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

[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.

Bad idea. Ten years after 2002, needs to throw everything at it.

Have you got a source he said that?

[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.

Well it is a lawyer who has worked for Bamber who said this.

[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.

Bamber may have started getting information together straight after his 2002 failure. But didn't submit his application in 2004 & then wait 8 years.

A 3 month wait on one issue sounds right.

[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.

What other grounds were submitted?

[John]

"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.

He has nothing else to do with his time other than dream up fantasies, a bit like the blue forum has done these last five years.

[colsville]

Bamber may have started getting information together straight after his 2002 failure. But didn't submit his application in 2004 & then wait 8 years.

A 3 month wait on one issue sounds right.

If the final CCRC report in 2012 was 109 pages, then at 450 words per page, that would be a 50,000 word report.

The 2002 CoA report is also 50,000 words long (all figures approx).

The 2002 CoA report contains analysis of 16 grounds of contention from Bamber.

So there is no way that the 2012 CCRC report only contains one ground of contention from Bamber.

Here is a timeline for the CCRC application that ended in 2012 (The following details come from Carol Ann Lee's book)

By March 2004, his legal team had submitted another request for his case
to be referred to the Court of Appeal.  The CCRC made a
provisional decision to reject the application due to its limited scope.

The CCRC made a second provisional decision not to refer his case in
March 2007.

The then latest submissions to the CCRC were voluminous, presented over
a long period by Jeremy, his legal representatives, his fiancée and a
dedicated supporter who was himself a former fellow prisoner.

In February 2011, the CCRC informed Jeremy that they had
provisionally decided not to refer his case to the Court of Appeal, but if he
wished to make further submissions he should do so within the year.

Experts were commissioned to study the
photographs and documentation regarding the marks on Nevill’s back
Philip Boyce conducted experiments on pigskin


So, my interpretation of the above is this:

He applied to the CCRC in 2004.  The ground(s) of contention were considered. His application was provisionally refused, and he was invited to submit more evidence if he had it.

He submitted further grounds of contention

These further grounds were provisionally refused in 2007 , and he was invited to submit further grounds if he had any.

Bamber submitted further grounds of contention

These grounds were provisionally refused in 2011, and he was invited to submit further grounds if he had any.

Bamber submitted further grounds of contention.  This further ground was the burn marks in Nevill's back, plus the pigskin experiment, including the TV documentary.  I'm guessing that the CCRC took 3 months to investigate this point before rejecting it.

So the original 2004 application to the CCRC was finally thrown out in 2012 because the CCRC decided that finally, Bamber had had enough opportunity to enter all of his grounds for appeal.

So that's how I think it took 8 years to complete the application, and I think that it's the burn marks on Nevill's back that took 3 months to investigate.

I'm guessing that if the burn marks took 3 months to investigate, then the CCRC may spend a similar amount of time on each ground.  If that's the case then Bamber's 8 grounds that he submitted a year ago may take up to another year to complete. 

Also I'd imagine that the CCRC could provisionally reject those 8 grounds, whilst allowing him to submit more grounds.  So the process may be over within the year, or this latest application may have another 5 or 8 or 10 years to go, depending on whether the CCRC invite him to submit more grounds.

[adam]

If the final CCRC report in 2012 was 109 pages, then at 450 words per page, that would be a 50,000 word report.

The 2002 CoA report is also 50,000 words long (all figures approx).

The 2002 CoA report contains analysis of 16 grounds of contention from Bamber.

So there is no way that the 2012 CCRC report only contains one ground of contention from Bamber.

Here is a timeline for the CCRC application that ended in 2012 (The following details come from Carol Ann Lee's book)

By March 2004, his legal team had submitted another request for his case
to be referred to the Court of Appeal.  The CCRC made a
provisional decision to reject the application due to its limited scope.

The CCRC made a second provisional decision not to refer his case in
March 2007.

