Author Topic: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?  (Read 486471 times)

0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Caroline

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #1200 on: April 27, 2020, 10:40:13 PM »
Good grief.  *%87

He is just like a child caught with an empty cookie jar, he thinks because no one saw him actually eat the cookies he can just deny it and still have pudding!

The first item of evidence they are demanding on their pointless petition is the recordings of the "two" phone calls so voice analysis can prove JB didn't make them both! - They cannot be serious?

Yes, very much like a child - he called me 'naughty' - which kind of creeped me out!

I don't read their twaddle but any list is no doubt based on fiction. I certainly can't see how West would have recorded the call he received and if Bonnett's call was recorded, it wouldn't be Bamber talking to him, it would be West  @)(++(*

Offline APRIL

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #1201 on: April 27, 2020, 10:42:09 PM »
Good grief.  *%87

He is just like a child caught with an empty cookie jar, he thinks because no one saw him actually eat the cookies he can just deny it and still have pudding!

The first item of evidence they are demanding on their pointless petition is the recordings of the "two" phone calls so voice analysis can prove JB didn't make them both! - They cannot be serious?


Similarly said by John McEnroe.

Offline Common sense

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #1202 on: April 27, 2020, 10:52:48 PM »
Yes, very much like a child - he called me 'naughty' - which kind of creeped me out!

I don't read their twaddle but any list is no doubt based on fiction. I certainly can't see how West would have recorded the call he received and if Bonnett's call was recorded, it wouldn't be Bamber talking to him, it would be West  @)(++(*

Apart from trying to change Holly's mind, I wonder what we are all really doing here. Guilters are redundant when the CT do such a good job of undermining him.

Although I think sometimes what he fears the most is being forgotten and they have helped him put his name on the map.

Right in the middle of Sc..thorpe

Offline Caroline

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #1203 on: April 27, 2020, 10:59:46 PM »
Apart from trying to change Holly's mind, I wonder what we are all really doing here. Guilters are redundant when the CT do such a good job of undermining him.

Although I think sometimes what he fears the most is being forgotten and they have helped him put his name on the map.

Right in the middle of Sc..thorpe

 @)(++(* @)(++(*

I wonder that myself - often


Offline Nicholas

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #1204 on: April 28, 2020, 09:31:59 AM »
Then why has Bamber changed his timings? A few years ago Jeremy was adamant that he called the police at 03:26, accusing West of altering the log from 03:26 to 03:36. I have the document that the CT formulated detaining how they believed West perjured himself over the logs. In their argument, EP were supposed to have changed the times to make it look as though Bamber had called Julie first and he was adamant he called police around 03:20 (at that point). Now he and they are arguing the that Bamber did indeed call West at 03:36 in order to bluff a call from Nevill. The CCRC aren't stupid!

Sounds like Mark Newby may have found a way round this if he’s claiming otherwise

The CCRC aren’t all they are cracked up to be. They’ve referred numerous murder convictions of guilty men to the CoA and they are reviewing the Ben Geen case for a second time & the Robin Garbutt case for a third.

And - they will apparently take Bamber ‘seriously’ if/when he approaches them for a further review of his case

The Commission’s contribution to society is important. Miscarriages of justice remain a reality, as are the challenges to the organisation charged with their investigation. The CCRC Chairman’s concluding words provide an apt statement of aspiration: “We can’t know whether a particular person is telling the truth or not. We do not know whether they committed the crime they are accused of or not.” But, he said, people are entitled to be taken seriously when they approach the CCRC claiming to have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice. “Detailed, thorough, impartial investigation may confirm what they are saying – or it may tell us otherwise. But the possibility that what they are saying may indeed be the truth must always, always be our starting point. How different might the case of the Birmingham Six have been had it been approached from the beginning in that spirit?”
« Last Edit: April 28, 2020, 10:24:37 AM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline ISpyWithMyEye

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #1205 on: April 28, 2020, 10:04:44 AM »
We can all agree that the investigation was a complete shambles from the beginning but the inquest recorded it as murder-suicide and Taff was convinced that it was.  No one (except the relatives) would have batted an eyelid if JB had inherited the lot and sailed off to quickly spend it all on cocaine and Bollinger and neither would there have been two inquiries into the EP that they invited on themselves by changing course and exposing their own bungling but the fact is, they were lead eventually by the evidence. 

If they had treated JB as a possible suspect from the beginning as they would today, the case would have long faded in the memory.

