UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: John on October 19, 2012, 12:02:51 AM
-
Murderer Jeremy Bamber's legal bid for appeal refused!
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51203000/jpg/_51203512_jeremynov10.jpg)
A judge has turned down Jeremy Bamber's latest appeal bid.
Convicted killer Jeremy Bamber has lost the latest stage in his legal battle to clear his name.
Bamber is serving a whole life sentence for shooting dead five members of his family in Essex in 1985.
He had sought to challenge the Criminal Cases Review Commission's (CCRC) decision not to send his case to the Court of Appeal.
But that bid has been turned down by a High Court judge. His lawyers said a further hearing in court might be made.
Read more... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-20002566)
-
Just heard the news! That's got to be it now, it's all over. 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
Just heard the news! That's got to be it now, it's all over. 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
I just saw it, too.
Wow!! 8((()*/
-
Just heard the news! That's got to be it now, it's all over. 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Hi guys. What news is this? Haven't had a chance to read anything yet.
-
Jeremy Bamber loses bid to appeal.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-20002566
I suppose it will now go before two judges which will take yet another few weeks?
-
So, in another few weeks we'll be back to where we are today?
It was just on the news (BBC 1). They couldn't have used a more unflattering picture of him!
-
Its telling in my view that a judge refused permission on the papers. Often with a high-profile case like this the judge will at least refer the matter of permission to a hearing in open court. Makes me think he was unimpressed with the application. Shouldnt be surprised if it only goes before one judge. If its thrown out Bamber is going to be waiting a long time to go anywhere.
-
I knew it would be October by the way, and not November Mat !!!!
-
Looks like his Waterloo has come at last but then again there is another sift to come possibly. I will get a chance to post more about this later on.
-
Yeh I noticed that on the other pathetic forum they reckon Mike has some killer eveidence in his garage. Is that what you think they are going to produce?
Looks like his Waterloo has come at last but then again there is another sift to come possibly. I will get a chance to post more about this later on.
-
Justice is done yet again in the Bamber case!
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
I would have been dumbfounded if there had been any other verdict but it's still nice to see. All these cranks trying to get killers freed for their own glory and/or financial gain (a new helicopter called Jeremy) have lost yet again.
And still Jeremy remains positive according to Roach!!! Is that for HIV or weed? @)(++(*
I shouldn't laugh, gloat, dance a jig, take the piss out of Simon McChancer and Nelly McBelly or any other unmagnanimous victory celebration .... but, feck it, I will!!!!!
@)(++(*
Stuff you Bamberettes!!!!! 8((()*/
-
Yeh I noticed that on the other pathetic forum they reckon Mike has some killer eveidence in his garage. Is that what you think they are going to produce? Looks like his Waterloo has come at last but then again there is another sift to come possibly. I will get a chance to post more about this later on.
No, I think what was meant was the photo of Sheila that Mike supposedly has on an old hard drive.
Am I being thick, or is Mike now saying that the scratches under the mantelpiece WERE there on the morning of the 7th? So they weren't done by the relatives?
-
is this all crap from the other forum ( I presume that if there was anything in it they would have put it to the CCRC) No doubt John will comment on this
Well, mike has the telephone logs - if they show a tel call made from whf and a call "very shortly" after from JB's house, JB is a free man
by "shortly after" i mean within the time a motor car could be driven between the 2 properties
indeed, when mike publishes those tel logs, JB will be immediately granted bail pending a further appeal to the court of appeal
jim
Yeh I noticed that on the other pathetic forum they reckon Mike has some killer eveidence in his garage. Is that what you think they are going to produce? Looks like his Waterloo has come at last but then again there is another sift to come possibly. I will get a chance to post more about this later on.
No, I think what was meant was the photo of Sheila that Mike supposedly has on an old hard drive.
Am I being thick, or is Mike now saying that the scratches under the mantelpiece WERE there on the morning of the 7th? So they weren't done by the relatives?
