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

[Nicholas]

And, the Cardiff Innocence Project and Michael Naughton were involved with this

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/ccr-rc/mjc-cej/index.html

There’s a quote on the front page of the above report by journalist and ex UK CCRC commissioner David Jessel

Clive Walker also made submissions

A few years after Simon McKays involvement with Bambers case he wrote and published the following on the Justice Gap website run by Jon Robins

”John Worboys: ‘Let the victims to have their say”

“Hold the parole Board decision in Worboys up to light and permit the voiceless victims to have their say, writes Simon McKay.
Read article in full here https://www.thejusticegap.com/john-worboys-let-victims-say/


Prior to the above in October 2012 he wrote and published an article headed, Judicial mischief

”There is an unjustifiably little known text book called Miscarriages of Justice: a review of justice in error. Its editors were the esteemed Professor Clive Walker and (then) junior barrister Keir Starmer, now the Director of Public Prosecutions. A review of its pages ought to make uncomfortable reading for British judges since it includes references to various cases that were then considered on appeal to be safe convictions but which later, sometimes much later, resulted in those convictions being quashed.

Along with Vera Baird, Holly Greenwood, Hannah Quirk full list here https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/ccr-rc/mjc-cej/appendixb-annexeb.html#c

And of course there’s nothing whatsoever in the report on the innocence fraud phenomenon it’s all about the miscarriage of justice phenomenon 🙄

[colsville]

The CCRC looks at cases from a dry, objective and academic point of view, whereas an innocence campaign will look at things from a much more personal and emotional point of view.

Bamber supporters seem to be emotionally involved in him, which seems to allow them to ignore the weight of evidence that condemns him.  That's why the CCRC can't let emotions interfere in any way with their decisions.

Decisions can only be evidence based. Nothing else. So maybe it's wise that the the CCRC keep their distance from campaigners and lawyers.

The Canadian stuff only refers to innocence campaigners negative perceptions about the English CCRC.  It doesn't refer to any reality. 

Perceptions from innocence campaigners and their lawyers is always going to be negative.  It's their job to be negative, as it puts pressure on the CCRC to favour them.

The CCRC just have to make sure that they dryly stick to the evidence only.

As far as Bamber's concerned, it looks like his current appeal application has swamped the CCRC with tons and tons of paperwork, which may take years for the CCRC to wade through, page by page, line by line. 

It's already been a year. The last application in 2012 was described by the CCRC as their longest ever investigation, and their conclusion was; "pure speculation and unsubstantiated allegations".

The latest press release that his lawyer or other supporters have released to the Metro, contains 'evidence' that doesn't even qualify to be considered, because those photos were available prior to the original court case.  Just because the defence didn't act on it at the time doesn't matter, it won't qualify as new evidence.

That rule is there to stop abusers like Bamber from gaming the system, and swamping it even more with time consuming nonsense.

On top of that there's no evidence that the silver object is an earring, or a pendant for a necklace, or something Sheila just had in her hand when she exited her bedroom, or a trinket belonging to June that Bamber threw at Sheila after he shot her dead. All of those are perfectly plausible in the absence of any extra information.

Even if it is an earring, there is no evidence to connect it with the fight in the kitchen, and the existing evidence that Sheila could not have been in a fight, remains far stronger than the possibility that she was in a fight. 

It will therefore, fail the 'capable of belief test', and if you waive it through that first test, it still wouldn't be strong enough to convince a jury that he is not guilty, after considering all the other evidence against Bamber.

[adam]

The CCRC looks at cases from a dry, objective and academic point of view, whereas an innocence campaign will look at things from a much more personal and emotional point of view.

Bamber supporters seem to be emotionally involved in him, which seems to allow them to ignore the weight of evidence that condemns him.  That's why the CCRC can't let emotions interfere in any way with their decisions.

Decisions can only be evidence based. Nothing else. So maybe it's wise that the the CCRC keep their distance from campaigners and lawyers.

The Canadian stuff only refers to innocence campaigners negative perceptions about the English CCRC.  It doesn't refer to any reality. 

Perceptions from innocence campaigners and their lawyers is always going to be negative.  It's their job to be negative, as it puts pressure on the CCRC to favour them.

The CCRC just have to make sure that they dryly stick to the evidence only.

As far as Bamber's concerned, it looks like his current appeal application has swamped the CCRC with tons and tons of paperwork, which may take years for the CCRC to wade through, page by page, line by line. 

It's already been a year. The last application in 2012 was described by the CCRC as their longest ever investigation, and their conclusion was; "pure speculation and unsubstantiated allegations".

The latest press release that his lawyer or other supporters have released to the Metro, contains 'evidence' that doesn't even qualify to be considered, because those photos were available prior to the original court case.  Just because the defence didn't act on it at the time doesn't matter, it won't qualify as new evidence.

That rule is there to stop abusers like Bamber from gaming the system, and swamping it even more with time consuming nonsense.

On top of that there's no evidence that the silver object is an earring, or a pendant for a necklace, or something Sheila just had in her hand when she exited her bedroom, or a trinket belonging to June that Bamber threw at Sheila after he shot her dead. All of those are perfectly plausible in the absence of any extra information.

Even if it is an earring, there is no evidence to connect it with the fight in the kitchen, and the existing evidence that Sheila could not have been in a fight, remains far stronger than the possibility that she was in a fight. 

It will therefore, fail the 'capable of belief test', and if you waive it through that first test, it still wouldn't be strong enough to convince a jury that he is not guilty, after considering all the other evidence against Bamber.

Where does it say that?

The 2012 application was based on one issue.

