Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on January 18, 2016, 06:26:PM
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.standard.co.uk/panewsfeeds/bamber-murder-appeal-bid-rejected-7681464.html&ved=0ahUKEwjZjqnf_bPKAhXhvHIKHUPPAGI4KBAWCDkwCQ&usg=AFQjCNEtB20eYSRPE_PtxSJyzQnIFmgvIA&sig2=KlnH97xfRYHpUKwxECopzw
It looks like 'no'. As the CCRC were quite dismissive of the 2012 application.
-
''The Criminal Cases Review Commission said that despite a lengthy and complex investigation, it "has not identified any evidence or legal argument that it considers capable of raising a real possibility that the Court of Appeal would quash the convictions".
-
I do not think so.
-
''The Commission said this was its final decision in its longest-running case''.
-
Giving its reasons in a 109-page statement, it said: "Matters of pure speculation or unsubstantiated allegation constitute neither new evidence nor new argument capable of giving rise to a real possibility that the Court of Appeal will quash a conviction. Neither can such a real possibility arise from the accumulation of multiple unsubstantiated allegations''
-
Jeremy has confirmed he will be submitting another application to the CCRC. I can imagine he will keep doing this for as long as he is in prison. In 25 years time we could be discussing his 15th CCRC submission ;D
I have also heard that there is currently a legal dispute between Jeremy and the CCRC arguing that they acted unlawfully in their in their 2012 decision. How this works I don't know :-\
-
The CCRC didn't even give JB a chance in 2012. They were a disgrace and not fit for purpose.
-
''The Commission is satisfied that nothing in the submissions made by and on behalf of Mr Bamber or any issues raised in the recent documentary can, either individually or cumulatively, give rise to a real possibility that the Court of Appeal would find any of Mr Bamber's convictions to be unsafe."
-
Jeremy has confirmed he will be submitting another application to the CCRC. I can imagine he will keep doing this for as long as he is in prison. In 25 years time we could be discussing his 15th CCRC submission ;D
I have also heard that there is currently a legal dispute between Jeremy and the CCRC arguing that they acted unlawfully in their in their 2012 decision. How this works I don't know :-\
Are you talking about the judicial review of the CCRC's decision? That has already been decided that the CCRC acted lawfully in their decision.
-
How did they know if they hadn't even looked ? There WAS new information that Simon McKay had submitted,so why didn't they take the trouble to read it all ?
-
I do not think so.
Maybe the one of the reasons that Jeremy carries on with his quest is because he's always referenced, in their reports, as MR Bamber.
-
We will have to wait and see. Simple answer and I don't see it warrants yet another thread.
-
How did they know if they hadn't even looked ? There WAS new information that Simon McKay had submitted,so why didn't they take the trouble to read it all ?
Of course they read it, it is their job to read and consider whatever is submitted. How would you know they hadn't read it? They will have given Jeremy's legal team a full report in response to the submissions. "Didn't take the troublt to read it all." Your posts really are terrible, what a poor argument.
Maybe the one of the reasons that Jeremy carries on with his quest is because he's always referenced, in their reports, as MR Bamber.
Always nice to be called Mr. ;D
-
Of course they read it, it is their job to read and consider whatever is submitted. How would you know they hadn't read it? They will have given Jeremy's legal team a full report in response to the submissions. "Didn't take the troublt to read it all." Your posts really are terrible, what a poor argument.
Always nice to be called Mr. ;D
Mr Mat :) personal post - two wrongs don't make a right you know.
-
Mr Mat :) personal post - two wrongs don't make a right you know.
Personal post about a post. Not about a poster. The post is terrible, the argument is terrible, weak and unsubstantiated.
-
I bet it wont be taken that way though :(
-
Mmmmm i think it should have been referred based on the evidence about the sound moderator and mark thomas williams expert who said it wasnt used. After all the judge said if it was on ghe gun then he was guilty but there is definately doubt in mind opinion about that.
I think i read somewhere that the ccrc had asked for further expert stuff to be done but refused to pay for it and bamber couldnt afford it. Think i read it on bambers own website,
-
I must refrain from reading your posts as the terrible,weak and unsubstantiated-ness is rubbing off on me.
