have removed it.