Jeremy Bamber lawyers seek review of CPS refusal to disclose evidence.

[Common sense]

I agree: if it were me, and I was innocent, I would want it proved, and not be freed on a technicality.

I don't believe JB will ever be freed either, but I don't KNOW, and neither do you, or anybody else!

I agree, yes of course you would want to prove your innocence but I think if I were in prison for something I didn't do, I would accept anything to get me back home and then continue to try and clear my name from there. 

[mrswah]

I agree, yes of course you would want to prove your innocence but I think if I were in prison for something I didn't do, I would accept anything to get me back home and then continue to try and clear my name from there.

Think I would be too afraid of other people's reactions!

[Caroline]

I agree, yes of course you would want to prove your innocence but I think if I were in prison for something I didn't do, I would accept anything to get me back home and then continue to try and clear my name from there.

You might think differently if you were convicted of killing a children.

[Common sense]

You might think differently if you were convicted of killing a children.

No, I would imagine getting out of prison would be higher on the list of priorities. Are you saying you would choose to stay behind bars?

I can't imagine JB cares how he gets out, he just dreams of how much fleet street might pay him for his story once he does.

[Caroline]

No, I would imagine getting out of prison would be higher on the list of priorities. Are you saying you would choose to stay behind bars?

I can't imagine JB cares how he gets out, he just dreams of how much fleet street might pay him for his story once he does.

It's not a matter of wanting but I assume he'll be pretty aware that someone might take umbrage to his crimes and freedom - I am sure hos own safety is high on his list of priorities and it would be hard for him to stay anonymous.

[Common sense]

It's not a matter of wanting but I assume he'll be pretty aware that someone might take umbrage to his crimes and freedom - I am sure hos own safety is high on his list of priorities and it would be hard for him to stay anonymous.

I think he knows a technicality is his only hope of freedom. Perhaps that's why he tries to peddle all those myths?

The biggest myth that he has created, believed by quite a few, is that his innocence can already be proven but there is a conspiracy by the courts to ignore his overwhelming case.

The only way he can really prove his innocence is to prove Sheila did it and there's zero chance of that.

 

[Caroline]

I think he knows a technicality is his only hope of freedom. Perhaps that's why he tries to peddle all those myths?

The biggest myth that he has created, believed by quite a few, is that his innocence can already be proven but there is a conspiracy by the courts to ignore his overwhelming case.

The only way he can really prove his innocence is to prove Sheila did it and there's zero chance of that.

 

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I agree: if it were me, and I was innocent, I would want it proved, and not be freed on a technicality.

I don't believe JB will ever be freed either, but I don't KNOW, and neither do you, or anybody else!

You’ll find “time will tell”😌

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I think he knows a technicality is his only hope of freedom. Perhaps that's why he tries to peddle all those myths?

The biggest myth that he has created, believed by quite a few, is that his innocence can already be proven but there is a conspiracy by the courts to ignore his overwhelming case.

The only way he can really prove his innocence is to prove Sheila did it and there's zero chance of that.

That’s where his lack of intelligence highlights itself

The courts know there’s no conspiracy, so to accuse them of such is incredibly stupid

Even if he DID come across a technicality — which he’s been trying to find for 35 years without success — the courts wouldn’t free him even if they determined there had been a technical error. His crime — plotting and murdering all five members of his family for which he was convicted — can’t be erased due a mere trivial technicality that may have occurred during proceedings or thereafter.

If that were the case, every mass murderer would be hunting for a typo, discrepancy, incorrect timing by a few minutes, failure of a secretary to post inconsequential documents by a certain date blah, blah...and the likes of Peter Sutcliffe etc would all be walking the streets.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I agree, yes of course you would want to prove your innocence but I think if I were in prison for something I didn't do, I would accept anything to get me back home and then continue to try and clear my name from there.

Don’t forget, CS, he hasn’t got a home to go to

He has no family

No friends

And no money

He’s almost at retirement age so would have zero prospects...he’d be unemployable; a liability; the public would refuse to even have him walk down their street, go in their shops...he’d not be able to stay in a hostel as he’d be at high risk of attack; no-one would allow him to rent a bed-sit; no country would allow him a visa; he’d be a leper.