-
Mmmmm i think it should have been referred based on the evidence about the sound moderator and mark thomas williams expert who said it wasnt used. After all the judge said if it was on ghe gun then he was guilty but there is definately doubt in mind opinion about that.
I think i read somewhere that the ccrc had asked for further expert stuff to be done but refused to pay for it and bamber couldnt afford it. Think i read it on bambers own website,
I think you've a very unique interpretation of the tests and what the results actually showed. :-\
I bet it wont be taken that way though :(
I'll join you on that bet. :)
-
I think you've a very unique interpretation of the tests and what the results actually showed. :-\
I'll join you on that bet. :)
not unique at all, the expert clearly says "in his expert opinion he was sure the moderator wasnt on the gun"
the expert hadnt got an ulterior motive so not sure what ur getti g at.
-
not unique at all, the expert clearly says "in his expert opinion he was sure the moderator wasnt on the gun"
the expert hadnt got an ulterior motive so not sure what ur getti g at.
I think the points you mentioned in your first posts tells you all you need to know about the tests and why they weren't enough to get Jeremy past the CCRC.
But for the record :
1. The expert wasn't Mark William Thomas (Nor Mark Thomas Williams as you called him) he is an investgative journailist that worked on the documentary.
2 Not too sure why you put "in his expert opinion he was sure the moderator wasnt on the gun" in quotes as that isn't a direct quote from anyone. :-\
-
Well it looks quite possible if you read the red forum and learn the consequences for destroying evidence
At bloody last maybe the Keystone cops cock up could come back to haunt them
By the way it is Martin Luther Kings birthday so lots of shops, etc are closed today
-
Mmmmm i think it should have been referred based on the evidence about the sound moderator and mark thomas williams expert who said it wasnt used. After all the judge said if it was on ghe gun then he was guilty but there is definately doubt in mind opinion about that.
I think i read somewhere that the ccrc had asked for further expert stuff to be done but refused to pay for it and bamber couldnt afford it. Think i read it on bambers own website,
If it was on the gun, yes, he is definitely guilty but is it wasn't - that doesn't mean he's innocent.
-
If it was on the gun, yes, he is definitely guilty but is it wasn't - that doesn't mean he's innocent.
But if it was not it would mean the evidence was introduced to put it kindly and therefore in the eyes of the law it would be an MOJ . And why was it introduced ? Because there was insufficient evidence to convict.
It actually I think have been very difficult for Bamber if the silencer evidence had not been there because of Julies evidence. I think he would have been found innocent but there would have been a doubt hanging over the case and then a subsequent fight over the estate /land and the family who no doubt still would have told the world that the jury were wrong. But it would have died down for a while.
As much as I would not want a guilty man walking free, I am afraid that I feel we have one of the best justice systems in the world , but it should stand on its merits and rely on a great police force with the highest morals . I find that in general, framing for the noble cause, leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth as far as I am concerned.
-
"His latest request for an appeal was based on a fresh analysis of three burn marks found on his father and gunshot wounds on his sister which suggested they were not killed with a weapon fitted with a "moderator", which suppresses the sound of a gunshot"
This is from a BBC article on the application.
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-17851314&ved=0ahUKEwieuO3tlrTKAhUG7g4KHXWEDnwQFggrMAM&usg=AFQjCNFoVkCq6EdaCCCM6Mr9XRsTT6dfxw&sig2=24cHQl68RbqNAqE5BQBaQg
This relates to the TV documentary just prior to the CCRC verdict. And also relates to what the OS says.
If the application was based on this it's an incredibly weak argument. Thread already created by me, on another forum several weeks ago.
-
Mmmmm i think it should have been referred based on the evidence about the sound moderator and mark thomas williams expert who said it wasnt used. After all the judge said if it was on ghe gun then he was guilty but there is definately doubt in mind opinion about that.
I think i read somewhere that the ccrc had asked for further expert stuff to be done but refused to pay for it and bamber couldnt afford it. Think i read it on bambers own website,
The expert was Dr David Fowler. His conclusions remain unchallenged however the CCRC did challenge Peter Suthurst's findings and found them to be inconclusive via the analysis of Andrew Laws.
-
But if it was not it would mean the evidence was introduced to put it kindly and therefore in the eyes of the law it would be an MOJ . And why was it introduced ? Because there was insufficient evidence to convict.