-
is this all crap from the other forum ( I presume that if there was anything in it they would have put it to the CCRC) No doubt John will comment on this
Well, mike has the telephone logs - if they show a tel call made from whf and a call "very shortly" after from JB's house, JB is a free man
by "shortly after" i mean within the time a motor car could be driven between the 2 properties
indeed, when mike publishes those tel logs, JB will be immediately granted bail pending a further appeal to the court of appeal
jim
I think it's all a bit sad really (in a pathetic way). MT doesn't seem to have anything else in his life but his forum and the half a dozen people who regularly frequent it. He must keep them coming somehow, so he resorts to feeding them all these nuggets to keep them on the edge of their seats, so they keep returning. I think that his only motive for wanting JB's conviction overturned is his deep hatred for the police, but the JB case has provided him a platform where people 'congratulate' him for all his efforts and say how wonderful he is (barf) as opposed to those in his community who (knowing his history) would probably describe him as a thieving s..mbag/scrote/sh*t (delete as appropriate).
-
is this all crap from the other forum ( I presume that if there was anything in it they would have put it to the CCRC) No doubt John will comment on this
Well, mike has the telephone logs - if they show a tel call made from whf and a call "very shortly" after from JB's house, JB is a free man
by "shortly after" i mean within the time a motor car could be driven between the 2 properties
indeed, when mike publishes those tel logs, JB will be immediately granted bail pending a further appeal to the court of appeal
jim
I think it's all a bit sad really (in a pathetic way). MT doesn't seem to have anything else in his life but his forum and the half a dozen people who regularly frequent it. He must keep them coming somehow, so he resorts to feeding them all these nuggets to keep them on the edge of their seats, so they keep returning. I think that his only motive for wanting JB's conviction overturned is his deep hatred for the police, but the JB case has provided him a platform where people 'congratulate' him for all his efforts and say how wonderful he is (barf) as opposed to those in his community who (knowing his history) would probably describe him as a thieving s..mbag/scrote/sh*t (delete as appropriate).
Absolutely! What a shameful liar Tesko is. Bamber himself has dismissed him as a crank and yet his few spineless minions are happy to entertain what they know are his outright lies. I guess child killers get the supporters they deserve!
-
Even Giovanni Di Stefano some time back said that there was nothing new in the further submissions and sadly ( for him) he couldnt see the case going anywhere. I really do think that , if the JR does fail ( as Im sure it will), Bamber's supporters will drop off. Whilst they go on, on the other forum, about making a fresh claim to the CCRC, that body has said that it wont entertain any further claims. All Bamber would then be able to do would be to bring yet another JR to make them re-open the case. Desperate stuff!
-
Theyre already going on about the judges ( as if anyone cares).
I think if it succeeds the JB forum will be celebrating for the next 25 years and if it fails, they'll be on about the corrupt state fr the next 25 and if Simon Hall's appeal fails too, that'll be a double dose or corruption to discuss until Kingdom come.
-
I knew it would be October by the way, and not November Mat !!!!
Although this is earlier than expected - there is still more to come. As John said, another couple of weeks.
-
But yes, this is GREAT news.
-
I knew it would be October by the way, and not November Mat !!!!
Although this is earlier than expected - there is still more to come. As John said, another couple of weeks.
A mere formality in a couple of weeks. Dennis Nilsen will be happy his boyfriend is never going to leave him!
-
I knew it would be October by the way, and not November Mat !!!!
Although this is earlier than expected - there is still more to come. As John said, another couple of weeks.
A mere formality in a couple of weeks. Dennis Nilsen will be happy is boyfriend is never going to leave him!
Yeah, it's over. Bamber won't get a CCRC hearing for a long, long, long time. We're talking years. (If he gets it at all and that is a huge if.)
-
i agree. He hasnt got a prayer of being granted permission unless he strikes it very lucky with the judge.
I knew it would be October by the way, and not November Mat !!!!
Although this is earlier than expected - there is still more to come. As John said, another couple of weeks.
A mere formality in a couple of weeks. Dennis Nilsen will be happy is boyfriend is never going to leave him!
Yeah, it's over. Bamber won't get a CCRC hearing for a long, long, long time. We're talking years. (If he gets it at all and that is a huge if.)
-
Its telling in my view that a judge refused permission on the papers. Often with a high-profile case like this the judge will at least refer the matter of permission to a hearing in open court. Makes me think he was unimpressed with the application. Shouldnt be surprised if it only goes before one judge. If its thrown out Bamber is going to be waiting a long time to go anywhere.
Can I ask frank if the hearing in court is to allow Bamber's lawyers an opportunity to argue the issues raised in the JR papers? Does anyone know who will represent Bamber at the High Court as I think McKay is just a lawyer and not a lawyer/advocate?