[puglove]

Don’t forget, CS, he hasn’t got a home to go to

He has no family

No friends

And no money

He’s almost at retirement age so would have zero prospects...he’d be unemployable; a liability; the public would refuse to even have him walk down their street, go in their shops...he’d not be able to stay in a hostel as he’d be at high risk of attack; no-one would allow him to rent a bed-sit; no country would allow him a visa; he’d be a leper.

I suppose a handful of daft biddies would brawl over him.

Then he'd kill one.       

[Common sense]

That’s where his lack of intelligence highlights itself

The courts know there’s no conspiracy, so to accuse them of such is incredibly stupid

Even if he DID come across a technicality — which he’s been trying to find for 35 years without success — the courts wouldn’t free him even if they determined there had been a technical error. His crime — plotting and murdering all five members of his family for which he was convicted — can’t be erased due a mere trivial technicality that may have occurred during proceedings or thereafter.

If that were the case, every mass murderer would be hunting for a typo, discrepancy, incorrect timing by a few minutes, failure of a secretary to post inconsequential documents by a certain date blah, blah...and the likes of Peter Sutcliffe etc would all be walking the streets.

I think I should explain that I use technicality in a broader sense to mean any conviction quashed without establishing factual innocence.

For example, if the DNA tests on the blood/silencer evidence had proven it was June and Nevills blood and not Sheila's, the CoA would have overturned the conviction on that alone. That wouldn't prove JB innocent and it certainly wouldn't put the gun in Sheila's hand. All it could have proven is that limb of the prosecution case that the jury might have put great weight upon was not as sound as at was at trial and perhaps SC was not shot with the silencer after all - A technicality in my book.

No, he has no home to go to but I'm sure Trudi would let him sleep in her spare bedroom, even if she had to put up with a few bricks through her windows.

It's never going to happen anyway.

[Holly Goodhead]

Don’t forget, CS, he hasn’t got a home to go to

He has no family

No friends

And no money

He’s almost at retirement age so would have zero prospects...he’d be unemployable; a liability; the public would refuse to even have him walk down their street, go in their shops...he’d not be able to stay in a hostel as he’d be at high risk of attack; no-one would allow him to rent a bed-sit; no country would allow him a visa; he’d be a leper.

If his conviction is quashed it will be on new forensic tests. In the eyes of the law he will be considered innocent.  Many will be falling over him eg journalists, authors, film/docum makers.  He might even be offered sponsorships.  Lawyers will offer their services foc to claim back his inheritance. 

[Holly Goodhead]

I think I should explain that I use technicality in a broader sense to mean any conviction quashed without establishing factual innocence.

For example, if the DNA tests on the blood/silencer evidence had proven it was June and Nevills blood and not Sheila's, the CoA would have overturned the conviction on that alone. That wouldn't prove JB innocent and it certainly wouldn't put the gun in Sheila's hand. All it could have proven is that limb of the prosecution case that the jury might have put great weight upon was not as sound as at was at trial and perhaps SC was not shot with the silencer after all - A technicality in my book.

No, he has no home to go to but I'm sure Trudi would let him sleep in her spare bedroom, even if she had to put up with a few bricks through her windows.

It's never going to happen anyway.

None of us have any understanding of jurors deliberations to know how they arrived at the verdict.  New forensic evidence will need to persuade 3 CoA judges that if jurors had heard the new evidence at trial then they may have returned a different verdict. 

AT 10:2 majority it was finely balanced.  It could have easily swung the other way and with the passage of time the whole tragedy would have faded.

[Common sense]

If his conviction is quashed it will be on new forensic tests. In the eyes of the law he will be considered innocent.  Many will be falling over him eg journalists, authors, film/docum makers.  He might even be offered sponsorships.  Lawyers will offer their services foc to claim back his inheritance.

That's still a technicality in my book.

Billy Dunlop was innocent in the eyes of the law when the jury acquitted him of the murder of Julie Hogg that fresh evidence would force him to admit to 15 years later.