It actually I think have been very difficult for Bamber if the silencer evidence had not been there because of Julies evidence. I think he would have been found innocent but there would have been a doubt hanging over the case and then a subsequent fight over the estate /land and the family who no doubt still would have told the world that the jury were wrong. But it would have died down for a while.
As much as I would not want a guilty man walking free, I am afraid that I feel we have one of the best justice systems in the world , but it should stand on its merits and rely on a great police force with the highest morals . I find that in general, framing for the noble cause, leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth as far as I am concerned.
Guilty murders walking free leaves a nasty taste in mine. I don't agree with planting evidence , but I think he would have been convicted anyway.
-
Guilty murders walking free leaves a nasty taste in mine. I don't agree with planting evidence , but I think he would have been convicted anyway.
without the silencer? when it was 10-2 ? I am not sure about that .
-
without the silencer? when it was 10-2 ? I am not sure about that .
Yep, even without the silencer. I don't believe the silencer evidence but I do believe he's guilty and I'm not the only one.
-
without the silencer? when it was 10-2 ? I am not sure about that .
without the silencer all you have is the word the Julie Mugford.
The Jury asked the Judge to go over the blood in silencer evidence again then. Not long after they reached their verdict.
-
without the silencer all you have is the word the Julie Mugford.
The Jury asked the Judge to go over the blood in silencer evidence again then. Not long after they reached their verdict.
That's not true, you also have the lack of evidence on Sheila and if Sheila didn't do it, then Jeremy did.
-
That's not true, you also have the lack of evidence on Sheila and if Sheila didn't do it, then Jeremy did.
The Judge never instructed the Jury that they could find Jeremy guilty on lack of evidence on Shelia.
They could find him guilty on Blood in the silencer, Paint on the silencer and Julie Mugford
-
The Judge never instructed the Jury that they could find Jeremy guilty on lack of evidence on Shelia.
They could find him guilty on Blood in the silencer, Paint on the silencer and Julie Mugford
Unless you have a transcript of the full trial, you can't say what did or what didn't influence the jury - regardless of what instructions were given, the jury would have been influenced by the WHOLE trial and it was made clear from the start that the phone call Bamber insisted happened meat that the killer was eaither Sheila or Jeremy. There was more to consider than Julie and the silencer.
-
''The Criminal Cases Review Commission said that despite a lengthy and complex investigation, it "has not identified any evidence or legal argument that it considers capable of raising a real possibility that the Court of Appeal would quash the convictions".
Quite right too, there is no evidence of Bamber's innocence, just a load of bull and much wishful thinking.
-
Quite right too, there is no evidence of Bamber's innocence, just a load of bull and much wishful thinking.
that's opinion and obviously 2 jurors who sat through the whole thing had serious doubts .
-
As of a post written in 2011 regarding the CCRC. Grounds for not referring JB's case back to the court of appeal. An extract. Quote,
" Photographs showing Sheila Caffell's body had been moved were not accurate as the police officers on the scene all made statements saying that they didn't touch or move anything and this is stronger evidence than the photographs.
" Photographs showing that the gun was moved on Sheila Caffell's body were also inaccurate as the police officers on the scene all made statements saying that they didn't touch or move anything and this is stronger evidence than the photographs. Unquote. "
I can only conclude by saying that we all need to go to Spec-Savers.
Yes-------------the camera never lies.It's the people who do.
-
As of a post written in 2011 regarding the CCRC. Grounds for not referring JB's case back to the court of appeal. An extract. Quote,
" Photographs showing Sheila Caffell's body had been moved were not accurate as the police officers on the scene all made statements saying that they didn't touch or move anything and this is stronger evidence than the photographs.
" Photographs showing that the gun was moved on Sheila Caffell's body were also inaccurate as the police officers on the scene all made statements saying that they didn't touch or move anything and this is stronger evidence than the photographs. Unquote. "
I can only conclude by saying that we all need to go to Spec-Savers.
Yes-------------the camera never lies.It's the people who do.
thats terrible isnt it. He must feel like hes banging his head against a brick wall.
-
He doesn't stand a chance against the " word of the law ".Safety in numbers,eh ?
-
The body of sc was clearly moved and so was the rifle.
