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

[Holly Goodhead]

So detached and impersonal when mentioning his own sister as "the person responsible", as though Sheila never existed in his life at all.

Why don't the campaign team publish the actual court transcript of what the prosecution said about the window lever, if anything, then the public can decide whether to part with their money for any dubious forensic tests. The lever's vertical position is exactly the same in both photos, the illusion of any difference created by its curved shape away from the window frame when photographed from two separate viewpoints.

Troodi /CT don't seem to understand the CCRC/CoA criteria for a successful appeal. 

[Holly Goodhead]

Troodi /CT don't seem to understand the CCRC/CoA criteria for a successful appeal.

The CCRC website did set out the criteria out in laymans terms but I can't find it now.   Anyway here it is from CoA:

Hearing new evidence

The Court of Appeal may hear new evidence that was not adduced in the original proceedings (section 23(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1968), if:

    it appears capable of belief;
    it may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
    it would have been admissible;
    it is an issue which is the subject of the appeal;
    there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it.

As far as I can see the windows fail on point 5.  What is the reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it [at trial]?  I doubt asleep at the wheel defence counts   

CT/Troodi you need something NEW eg a new witness or some new forensic science that wasn't known about about at the time of JB's trial.  The windows could and should have been robustly challenged at trial.  I've no idea whether they were or not but its a case of use it [at trial] or lose it!  The courts view on failure to adduce can be evidenced at JB's 2002 appeal, point 514 regarding the evidence of Dr Ismail for the prosecution.  The defence argued that Dr Ismail's evidence was something that could have been adduced at trial.  The court agreed and Dr Ismail's evidence was rejected on this basis.

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html   

Regardless of failure to adduce you must surely appreciate that the windows and/or suicide letters are not strong enough to overcome the silencer and blood evidence?   You really are wasting time and money.   I'm sorry to sound so negative but I'm just being honest and realistic.   

[Myster]

Where is this located?

[Myster]

The CCRC website did set out the criteria out in laymans terms but I can't find it now.   Anyway here it is from CoA:

Hearing new evidence

The Court of Appeal may hear new evidence that was not adduced in the original proceedings (section 23(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1968), if:

    it appears capable of belief;
    it may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
    it would have been admissible;
    it is an issue which is the subject of the appeal;
    there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it.

As far as I can see the windows fail on point 5.  What is the reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it [at trial]?  I doubt asleep at the wheel defence counts   

CT/Troodi you need something NEW eg a new witness or some new forensic science that wasn't known about about at the time of JB's trial.  The windows could and should have been robustly challenged at trial.  I've no idea whether they were or not but its a case of use it [at trial] or lose it!  The courts view on failure to adduce can be evidenced at JB's 2002 appeal, point 514 regarding the evidence of Dr Ismail for the prosecution.  The defence argued that Dr Ismail's evidence was something that could have been adduced at trial.  The court agreed and Dr Ismail's evidence was rejected on this basis.

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html   

Regardless of failure to adduce you must surely appreciate that the windows and/or suicide letters are not strong enough to overcome the silencer and blood evidence?   You really are wasting time and money.   I'm sorry to sound so negative but I'm just being honest and realistic.   

Ewen Smith at the CCRC...  https://youtu.be/8YSMsVFuAIU?t=41m26s

[puglove]

Agree with that Myster, it's pretty obvious that perspective/angles play a part here.

It's hardly a slam dunk that will get JB back to the COA!  &%&£(+

Oh dear. I thought it was going to be the answer to Jeremy's prayers?


 

[Holly Goodhead]

Ewen Smith at the CCRC...  https://youtu.be/8YSMsVFuAIU?t=41m26s

Thanks Myster. 

So CT/Trudi hear if from the horse's mouth at 41 mins in:  Ewen Smith makes it clear NEW evidence is required.  The windows are not new evidence. 

What is wrong with you people?  You've surely read the relevant sections of the CoA/CCRC websites re appeals?  And JB's 2002 CoA re the evidence of Dr Ismail? 

[Holly Goodhead]

I don't doubt it's an authentic letter but how come JB's private  correspondence with Trudi, dated less than a week ago, is making its way into the public domain?

He must realise the windows do not meet the criteria for a successful CCRC application/CoA hearing. 