-
is this all crap from the other forum ( I presume that if there was anything in it they would have put it to the CCRC) No doubt John will comment on this
Well, mike has the telephone logs - if they show a tel call made from whf and a call "very shortly" after from JB's house, JB is a free man
by "shortly after" i mean within the time a motor car could be driven between the 2 properties
indeed, when mike publishes those tel logs, JB will be immediately granted bail pending a further appeal to the court of appeal
jim
Even if there existed such logs and can I say I don't believe for a second that there are any, it would only serve to prove that Bamber did have an accomplice.
I wouldn't put it past Tesko fabricating a log just to satisfy his own depraved ego. Sad old fool!
-
Yes - the hearing will basically allow Bamber's representative to argue his written case. It wont be a full hearing though and will possibly not last longer then a couple of hours ( its still at the filter stage where the court decides whether there is enough there to take it to a final hearing). Mckay is a solicitor-advocate according to his website, so will argue the case himself ( that's assuming they go for a hearing). I may pop along there myself if Im around the High Court.
Its telling in my view that a judge refused permission on the papers. Often with a high-profile case like this the judge will at least refer the matter of permission to a hearing in open court. Makes me think he was unimpressed with the application. Shouldnt be surprised if it only goes before one judge. If its thrown out Bamber is going to be waiting a long time to go anywhere.
Can I ask frank if the hearing in court is to allow Bamber's lawyers an opportunity to argue the issues raised in the JR papers? Does anyone know who will represent Bamber at the High Court as I think McKay is just a lawyer and not a lawyer/advocate?
-
Yeh and those logs would have been at the heart of their case and therefore disclosed by now. The idea that Mike would have kept them up his sleeve is nonsense.
is this all crap from the other forum ( I presume that if there was anything in it they would have put it to the CCRC) No doubt John will comment on this
Well, mike has the telephone logs - if they show a tel call made from whf and a call "very shortly" after from JB's house, JB is a free man
by "shortly after" i mean within the time a motor car could be driven between the 2 properties
indeed, when mike publishes those tel logs, JB will be immediately granted bail pending a further appeal to the court of appeal
jim
Even if there existed such logs and can I say I don't believe for a second that there are any, it would only serve to prove that Bamber did have an accomplice.
I wouldn't put it past Tesko fabricating a log just to satisfy his own depraved ego. Sad old fool!
-
Yes - the hearing will basically allow Bamber's representative to argue his written case. It wont be a full hearing though and will possibly not last longer then a couple of hours ( its still at the filter stage where the court decides whether there is enough there to take it to a final hearing). Mckay is a solicitor-advocate according to his website, so will argue the case himself ( that's assuming they go for a hearing). I may pop along there myself if Im around the High Court.
That would be brill frank. Having someone inside the court as it happens would be priceless. Wish I could be there too!
Do we know when it is likely to be assuming McKay makes application?
-
I havent a clue when it will be, that's the problem and I could be away. It may not be listed this side of christmas though.I check the case lists most days so will know the day before at least and Im sure there will be loads of publicity from Bamber ahead of the hearing. If im here and free I will definitely go along ( assuming I can get in the courtroom as it will be mobbed!)
Yes - the hearing will basically allow Bamber's representative to argue his written case. It wont be a full hearing though and will possibly not last longer then a couple of hours ( its still at the filter stage where the court decides whether there is enough there to take it to a final hearing). Mckay is a solicitor-advocate according to his website, so will argue the case himself ( that's assuming they go for a hearing). I may pop along there myself if Im around the High Court.
That would be brill frank. Having someone inside the court as it happens would be priceless. Wish I could be there too!
Do we know when it is likely to be assuming McKay makes application?
-
I havent a clue when it will be, that's the problem and I could be away. It may not be listed this side of christmas though.I check the case lists most days so will know the day before at least and Im sure there will be loads of publicity from Bamber ahead of the hearing. If im here and free I will definitely go along ( assuming I can get in the courtroom as it will be mobbed!)
I wonder if Jeremy Bamber will attend in person? I suppose it isn't essential but ultimately his choice.
-
I cant see any way that he will be allowed to attend at all - certainly not at the permission stage, as the case is only arguable at that stage on the papers that have been lodged. It would also be unusual for him to attend the final hearing (in the unlikely event that there is one).