I think its a disgrace they took the word of the police over the photos.
you dont have to be a brain of Britain to see whats right in front of ur eyes.
I would be incensed if i was in that situation.
-
that's opinion and obviously 2 jurors who sat through the whole thing had serious doubts .
Well, we don't know if they had SEROUS doubts.
-
The body of sc was clearly moved and so was the rifle.
I think its a disgrace they took the word of the police over the photos.
you dont have to be a brain of Britain to see whats right in front of ur eyes.
I would be incensed if i was in that situation.
And just to confuse you a bit more, how do you KNOW the correct order of the pictures? You only know what you've been told. You don't have to be Brain of Britain to QUESTION what's right in front of your eyes.
-
Alligator sandwiches for tea.
-
The body of sc was clearly moved and so was the rifle.
I think its a disgrace they took the word of the police over the photos.
you dont have to be a brain of Britain to see whats right in front of ur eyes.
I would be incensed if i was in that situation.
No, you don't ;)
-
And just to confuse you a bit more, how do you KNOW the correct order of the pictures? You only know what you've been told. You don't have to be Brain of Britain to QUESTION what's right in front of your eyes.
dont really matter does it jane. The point i was making was the ccrc saying the police were to be believed etc.
-
Well, we don't know if they had SEROUS doubts.
well as two children were included in the murders I think they would, because otherwise if they had small doubts that fact, would make it more likely to convict.
-
dont really matter does it jane. The point i was making was the ccrc saying the police were to be believed etc.
Yes you are right if an appeal court always believe the police you don't stand a chance do you .
-
well as two children were included in the murders I think they would, because otherwise if they had small doubts that fact, would make it more likely to convict.
Why?
-
Why?
Murdering children is always taken more seriously, Its nothing to do with the law its the mentality people have if that makes sense :-\
-
Murdering children is always taken more seriously, Its nothing to do with the law its the mentality people have if that makes sense :-\
My point was that we can't KNOW what the jury thought - whether they had SERIOUS doubts or just weren't sure. I don't think we can assume BUT, none have come forward to talk about their doubts so, they must be pretty happy with the out-come.
-
My point was that we can't KNOW what the jury thought - whether they had SERIOUS doubts or just weren't sure. I don't think we can assume BUT, none have come forward to talk about their doubts so, they must be pretty happy with the out-come.
someone must know someone who was a juror at his trial. I find it hard to believe they would not bring it up with friends now and then :-\
I want to hear from some jurors
-
someone must know someone who was a juror at his trial. I find it hard to believe they would not bring it up with friends now and then :-\
I want to hear from some jurors
They probably have - back in 1985 and now it's just something they did way back when. Some may have even died. I don't think any will be joining the forum though and if they did - they would just be abused by certain members.
-
someone must know someone who was a juror at his trial. I find it hard to believe they would not bring it up with friends now and then :-\
I want to hear from some jurors
Don't we all.
-
When first reading up on the case, it quickly becomes apparent that not only had there been a conviction, but also several failed appeals, with the 2012 effort not even getting past the CCRC. Bamber constantly chipping away.
So it would have to be something pretty mind blowing to believe everyone got it wrong except Bamber. Claims that movement was seen inside WHF or Julie lied because she was jilted are incredibly weak.
-
someone must know someone who was a juror at his trial. I find it hard to believe they would not bring it up with friends now and then :-\
I want to hear from some jurors
If I'd been one of those jurors and read what you've just posted, I rather imagine I'd keep my head down. It can't be easy for any juror to convict, only to have the convicted claim innocence for the next 30 years. Better, I feel, for those still living, to distance themselves from it rather than risk being hounded for it.
-
Jurors after the OJ case spoke out within minutes of the verdict.
Saying they believed he was guilty but voted 'not guilty' due to the policeman who used the 'N' word. Believing he may have fabricated evidence.
DNA was up & running in 1995. But not a massive thing. People say DNA hindered the OJ case. There was a mountain of incriminating DNA evidence against OJ, but that just confused the jury as it was not explained clearly. So it is weak claiming the police disposed of items in the Bamber case in the mid 90's because of DNA.
-
Of course there'll be another attempt. After all,the majority of paperwork which is accumulated during such a case, it's the Police and CPS who " select " the documents which they believe will secure a conviction,leaving those documents which SHOULD have been shown to the defence which WOULD have helped the defendant.