The then latest submissions to the CCRC were voluminous, presented over
a long period by Jeremy, his legal representatives, his fiancée and a
dedicated supporter who was himself a former fellow prisoner.

In February 2011, the CCRC informed Jeremy that they had
provisionally decided not to refer his case to the Court of Appeal, but if he
wished to make further submissions he should do so within the year.

Experts were commissioned to study the
photographs and documentation regarding the marks on Nevill’s back
Philip Boyce conducted experiments on pigskin


So, my interpretation of the above is this:

He applied to the CCRC in 2004.  The ground(s) of contention were considered. His application was provisionally refused, and he was invited to submit more evidence if he had it.

He submitted further grounds of contention

These further grounds were provisionally refused in 2007 , and he was invited to submit further grounds if he had any.

Bamber submitted further grounds of contention

These grounds were provisionally refused in 2011, and he was invited to submit further grounds if he had any.

Bamber submitted further grounds of contention.  This further ground was the burn marks in Nevill's back, plus the pigskin experiment, including the TV documentary.  I'm guessing that the CCRC took 3 months to investigate this point before rejecting it.

So the original 2004 application to the CCRC was finally thrown out in 2012 because the CCRC decided that finally, Bamber had had enough opportunity to enter all of his grounds for appeal.

So that's how I think it took 8 years to complete the application, and I think that it's the burn marks on Nevill's back that took 3 months to investigate.

I'm guessing that if the burn marks took 3 months to investigate, then the CCRC may spend a similar amount of time on each ground.  If that's the case then Bamber's 8 grounds that he submitted a year ago may take up to another year to complete. 

Also I'd imagine that the CCRC could provisionally reject those 8 grounds, whilst allowing him to submit more grounds.  So the process may be over within the year, or this latest application may have another 5 or 8 or 10 years to go, depending on whether the CCRC invite him to submit more grounds.

Interesting. Wonder what the other grounds were. There was a lot of publicity about the burn marks in 2012, but nothing else.

[colsville]

Interesting. Wonder what the other grounds were. There was a lot of publicity about the burn marks in 2012, but nothing else.

CAL doesn't really talk much about what Bamber has been doing whilst in prison, but she does outline the basic story.

And these are the bits and pieces that she has written that all refer to Bamber's submissions to the CCRC up until 2011...

Among the later submissions made by Jeremy’s legal team to the
CCRC was a police log which they suggested showed Nevill Bamber
had, in fact, called the police on the night of his death. The CCRC
responded firmly that not only was there was nothing to support the
contention that such a call had been made, but there was evidence to
show that it had not.

Were the items placed around Nevill’s body, placed there by police?
This matter was brought up again by the CCRC in 2011 who stated that the
items’ neatly folded appearance suggested they were placed there later
to mop up the flow of blood, possibly by police officers, prior to the
crime scene photographs being taken.

In 2011, the CCRC rejected the claim put forward by the
defence that the firearms team were speaking to Sheila, stating that the
person ‘from inside the farm’ was Jeremy.

After investigating Jeremy’s submissions for a referral to the Court of
Appeal in 2011, the CCRC stated that his claims about the silencer were
‘not supported by the material that exists, and in some instances appear to
be based on a misinterpretation of that material’.


So that's 4 grounds that CAL mentioned, but I think there are more, given that it was an 8 year process.

[Nicholas]

And what does ‘patron’ Dennis Eady say

Oh my god 


Channel 5

[Nicholas]

Empowering the Innocent (ETI)@EmpowerInnocentArticle for CCRC Watch by Bill Robertson:

"Should ex police officers be allowed to work as Case Review Managers at the CCRC?"

https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/should-ex-police-officers-be-allowed-to-work-as-case-review-managers-at-the-ccrc…

@ccrcupdate
#miscarriagesofjustice
#wrongfulconvictions
12:42 pm · 15 Feb 2022·Twitter Web App
https://mobile.twitter.com/EmpowerInnocent/status/1493566480729919490

