The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?

[Nicholas]

JM appears to have a strong case for libel against JB campaign Ltd

And there appears to have been a new appointment of a Thomas Walker on 17th March 2020https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09883616/filing-history

Is Philip Walker here https://bambercampaign.blogspot.com/2019/01/annual-statement-with-trudi-benjamin.html (Photo of Trudi Benjamin, Director; Philip Walker,  Communications; Yvonne Hartley, Forensic Liaison; Dr Dennis Eady, Patron.)

linked to Thomas Walker ?

[Nicholas]

Is Philip Walker here https://bambercampaign.blogspot.com/2019/01/annual-statement-with-trudi-benjamin.html (Photo of Trudi Benjamin, Director; Philip Walker,  Communications; Yvonne Hartley, Forensic Liaison; Dr Dennis Eady, Patron.)

linked to Thomas Walker ?

The following is from the link above

”Here’s an update on the campaign work in 2018.

At present the legal team are still in an ongoing dialogue with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on the non-disclosure of essential evidence. We are hoping the matter will draw to a close during February when Jeremy’s case will be referred to the Court of Appeal. 

We have continued to work with documentary makers, but despite a growing interest in Jeremy’s case by producers, there has been a lack of response from broadcasters. No less than 19 different production companies, all making approaches to different mainstream broadcasters and streaming channels, have approached the case in a number of different ways. One producer even received development funding in 2017, but the head of documentaries was changed, and he pulled the plug at the last minute. This is highly frustrating and of course extremely time consuming, but there are two documentary makers who have persisted in sticking with the case and pursuing our work, and we hope to have more success in early 2019. 

In the meantime we have also continued engagement with journalists and human rights campaigners who have followed the case for sometime. Again attempts at news articles are also met with limited success despite the research being carried out and access to evidence. Regardless of these setbacks we continue to make approaches to media outlets on a frequent basis and keep Jeremy’s profile high on social media. We were very pleased with the Guardian’s recent article on the CPS’s receipt of a new forensic report opening up key concerns about the evidence, and Eric Allison and Simon Hattenstone reported this. This has helped to create more transparency around the actions of the CPS, which cannot go on in secret: the CPS must be held accountable for non-disclosure.

Our work with the Lords and MPs continues and we are currently recruiting for our Parliamentary Campaign Group, which will see further political pressure on the CPS to disclose all of the material they hold.

I have been part of a working group that includes representatives of JUSTICE, The Centre for Criminal Appeals, and Inside Justice, on designing a protocol to assist both police representatives and prosecutors in handling requests for post-conviction disclosure. In addition, the Centre for Criminal Appeals are to launch a campaign known as “Show Us The Evidence” which will help ensure that innocent prisoners and campaign groups like ours, doing the work of the CCRC, should have access to the evidence they need to defend those maintaining innocence.

[Nicholas]

We have continued to work with documentary makers, but despite a growing interest in Jeremy’s case by producers, there has been a lack of response from broadcasters. No less than 19 different production companies, all making approaches to different mainstream broadcasters and streaming channels, have approached the case in a number of different ways. One producer even received development funding in 2017, but the head of documentaries was changed, and he pulled the plug at the last minute. This is highly frustrating and of course extremely time consuming, but there are two documentary makers who have persisted in sticking with the case and pursuing our work, and we hope to have more success in early 2019

What are the names of the alleged 19 production companies ?

[Nicholas]

”Here’s an update on the campaign work in 2018.
In the meantime we have also continued engagement with journalists and human rights campaigners who have followed the case for sometime. Again attempts at news articles are also met with limited success despite the research being carried out and access to evidence. Regardless of these setbacks we continue to make approaches to media outlets on a frequent basis and keep Jeremy’s profile high on social media. We were very pleased with the Guardian’s recent article on the CPS’s receipt of a new forensic report opening up key concerns about the evidence, and Eric Allison and Simon Hattenstone reported this. This has helped to create more transparency around the actions of the CPS, which cannot go on in secret: the CPS must be held accountable for non-disclosure. 

Sept 2018

”In May this year, Bamber’s lawyer Mark Newby received a letter from Frank Ferguson, head of special crimes at the CPS. He had written to the prosecutors’ office on the issue of two silencers being examined in the case but the jury only being told about one.
Although Ferguson stated “there is no documentary evidence either provided or referred to which supports the existence of a second silencer”, he added: “Any evidence that suggests that there was or may have been another silencer for the rifle would raise the possibility that the other silencer was used during the shooting and not the one alleged by the prosecution.
“Such a possibility would significantly undermine the case against JB [Jeremy Bamber] and any material supporting such a possibility would plainly be material which casts doubt on the safety of the conviction.”

July 2019
”The High Court has expressed concern about how much care the Crown Prosecution Service takes in reviewing decisions after intervening in what judges called a 'troubling case'.
Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Mrs Justice Farbey quashed the decision of a reviewing lawyer made in October not to prosecute a police officer for causing death by dangerous driving and/or causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving following a pursuit in 2016.