It's fraudulent for the prosecution to withhold any evidence which would help in the defence,and a case where the prosecution themselves are prosecuted if this is proved to be the case.
-
There is DEFINITE doubt that Jeremy is guilty.
-
Jurors after the OJ case spoke out within minutes of the verdict.
Saying they believed he was guilty but voted 'not guilty' due to the policeman who used the 'N' word. Believing he may have fabricated evidence.
DNA was up & running in 1995. But not a massive thing. People say DNA hindered the OJ case. There was a mountain of incriminating DNA evidence against OJ, but that just confused the jury as it was not explained clearly. So it is weak claiming the police disposed of items in the Bamber case in the mid 90's because of DNA.
We don't know that they did - but why is it a weak argument?
-
If I'd been one of those jurors and read what you've just posted, I rather imagine I'd keep my head down. It can't be easy for any juror to convict, only to have the convicted claim innocence for the next 30 years. Better, I feel, for those still living, to distance themselves from it rather than risk being hounded for it.
Yes I did consider that, A juror coming forward would be opening a can of worms in their lives. :-\
-
The new vlog says all documents are with the lawyers who will be decidi g when to submit to crc.
-
The new vlog says all documents are with the lawyers who will be decidi g when to submit to crc.
or IF ;)
-
They'll be submitted alright.
-
Why wouldn't they be ? Just because a handful of people have stipulated that he's where he should be ??
-
Why wouldn't they be ? Just because a handful of people have stipulated that he's where he should be ??
Surely it's more about a handful of people insisting that he isn't.
-
Surely it's more about a handful of people insisting that he isn't.
Errrr, just a few more ;D ;D ;D ;D. Some people think that the only guilty supporters are on this forum ;D ;D ;D
-
There was a ten year gap between the 2002 appeal and 2012 CCRC application.
This could be because Bamber could not get together enough worthwhile items to submit. Or that he simply had to wait his turn behind the other applications. Probably a bit of both.
So it is optimistic that there will be another CCRC application soon. Especially as the apparent bombshell documents that would free him are being withheld by the police. Or have the police released all documents ? If so, Bamber's team need to make a public announcement saying this.
-
They'll be submitted alright.
They'll be rejected alright.
-
They'll be rejected alright.
How can you be so sure ?
-
Personally id like to see another full trial with all the evidence and i mean all with nothing not disclosed.
that way there could be no further mistakes.
-
Personally id like to see another full trial with all the evidence and i mean all with nothing not disclosed.
that way there could be no further mistakes.
Believe me, if he was found guilty at a second trial, supporters would STILL whine on about him being framed/a cover up up/a conspiracy/Masonic intervention and maybe, even Voodoo.
-
Believe me, if he was found guilty at a second trial, supporters would STILL whine on about him being framed/a cover up up/a conspiracy/Masonic intervention and maybe, even Voodoo.
And what would the guilters whine about if he was found to have been innocent all along ?
-
And what would the guilters whine about if he was found to have been innocent all along ?
He isn't.
-
He isn't.
So you keep saying-------------trying your level best to convince yourself.
-
So you keep saying-------------trying your level best to convince yourself.
As he was found to be guilty in a court of law, it's not a point we need to labour. All the convincing necessary has been done. You seem to think that if you keep repeating the mantra, it will be true.
-
As he was found to be guilty in a court of law, it's not a point we need to labour. All the convincing necessary has been done. You seem to think that if you keep repeating the mantra, it will be true.
How will you feel if this new lot of legal eagles find him innocent ?
-
What you're saying is that the new team of legals and forensics aren't as good as those were 30 years ago. That's the clear message I'm getting.
-
There was a ten year gap between the 2002 appeal and 2012 CCRC application.
This could be because Bamber could not get together enough worthwhile items to submit. Or that he simply had to wait his turn behind the other applications. Probably a bit of both.
So it is optimistic that there will be another CCRC application soon. Especially as the apparent bombshell documents that would free him are being withheld by the police. Or have the police released all documents ? If so, Bamber's team need to make a public announcement saying this.
haha so the bamber ct team must make a public announcement but ep dont have to say a word.