1 ‘like’ 1 ‘retweet’

[Nicholas]

Empowering the Innocent (ETI)@EmpowerInnocentArticle for CCRC Watch by Bill Robertson:

"Should ex police officers be allowed to work as Case Review Managers at the CCRC?"

https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/should-ex-police-officers-be-allowed-to-work-as-case-review-managers-at-the-ccrc…

@ccrcupdate
#miscarriagesofjustice
#wrongfulconvictions
12:42 pm · 15 Feb 2022·Twitter Web App
https://mobile.twitter.com/EmpowerInnocent/status/1493566480729919490

1 ‘like’ 1 ‘retweet’

Some of the ‘ex police officers’ involved with the previous innocence fraud phenomenon (See John M Collins - Crime Lab Report) cases should never have been allowed to work for the CCRC or at least their political motivations and personal agendas should have been scrutinised and all efforts should have been made to ensure these individuals possessed the ability to be objective 

But I suspect the calibre the CCRC may have working for them now to be different to the types of individuals they had working for them before

[Nicholas]

Empowering the Innocent (ETI)@EmpowerInnocentArticle for CCRC Watch by Bill Robertson:

"Should ex police officers be allowed to work as Case Review Managers at the CCRC?"

https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/should-ex-police-officers-be-allowed-to-work-as-case-review-managers-at-the-ccrc…

@ccrcupdate
#miscarriagesofjustice
#wrongfulconvictions
12:42 pm · 15 Feb 2022·Twitter Web App
https://mobile.twitter.com/EmpowerInnocent/status/1493566480729919490

1 ‘like’ 1 ‘retweet’

Until these two morons recognise and address the innocence fraud phenomenon

(which Michael Naughton was involved with via Joan Albert’s killer https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2021/12/19/wrongful-convictions-miscarriages-of-justice-innocence-fraud-whats-the-difference/)

I suspect their comments will fall on deaf ears

Why weren’t questions like this asked back in 2013 following the exposure of Joan Albert’s killers innocence fraud?

Were the ‘police’ involved in Joan Albert’s killers innocemce fraud or lawyers, journalists, so called ‘academics’ and others ?

[Angelo222]

Some of the ‘ex police officers’ involved with the previous innocence fraud phenomenon (See John M Collins - Crime Lab Report) cases should never have been allowed to work for the CCRC or at least their political motivations and personal agendas should have been scrutinised and all efforts should have been made to ensure these individuals possessed the ability to be objective 

But I suspect the calibre the CCRC may have working for them now to be different to the types of individuals they had working for them before

I believe both the CCRC and the SCCRC are incapable of bringing genuine miscarriage of justice cases to the courts. If you are wrongfully convicted in the UK you are basically stuffed unless you have a pile of cash to throw at lawyers.

[Nicholas]

I believe both the CCRC and the SCCRC are incapable of bringing genuine miscarriage of justice cases to the courts. If you are wrongfully convicted in the UK you are basically stuffed unless you have a pile of cash to throw at lawyers.

Without doubt there has been skullduggery taking place at the CCRC

[Nicholas]

By empowerinnocent Aka Michael Naughton

‘CCRC Watch is an Empowering the Innocent (ETI) project which seeks to highlight the limitations of the CCRC in dealing with applications from alleged innocent victims of wrongful convictions due to restrictive nature of the 'real possibility' test.

It features articles from a wide range of interested parties, including alleged innocent victims of wrongful convictions, their supporters, lawyers, journalists, academics, students and concerned members of the public, which centre on applications that are rejected by the CCRC not because applicants are not innocent but, rather, because they are not deemed to have the so called 'fresh' evidence required to have their case referred back to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).
​
Overall, CCRC Watch offers constructive critiques and recommendations for how the CCRC might better fulfil its public mandate to assist innocent victims to overturn their wrongful convictions. 
https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/about


🙄