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 April 19, 2012, 09:16:35 AM
-
Fresh from the disaster ITV documentary Mckay continues to use the press and media to promote pro Bamber propaganda. In his latest exercise he is basically harassing and threatening Julie (Mugford) Smerchanski with arrest and extradition. What the hell does Mckay think he is playing at? He is out to wreck Julie's life and career in the most distasteful and underhand manner. It was Julie's right not to cooperate with his spoof documentary.
You can read the Canadian article here.
http://t.co/DLad3AW4
-
You would have thought he would have waited until the CCRC give their decision before making such comments. If there is no referral this will be a non issue.
-
You would have thought he would have waited until the CCRC give their decision before making such comments. If there is no referral this will be a non issue.
I an incensed by this development. Mckay is a shit stirrer who doesn"t give a dam for anyone but himself. He has crossed the ethical line as far as I am concerned and I for one will be making a formal complaint to the Law Society about his conduct. He is effectively harassing this woman and by publicising the case in such a despicable manner has effectively undermined her credibility in her community. Julie could lose her job over these comments which effectively accuse her of not being prepared to cooperate with the courts. I honestly find this appalling behaviour.
-
I agree with you, it's a despicable thing to do, but I don't think the Law Society has much interest in common decency.
-
Thanks for bringing this to our notice. We have launched an immediate attack on McKay on Twitter, we will not allow this clown to make a fool out of Julie in order to progress his fiasco case for the child killer Bamber. We will post any reaction we get in due course.
It comes as no surprise that McKay is using unethical means in an attempt to promote this case. Trial by media is unacceptable and this is what he is effectively engaged in promoting. If McKay wants a Twitter war on Bamber...Bring it on!
We will be speaking with this Canadian newspaper when their office opens later today.
?>)()<
-
McKay hasn't a leg to stand on. Julie came over for the 2002 appeal but was never called as the defence were scared of what she might say. All this evidence is old news and no appeal court will ever tolerate any attempt to try to reintroduce it. I think Mckay is stuffed and he knows it thus why he is breaking with all rules of ethics and running crying to the Press.
-
I think I am going to be incensed too but for some reason that link freezes my computer .... would someone kindly copy and paste the bodytext here please. Or even better post a copy of the article which probably should be exposed on the forum!
Thank you kindly in advance.
-
WINNIPEG — Jeremy Bamber was convicted in 1986 of murdering five members of his family — one of the most sensational British murder trials in decades.
The 52-year-old Bamber has alleged all along that he was the victim of a wrongful conviction, and he'll find out next week if the British courts will grant him leave to appeal.
If the appeal goes ahead, a key witness could again be his former girlfriend, Julie Mugford — now Julie Smerchanski, a Winnipeg wife and mother, and director of assessment and instructional support services for the Winnipeg School Division.
"Yes, absolutely," he will call Smerchanski to testify should his client have his appeal heard, Bamber's lawyer Simon McKay said Wednesday from Leeds, England
"She was a key witness," McKay said, though he emphasized: "No one considered that her evidence alone convicted Bamber."
Smerchanski has not responded to emailed interview requests from the Winnipeg Free Press. She has an unlisted home phone number.
Bamber's case has resulted in several books and numerous television documentaries.
Bamber was adopted as a child into a relatively wealthy English farm family. In 1985, five members of his family were found shot to death, a rifle lying across the body of Bamber's non-biological adopted sister.
The victims included Bamber's adoptive parents, and his sister's two young children.
For weeks, police believed that the sister suffered from mental illness and had committed four murders before taking her own life.
But they eventually charged Bamber with all five murders, and he was convicted and sentenced to life without parole.
McKay said that the Bamber trial has been so sensational in the United Kingdom for so many years, that a mythology has developed around it. The original trial created a media frenzy in Britain, complete with some media outlets offering tens of thousands of pounds for exclusive interviews.
A previous appeal bid failed in 2002, but that attempt to get a new trial was based entirely on DNA evidence, said McKay, who took up Bamber's case last year. McKay has had several highly publicized murder convictions overturned, and is representing several clients victimized in the ongoing hacked telephone and email scandal in Britain.
McKay said that he will allege in court that the police thoroughly mishandled the original murder investigation, and that some crucial evidence was contaminated. Bamber's legal team has pathologists and forensic experts who will testify that the evidence clearly points to the sister as the murderer, said McKay.
