If...someone has new evidence...

[Holly Goodhead]

Since I've been posting on these forums claims are often made about new evidence:

- Mike claims he sent a photo to JB of SC with 1 GSW which got lost en route.

- David claims to have made a forensic evidence breakthrough and dropped his info off to JB's lawyers.

- Roch has recently claimed he has witnessed something irrefutable proving JB's innocence but it isn't his to share.

The above are just 3 examples.  If someone genuinely finds new evidence how should it be handled?  I'm talking new evidence that would almost certainly meet the CCRC/CoA criteria for new evidence and a third appeal or imminent bail pending an appeal. 

- Send to JB for him to deal with as he sees fit?

- Send to CT

- Send to JackieD for her twitter campaign

- Post on blue and red forum and let it go viral!

- Send to JB's lawyers whoever they might be

- Send direct to CCRC

- Send to Theresa May as PM

- Send to Amber Rudd as Home Sec

- Send to local MP

- Send to various media outlets home and abroad

- Walk up and down Oxford St with a board

- Pitch up on Speakers' Corner

- Send to JB's birth parents

- Send to CAL

- Do nothing but die knowing

- Send to Justin Welby

- Send to Andrew Hunter

- Send it to the relatives but not before setting up listening devices.

- As above but for Julie Mugford

- As above but for senior bods at EP

- Send it to the likes of Sir Philip Green or Sir Richard Branson to announce on a banner from a plane, yacht or the like

- Send it to The Quuen

Yes we have processes and systems in place to deal with such matters but  if JB is the victim of arguably the worst MoJ post capital punishment is it right that those who preside over these processes and systems should be the first port of call? 

Does anyone who possesses such evidence have the right to decide? 

The world is fast-moving/changing. Social media means most of the global population is  interconnected for realtime communication.  Do a bunch of arguably middle-aged, middle class, white British males in charge of the legal process and system have the right to receive any evidence before the masses?   

24

[puglove]

Since I've been posting on these forums claims are often made about new evidence:

- Mike claims he sent a photo to JB of SC with 1 GSW which got lost en route.

- David claims to have made a forensic evidence breakthrough and dropped his info off to JB's lawyers.

- Roch has recently claimed he has witnessed something irrefutable proving JB's innocence but it isn't his to share.

The above are just 3 examples.  If someone genuinely finds new evidence how should it be handled?  I'm talking new evidence that would almost certainly meet the CCRC/CoA criteria for new evidence and a third appeal or imminent bail pending an appeal. 

- Send to JB for him to deal with as he sees fit?

- Send to CT

- Send to JackieD for her twitter campaign

- Post on blue and red forum and let it go viral!

- Send to JB's lawyers whoever they might be

- Send direct to CCRC

- Send to Theresa May as PM

- Send to Amber Rudd as Home Sec

- Send to local MP

- Send to various media outlets home and abroad

- Walk up and down Oxford St with a board

- Pitch up on Speakers' Corner

- Send to JB's birth parents

- Send to CAL

- Do nothing but die knowing

- Send to Justin Welby

- Send to Andrew Hunter

- Send it to the relatives but not before setting up listening devices.

- As above but for Julie Mugford

- As above but for senior bods at EP

- Send it to the likes of Sir Philip Green or Sir Richard Branson to announce on a banner from a plane, yacht or the like

- Send it to The Quuen

Yes we have processes and systems in place to deal with such matters but  if JB is the victim of arguably the worst MoJ post capital punishment is it right that those who preside over these processes and systems should be the first port of call? 

Does anyone who possesses such evidence have the right to decide? 

The world is fast-moving/changing. Social media means most of the global population is  interconnected for realtime communication.  Do a bunch of arguably middle-aged, middle class, white British males in charge of the legal process and system have the right to receive any evidence before the masses?   

You should send any new evidence to....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTHlac9vga4

[Holly Goodhead]

You should send any new evidence to....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTHlac9vga4

I knew I could rely on you to come up with something I hadn't considered.   

Any other suggestions welcome.  For those that are fixed about JB's guilt hypothetically speaking of course...