-
How will you feel if this new lot of legal eagles find him innocent ?
The only way he's likely to be found "innocent" is if one of these "legal eagles" finds a technical point which can be disputed. Whilst such may lead to his conviction being unsafe, it WON'T make him innocent. I wouldn't give a convicted child killer much of a chance on the outside if he's only released on a technicality.
Let me ask you a question. What do you think all these convoluted and different scenarios are about? I've run out of fingers trying to count them. They're all about trying to find a loop hole. That is NOT innocence.
-
haha so the bamber ct team must make a public announcement but ep dont have to say a word.
Correct. The CT have been claiming the police are withholding specific evidence which would certainly free him.
If the police have released this and an application to the CCRC can now be made, the CT should say 'thank you' in the media.
If there were no withheld documents, and an application is still made to the CCRC, then the CT were lying again. However this will not happen.
Without the alleged major missing documents, there will not be enough new evidence to make a new CCRC application. There has already been a long trial, two appeals and a failed CCRC application.
What will happen is there will not be another CCRC application. The CT will accuse the police of withholding evidence, while simultaneously saying a new application is around the corner.
The police are correct to keep quiet and let the CT go around in circles. They will not lower themselves to having a public spat with Bamber, 30 years on. They don't with anyone else.
-
The only way he's likely to be found "innocent" is if one of these "legal eagles" finds a technical point which can be disputed. Whilst such may lead to his conviction being unsafe, it WON'T make him innocent. I wouldn't give a convicted child killer much of a chance on the outside if he's only released on a technicality.
Let me ask you a question. What do you think all these convoluted and different scenarios are about? I've run out of fingers trying to count them. They're all about trying to find a loop hole. That is NOT innocence.
This isn't about a technicality/loophole------something that Jeremy himself doesn't even want. It's about a totally unfair trial where documents were wrongly withheld when it was first decided that it was a murder/suicide,which didn't give the jury nor anyone else the chance to question the reason why it became a murder.
-
This isn't about a technicality/loophole------something that Jeremy himself doesn't even want. It's about a totally unfair trial where documents were wrongly withheld when it was first decided that it was a murder/suicide,which didn't give the jury nor anyone else the chance to question the reason why it became a murder.
Don't you think it odd that on one hand EP are accused of holding onto documents which could prove innocence, whilst on the other hand they're being accused of DESTROYING things which could have proved innocence?
-
Correct. The CT have been claiming the police are withholding specific evidence which would certainly free him.
If the police have released this and an application to the CCRC can now be made, the CT should say 'thank you' in the media.
If there were no withheld documents, and an application is still made to the CCRC, then the CT were lying again. However this will not happen.
Without the alleged major missing documents, there will not be enough new evidence to make a new CCRC application. There has already been a long trial, two appeals and a failed CCRC application.
What will happen is there will not be another CCRC application. The CT will accuse the police of withholding evidence, while simultaneously saying a new application is around the corner.
The police are correct to keep quiet and let the CT go around in circles. They will not lower themselves to having a public spat with Bamber, 30 years on. They don't with anyone else.
It is actually possible for the COA to summon Jeremy out the blue and quash his conviction without them giving a detailed reason why :o
This has happened before in other cases thou its a rare.
-
It is actually possible for the COA to summon Jeremy out the blue and quash his conviction without them giving a detailed reason why :o
This has happened before in other cases thou its a rare.
I've thought that for a while now.The least fuss the better,eh ?
-
It is actually possible for the COA to summon Jeremy out the blue and quash his conviction without them giving a detailed reason why :o
This has happened before in other cases thou its a rare.
Rarer still, I imagine, in the case of someone convicted of murdering 3 adults -his parents and sister- and 2 small boys -his nephews.
-
It is actually possible for the COA to summon Jeremy out the blue and quash his conviction without them giving a detailed reason why :o
This has happened before in other cases thou its a rare.
Shall we take bets now? ;D ;D
-
Correct. The CT have been claiming the police are withholding specific evidence which would certainly free him.
If the police have released this and an application to the CCRC can now be made, the CT should say 'thank you' in the media.
If there were no withheld documents, and an application is still made to the CCRC, then the CT were lying again. However this will not happen.