“The judgment, handed down last week, states that the review decision was made by barrister Frank Ferguson, head of special crime, deputy head of the special crime and counter terrorism division.

“For the reasons given above we find that the reviewing lawyer did not bring to his task that same care, thoroughness and detail. We are conscious that a broad commonsense approach should be taken to the reasoning in a review decision,  but when statements are made which are not easily identifiable in the evidence, that is a matter of concern. It is also reflective of the wider concern which the court has as to the care, thoroughness and detail which went into the writing of this review decision.'
More here https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/high-court-quashes-lawyers-decision-not-to-prosecute-police-driver/5071006.article

What did Bamber and his CT make of the revelations regarding Frank Ferguson from the CPS and why have they chosen to remain silent about these revelations?

Why was there no follow up article on this by Simon Hattenstone and Eric Allison?

Bamber and his CT cannot expect transparency if they are not transparent themselves

[Nicholas]

”Here’s an update on the campaign work in 2018.
Our work with the Lords and MPs continues and we are currently recruiting for our Parliamentary Campaign Group, which will see further political pressure on the CPS to disclose all of the material they hold.

I have been part of a working group that includes representatives of JUSTICE, The Centre for Criminal Appeals, and Inside Justice, on designing a protocol to assist both police representatives and prosecutors in handling requests for post-conviction disclosure. In addition, the Centre for Criminal Appeals are to launch a campaign known as “Show Us The Evidence” which will help ensure that innocent prisoners and campaign groups like ours, doing the work of the CCRC, should have access to the evidence they need to defend those maintaining innocence.

Info re “Show us the evidence” campaign referred to above can be found here http://appeal.org.uk/show-us-the-evidence

An excerpt reads:

‘In America, access to material held by the police and prosecution has meant hundreds of innocent people have had their convictions overturned, through new forensic testing, and the discovery of leads to other suspects that were hidden at the original trial. Shows like Making a Murderer and Serial have laid the American criminal justice system’s flaws bare for all to see.

[Eleanor]

My concern has only ever been about a Reasonable Doubt, of which I think there is.

The original investigation was inept to say the least.  And this will just not do.  Guilty or Innocent Jeremy Bamber had a right to a Fair Trial and this he did not get.

[Nicholas]

Without doubt Bamber has and is committing innocence fraud

John Collins, on Innocence Fraud here https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-roberta-glass-true-crime-r-30951716/episode/the-wrongful-conviction-of-forensic-science-52731384/

He refers to how ‘the drama of these types of cases impairs our ability to look at these cases objectively’

with lots of help from his CT

[G-Unit]

My concern has only ever been about a Reasonable Doubt, of which I think there is.

The original investigation was inept to say the least.  And this will just not do.  Guilty or Innocent Jeremy Bamber had a right to a Fair Trial and this he did not get.

I agree. A story was presented, but I'm not convinced it was proved beyond reasonable doubt to be true.

[Nicholas]

I agree. A story was presented, but I'm not convinced it was proved beyond reasonable doubt to be true.

The story presented during Bamber’s trial was only ever a theory

A theory is a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained

Legal theory refers to the principle under which a litigant proceeds, or on which a litigant bases its claims or defenses in a case. It can also be the law or body of rules of conduct which are of binding legal force and effect, prescribed, recognized, and enforced by a controlling authority.

[Nicholas]

My concern has only ever been about a Reasonable Doubt, of which I think there is.

The original investigation was inept to say the least.  And this will just not do.  Guilty or Innocent Jeremy Bamber had a right to a Fair Trial and this he did not get.

Are you saying because the original investigation was ‘inept’ you believe Bamber’s trial shouldn’t have gone ahead? 

[Nicholas]

I agree. A story was presented, but I'm not convinced it was proved beyond reasonable doubt to be true.

Bamber claimed his sister carried out the murders then killed herself

This was showed during his trial to be impossible

[Eleanor]

I agree. A story was presented, but I'm not convinced it was proved beyond reasonable doubt to be true.

Well, it was 1985.  Not a good time for Criminal Justice.

[Caroline]

I agree. A story was presented, but I'm not convinced it was proved beyond reasonable doubt to be true.

Do you actually think he's innocent or just that his case wasn't proven BRD? The m majority of that particular jury thought it was and that's what counts.

[G-Unit]

Do you actually think he's innocent or just that his case wasn't proven BRD? The m majority of that particular jury thought it was and that's what counts.

I don't know what happened, but I'm not happy with the court decision. The jury delivered a verdict based on the evidence but if the evidence was dodgy then the jury's verdict was also dodgy.

[Nicholas]

I don't know what happened, but I'm not happy with the court decision. The jury delivered a verdict based on the evidence but if the evidence was dodgy then the jury's verdict was also dodgy.

The only ‘dodgy’ evidence appeared to be Bamber’s

Evidence that has come to light since the trial http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11477.0