I havent a clue when it will be, that's the problem and I could be away. It may not be listed this side of christmas though.I check the case lists most days so will know the day before at least and Im sure there will be loads of publicity from Bamber ahead of the hearing. If im here and free I will definitely go along ( assuming I can get in the courtroom as it will be mobbed!)
I wonder if Jeremy Bamber will attend in person? I suppose it isn't essential but ultimately his choice.
-
Yes - the hearing will basically allow Bamber's representative to argue his written case. It wont be a full hearing though and will possibly not last longer then a couple of hours ( its still at the filter stage where the court decides whether there is enough there to take it to a final hearing). Mckay is a solicitor-advocate according to his website, so will argue the case himself ( that's assuming they go for a hearing). I may pop along there myself if Im around the High Court.
That would be brill frank. Having someone inside the court as it happens would be priceless. Wish I could be there too!
Do we know when it is likely to be assuming McKay makes application?
I can try!
-
Here is the latest from Jeremy Bamber as posted on the blue forum:
“Yesterday saw the High Court reject my application to Judicially Review the decision from the CCRC not to send my case back to the appeal court based on the new evidence. It is our intention to apply for an oral hearing and I have every confidence in my legal team to submit the case and win. I suspect that the decision made today has political implications, particularly in light of so many recent events where police corruption and general misconduct in public office is shown to be virulent, this is especially so where high profile cases are concerned. Should I win my case at Judicial Review, the conduct, competency and integrity of the CCRC will be brought into question. The impact of this will be very serious as the handling of all of the cases rejected (currently at 96%) by the underfunded and so called ‘independent’ government operated department will have to be reviewed, and the CCRC would no longer be a political patsy able to ignore police corruption and keep it under wraps at the cost of the tax payer and the innocent victims of injustice."
Yawn yawn @)(++(*
-
Here is the latest from Jeremy Bamber as posted on the blue forum:
“Yesterday saw the High Court reject my application to Judicially Review the decision from the CCRC not to send my case back to the appeal court based on the new evidence. It is our intention to apply for an oral hearing and I have every confidence in my legal team to submit the case and win. I suspect that the decision made today has political implications, particularly in light of so many recent events where police corruption and general misconduct in public office is shown to be virulent, this is especially so where high profile cases are concerned. Should I win my case at Judicial Review, the conduct, competency and integrity of the CCRC will be brought into question. The impact of this will be very serious as the handling of all of the cases rejected (currently at 96%) by the underfunded and so called ‘independent’ government operated department will have to be reviewed, and the CCRC would no longer be a political patsy able to ignore police corruption and keep it under wraps at the cost of the tax payer and the innocent victims of injustice."
Yawn yawn @)(++(*
This did make me laugh to be honest. Are we expected to believe this bit of a rant came from Bamber or is this the handiwork of loved up girly Daniele Hammond? Could it be that Bamber is so deluded after 27 years that he honestly thinks the public give a flying fig about him. Don't you just have to laugh at the attacks on the CCRC by Bamber and that other dafty over on the blue forum. The very people who have the power to have their case sent back to the appeal court and all they can do is to defame them. He is certainly burning his bridges by the looks of it. @)(++(*
In my opinion it is time the law was changed to stop murderers like Bamber making a complete ar.. out of the legal system. Time for closure don't you all think?
-
I think he and his supporters are all living in cloud cuckoo land if the truth be known. Can you imagine what they would be like if someone some day were to find some evidence of Bambers innocence? It is interesting to see that the judge didn't even feel that there was anything in the gun tests carried out in Arizona which can only go to show that they are worthless. IMO if there had been anything in them they could have ordered new independent tests to be carried out. Obviously they are of the opinion that all this so called new evidence is just a smokescreen.
-
I agree, but there will be closure if he loses this judicial review. I believe that the CCRC will refuse to rexamine the case ( whatever crap he throws at them) - they said as much when they released their decision earlier in the year. .
Here is the latest from Jeremy Bamber as posted on the blue forum:
“Yesterday saw the High Court reject my application to Judicially Review the decision from the CCRC not to send my case back to the appeal court based on the new evidence. It is our intention to apply for an oral hearing and I have every confidence in my legal team to submit the case and win. I suspect that the decision made today has political implications, particularly in light of so many recent events where police corruption and general misconduct in public office is shown to be virulent, this is especially so where high profile cases are concerned. Should I win my case at Judicial Review, the conduct, competency and integrity of the CCRC will be brought into question. The impact of this will be very serious as the handling of all of the cases rejected (currently at 96%) by the underfunded and so called ‘independent’ government operated department will have to be reviewed, and the CCRC would no longer be a political patsy able to ignore police corruption and keep it under wraps at the cost of the tax payer and the innocent victims of injustice."
Yawn yawn @)(++(*
This did make me laugh to be honest. Are we expected to believe this bit of a rant came from Bamber or is this the handiwork of loved up girly Daniele Hammond? Could it be that Bamber is so deluded after 27 years that he honestly thinks the public give a flying fig about him. Don't you just have to laugh at the attacks on the CCRC by Bamber and that other dafty over on the blue forum. The very people who have the power to have their case sent back to the appeal court and all they can do is to defame them. He is certainly burning his bridges by the looks of it. @)(++(*
In my opinion it is time the law was changed to stop murderers like Bamber making a complete ar.. out of the legal system. Time for closure don't you all think?
-
I agree, but there will be closure if he loses this judicial review. I believe that the CCRC will refuse to rexamine the case ( whatever crap he throws at them) - they said as much when they released their decision earlier in the year.
Do you think they (the High Court) are just going through the motions frank and that their decision has already been made? >@@(*&)
-
Its difficult to tell. Judges are quite independant of each other, despite what people think, and Ive seen permission granted before at a hearing against the odds. I just feel that the refusal of permission on the papers is quite significant in a high-profile case like this and makes it extremely hard now for Bamber.
I agree, but there will be closure if he loses this judicial review. I believe that the CCRC will refuse to rexamine the case ( whatever crap he throws at them) - they said as much when they released their decision earlier in the year.
Do you think they (the High Court) are just going through the motions frank and that their decision has already been made? >@@(*&)
-
Its difficult to tell. Judges are quite independant of each other, despite what people think, and Ive seen permission granted before at a hearing against the odds. I just feel that the refusal of permission on the papers is quite significant in a high-profile case like this and makes it extremely hard now for Bamber.
I agree, it will be hard for him to achieve anything at this juncture. By any measure it would most certainly take a miracle for his case to be referred back to the CCRC at this stage.
It would be interesting to know if McKay even believes the material he is submitting on Bamber's behalf. When he was asked about this on twitter he wouldn't reply which sort of answers the question.
-
Its difficult to tell. Judges are quite independant of each other, despite what people think, and Ive seen permission granted before at a hearing against the odds. I just feel that the refusal of permission on the papers is quite significant in a high-profile case like this and makes it extremely hard now for Bamber.
I agree, it will be hard for him to achieve anything at this juncture. By any measure it would most certainly take a miracle for his case to be referred back to the CCRC at this stage.
It would be interesting to know if McKay even believes the material he is submitting on Bamber's behalf. When he was asked about this on twitter he wouldn't reply which sort of answers the question.
Simon McKay is supposed to be doing this work on a pro bono basis isn't he? Not the sort of thing a lawyer normally does so what is he hoping to gain from this if anything? I haven't known a lawyer to do anything for nothing in all the years I have been in business. 8-)(--)
I will just add isn't Jeremy Bamber supposed to be broke...penniless...after his failed attempts to shaft the remaining family who inherited Nevill and June's estates?
-
Murderer Jeremy Bamber's legal bid for appeal refused!
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51203000/jpg/_51203512_jeremynov10.jpg)
A judge has turned down Jeremy Bamber's latest appeal bid.
Convicted killer Jeremy Bamber has lost the latest stage in his legal battle to clear his name.
Bamber is serving a whole life sentence for shooting dead five members of his family in Essex in 1985.
He had sought to challenge the Criminal Cases Review Commission's (CCRC) decision not to send his case to the Court of Appeal.
But that bid has been turned down by a High Court judge. His lawyers said a further hearing in court might be made.
Read more... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-20002566)
Quite the correct judgement in my opinion. The evidence in this case points most assuredly to a guilty verdict and I would be most surprised if any other decision had been forthcoming.
My Lordships are not infallible but I personally feel on this occasion that they got it spot on.