[Holly Goodhead]

In post #1 I have been quite derisory about those prevailing over the legal processes and systems.  As far as JB's case goes those involved to date have been almost exclusively white British born middle class males.  Not that I have anything against white British born middle class males (I've bedded a few over the years) but in recent times we have seen too many cocks up from a lack of divergent thinking caused by homegenous groups eg global financial crisis 2007/08, past MoJ's, Hillsborough, Stephen Lawrence etc. 

Just reading the DM earlier and I see the victims of Grenfell are calling for the judge appointed by TM to stand down as they fear he is too estalblishment so to speak.  The same thing happened with the inquiry into historic claims of child sex abuse.  Although some appointed were female and one from NZ. 

The plight of Charlie Gard and his parents has gone viral with claims of all sorts of people now involved from Donald Trump to the Pope.  It remains to be seen whether the parents wishes will override the medical and legal experts. 

Back to JB and any new evidence.  Would it be appropriate to take a new approach or should orthodoxy prevail with any new evidence handled discreetly by the men in grey suits following their processes and systems?     

[Samson]

In post #1 I have been quite derisory about those prevailing over the legal processes and systems.  As far as JB's case goes those involved to date have been almost exclusively white British born middle class males.  Not that I have anything against white British born middle class males (I've bedded a few over the years) but in recent times we have seen too many cocks up from a lack of divergent thinking caused by homegenous groups eg global financial crisis 2007/08, past MoJ's, Hillsborough, Stephen Lawrence etc. 

Just reading the DM earlier and I see the victims of Grenfell are calling for the judge appointed by TM to stand down as they fear he is too estalblishment so to speak.  The same thing happened with the inquiry into historic claims of child sex abuse.  Although some appointed were female and one from NZ. 

The plight of Charlie Gard and his parents has gone viral with claims of all sorts of people now involved from Donald Trump to the Pope.  It remains to be seen whether the parents wishes will override the medical and legal experts. 

Back to JB and any new evidence.  Would it be appropriate to take a new approach or should orthodoxy prevail with any new evidence handled discreetly by the men in grey suits following their processes and systems?     

Nosty and I are confronting precisely these issues with Lundy, WATCH THE CASE everyone.

[adam]

I did ask several times this week if a secret piece of 'bombshell' evidence seen in March 2017 had been passed to Bamber's legal advisors. But got no response.

If the poster didn't know because the person/people who showed him the 'bombshell' secret evidence then instantly disappeared, that would have been a sufficient answer. Bit weird though.

[Samson]

I did ask several times this week if a secret piece of 'bombshell' evidence seen in March 2017 had been passed to Bamber's legal advisors. But got no response.

If the poster didn't know because the person/people who showed him the 'bombshell' secret evidence then instantly disappeared, that would have been a sufficient answer. Bit weird though.

adam:
Never look for bombshell evidence.
Look for evidence that places Jeremy Bamber at the crime scene.
Describe this to a sheep from down under.
The most important datapoint that says Jeremy was there. There should be many in a quintuple homicide, but please, the one datapoint that PROVES HE WAS THERE.

[APRIL]

adam:
Never look for bombshell evidence.
Look for evidence that places Jeremy Bamber at the crime scene.
Describe this to a sheep from down under.
The most important datapoint that says Jeremy was there. There should be many in a quintuple homicide, but please, the one datapoint that PROVES HE WAS THERE.

WHAT would proving he was there lead us to believe? I know the answer! It would prove he'd been there. OF COURSE he'd been there. He'd probably been in and out of the house -his family home, in case you didn't know- all day. He'd certainly been there at supper time because he SAID he'd been there. WHAT, then is the point of PROVING he'd been there. HOW do you intend to differentiate those signs of his presence PRIOR to the massacre, from those signs of his presence DURING or POST massacre?