[colsville]

The Independent newspaper stated this in 2012, after the release of the commissions conclusions:

The Commission said this was its final decision in its longest-running case.

The article is here:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/jeremy-bamber-murder-appeal-bid-rejected-7681474.html

I think that I've read somewhere that the investigation started in 2004, but I don't know where I read it.  It might even be in the above article, as I've not re-read it.  Or it might be in another Independent article from around that time, or it might have been the Guardian.  You'd have to trawl through their articles from that time.

[adam]

'Longest running case' probably refers to the fact that Bamber has been appealing since 1989.

Someone involved in the case on the Blue forum said it took 3 months to make a decision in 2012.

[John]

'Longest running case' probably refers to the fact that Bamber has been appealing since 1989.

Someone involved in the case on the Blue forum said it took 3 months to make a decision in 2012.

And it will keep running because Bamber can never admit his guilt now.

[Nicholas]

The CCRC looks at cases from a dry, objective and academic point of view,

Is that how it appears?

They don’t - or at least they didn’t!

[Nicholas]

The CCRC looks at cases from a dry, objective and academic point of view,

And they most certainly haven’t always been objective!

[Nicholas]

Bamber supporters seem to be emotionally involved in him, which seems to allow them to ignore the weight of evidence that condemns him.  That's why the CCRC can't let emotions interfere in any way with their decisions.

They appear to have done in past cases

[Nicholas]

The Canadian stuff only refers to innocence campaigners negative perceptions about the English CCRC.  It doesn't refer to any reality. 

Are you referring to what I posted here or elsewhere in the report?

[Nicholas]

The CCRC just have to make sure that they dryly stick to the evidence only.

They don’t always

[Nicholas]

As far as Bamber's concerned, it looks like his current appeal application has swamped the CCRC with tons and tons of paperwork, which may take years for the CCRC to wade through, page by page, line by line.

It won’t

[Nicholas]

That rule is there to stop abusers like Bamber from gaming the system, and swamping it even more with time consuming nonsense.

Numerous ‘abusers’ have gamed the system since the CCRC was set up

[colsville]

'Longest running case' probably refers to the fact that Bamber has been appealing since 1989.

Someone involved in the case on the Blue forum said it took 3 months to make a decision in 2012.

"Longest running case" refers only to the application to appeal  for which the 109 page report was published in 2012.

The CCRC said:

A spokesman added: "This is a final decision and brings to a close the Commission's current longest running case.

"The Commission has given due consideration to all the submissions made, old and new, before making a final decision on whether to refer the case to the Court of Appeal."

That first sentence only refers to the current case, as they said "brings to a close".

If the whole thing was brought to a close, then he wouldn't be able to appeal again.  They are only referring to the current case, not the whole thing from 1989.

If it took 3 months to get to the final decision in 2012, why has it taken a year with this one?

You have to take everything they say on the blue forum with a pinch of salt. 

The process may have worked differently for the 2012 appeal, but my understanding is that the review process started in 2004 and ended with the 109 page report in 2012.  So the whole thing took 8 years.  But what might have happened is that Bamber was allowed to submit more 'evidence' as the years went by, whilst the commission reviewed previous submitted 'evidence'.

There was definitely a process of some kind that happened, that took a lot longer than 3 months. 

As for Bamber submitting evidence on one issue only, this is highly unlikely, as the commission wrote the following in its conclusion in 2012:

"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.

'multiple unsubstantiated allegations'  must refer to multiple grounds of contention.

Remember Bamber is a creature of habit, he behaves in a totally predictable way.  So, in the 1990's he submitted 16 grounds of contention, and his latest submission there are 8 grounds, with multiple sub grounds.  So it would be strange that Bamber only submitted one ground in 2012.

In 2012 Bamber said that he had held some grounds of contention back so that if the 2012 appeal was unsuccessful, he could start another appeal. 

The bloke is a piece of work like no other.

[adam]

"Longest running case" refers only to the application to appeal  for which the 109 page report was published in 2012.

The CCRC said:

A spokesman added: "This is a final decision and brings to a close the Commission's current longest running case.

"The Commission has given due consideration to all the submissions made, old and new, before making a final decision on whether to refer the case to the Court of Appeal."

That first sentence only refers to the current case, as they said "brings to a close".

If the whole thing was brought to a close, then he wouldn't be able to appeal again.  They are only referring to the current case, not the whole thing from 1989.

If it took 3 months to get to the final decision in 2012, why has it taken a year with this one?

You have to take everything they say on the blue forum with a pinch of salt. 

The process may have worked differently for the 2012 appeal, but my understanding is that the review process started in 2004 and ended with the 109 page report in 2012.  So the whole thing took 8 years.  But what might have happened is that Bamber was allowed to submit more 'evidence' as the years went by, whilst the commission reviewed previous submitted 'evidence'.

There was definitely a process of some kind that happened, that took a lot longer than 3 months. 

As for Bamber submitting evidence on one issue only, this is highly unlikely, as the commission wrote the following in its conclusion in 2012:

"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.

'multiple unsubstantiated allegations'  must refer to multiple grounds of contention.

Remember Bamber is a creature of habit, he behaves in a totally predictable way.  So, in the 1990's he submitted 16 grounds of contention, and his latest submission there are 8 grounds, with multiple sub grounds.  So it would be strange that Bamber only submitted one ground in 2012.

In 2012 Bamber said that he had held some grounds of contention back so that if the 2012 appeal was unsuccessful, he could start another appeal. 

The bloke is a piece of work like no other.

Because the one in 2012 was one issue. A weak one -" - Nevill's burns.

The current submission is at least 8 issues.