Without the alleged major missing documents, there will not be enough new evidence to make a new CCRC application. There has already been a long trial, two appeals and a failed CCRC application.
What will happen is there will not be another CCRC application. The CT will accuse the police of withholding evidence, while simultaneously saying a new application is around the corner.
The police are correct to keep quiet and let the CT go around in circles. They will not lower themselves to having a public spat with Bamber, 30 years on. They don't with anyone else.
Correct. The CT have been claiming the police are withholding specific evidence which would certainly free him.
Well how do you know they don't hold that specific evidence. Do you know for certain?
If the police have released this and an application to the CCRC can now be made, the CT should say 'thank you' in the media.
Well if the information had been released they wouldn't be asking for it would they so why say thanks ?
If there were no withheld documents, and an application is still made to the CCRC, then the CT were lying again. However this will not happen.
Once again you don't know if there are or not any withheld evidence. Your opinion only> they may feel that the new evidence they already have is sufficient and they are hardly going to talk about it on the CT site are they.
Without the alleged major missing documents, there will not be enough new evidence to make a new CCRC application. There has already been a long trial, two appeals and a failed CCRC application.
Again you don't know if there is any new evidence that they already have. Why do you assume that you would know about it. We know how many appeals that has been made we dont need reminding
What will happen is there will not be another CCRC application. The CT will accuse the police of withholding evidence, while simultaneously saying a new application is around the corner.
They have already accused them of withholding evidence,.there is withheld evidence in every trial Adam, how do you know what is in that evidence doesn't relate to his innocence.
The police are correct to keep quiet and let the CT go around in circles. They will not lower themselves to having a public spat with Bamber, 30 years on. They don't with anyone else.
With everything that you hear on the news lately about the police then surely you must agree that there is a possibility that evidence that could have been helpful to the defence was withheld.
-
Don't you think it odd that on one hand EP are accused of holding onto documents which could prove innocence, whilst on the other hand they're being accused of DESTROYING things which could have proved innocence?
i dont find it odd jane. Ep could quite easily do both. Michael obrien, deepcut, avery and many many more , police were quite capable of skulduggery no question. Why not in this case.
-
i dont find it odd jane. Ep could quite easily do both. Michael obrien, deepcut, avery and many many more , police were quite capable of skulduggery no question. Why not in this case.
One VERY simple reason, Notsure. NONE of it was necessary. There was no need to frame anyone. They had a culprit. It was an open and shut case. It really didn't matter what the relatives said, they weren't there. All the police had to do was stick to their story. Why would it have been challenged any more, at this point, 30 years on, than the changed story is?
-
i dont find it odd jane. Ep could quite easily do both. Michael obrien, deepcut, avery and many many more , police were quite capable of skulduggery no question. Why not in this case.
Listing MOJ's, or potential MOJ's which some of them are, doesn't create a thoughtful or convincing argument.
If I was to list GUILTY men and women in prison it wouldn't make Bamber guilty, or the argument of his guilt anymore firm.
-
One VERY simple reason, Notsure. NONE of it was necessary. There was no need to frame anyone. They had a culprit. It was an open and shut case. It really didn't matter what the relatives said, they weren't there. All the police had to do was stick to their story. Why would it have been challenged any more, at this point, 30 years on, than the changed story is?
ok so does that mean it was necessary in other cases of mojs. Ive been reading about several lately. None of them were necessary .
i think it mattered very much what the relatives said, they were not going to let it drop and went higher up the police chain, the eatons and boutflours had a lot to lose. They became firm friends with police having them for dinner and drinks.
-
Listing MOJ's, or potential MOJ's which some of them are, doesn't create a thoughtful or convincing argument.
If I was to list GUILTY men and women in prison it wouldn't make Bamber guilty, or the argument of his guilt anymore firm.
WHAT you are joking arent you ! The judicial system needs looking at and this case is littered with edited statements, family members intereferring with the case when they had no right to. Police making a complete hahh of it. Bloomin heck
-
ok so does that mean it was necessary in other cases of mojs. Ive been reading about several lately. None of them were necessary .
i think it mattered very much what the relatives said, they were not going to let it drop and went higher up the police chain, the eatons and boutflours had a lot to lose. They became firm friends with police having them for dinner and drinks.
I think you'll become even more Unsure if you try to take on board every MoJ.
I'm uncertain about the source of the rest of the information you give, but I'm fairly certain it isn't documented.
-
Perhaps if you nit-picked your way through the case instead of through peoples posts you might just be enlightened !!
-
No I am not joking, we have different opinons on the case, that's all. You seem to have the view of a typical supporter which is anti police and anti relatives, it's not a new argument but it isn't one I agree with.
Listing MOJ's doesn't make Bamber any more innocent, his case stands on its own merits. I am sure if you were to look at other murders cases there would be discrepancies in logs and statements if you nit picked enough - it doesn't make Bamber special and it certainly doesn't make him innocent.
ok so why oh why are we still debating this case 30 years later if its stands on its own merits.
-
Ha,there's no answer to that one. Not from the guilters anyway.
-
No I am not joking, we have different opinons on the case, that's all. You seem to have the view of a typical supporter which is anti police and anti relatives, it's not a new argument but it isn't one I agree with.
Listing MOJ's doesn't make Bamber any more innocent, his case stands on its own merits. I am sure if you were to look at other murders cases there would be discrepancies in logs and statements if you nit picked enough - it doesn't make Bamber special and it certainly doesn't make him innocent.
why would i be anti police and relatives. I dont know any of them or the police involved. Ive made my opinion based on what is on this forum about this case. Its sort of opened up my interest in mojs, and to be honest i have found it all rather shocking thatit isnt as uncommmon as i thought.
-
ok so why oh why are we still debating this case 30 years later if its stands on its own merits.
People still talk about Lord Lucan and it's pretty clear he killed the nanny! I guess we're still debating it because he's never had the guts to admit it. ;)
-
Have edited this thread, PLEASE refrain from abuse and personal arguments.
ALSO
PLEASE respect the relatives and friends who have suffered and continue to suffer so much due to the Hillsborough disaster and try not to use it for point scoring against others. Thank you. :) JFT96 YNWA
-
WHAT you are joking arent you ! The judicial system needs looking at and this case is littered with edited statements, family members intereferring with the case when they had no right to. Police making a complete hahh of it. Bloomin heck
Edited statements - which ones?? The family relayed their concerns, wouldn't you if you thought a killer of your family might go free? of course they had a right.
-
Have edited this thread, PLEASE refrain from abuse and personal arguments.
ALSO
PLEASE respect the relatives and friends who have suffered and continue to suffer so much due to the Hillsborough disaster and try not to use it for point scoring against others. Thank you. :) JF96 YNWA
Did you have to delete all the posts that were talking about the Bamber case? Couldn't just edit the ones that were talking about Hillsborough?
Edited statements - which ones?? The family relayed their concerns, wouldn't you if you thought a killer of your family might go free? of course they had a right.
Exactly what I said, but the whole post is gone.
-
ok so why oh why are we still debating this case 30 years later if its stands on its own merits.
Already answered this but it must have been accidentally deleted with the rest.
People debate this case because there is so much more into it than innocent/guilty. There are the recent appeals for people to paw through, some find that interesting. Alot of the people that believe in Bambers guilt post here to correct the falsehoods some supporters and the OS post.
-
Did you have to delete all the posts that were talking about the Bamber case? Couldn't just edit the ones that were talking about Hillsborough?
Exactly what I said, but the whole post is gone.
The problem often is that they are all mixed up together and can't stand alone.
I apologise to anyone who has had a decent post deleted, I do my best to save what I can but many of the posts were very personal and nothing to do with the thread title.
-
Edited statements - which ones?? The family relayed their concerns, wouldn't you if you thought a killer of your family might go free? of course they had a right.
Caroline, you make an EXCELLENT point. It's worthy of greater consideration. Notsure has complained about the relatives interfering but I feel very certain that if we suspected someone, in our own families, of committing a truly heinous crime and it looked as if they were going to get away with it Scot-free, we'd move heaven and earth, leave no stone unturned, and drag out everything we could about that person in order to make the police look in that person's direction.
-
Jan used to respond to my points in red. Which I didn't mind and admired her tenacity.
However she seems to have given up with this. To be honest it's not really possible to argue about the points in my recent threads. I mean the 24 disadvantages of Julie attempting to frame Bamber, are disadvantages. There are no two ways about it.