I can't agree that MF was not up to the job, he had 13 years experience and could draw on any other published expert opinion to back up his own. He was honest enough to say that the phenomenon of back spatter was not fully understood at that time - he didn't mean not fully understood by just himself but by anyone in the field at that time.  Do you really think he went to the Old Bailey armed with only his own opinion and hunches  ( and not just on the back spatter) ?

I'll have a look at Dr Di Maio in a bit but I can't see how a JFK style reconstruction would have helped,  we know roughly where the killer was in WHF as evidenced by the casings etc, it tells us nothing about who the killer was, just as if there had been two people in the book depository in Dallas, all we would know is roughly where the bullets came from.


Excellent, CS — I always enjoy your intelligent, well thought-out posts. They make such sense.

I might add, though, that the case didn’t go to the Old Bailey — it was tried at Colchester Crown Court (or Chelmsford, one or the other)

I read somewhere that Jeremy Bamber was somewhat upset about that. He expected someone as grand as himself to be tried at the highest criminal court in the land😤

I guess he was imagining the public queuing for hours to get a seat in the public gallery so he could show them his “good side” which he he thought he had. Off topic, I know, but both his biological parents’ had extremely large somewhat hooked noses, Im wondering if he had his altered at some stage? He was and is incredibly vain..

Because he isn’t normal being a psychopath it doesn’t occur to him when he has his annual mugshot taken in prison, that it looks odd to pose, sometimes smile, and stand with his chest puffed out 😌

Actually, I think the last mugshot he posted of himself was some years back. Wonder why? Has he gone bald does anyone know? Or been binging on cakes and whacked on a few stone? The journalist who visited him a few years back said Jeremy looked much older than his years, had drooping jowls, and a grey complexion. Bet he misses his sunbeds.🤨
Seeking Justice for June & Nevill Bamber, Sheila Caffell & her two six-year-old twin boys who were shot dead in their heads by Psychopath, JEREMY BAMBER who must NEVER be released.

Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Total likes: 802
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #1206 on: April 28, 2020, 10:06:53 AM »

Jeremy Bamber has no family because he killed them all


He has living relatives, not that I think any of them support him!

Offline ISpyWithMyEye

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #1207 on: April 28, 2020, 10:31:52 AM »
We know the blood/silencer is the key evidence.  If it wasn't it wouldn't have been referred to Coa in 2002 on the back of this.

The case whole 2002 appeal is utter tosh.  Never mind third time lucky!

Yes, and the CoA slung his case out in 2002.


When someone is convicted, then makes two appeals, losing both, including losing the appeal at the court of Human Rights, you can’t keep running back with the same old “fresh evidence” which the courts have already heard.

He and his team are like a mini Brexit. The Remainers wanted another vote, and that didn’t happen, either.

When you’ve lost you’ve lost, and just as you can’t unscramble an egg, JB and his team will never be able to undo what Jeremy was proven to have done — he killed all his family.
Seeking Justice for June & Nevill Bamber, Sheila Caffell & her two six-year-old twin boys who were shot dead in their heads by Psychopath, JEREMY BAMBER who must NEVER be released.

Offline Nicholas

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #1208 on: April 28, 2020, 11:06:08 AM »
Bamber’s campaign team have made claim:

Essex police have also ignored a request for material from the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) under section 17 of the Criminal Appeals Act.
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/open-letter

And recently:

“....the Criminal Cases Review Commission who have already unsuccessfully tried to obtain disclosure of some of the documents requested in the booklet.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/jbcampaignltd/status/1254842621098426368
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Common sense

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #1209 on: April 28, 2020, 11:20:52 AM »
Bamber’s campaign team have made claim:

Essex police have also ignored a request for material from the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) under section 17 of the Criminal Appeals Act.
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/open-letter

And recently:

“....the Criminal Cases Review Commission who have already unsuccessfully tried to obtain disclosure of some of the documents requested in the booklet.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/jbcampaignltd/status/1254842621098426368

The usual BS.

The CT actually state themselves that the original handwritten log could not be located, not that disclosure was refused.

I'm willing to bet the CCRC have seen the "undisclosed" photographs they bleat on about and found nothing of value in them too - something their 2012 statement of reasons could shed light on.

It's the ultimate hypocrisy for team Bamber to harp on about non disclosure and the police "hiding the truth"   

Offline Caroline

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #1210 on: April 28, 2020, 11:27:05 AM »
The usual BS.

The CT actually state themselves that the original handwritten log could not be located, not that disclosure was refused.