He said the charges against Bamber were laid after Mugford came forward and told police about statements he had allegedly made to her, McKay said.
"It wasn't until the 2002 appeal that it was learned she had moved to Canada," McKay said. "I know journalists have come to Canada and tried to talk to her."
Extensive online coverage of the Bamber case indicates that Mugford played a crucial role in the 1986 trial, and that she has consistently declined to talk to the media.
McKay said that he believes he can compel Smerchanski to testify at an appeal.
"We're fairly certain we can issue a subpoena upon her," and that extradition treaties would force her to testify, he said.
© Copyright (c) Winnipeg Free Press
Read more: http://www.globalwinnipeg.com/Winnipeg+woman+testimony+could+appeal+five/6481881/story.html#ixzz1sTfxxTAz
-
Thank you Weety @)(++(*
What a poisonous little chancer Simon Decay has turned out to be! Shame on him!
There is an unquantifyable aspect to this farce and that is who did the jury believe; Bamber or Mugford? Bamber had his choice of one of the top QC's in the country to challenge Julie's testimony in court and he couldn't lay a glove on her. We all know that is because Julie told the truth!
The inference that Julie lied to secure her 25K deal with the NOTW is a completely bogus argument for one simple reason. When Julie went to the police to expose Bamber there was no press deal on offer for her and she couldn't have known what deal was to be put on the table!
If McChancer should get Bamber another CoA trial I think he has no chance of getting Julie to leave Cananda ... especially as she attended the 2002 appeal and wasn't even called by Bamber's defense!
McKay has a few Tesko traits ... he doesn't give a shit who he attempts to degrade to get his own way. Come on CCRC end this farce!
?8)@)-)
-
Just so and the rest. I don't subscribe to Twitter but did a search earlier and alll the old suspects are retweeting this story in an attempt to get at Julie. How shallow they all are and very noticeable that they are all female. Is it a case that all he has are the Perez's, Miller's, di Girolamo's, Preece's, Brazier"s and Hanovers"s of this world? Not forgetting Si and Eric of course!
-
To bring everyone up to date in this matter, I was asked to telephone Nick Martin at Winnipeg Free Press in Canada and did so just a few moments ago. I went into some detail about his article. I assured Mr Martin that we were disgusted by it and the fact that he had in besmirched Julie Smerchanski in her home town.
He told me that he had spoken with McKay and I asked him if he didn't think this was unethical given the current status of the case. He laughed and responded that that is what they do in Canada. I reminded him that the case was not being dealt with in Canada and that such conduct was to put it bluntly, highly irregular.
He told me that several media organisations had attempted to contact Mrs Smerchanski without success. He stated that he asked Simon McKay what he would do if she failed to respond to his calls for her to attend court and he told me that McKay had stated that he would subpoena her.
I told Mr Martin that what he was doing was disgraceful and pointed out that Julie was the innocent party in all of this which he didn't like of course. He told me that the pro Bamber lot had been in touch with him earlier today but I left him in no uncertain terms that what they are promoting is simply propaganda. He put the phone down on me in the end which sort of says it all really. Maybe that is what passes for manners in Canada?
You can contact Mr Nick Martin on 00 1 204 697 7251 (Winnipeg time UK minus 6 hours)
nick.martin@freepress.mb.ca (http://media.winnipegfreepress.com/images/nick_martin.jpg)
-
To bring everyone up to date in this matter, I was asked to telephone Nick Martin at Winnipeg Free Press in Canada and did so just a few moments ago. I went into some detail about his article. I assured Mr Martin that we were disgusted by it and the fact that he had in besmirched Julie Smerchanski in her home town.
He told me that he had spoken with McKay and I asked him if he didn't think this was unethical given the current status of the case. He laughed and responded that that is what they do in Canada. I reminded him that the case was not being dealt with in Canada and that such conduct was to put it bluntly, highly irregular.
He told me that several media organisations had attempted to contact Mrs Smerchanski without success. He stated that he asked Simon McKay what he would do if she failed to respond to his calls for her to attend court and he told me that McKay had stated that he would subpoena her.
I told Mr Martin that what he was doing was disgraceful and pointed out that Julie was the innocent party in all of this which he didn't like of course. He told me that the pro Bamber lot had been in touch with him earlier today but I left him in no uncertain terms that what they are promoting is simply propaganda. He put the phone down on me in the end which sort of says it all really. Maybe that is what passes for manners in Canada?