As I've said before whether he's guilty or innocent the mental strain of 31 years incarceration, circa 30 years as Cat A, must have taken its toll.  I don't take any notice of anything he says. 

[Mendoza]

It's on the Facebook group page Holly. Apologies, I should have said.

[Mendoza]

I don't doubt it's an authentic letter but how come JB's private  correspondence with Trudi, dated less than a week ago, is making its way into the public domain?

He must realise the windows do not meet the criteria for a successful CCRC application/CoA hearing. 

As I've said before whether he's guilty or innocent the mental strain of 31 years incarceration, circa 30 years as Cat A, must have taken its toll.  I don't take any notice of anything he says. 

It looks to me that Trudi  asked JB to dash off a note for his supporters to keep their peckers up, and the donations rolling in.

It seems very much by rote, though, almost as if he knows that the window "issue" is doomed to go nowhere.

[Mendoza]

The CCRC website did set out the criteria out in laymans terms but I can't find it now.   Anyway here it is from CoA:

Hearing new evidence

The Court of Appeal may hear new evidence that was not adduced in the original proceedings (section 23(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1968), if:

    it appears capable of belief;
    it may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
    it would have been admissible;
    it is an issue which is the subject of the appeal;
    there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it.

As far as I can see the windows fail on point 5.  What is the reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it [at trial]?  I doubt asleep at the wheel defence counts   

CT/Troodi you need something NEW eg a new witness or some new forensic science that wasn't known about about at the time of JB's trial.  The windows could and should have been robustly challenged at trial.  I've no idea whether they were or not but its a case of use it [at trial] or lose it!  The courts view on failure to adduce can be evidenced at JB's 2002 appeal, point 514 regarding the evidence of Dr Ismail for the prosecution.  The defence argued that Dr Ismail's evidence was something that could have been adduced at trial.  The court agreed and Dr Ismail's evidence was rejected on this basis.

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html   

Regardless of failure to adduce you must surely appreciate that the windows and/or suicide letters are not strong enough to overcome the silencer and blood evidence?   You really are wasting time and money.   I'm sorry to sound so negative but I'm just being honest and realistic.   

You set it out very succinctly Holly.  Do you think the CT read this forum? &%+((£

[Holly Goodhead]

It's on the Facebook group page Holly. Apologies, I should have said.

Oh, Thanks. 

[Holly Goodhead]

It looks to me that Trudi  asked JB to dash off a note for his supporters to keep their peckers up, and the donations rolling in.

It seems very much by rote, though, almost as if he knows that the window "issue" is doomed to go nowhere.

Well I hope he's aware his private correspondence is being uploaded for public consumption. 

It seems to me none of these people, including JB, have any media/PR training and it shows.  I'm afraid being well intentioned isn't good enough.

[Holly Goodhead]

You set it out very succinctly Holly.  Do you think the CT read this forum? &%+((£

Thanks and that was after 2 bottles of strong lager (7.5% abv) and 2 G&T's  &%+((£

If I was the CT I would be interested in listening to and understanding all views, for and against, but they seem a pretty insular bunch so maybe they just discuss the case with each other remotely and  %£&)**#

[Myster]

Thanks and that was after 2 bottles of strong lager (7.5% abv) and 2 G&T's  &%+((£

If I was the CT I would be interested in listening to and understanding all views, for and against, but they seem a pretty insular bunch so maybe they just discuss the case with each other remotely and  %£&)**#

I bet you were swooning all over the place after that lot... see, you were right about me after all!!

[puglove]

I don't doubt it's an authentic letter but how come JB's private  correspondence with Trudi, dated less than a week ago, is making its way into the public domain?

He must realise the windows do not meet the criteria for a successful CCRC application/CoA hearing. 

As I've said before whether he's guilty or innocent the mental strain of 31 years incarceration, circa 30 years as Cat A, must have taken its toll.  I don't take any notice of anything he says.

I'm sure that he had a decent education at Gresham's, and he's been corresponding with assorted deluded dingbats for 30 years, so why does he STILL write like a sulky 8 year old? Is it because he's a lazy, arrogant psychopath who treats it all like a game, thrives on attention and gets his rocks off milking old ladies for their pension?

Ummmm.....yes.      %£&)**#