I'm willing to bet the CCRC have seen the "undisclosed" photographs they bleat on about and found nothing of value in them too - something their 2012 statement of reasons could shed light on.

It's the ultimate hypocrisy for team Bamber to harp on about non disclosure and the police "hiding the truth"

He told me years ago that he had 'almost' all of the withheld stuff, he told CAL that he had all of it. You can go on forever saying evidence if withheld and people will believe it.

Offline Nicholas

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #1211 on: April 28, 2020, 11:27:44 AM »
The usual BS.

The CT actually state themselves that the original handwritten log could not be located, not that disclosure was refused.

I'm willing to bet the CCRC have seen the "undisclosed" photographs they bleat on about and found nothing of value in them too - something their 2012 statement of reasons could shed light on.

It's the ultimate hypocrisy for team Bamber to harp on about non disclosure and the police "hiding the truth"

He told me years ago that he had 'almost' all of the withheld stuff, he told CAL that he had all of it. You can go on forever saying evidence if withheld and people will believe it.


So what’s in their submissions ?



Joe Stone QC is representing Jeremy Bamber who has launched a high court challenge to the Crown Prosecution Service for its failure to disclose evidence that would undermine the safety of his conviction.
Joe Stone QC is instructed by Mark Newby of Quality Solicitors.
Press coverage can be found here: The Guardian

https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/joe-stone-qc-instructed-jeremy-bamber-launches-court-challenge-cps-withholding-evidence


Joe Stone QC has specialised in criminal defence for over 30 years.  He was called to the Bar in 1989 and appointed Queens Counsel (QC) in 2013.

He represents those indicted with all types of homicide (murder, manslaughter, death by reckless/careless driving and infanticide), large scale international drug conspiracies and top tier organised crime. He is also instructed privately in high profile sex allegations and has secured acquittals in the most complex of cases.

His primary focus is trial work and high profile appeals. He is currently instructed on one of the most notorious alleged miscarriages of justice in English criminal history – the Jeremy Bamber case.  He has successfully represented over many years those indicted with murder under the joint enterprise rules in major city gang related stabbings, shootings and executions. He has conducted over 200 murder trials and is recognised in the directories as a leader in this field.

https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/barristers/joe-stone-qc
« Last Edit: April 28, 2020, 11:45:18 AM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Caroline

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #1212 on: April 28, 2020, 11:51:43 AM »

So what’s in their submissions ?



Joe Stone QC is representing Jeremy Bamber who has launched a high court challenge to the Crown Prosecution Service for its failure to disclose evidence that would undermine the safety of his conviction.
Joe Stone QC is instructed by Mark Newby of Quality Solicitors.
Press coverage can be found here: The Guardian

https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/joe-stone-qc-instructed-jeremy-bamber-launches-court-challenge-cps-withholding-evidence


Joe Stone QC has specialised in criminal defence for over 30 years.  He was called to the Bar in 1989 and appointed Queens Counsel (QC) in 2013.

He represents those indicted with all types of homicide (murder, manslaughter, death by reckless/careless driving and infanticide), large scale international drug conspiracies and top tier organised crime. He is also instructed privately in high profile sex allegations and has secured acquittals in the most complex of cases.

His primary focus is trial work and high profile appeals. He is currently instructed on one of the most notorious alleged miscarriages of justice in English criminal history – the Jeremy Bamber case.  He has successfully represented over many years those indicted with murder under the joint enterprise rules in major city gang related stabbings, shootings and executions. He has conducted over 200 murder trials and is recognised in the directories as a leader in this field.

https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/barristers/joe-stone-qc

We'll have to see but hopefully, the non-disclosure issue will be sorted out once and for all.

Offline Nicholas

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #1213 on: April 28, 2020, 12:02:41 PM »

So what’s in their submissions ?



Joe Stone QC is representing Jeremy Bamber who has launched a high court challenge to the Crown Prosecution Service for its failure to disclose evidence that would undermine the safety of his conviction.
Joe Stone QC is instructed by Mark Newby of Quality Solicitors.
Press coverage can be found here: The Guardian

https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/joe-stone-qc-instructed-jeremy-bamber-launches-court-challenge-cps-withholding-evidence


Joe Stone QC has specialised in criminal defence for over 30 years.  He was called to the Bar in 1989 and appointed Queens Counsel (QC) in 2013.

He represents those indicted with all types of homicide (murder, manslaughter, death by reckless/careless driving and infanticide), large scale international drug conspiracies and top tier organised crime. He is also instructed privately in high profile sex allegations and has secured acquittals in the most complex of cases.