You can contact Mr Nick Martin on 00 1 204 697 7251 (Winnipeg time UK minus 6 hours)
nick.martin@freepress.mb.ca (http://media.winnipegfreepress.com/images/nick_martin.jpg)
You mentioned a few weeks ago that you were going to contact Julie, did you ever get a response?
-
What a nasty little welk McKay is; if he does manage to get Bamber to the CCRC I am going to actively campaign against this odious chancer! He is attempting to damage Julie's highly respectable career without Bamber even having a CoA referal. Little twunt!
-
Remind me, when are we expecting a CCRC announcement? I recall they announced that there wouldn't be a decision before XX/XX/XXXX but I can't recall the date.
-
23rd of April.
"welk" and "twunt" - too funny!
-
What a nasty little welk McKay is; if he does manage to get Bamber to the CCRC I am going to actively campaign against this odious chancer! He is attempting to damage Julie's highly respectable career without Bamber even having a CoA referal. Little twunt!
It is very obvious that they don't care about anyone and all they are interested in is in having Bamber reprieved at any cost. I have never know a counsel to speak to a newspaper in such terms. am I missing something here? Is the Law in England so lax so as to permit such a thing while a CCRC decision is imminent?
-
23rd of April.
"welk" and "twunt" - too funny!
I get the twunt bit but what is a welk?
-
You mentioned a few weeks ago that you were going to contact Julie, did you ever get a response?
I think I mentioned that but there was a mix up with e-mail addresses at the time and I didn't get it resolved. I will follow that up this evening again.
Thanks for reminding me. 8((()*/
ps I did put her in the picture about events.
pps I will see if I can get a comment specifically for the forum from her.
-
They seem to be gloating about this on the other forum. Just because Julie didn't take part in the documentary, why should she have done? Assuming that she was telling the truth she must have gone through a pretty terrible ordeal so who could blame her for not wanting to have this brought up all the time? At the end of the day the judge advised the jury that it was a question of whom they believed-Jeremy or Julie. By a significant majority they decided Julie was a more credible witness. When she came back ready to give evidence in 2002 did she actually have to do this? If not it does not strike me that she is deliberately being evasive. That said I certainly think it is possible that she may have been a willing accomplice to the crime, perhaps even encouraging him?-though of course Bamber could never suggest this without admitting his guilt.
-
The documentary was called Bamber - THE NEW EVIDENCE! Well seeing as Julie knows there can be no evidence of Bamber's innocence then why on earth would she want to take part!
I think Julie is a good woman unlucky enough to have been caught up in Bamber's nightmare! She has led a very worthwhile life since the trial .... and like the pointless existence of most of the Bamberettes!
McKay is going to get exposed if he doesn't leave Julie alone! The is no evidence whatever that Julie did anything wrong in the murder case and although she was involved in the burglary,cheque fraud and minor drug offences she has more than made up for that by being a teacher and mum for 26 years! If McKay bothers Julie in Canada everyone of his clients past, present and future will know what a s..mbag he is!
-
This is extraordinarily shabby behaviour on McKay's part, IMO. It's highly possible that he will rue the day he ever heard of Jeremy Bamber.
-
This is extraordinarily shabby behaviour on McKay's part, IMO. It's highly possible that he will rue the day he ever heard of Jeremy Bamber.
Sorry, posted in anger. I daresay even McKay had heard of JB! He's more likely to regret getting involved with Jackie.
-
I hope that when JB gets the boot next week, both Sheila AND JM get peace at last.
-
This is extraordinarily shabby behaviour on McKay's part, IMO. It's highly possible that he will rue the day he ever heard of Jeremy Bamber.
Sorry, posted in anger. I daresay even McKay had heard of JB! He's more likely to regret getting involved with Jackie.
I have never been angry with any of the Bamberettes but Mckay's behaviour has pissed me off! If this chancer does get an appeal for Bamber I am going to do all I can to expose that odious little twunt! He is deliberately trying to spoil Julie's life and career!
?8)@)-)
-
JB can certainly pick 'em!! Remember Giovanni di Stefano?
-
JB can certainly pick 'em!! Remember Giovanni di Stefano?
GdS, "The Devil's Advocate." Tried to defend Harold Shipman, Charles Bronson (the naughty one), Saddam Hussein, Ronnie Biggs, Ian Brady, Gary Glitter......he got knocked back by Charles Manson, though.