[Holly Goodhead]

In post #1 I have been quite derisory about those prevailing over the legal processes and systems.  As far as JB's case goes those involved to date have been almost exclusively white British born middle class males.  Not that I have anything against white British born middle class males (I've bedded a few over the years) but in recent times we have seen too many cocks up from a lack of divergent thinking caused by homegenous groups eg global financial crisis 2007/08, past MoJ's, Hillsborough, Stephen Lawrence etc. 

Just reading the DM earlier and I see the victims of Grenfell are calling for the judge appointed by TM to stand down as they fear he is too estalblishment so to speak.  The same thing happened with the inquiry into historic claims of child sex abuse.  Although some appointed were female and one from NZ. 

The plight of Charlie Gard and his parents has gone viral with claims of all sorts of people now involved from Donald Trump to the Pope.  It remains to be seen whether the parents wishes will override the medical and legal experts. 

Back to JB and any new evidence.  Would it be appropriate to take a new approach or should orthodoxy prevail with any new evidence handled discreetly by the men in grey suits following their processes and systems?     

In the case of Charlie Gard it seems 7 experts have now come forward with claims that contradict recent medical evidence which the court is now considering.  Evidence of the power of www/social media ie sharing info.  But a world of difference between new medical evidence supporting a poorly little boy and any new evidence which supports a 56 yo man claiming to be the victim of a MoJ serving a life sentence for mass murder. 

Still thinking a new approach might be best for any new evidence/JB.

[John]

Since I've been posting on these forums claims are often made about new evidence:

- Mike claims he sent a photo to JB of SC with 1 GSW which got lost en route.

- David claims to have made a forensic evidence breakthrough and dropped his info off to JB's lawyers.

- Roch has recently claimed he has witnessed something irrefutable proving JB's innocence but it isn't his to share.

The above are just 3 examples.  If someone genuinely finds new evidence how should it be handled?  I'm talking new evidence that would almost certainly meet the CCRC/CoA criteria for new evidence and a third appeal or imminent bail pending an appeal. 

- Send to JB for him to deal with as he sees fit?

- Send to CT

- Send to JackieD for her twitter campaign

- Post on blue and red forum and let it go viral!

- Send to JB's lawyers whoever they might be

- Send direct to CCRC

- Send to Theresa May as PM

- Send to Amber Rudd as Home Sec

- Send to local MP

- Send to various media outlets home and abroad

- Walk up and down Oxford St with a board

- Pitch up on Speakers' Corner

- Send to JB's birth parents

- Send to CAL

- Do nothing but die knowing

- Send to Justin Welby

- Send to Andrew Hunter

- Send it to the relatives but not before setting up listening devices.

- As above but for Julie Mugford

- As above but for senior bods at EP

- Send it to the likes of Sir Philip Green or Sir Richard Branson to announce on a banner from a plane, yacht or the like

- Send it to The Quuen

Yes we have processes and systems in place to deal with such matters but  if JB is the victim of arguably the worst MoJ post capital punishment is it right that those who preside over these processes and systems should be the first port of call? 

Does anyone who possesses such evidence have the right to decide? 

The world is fast-moving/changing. Social media means most of the global population is  interconnected for realtime communication.  Do a bunch of arguably middle-aged, middle class, white British males in charge of the legal process and system have the right to receive any evidence before the masses?   

I don't think we need worry too much about that ever happening Holly.  In fact if anyone does ever uncover irrefutable evidence that Jeremy Bamber is innocent we will all be too gobsmacked to worry about it.

[Myster]

And I'll swallow a 100 kilogram New Zealand sheep... whole!

[Caroline]

And I'll swallow a 100 kilogram New Zealand sheep... whole!

Unsheared?

[Myster]

Unsheared?

Not on your Nelly!!!... especially if it's a black one.

[Holly Goodhead]

I don't think we need worry too much about that ever happening Holly.  In fact if anyone does ever uncover irrefutable evidence that Jeremy Bamber is innocent we will all be too gobsmacked to worry about it.

I don't think JB's case is capable of delivering irrefutable evidence of innocence.  It might be possible to produce evidence that undermines the prosecution case against JB to the extent that his conviction is quashed.

[Holly Goodhead]

Unsheared?

Sheared = unwoolly!