His primary focus is trial work and high profile appeals. He is currently instructed on one of the most notorious alleged miscarriages of justice in English criminal history – the Jeremy Bamber case.  He has successfully represented over many years those indicted with murder under the joint enterprise rules in major city gang related stabbings, shootings and executions. He has conducted over 200 murder trials and is recognised in the directories as a leader in this field.

https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/barristers/joe-stone-qc

Has anyone else noticed how the Criminal Cases Review Commission don’t appear to have commented publicly on this
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: The Jeremy Supporters : Help, Hindrance or Harmful?
« Reply #1214 on: April 28, 2020, 12:05:33 PM »
David Rose for the Daily Mail here https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5140343/Criminal-Cases-Review-Commission-ignores-new-evidence.html

“Revealed: Fresh evidence that could have cleared the 'Cocaine Crew' of £53m smuggling plot is REJECTED despite suggesting fishing boat never reached where drug bags dumped” Dec 2017

”Five men serving prison terms of up to 24 years for a £53 million drug smuggling plot have lost their bid to appeal – despite fresh scientific evidence suggesting the version of events presented by the prosecution at the trial was ‘impossible’.

Almost four years after The Mail on Sunday published the first of three investigations casting doubt on the convictions, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which has the power to refer possible miscarriages of justice to the Court of Appeal, has decided to take no action.

In doing so, it is rejecting expert evidence that the fishing boat reputedly used to pick up holdalls packed with cocaine from the English Channel never actually reached the spot where the bags might have been dumped. The CCRC has also disregarded fresh evidence from a recently retired senior drugs crime investigator, who found ‘serious discrepancies’ in the surveillance records.

The CCRC’s 78-page ‘Statement of Reasons’, seen by this newspaper, makes clear that it did not commission any of its own scientific tests, nor seek advice from a single independent expert to confirm or deny the men’s claim of innocence.

The statement’s author, CCRC commissioner David Smith, said he did not consider any such tests were necessary. In his view, there was still no ‘real possibility’ that the men might win an appeal.

Isle of Wight crab and lobster fisherman Jamie Green, who owned the 39ft Galwad-y-Mor, was jailed for 24 years in 2011, as was casual labourer Zoran Dresic and Mr Green’s lifelong friend, Jonathan Beere. Crewmen Danny Payne and Scott Birtwistle got 18 and 14 years respectively.

According to the prosecution, Green sailed his boat into the middle of the Channel in a Force 8 gale on the night of May 29, 2010. There, it was claimed, the Galwad-y-Mor crossed the wake of the Oriane, a Brazilian container ship, just after 12 rucksacks containing a total of 560 lb of cocaine had allegedly been thrown from its deck.

Working in total darkness, with waves up to 30ft, Green and his crew were said to have retrieved the bags in about two minutes. Then, after spending ten hours fishing, they returned to the inshore waters of the island’s Freshwater Bay, where, in broad daylight, the crew threw the bags back into the water. They were found next morning by another fisherman, and retrieved by the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA).

As this newspaper has previously revealed, defence solicitor Emily Bolton consulted a leading marine GPS expert, who concluded the closest the paths of the boats came to each other was 175 metres (190 yards). Moreover, he said the Galwad-y-Mor could not have sailed to the spot where the drug bags were subsequently found anchored to the seabed because the water is too shallow.

‘This new analysis, based on evidence that was not available at the trial, undermines the case put to the jury,’ Ms Bolton said. ‘It should have persuaded the CCRC to refer it to the Court of Appeal.’

She said the commission’s decision not to was ‘baffling and perverse’ – and said it had shown ‘a lack of understanding of the technical evidence’.

But the CCRC said the new evidence was unlikely to make a difference to the outcome because another expert, Mik Chinnery, had already told the trial jury it would have been ‘impossible’ for Green’s crew to collect the bags from the water, yet they still found the men guilty by majority verdict.

However, Mr Chinnery testified about the difficulty of locating and recovering the bags from the heaving sea, not the course of the boats.

But Mr Smith told The Mail on Sunday he disagreed that the trial expert was making a fundamentally different point. He added: ‘We didn’t consider the new analysis would make a difference.’

Mr Smith also rejected a new report from the Plymouth Marine Laboratory, which says currents on the night would mean any bags thrown from the Oriane would have floated away from the Galwad-y-Mor, not towards it. There were ‘too many variables’, Mr Smith said, and if the Galwad was ‘in the vicinity’ of the Oriane, then it was possible she did pick up the drugs.