-
I wonder what McKay thinks about Mike's forum and his attempt at heaping yet more ignominy on Sheila, posting that she ran around WHF, barking like a dog? Alarm Bells.....
-
"The New Evidence." Ho ho!! A bit of pig rind, with no blood supply, was burnt with an unfeasibly hot gun. And the results looked nothing like the weird, misshapen marks on Ralph's back. Big wow.
-
I remember G DiS saying that he believed the mafia killed them all because Nevill had been in debt to them! I was so shocked I sent G DiS a fax saying how stupid he was because Jeremy himself proved either he or Sheila did it by saying he got the phonecall from Nevill!
G DiS didn't understand my fax (duhhh) and asked me for my phone number which I gave him. He called me up and I had to explain the consequencies of Nevill's phonecall! It was actually quite a friendly chat but I swear G. DiS is about as bright as Mertol!
@)(++(*
-
They seem to be gloating about this on the other forum. Just because Julie didn't take part in the documentary, why should she have done? Assuming that she was telling the truth she must have gone through a pretty terrible ordeal so who could blame her for not wanting to have this brought up all the time? At the end of the day the judge advised the jury that it was a question of whom they believed-Jeremy or Julie. By a significant majority they decided Julie was a more credible witness. When she came back ready to give evidence in 2002 did she actually have to do this? If not it does not strike me that she is deliberately being evasive. That said I certainly think it is possible that she may have been a willing accomplice to the crime, perhaps even encouraging him?-though of course Bamber could never suggest this without admitting his guilt.
That is a difficult one and only Julie and jeremy know the answer to it. You are spot on though, if Julie was involved Bamber cannot say as this would drop him right in it as well.
From Julies perspective she says that she never believed that he would do it, rather she believed it to be some sort of hate against his family which she hoped he would tire of eventually.
I tend to go with the latter given all the events thus why Bamber never told her the truth as to who actually carried out the executions. If Julie had been lying she would not have introduced the hitman theory. I believe her completely when she says that Bamber told her about McDonald and the £2000. Bamber knew that if he confessed to having blood on his hands that Julie would do a runner.
-
I can also tell everyone that the Bamber camp have purposely commenced a campaign to try to discredit Julie Smerchanski. They even make mention of her unfortunate student days in their posts on Twitter as a means of bringing trouble her way in Canada. How low is that?
Bamber will gain no friends by these activities. Our own Twitter site @Justice_forum is to be congratulated for countering every post they make and for mounting a strategically brilliant campaign against them in the run up to the CCRC decision.
-
This is extraordinarily shabby behaviour on McKay's part, IMO. It's highly possible that he will rue the day he ever heard of Jeremy Bamber.
You are quite right Shona, no need to apologise. McKay knows exactly what he is doing and who he is hurting.
-
well i think he is doing a marvelus job 8((()*/
-
well i think he is doing a marvelus job 8((()*/
Yes at shit stirring and getting innocent people into trouble for no reason other than to make him look good.
-
23rd of April.
"welk" and "twunt" - too funny!
I get the twunt bit but what is a welk?
Welks (or whelks) are:
saltw..er molluscs with grey or brownish shells and resemble pointy snails.
I believe they are known in West Yorkshire as Mckays!
The Bamber molluscs have really sunk to a new low this time; bad enough the appalling things they have posted about poor Nevill, Sheila and June on their obscure forum but to try and ruin a teachers career in another country is utterly contempible!
When the CCRC drop the Sword of Damocles on Bamber's head I am going to gloat and stuff their chavvy noses in it until they choke! Normally I am magnanimous in victory but not this time .... I certainly won't be gracious in defeat either if the CCRC (unbelievably) give Bamber his appeal! The fun will really start then!
D Day is coming!
-
23rd of April.
"welk" and "twunt" - too funny!
I get the twunt bit but what is a welk?
Welks (or whelks) are:
saltw..er molluscs with grey or brownish shells and resemble pointy snails.
I believe they are known in West Yorkshire as Mckays!
The Bamber molluscs have really sunk to a new low this time; bad enough the appalling things they have posted about poor Nevill, Sheila and June on their obscure forum but to try and ruin a teachers career in another country is utterly contempible!
When the CCRC drop the Sword of Damocles on Bamber's head I am going to gloat and stuff their chavvy noses in it until they choke! Normally I am magnanimous in victory but not this time .... I certainly won't be gracious in defeat either if the CCRC (unbelievably) give Bamber his appeal! The fun will really start then!
D Day is coming!
Would slime ball be an appropriate description?
Didn't they try the same thing on with the retired police inspector in Australia?
-
WELKS is also the West England Ladies Kennel Society. Imagine hundreds of Ann Widdecombes, all wearing polyester.
-
WELKS is also the West England Ladies Kennel Society. Imagine hundreds of Ann Widdecombes, all wearing polyester.
8@??)( @)(++(*
You Googled that Shona.
-
WELKS is also the West England Ladies Kennel Society. Imagine hundreds of Ann Widdecombes, all wearing polyester.
I know Cornwall is known as being somewhat parochial but I didn't know they kept their ladies in kennels! And they have a club for it too .... cool!!!!
I must check if I can move a few dogs around and free up a kennel! 8(>((
-
It appears that our Simon isn't as wonderful as some are portraying him to be. We have just been advised of some secret goings on behind closed doors the result of which was that he was severely criticised by the Law Society AGAIN.
Our informer will be providing details for us on Monday and this person is very well informed.
We look forward to it! 8-)(--)
-
It appears that our Simon isn't as wonderful as some are portraying him to be. We have just been advised of some secret goings on behind closed doors the result of which was that he was severely criticised by the Law Society AGAIN.
Our informer will be providing details for us on Monday and this person is very well informed.
We look forward to it! 8-)(--)
Oh my goodness whatever next? 8(0(*
-
Apologies if I have missed something important but does it really matter even if JM did negotiate a deal with the NOTW before the end of the trial? If she had actually spoken to them about the specific details that would have been contempt of court but would just arranging a deal have actually been illegal? Ethically and morally it wouldn't have been the greatest move and the timing could have been better. However, she may well have been pestered by journalists a lot (as she has been since) and just agreed to get them off her back perhaps. And don't the people on the other forum realise that Bamber himself also arranged a deal before the end of the trial?
Again, I'm not pretending to be a legal expert but when pursuing a criminal prosecution don't the police quite often decide whether or not it is in the public interest? Obviously pursuing a prosecution for a multiple murder will always be in the public interest. Pursuing a prosecution for a minor misdemeanour (in comparison to a murder), especially one which may discourage an important witness from testifying in a more important prosecution, may not necessarily be in the public interest and of course wouldn't necessarily be followed up. Nothing sinister about it at all IMO.
-
Apologies if I have missed something important but does it really matter even if JM did negotiate a deal with the NOTW before the end of the trial? If she had actually spoken to them about the specific details that would have been contempt of court but would just arranging a deal have actually been illegal? Ethically and morally it wouldn't have been the greatest move and the timing could have been better. However, she may well have been pestered by journalists a lot (as she has been since) and just agreed to get them off her back perhaps. And don't the people on the other forum realise that Bamber himself also arranged a deal before the end of the trial?
Again, I'm not pretending to be a legal expert but when pursuing a criminal prosecution don't the police quite often decide whether or not it is in the public interest? Obviously pursuing a prosecution for a multiple murder will always be in the public interest. Pursuing a prosecution for a minor misdemeanour (in comparison to a murder), especially one which may discourage an important witness from testifying in a more important prosecution, may not necessarily be in the public interest and of course wouldn't necessarily be followed up. Nothing sinister about it at all IMO.
The point is that Bamber and Co. wanted to discredit Julie at trial; if they could have showed the jury she had a finacial interest to help get Bamber convicted they would have jumped on that! "She had a reason to lie". If they could prove at appeal Julie lied aout having a deal and that the jury should have been told they could get some mileage out of that.
Of course Julie couldn't have known about any financial benefits for her when she walked into the police station to expose Bamber so it's a moot point in my opinion! And of course the fact she MAY have made a deal does not mean she was lying but the defense will say it may have effected the jury's opinion!
It's all pointless McChancer propaganda though because it was covered in the 2002 appeal and Bamber's lawyers could not prove Julie (or her solicitor) made any deal before the trial. Unlucky Bamberistas! 8)-)))
For what it's worth I imagine Julie's solicitor did make the deal before or during the trial but was careful enough not to sign any contract until the verdict came in. That's what I would have done too as Julie's solicitor!
-
With all the media interest surrounding the case how can anyone have been in any doubt as to the likelihood that a deal would eventually be done anyway?
They can only make something of this if they can prove she deliberately lied to the court and they've tried that twice already.
-
With all the media interest surrounding the case how can anyone have been in any doubt as to the likelihood that a deal would eventually be done anyway?
They can only make something of this if they can prove she deliberately lied to the court and they've tried that twice already.
Quite right weety and Julie didn't know there was any financial gains to be made when she walked into the police station to expose Bamber did she?
-
It appears that our Simon isn't as wonderful as some are portraying him to be. We have just been advised of some secret goings on behind closed doors the result of which was that he was severely criticised by the Law Society AGAIN.
Our informer will be providing details for us on Monday and this person is very well informed.
We look forward to it! 8-)(--)
This is insolvent McKay's judgement in the 2008 case John:
The Tribunal Order that the Respondent Simon Arthur Samuel McKay of 41 St Paul's Street, Leeds, LS1 2JC solicitor, be Reprimanded and it further Orders that he be jointly and severally liable with the Second Respondent to pay the costs of and incidental to this application and enquiry fixed in the sum of £5,000.00
Is this the one you're referring to or is there another judgement against McKay still to be exposed?
-
It certainly looks like Simon McKay has had quite a few fingers in quite a few pies over the last few years. I haven't read the judgement in its entirety but it does state that as of April 2010, the Claimant, Simon McKay, was insolvent and was clearly unable to obtain finance from mainstream UK lenders. That to me coming after the earlier fiasco is very worrying.
Do you think this should have its own thread?
-
Yeah lets put this on its own thread ... McKay tried to damage Julie in Canada by talking to the press there. He sowed the wind ... let him reep the whirlwind!
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
I have had a chat with Nick Martin, Senior Staff Reporter at the Winnipeg Free Press just to ensure that he was aware of the situation. 8(0(*
He did say that the 'wire service' mentioned that Jeremy Bamber's appeal had been denied. I pointed out that it wasn't an appeal, it was a decision whether to refer the case to the Appellate Court.
He told me that he would be doing a follow-up sometime in the future but wouldn't say when! No rush then!! @)(++(*
-
Can any one shed any light on something that I don't want to ask on the other forum because I am on thin ice there and I don't want to be removed.
Simon Mckay.....his law firm is having money problems? Serious £££ flow problems. Am I right?
-
Can any one shed any light on something that I don't want to ask on the other forum because I am on thin ice there and I don't want to be removed.
Simon Mckay.....his law firm is having money problems? Serious £££ flow problems. Am I right?
He seems to have a history of bad financial stewardship if that is what you mean. He would also have appeared to have two IVA's against him according to the records and was referred to as insolvent by a judge who ruled against him in a quite substantial civil suit involving a lot of money.
You will find this discussed here (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=311.0) Mat.
-
Thanks for the reply, John. Explains why he's working with Bamber. I believe he sees ££. It was always a strange fit for me when I heard that Simon was becoming Bamber's solicitor.
-
Thanks for the reply, John. Explains why he's working with Bamber. I believe he sees ££. It was always a strange fit for me when I heard that Simon was becoming Bamber's solicitor.
It has been said by our members that would he not be better doing paid work and attempting to clear his debts rather than doing pro bono work on cases which are doomed to failure.
When you get a moment Mat, please introduce yourself in the new members section at the top of the home page.
-
No, he wouldn't. He has a firm that are taking in cases still and being paid for it...he's after the cash cow.
Okay, I will do. Sorry.
-
No, he wouldn't. He has a firm that are taking in cases still and being paid for it...he's after the cash cow.
Okay, I will do. Sorry.
We sort of worked that out. Bamber would be worth a lot of big bucks to a few people if he were ever cleared. I asked a few of the hanger-on writers this question and guess what...they haven't replied. @)(++(*
-
No, he wouldn't. He has a firm that are taking in cases still and being paid for it...he's after the cash cow.
Okay, I will do. Sorry.
We sort of worked that out. Bamber would be worth a lot of big bucks to a few people if he were ever cleared. I asked a few of the hanger-on writers this question and guess what...they haven't replied. @)(++(*
He probably saw the case as an opportunity to improve his credit rating but has only managed to damage his credibility. It is the ibility bit that makes the difference.
-
Hallo Milly ?{)(**