-
Lawyers do pro bono cases quite regularly to be fair but you have to find them! I think Mckay was hoping to get a referral to the Court of Appeal, at which point Bamber would get legal aid and Mckay would earn a lot of money as a solicitor-advocate (and a lot of publicity for his practice). If the JR is thrown out, Id be very surprised if Mckay carries on. The posters on the other forum seem to think that Mckay will, in some way, welcome the chance to start again from scratch but I dont reckon so at all.
Its difficult to tell. Judges are quite independant of each other, despite what people think, and Ive seen permission granted before at a hearing against the odds. I just feel that the refusal of permission on the papers is quite significant in a high-profile case like this and makes it extremely hard now for Bamber.
I agree, it will be hard for him to achieve anything at this juncture. By any measure it would most certainly take a miracle for his case to be referred back to the CCRC at this stage.
It would be interesting to know if McKay even believes the material he is submitting on Bamber's behalf. When he was asked about this on twitter he wouldn't reply which sort of answers the question.
Simon McKay is supposed to be doing this work on a pro bono basis isn't he? Not the sort of thing a lawyer normally does so what is he hoping to gain from this if anything? I haven't known a lawyer to do anything for nothing in all the years I have been in business. 8-)(--)
I will just add isn't Jeremy Bamber supposed to be broke...penniless...after his failed attempts to shaft the remaining family who inherited Nevill and June's estates?
-
Lawyers do pro bono cases quite regularly to be fair but you have to find them! I think Mckay was hoping to get a referral to the Court of Appeal, at which point Bamber would get legal aid and Mckay would earn a lot of money as a solicitor-advocate (and a lot of publicity for his practice). If the JR is thrown out, Id be very surprised if Mckay carries on. The posters on the other forum seem to think that Mckay will, in some way, welcome the chance to start again from scratch but I dont reckon so at all.
Its difficult to tell. Judges are quite independant of each other, despite what people think, and Ive seen permission granted before at a hearing against the odds. I just feel that the refusal of permission on the papers is quite significant in a high-profile case like this and makes it extremely hard now for Bamber.
I agree, it will be hard for him to achieve anything at this juncture. By any measure it would most certainly take a miracle for his case to be referred back to the CCRC at this stage.
It would be interesting to know if McKay even believes the material he is submitting on Bamber's behalf. When he was asked about this on twitter he wouldn't reply which sort of answers the question.
Simon McKay is supposed to be doing this work on a pro bono basis isn't he? Not the sort of thing a lawyer normally does so what is he hoping to gain from this if anything? I haven't known a lawyer to do anything for nothing in all the years I have been in business. 8-)(--)
I will just add isn't Jeremy Bamber supposed to be broke...penniless...after his failed attempts to shaft the remaining family who inherited Nevill and June's estates?
I agree. Even if I believed that JB was innocent, I wouldn't expect for a moment that Simon McKay would tackle the case "from scratch." If all he's got to pin his hopes on are a couple of experiments with dead pig rind and Mike's photos and logs, he's b....red. But I might be wrong. (I don't think I'm wrong!)
-
If you analyse the blue forum now, it seems to be 4 ladies of a certain age, mertol, Gladys, and 2 intelligent men with their own agenda who still support Mike and his wanderings. So that's 8 people. I suppose I could do a quiz about this, but I'd be interested to know what the ratio is, re: the rest of Great Britain. I'm guessing quite small. >@@(*&)
-
Made a couple of edits to tidy up the quote boxes above. ?>)()<
-
If you analyse the blue forum now, it seems to be 4 ladies of a certain age, mertol, Gladys, and 2 intelligent men with their own agenda who still support Mike and his wanderings. So that's 8 people. I suppose I could do a quiz about this, but I'd be interested to know what the ratio is, re: the rest of Great Britain. I'm guessing quite small. >@@(*&)
I would say that unless you were from the Colchester/Maldon area you probably wouldn't even remember the case let alone be interested in it.
-
If you analyse the blue forum now, it seems to be 4 ladies of a certain age, mertol, Gladys, and 2 intelligent men with their own agenda who still support Mike and his wanderings. So that's 8 people. I suppose I could do a quiz about this, but I'd be interested to know what the ratio is, re: the rest of Great Britain. I'm guessing quite small. >@@(*&)
I would say that unless you were from the Colchester/Maldon area you probably wouldn't even remember the case let alone be interested in it.
I wonder how many of the band of eight "support" JB just because, 27 years ago, he was OKish looking. Conveniently forgetting that he robbed the caravan park, knowing the anguish that would cause to Ralph, and spent months describing to JM the many ways he was considering killing his adopted family. Ooops. Forgot he now transposes books for blind people. He must be kosher, then.
-
The only reason these women support him is because he used to be good looking. Its a very common phenomenom, seen more in the US where hideous mass murderers (a bit like Bamber come to think of it) have numerous groupies backing them and fighting amongst themselves to marry them.
If you analyse the blue forum now, it seems to be 4 ladies of a certain age, mertol, Gladys, and 2 intelligent men with their own agenda who still support Mike and his wanderings. So that's 8 people. I suppose I could do a quiz about this, but I'd be interested to know what the ratio is, re: the rest of Great Britain. I'm guessing quite small. >@@(*&)
I would say that unless you were from the Colchester/Maldon area you probably wouldn't even remember the case let alone be interested in it.
I wonder how many of the band of eight "support" JB just because, 27 years ago, he was OKish looking. Conveniently forgetting that he robbed the caravan park, knowing the anguish that would cause to Ralph, and spent months describing to JM the many ways he was considering killing his adopted family. Ooops. Forgot he now transposes books for blind people. He must be kosher, then.
-
Totally agree Frank. Bambers lawyers can make fresh applications until the cows come home but the commission will inevitably refuse them. There has to come a stage when he Simon Mckay will realise that he is just being used as a stooge. Jackie Preece brought him in on a hype and a lot of flannel. Let's face it, Bamber has no fresh evidence of anything as it is all propaganda. @)(++(*
-
The only reason these women support him is because he used to be good looking. Its a very common phenomenom, seen more in the US where hideous mass murderers (a bit like Bamber come to think of it) have numerous groupies backing them and fighting amongst themselves to marry them.
Do you notice how Dani Hammond uses a 27 year old photo of Bamber in her posts on the official website? Who is she trying to fool anyway? Has anyone ever seen any photos of this Hammond person?
-
Well i dont know the case as well as others on here but this stuff about the logs is surely nonsense. If Mike had logs which could assist Bamber he would have provided them to the CCRC. You dont hold back information like that for some future application. I dont think there is anything else material to come out. If Bamber loses the JR its the end of the road ( although Im sure hell plod on as he has nothing else to do).
Well from what I recall, Mike Tesko went with Z to the CCRC when he delivered, by hand, a copy of Sheila on the bed with one bullet wound...... according to Mr Tesko, that was the trump card that would blow the case out the water @)(++(* He drip feeds his forum supporters to keep them coming. I think nothing short of JB confessing will stop the die hards, they have convinced themselves. Even if JB confessed, they'd swear he was coerced into it.
Even if I thought someone convicted of murder didn't get a fair trial, I wouldn't hold them up as some kind of demi god 8-)(--) because they could still be guilty!! and we're talking murder here, including 2 defenceless little boys.
-
Well i dont know the case as well as others on here but this stuff about the logs is surely nonsense. If Mike had logs which could assist Bamber he would have provided them to the CCRC. You dont hold back information like that for some future application. I dont think there is anything else material to come out. If Bamber loses the JR its the end of the road ( although Im sure hell plod on as he has nothing else to do).
Well from what I recall, Mike Tesko went with Z to the CCRC when he delivered, by hand, a copy of Sheila on the bed with one bullet wound...... according to Mr Tesko, that was the trump card that would blow the case out the water @)(++(* He drip feeds his forum supporters to keep them coming. I think nothing short of JB confessing will stop the die hards, they have convinced themselves. Even if JB confessed, they'd swear he was coerced into it.
Even if I thought someone convicted of murder didn't get a fair trial, I wouldn't hold them up as some kind of demi god 8-)(--) because they could still be guilty!! and we're talking murder here, including 2 defenceless little boys.
It's quite bizarre how Tesko's poodles let him sprout his lies without a murmur of decent. At best they make excuses for the old con along the lines that he is trying to inspire debate by sprouting lies!
There in lies the difference between the forums. If John or Shona or myself or anyone else on this forum was inventing utter bullsh*t lies they would immediately be challenged and soon derided. And rightly so!
They do actually know their cause is hopeless and squeeze them a little harder a few would admit Bamber is actually guilty. That doesn't fit their holier-than-thou 'freedom fighter' image of themselves though so they carry on with their little charade! Of course there a few complete idiots over there too who would swallow any story they were told; wouldn't you Mertol!
8-)(--)
-
I came across this earlier on twitter. Here is Simon Mckay's attempt at a response to the judicial review decision to refuse Bambers application on the papers.
http://thejusticegap.com/2012/10/judicial-mischief/
-
Oooh, so Jeremy isn't optimistic?
Can't say I blame him!
-
Oooh, so Jeremy isn't optimistic?
Can't say I blame him!
If he reads "his" forum, especially over the last 6 months, then I don't blame him, either. I would imagine that he despairs.
-
Thanks for that - interesting to read and pretty desperate stuff by Mckay who has sought to cast doubt on the whole process even before the renewal hearing. At least we know now that they have renewed the application.
I came across this earlier on twitter. Here is Simon Mckay's attempt at a response to the judicial review decision to refuse Bambers application on the papers.
http://thejusticegap.com/2012/10/judicial-mischief/
-
I came across this earlier on twitter. Here is Simon Mckay's attempt at a response to the judicial review decision to refuse Bambers application on the papers.
http://thejusticegap.com/2012/10/judicial-mischief/
Well found Matthew and thank's for posting. I really don't like McKay and have been decidely underwhelmed by every move and comment he has made in the Bamber case. He is definitley not the hot shot solicitor advocat we were led to believe but rather appears qzite a desperate little man. If he doesn't win he blames the game and the rules!
-
Good post. Mckay just sounds increasingly like his desperate client. Roll on the hearing and the end of the road for Mr Bamber. We can then all sign out of here, confident in the knowldege that the CCRC will not consider any further applications whatever crap Team Bamber drags up.
I came across this earlier on twitter. Here is Simon Mckay's attempt at a response to the judicial review decision to refuse Bambers application on the papers.
http://thejusticegap.com/2012/10/judicial-mischief/
Well found Matthew and thank's for posting. I really don't like McKay and have been decidely underwhelmed by every move and comment he has made in the Bamber case. He is definitley not the hot shot solicitor advocat we were led to believe but rather appears qzite a desperate little man. If he doesn't win he blames the game and the rules!
-
Did you see the sanctimonious claptrap written by Poppy Ann Miller at the bottom of the article?
Thanks to the CCRC and their cronies, Jeremy Bamber has been incarcerated for 27 years for a crime he could not possibly have committed. The CCRC would do well to refer to the definition of Occam's razor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
Seemingly it is the CCRC's fault that Jeremy Bamber has been incarcerated for over 27 years now? I always thought it was because he murdered his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Silly me! 8-)(--)
-
You beat me to it. I was going to comment on that site but couldnt be arsed to stoop to their level and no-one reads that periodical anyway. `A crime he could not possibly have commmitted'. Why is that exactly? Oh yeh, cos he loved his parents so much, thats it. So much in fact that he robbed their caravan site, went away immediately after they were killed on a champage and drug-fuelled holiday and treated his dad so badlly when he was alive that the housekeeper recalls Neville telling her that he had to watch his back at all times when Jeremy was around. I just wish the JR could dismissed and this case could come to a final conclusion as one thing is certain- THERE IS NO WAY THAT THE CCRC WILL REOPEN THIS CASE.
Did you see the sanctimonious claptrap written by Poppy Ann Miller at the bottom of the article?
Thanks to the CCRC and their cronies, Jeremy Bamber has been incarcerated for 27 years for a crime he could not possibly have committed. The CCRC would do well to refer to the definition of Occam's razor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
Seemingly it is the CCRC's fault that Jeremy Bamber has been incarcerated for over 27 years now? I always thought it was because he murdered his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Silly me! 8-)(--)
-
I agree, Frank. I've always said that JB behaved like a complete shit before, during and after the funerals. The display of faux grief at the church (which he made sure to record - why?) was pathetic. Some people are quick to say "oh, everyone grieves in different ways, he was young...etc", well, he didn't grieve at all, not even for his beloved Dad (who he didn't mind ripping off when he robbed and trashed the caravan park office). And he was a grown man, not 12. True colours.