As for the claim that the water was too shallow in Freshwater Bay, Mr Smith said it was uncertain whether the anchor to which the bags were tied was heavy enough to stop them moving from deeper waters where the boat could have sailed. He rejected suggestions that the CCRC should have conducted tests to settle this, saying: ‘I don’t think it can be established that the anchor didn’t move.’


The CCRC also rejected fresh evidence from Don Dewar, a retired senior anti-drug officer who found ‘inexplicable gaps’ in the surveillance records used to convict the men. Mr Smith agreed there were discrepancies, but not enough to show they had been fabricated.

The CCRC’s decision comes amid mounting concern at the plummeting rate at which it is referring cases for appeals – down from more than three per cent of applications five years ago to just 0.7 per cent last year – as it faces budget pressures.

Ms Bolton said the men now plan to challenge the CCRC decision with a judicial review.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5140343/Criminal-Cases-Review-Commission-ignores-new-evidence.html


‘David Smith’ appears to be David James Smith who met with & wrote about Bamber’s case

Carol Ann Lee makes reference to Mr James Smith in her book ‘The Murders at White House Farm’

Mass murderer Jeremy Bamber also referred to ‘life on Mars’ when being interviewed by David James Smith

It was, Bamber pointed out to me, the days of life on Mars, the drama that depicted the bad old days of policing (He has seen the show on TV in prison. And loves it)

http://davidjamessmith.net/pdf_articles/DJS_bamber.pdf

"I am delighted to endorse this comprehensive book on wrongful convictions. In its clear and concise terms it will help readers start to grasp hold of a system which is overly complex and stacked against those who have been wrongfully convicted. The book will help all those who have suffered an injustice to have direction as they continue to fight to clear their names.’ – Mark Newby, Solicitor Advocate, Jordans LLP, Doncaster
http://michaeljnaughton.com/?page_id=877

No defence: latest in Justice Gap series out - By Jon Robins 25 June 2013
‘Lawyers are at the heart of many cases of the wrongly accused and wrongly convicted: wrong, shoddy, lazy representation. It is a recurrent theme. It should haunt us.’
So said Gareth Peirce, speaking at the launch of Wrongly Accused: who is responsible for investigating miscarriages of justice?

No defence: miscarriages of justice and lawyers is that latest publication in the Justice Gap series and follows on from Wrongly Accused: who is responsible for investigating miscarriages of justice? (to be published in association with Solicitors Journal and Wilmington shortly). You can download that collection

"Show me a miscarriage of justice and, nine times out of 10, I will show you the blueprint that caused it, writes Eric Allison. Eric Allison is the Guardian’s prison correspondent.
This essay will feature in a new collection of essays (No defence: miscarriages of justice and lawyers) as part of the Justice Gap series and following on from Wrongly Accused: who is responsible for investigating miscarriages of justice? (to be published in association with Solicitors Journal and Wilmington). You can download that collection HERE.
Contributors for No Defence include Eric Allison; Dr Ros Burnett; Prof Ed Cape; Dr Dennis Eady; Francis Fitzgibbon QC; Mark George QC; Andrew Green; Campbell Malone; Michael Mansfield QC; Mark Newby; Daniel Newman; Paul May; Dr Angus Nurse; Correna Platt; Julie Price; Dr Hannah Quirk; David Rose; Adam Sampson; Satish Sekar; and Tom Wainwright. Thanks to all.

https://www.thejusticegap.com/no-defence-latest-in-justice-gap-series-out-now/

Mark Newby, Mike Naughton, Dennis Eady & Glyn Maddocks, Carolyn Hoyle, Carole McCartney and Josephine Hodgson giving evidence at the justice committee 13th Jan 2015
https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/21e7258c-2461-4a1f-af60-bbfb885de507

Carolyn Hoyle published a book in Aug 2015 called, “Reasons to Doubt: Wrongful Convictions and the Criminal Cases Review Commission” following several years of studying the CCRC - alongside a colleague Mai Soto

Last Resorts: Decisions and Discretion at the Criminal Cases Review Commission
hhttps://www.law.ox.ac.uk/content/last-resorts-decisions-and-discretion-criminal-cases-review-commission

Interestingly Carolyn Hoyle is married to David Rose who wrote and published the above

Doesn’t this suggest a conflict of interest ?
« Last Edit: April 28, 2020, 12:53:51 PM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation