More disappointment looming for Bamber?

[Nicholas]

“Jeremy Bamber continues to pursue his judicial review against the Director of Public Prosecutions over serious non disclosures and non-compliance with previous Court of Appeal orders .

The matter came before the Honorarable Mr Justice Knowles on 1st May 2020 . On the 30th April we received from the Crown a Skeleton Argument which raised a significant amount of material upon which fairness dictated that Jeremy Bamber should be able to comment upon

The Crown opposed the application to adjourn but it was granted .

Accordingly the matter has now been adjourned until 29th May and we expect to file a robust response to the Crown in advance of the hearing

At this stage no skeleton arguments will be released from the case but the Court will reconsider release once the amended skeleton argument has been filed .
https://www.qualitysolicitors.com/jordans/news/2020/05/jeremy-bamber-judicial-review-adjourned

[Nicholas]

Empowering the Innocent (ETI)
@EmpowerInnocent
Why would the prosecution refuse to disclose all of the evidence to Jeremy Bamber’s defence or appeal lawyers? Are they withholding evidence that might support his claim of innocence? Does the public not have a right to the truth? What do you think?
12:16 PM · May 1, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

Michelle Diskin Bates
@Michelle_Diskin
1h
Replying to
@EmpowerInnocent
The Crown tried to pull a fast one at the JR yesterday, they had loads of documents via Skype, that J Bamber’s team had never seen, then tried to stop the adjournment! Playing dirty Pile of poo
https://mobile.twitter.com/EmpowerInnocent/status/1256180629412118528

[Common sense]

@SCLomax
I am still waiting for a response to my request for an internal review. Refusing evidence to Jeremy Bamber's campaign back in 2010.[/color]
https://mobile.twitter.com/SCLomax/status/1256185567173320706

Maybe an Admin can upload Lomax’s photo

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Nicholas]

 

[Nicholas]

Elizabeth Yeld
@lizyeld
I could not recommend this book more highly.
Ten yrs ago, it never occurred to me that courts could get it badly wrong.
If you are like I was, read this book.
There is an obligation on ALL of us, (which I realised late) to defend our fellow men from excesses of State errors.
8:59 AM · May 1, 2020·Twitter Web App

SC Lomax
@SCLomax
Replying to
@lizyeld
thank you

James
@J26thacc
Replying to
@lizyeld
Thoughts on Carolines book on it?

Elizabeth Yeld
@lizyeld
Have never read on principle and since recent film was based on it, wouldn't watch that either.
I know from people I trust completely it was based on chat rooms and betrayal of JB. She exchanged letters with JB pretending to believe in his innocence from what I understand. Nice.

https://mobile.twitter.com/lizyeld/status/1256131099710889984

Have these further slurs been highlighted to relevant parties?

[Common sense]

SL seems to be taking it very personally that he is not considered a credible author that will treat information fairly and responsibly.  Maybe he should put some effort into becoming one?

Seems likely the police looked up some of his Bamber articles still on the internet.

It could have been rabbits blood in the silencer you know!



SC Lomax
@SCLomax
·
1h
I asked Essex Police to answer questions for my book. They refused to answer even the simplest. Why then so accommodating to another author?

[Caroline]

SL seems to be taking it very personally that he is not considered a credible author that will treat information fairly and responsibly.  Maybe he should put some effort into becoming one?

Seems likely the police looked up some of his Bamber articles still on the internet.

It could have been rabbits blood in the silencer you know!



SC Lomax
@SCLomax
·
1h
I asked Essex Police to answer questions for my book. They refused to answer even the simplest. Why then so accommodating to another author?

Probably because of his angle. I asked SL where he got a particular piece of info from, he said I should contact the CT because he didn't have time to look - but that he must have seen a document. Clear as mud there!

[Caroline]

Elizabeth Yeld
@lizyeld
I could not recommend this book more highly.
Ten yrs ago, it never occurred to me that courts could get it badly wrong.
If you are like I was, read this book.
There is an obligation on ALL of us, (which I realised late) to defend our fellow men from excesses of State errors.
8:59 AM · May 1, 2020·Twitter Web App

SC Lomax
@SCLomax
Replying to
@lizyeld
thank you

James
@J26thacc
Replying to
@lizyeld
Thoughts on Carolines book on it?

Elizabeth Yeld
@lizyeld
Have never read on principle and since recent film was based on it, wouldn't watch that either.
I know from people I trust completely it was based on chat rooms and betrayal of JB. She exchanged letters with JB pretending to believe in his innocence from what I understand. Nice.

https://mobile.twitter.com/lizyeld/status/1256131099710889984

Caroline?  - wonder if that's a Freudian slip? Seems like Liz thinks I wrote CAL's book! 

[Nicholas]

Probably because of his angle. I asked SL where he got a particular piece of info from, he said I should contact the CT because he didn't have time to look - but that he must have seen a document. Clear as mud there!

S Lean warned me Lomax was not to be trusted; in not so many words. He turned on me after I rejected him following contact from him re Halls case/campaign

[Nicholas]

Caroline?  - wonder if that's a Freudian slip? Seems like Liz thinks I wrote CAL's book! 

Who knows

‘James’ referred to ‘Caroline’ ?

Maybe Liz thinks Carol is short for Caroline?

[Caroline]

S Lean warned me Lomax was not to be trusted; in not so many words. He turned on me after I rejected him following contact from him re Halls case/campaign

  - you made the right decision.

[Common sense]

Have never read on principle and since recent film was based on it, wouldn't watch that either.
I know from people I trust completely it was based on chat rooms and betrayal of JB. She exchanged letters with JB pretending to believe in his innocence from what I understand. Nice./quote]

Have these further slurs been highlighted to relevant parties?

This is from a woman who on the opinion of someone she trusts completely believes that 80% of those convicted of historical sex offences are completely innocent while the other 20% are exaggerated. She is neither deluded or in denial she says.

Personally I never trust the opinion of someone who slates a book they haven't read

[Nicholas]

- you made the right decision.

I didn’t - turns out none of them were to be trusted

[Caroline]

Who knows

That criticism has been levelled at me in the past - I stopped writing to Bamber after I began to suspect him. They talk about him like he's the Messiah. Perhaps the lady in question SHOULD have read CAL's book instead of keeping on her rose coloured specs! She might learn something.

[APRIL]

Caroline?  - wonder if that's a Freudian slip? Seems like Liz thinks I wrote CAL's book! 

CarolINE/CarolANN