J B Campaign Ltd - Much Ado About Nothing...

[Caroline]

Thank you Myster. I certainly didn't fall for his charm but genuinely thought this was a MOJ. It was when I started asking awkward questions in order to find out the truth that Jeremy turned on me.  I certainly wasn't prepared to give him any money.

Yes Daisy, totally agree - he doesn't like awkward questions!!

[Caroline]

It says the goal is to raise money.  What do they intend to do with this money?  So many non-profits seem to be about giving jobs to people and not much of the proceeds go anywhere other than "overhead".

As for Jeremy, any honest supporter would admit they believe he is innocent but have no evidence to prove it.  Anyone who says they can prove it is full of crap, that is why he is still in prison.  Jeremy himself claimed he is innocent but can't prove it.

They seem to be hinting that they will complete the work from the last submissions carried out in the US? I didn't think they could use stuff that had been presented before?

[Myster]

 

I agree.  I suggested this to JB ages ago.  I guess they might post under usernames but I don't see any evidence of this.

I'll email the CT and see if they are up for it.  I'll send a copy to JB too. 

As Delia Smith said to the Norwich City fans:

"Where are you"?

"Lets be having you"

"Come on"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_8JLkwzpd0

 

Seriously Trudi and the CT how's about it?  We can agree certain rules beforehand with an equal number of moderators from both camps to ensure the event is a success for all concerned. 

  Blimey!... Delia used to be such a gentle feminine soul, not the scourge of the terraces! 

Watched her TV programmes and bought the cookery books as well, but little did I know that she was a closet harridan!

[scipio_usmc]

They seem to be hinting that they will complete the work from the last submissions carried out in the US? I didn't think they could use stuff that had been presented before?

One can try to argue that it is new because the experiments are new but the true standard is new in the sense the science wasn't available before so should fail to meet the new definition but judges sometimes bend the rules.

The tests weren't done because there is no way to test and prove their claims so it would not accomplish anything anyway.  At it's core Fowler is arguing there was a muzzle imprint left from the rifle muzzle on Sheila.  Vanezis said there was no muzzle imprint and the photos show no muzzle imprint.

They could test all day long what muzzle imprints from the rifle look like and take a million photos.  That will not help since the photos show no muzzle imprint and Vanezis said there was none.

So the CCRC and courts could give them lots of leeway as they did in 2002 then say they still failed to prove anything.

Since the burns could have been made after the moderator was removed and put in the closet even if they could establish the burns were made by heating the rifle this would not refute the moderator being used to shoot everyone. So further tests in that arena would not matter either.

[Holly Goodhead]

  Blimey!... Delia used to be such a gentle feminine soul, not the scourge of the terraces! 

Watched her TV programmes and bought the cookery books as well, but little did I know that she was a closet harridan!

She's the majority shareholder at Norwich City with Ed Balls now Chairman:

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/new_norwich_city_football_club_chairman_ed_balls_joins_delia_smith_at_press_conference_1_4361010

[Holly Goodhead]

They seem to be hinting that they will complete the work from the last submissions carried out in the US? I didn't think they could use stuff that had been presented before?

How can it have been presented previously if it wasn't completed?

[Caroline]

How can it have been presented previously if it wasn't completed?

I believe they went with what they has and it was kicked out because it was inconclusive.

[Caroline]

I believe they went with what they has and it was kicked out because it was inconclusive.

I thought so, it WAS part of th last submissions on 2012 - that's why MWT made this docu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo

[Holly Goodhead]

I believe they went with what they has and it was kicked out because it was inconclusive.

This seems to happen a lot eg Peter Sutherst's conclusions were contested by Andy Laws with more testing required and then it all goes cold... &%+((£

http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/forensic-evidence

Point 5.

[Caroline]

This seems to happen a lot eg Peter Sutherst's conclusions were contested by Andy Laws with more testing required and then it all goes cold... &%+((£

http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/forensic-evidence

Point 5.

Yes, I take your point but actually in the documentary one of the experts actually says that further testing would be required. However, if this stuff has already been submitted, I believe they can't use it again? Seems a waste and what would be the point of completeing the tests if they can't be resubmitted?

[david1819]

One can try to argue that it is new because the experiments are new but the true standard is new in the sense the science wasn't available before so should fail to meet the new definition but judges sometimes bend the rules.

The tests weren't done because there is no way to test and prove their claims so it would not accomplish anything anyway.  At it's core Fowler is arguing there was a muzzle imprint left from the rifle muzzle on Sheila.  Vanezis said there was no muzzle imprint and the photos show no muzzle imprint.

They could test all day long what muzzle imprints from the rifle look like and take a million photos.  That will not help since the photos show no muzzle imprint and Vanezis said there was none.

So the CCRC and courts could give them lots of leeway as they did in 2002 then say they still failed to prove anything.

Since the burns could have been made after the moderator was removed and put in the closet even if they could establish the burns were made by heating the rifle this would not refute the moderator being used to shoot everyone. So further tests in that arena would not matter either.

Vanezis never mentioned a muzzle imprint at all. There is not a positive or negative confirmation. Just because its not mentioned does not mean it did not exist.

[Holly Goodhead]

I notice that Martin Ogram is no longer a member of the CT? 

[Myster]

I notice that Martin Ogram is no longer a member of the CT?

Neither will Bamber be treated to that promised pint of cool frothy bitter any time soon. 

[scipio_usmc]

Vanezis never mentioned a muzzle imprint at all. There is not a positive or negative confirmation. Just because its not mentioned does not mean it did not exist.

Vanezis didn't mention finding a muzzle imprint = he didn't find a muzzle imprint. 

He described the wounds and for the lower one described an entrance wound with a bullet abrasion and dirt ring.  He didn't asses sit to be a contact wound.  If he assessed there was an imprint he would have stated there was a muzzle imprint and that it was a hard contact wound because only hard contact wounds can leave muzzle imprints.

Not only do you keep foolishly raising the nonsense already dismissed by the courts you even keep posting nonsense made up by Mike so there is little chance of you facing reality even when beat over the head with it.  You are running around insisting Cook disassembled the moderator on Aug 29 and took a photo of it and that he thus contaminated it and found no blood so it must have been planted.

What is your evidence to support this wild allegation that you took from Mike?  Mike took a photocopy of a photo received by the defense from COLP it even has a COLP Bates stamp.  According to COLP this photo was taken well after the lab removed the blood from it.  Mike hand wrote on this that it was taken Aug 29 and this doctoring by him is your solitary piece of evidence around which you craft your claims. 

If you are that biased and delusional that you think Mike adding a date to something proves it was taken that date then no wonder you are not able to comprehend why the CCRC and Courts reject the nonsense claims by Fowler and Sutherst.   

[scipio_usmc]

Yes, I take your point but actually in the documentary one of the experts actually says that further testing would be required. However, if this stuff has already been submitted, I believe they can't use it again? Seems a waste and what would be the point of completeing the tests if they can't be resubmitted?

1) That is the approach a lawyer would take but you might have people who don't care about the law who hope the judiciary will stretch things.

2) While technically it should not be entertained again in the courts it could be entertained in a petition for clemency so would not necessarily be a waste if it actually resulted in evidence of Jeremy's innocence. 

Ask yourself why the lawyers who did the last submission didn't wait for more testing before submitting it.  The reason why is they knew more testing would not accomplish anything further.

These claims have no where to go.  There was a hope the courts would be fooled, it failed and that's that.

At the appellate stage of the game you have to come up with evidence that refutes a major leg of the prosecution case. Judges have to be convinced the evidence is reliable and objectively does so.  The crap they are pursuing has no chance of doing that.

They need to be looking at something that refutes drawback would occur and thus the blood had to be planted.  I see little hope of finding anything and no doubt they looked at his angle and found nothing but if you want to undermine the moderator that is what you need to look at again.  Otherwise they have to try to get Julie to recant.  These would be the only things that could get his conviction overturned.