David's claimed forensic breakthrough?

[scipio_usmc]

I just went back to my E-mails from AH from when I first made contact with him. 

Please may I urge you not to go public with your discovery until Bamber's legal team gives the go-ahead.  It would be disastrous if your discovery in any way impeded the approach which his QC is currently exploring.


Makes sense I guess

It is possible to reveal the topic and general considerations without revealing in full your analysis.

It is quite obvious that Caroline is right and that only in your mind does your breakthrough exonerate Jeremy. I don't believe your claim that you are the first to think up the idea either. There is no doubt in my mind experts involved int he case already considered and rejected the idea.  Your 100% confidence in its accuracy has me convinced it is simply speculation on your part which would be easy to discount as nothing more than speculation though it could even possible it could be seriously refuted.   In the past you said it would be a waste of time to tell me it because I will just discount it. Perhaps the reason you know this is because I already have.  Your new idea might not be new at all.  Since you are keeping it a secret that allows you to claim it is new and we will have no way to know whether it actually is or isn't.

I seriously doubt the defense will even try to use it once all is said and done let alone that it would actually help free Jeremy.  I posted to you the kinds of things that would be needed to vacate his conviction and it is clear you have nothing even close.

[david1819]

It is possible to reveal the topic and general considerations without revealing in full your analysis.

It is quite obvious that Caroline is right and that only in your mind does your breakthrough exonerate Jeremy. I don't believe your claim that you are the first to think up the idea either. There is no doubt in my mind experts involved int he case already considered and rejected the idea.  Your 100% confidence in its accuracy has me convinced it is simply speculation on your part which would be easy to discount as nothing more than speculation though it could even possible it could be seriously refuted.   In the past you said it would be a waste of time to tell me it because I will just discount it. Perhaps the reason you know this is because I already have.  Your new idea might not be new at all.  Since you are keeping it a secret that allows you to claim it is new and we will have no way to know whether it actually is or isn't.

I seriously doubt the defense will even try to use it once all is said and done let alone that it would actually help free Jeremy.  I posted to you the kinds of things that would be needed to vacate his conviction and it is clear you have nothing even close.

Its not just in my mind

NGB has given his views on the matter. That should be enough for you to keep an open mind about it. NGB would not have got involved if it was just dishonest speculation. If it was Mike I got the endorsement from then I would understand your unwillingness to consider this significant.

[scipio_usmc]

Its not just in my mind

NGB has given his views on the matter. That should be enough for you to keep an open mind about it. NGB would not have got involved if it was just dishonest speculation. If it was Mike I got the endorsement from then I would understand your unwillingness to consider this significant.

NGB will entertain anything no matter how ludicrous he won't even call mike on his lie of stealing a photo on the bed.  I don't think his judgment is worth anything.  The only time he actually had the guts to debate me was on the offtopic board when he said he was so happy when the North Vietnamese took over South Vietnam because it put the US in its place.  He is so delusional he did't even realize the US stopped fighting in 1973 when the Peace Accords were signed and that the fighting in 1975 only harmed those in South Vietnam.

Since I know the law on appeals and about the facts of the conviction I KNOW what would be required to get a new trial and articulated such.  I can tell that what you think you have doesn't approach it.

I spend all day evaluating what legal implication facts can have. You told me that what you have proves Jeremy can't have staged the scene. As I told you there is only one thing that could establish Jeremy didn't stage the scene and that would be evidence that proves he was somewhere else so could not have been there.   I can tell you don't purport to have evidence proving such so I will not give it a second thought.

People spend all day lying to me, clients, adversaries...I believe things when I see it.  Talk is cheap and promises rarely kept.  I will stick with my gut it is uncanny.

 

[Caroline]

NGB will entertain anything no matter how ludicrous he won't even call mike on his lie of stealing a photo on the bed.  I don't think his judgment is worth anything.  The only time he actually had the guts to debate me was on the offtopic board when he said he was so happy when the North Vietnamese took over South Vietnam because it put the US in its place.  He is so delusional he did't even realize the US stopped fighting in 1973 when the Peace Accords were signed and that the fighting in 1975 only harmed those in South Vietnam.

Since I know the law on appeals and about the facts of the conviction I KNOW what would be required to get a new trial and articulated such.  I can tell that what you think you have doesn't approach it.

I spend all day evaluating what legal implication facts can have. You told me that what you have proves Jeremy can't have staged the scene. As I told you there is only one thing that could establish Jeremy didn't stage the scene and that would be evidence that proves he was somewhere else so could not have been there.   I can tell you don't purport to have evidence proving such so I will not give it a second thought.

People spend all day lying to me, clients, adversaries...I believe things when I see it.  Talk is cheap and promises rarely kept.  I will stick with my gut it is uncanny.

To be fair, I think NGB did something he was asked to do and was careful how he worded his post - there was no endorsement.

If David made the claim that what he has proves Jeremy could not have staged the scene, then he isn't being truthful - it doesn't prove that at all.

[scipio_usmc]

To be fair, I think NGB did something he was asked to do and was careful how he worded his post - there was no endorsement.

If David made the claim that what he has proves Jeremy could not have staged the scene, then he isn't being truthful - it doesn't prove that at all.

That NGB failed to say it would not be of any use is what David holds out to suggest it has merit. NGB is an advocate who is willing to try to entertain anything favorable to Jeremy so it means little.

If something has potential merit I will say so but if it is worthless or wrong I will not be diplomatic I will just come out and say it quite bluntly as you well know. If NGB were like me then maybe his willingness to entertain it would be worth more.

It doesn't take too much to recognize that the only way Jeremy would ever have his conviction vacated would be if someone admits to planting blood evidence or Julie were to admit she lied. We all know this will never happen. Some people who are in the tank for Jeremy don't want to accept such and so badly want him freed they delude themselves into thinking that something else will do and even delude themselves into thinking they found that something else.

[sika]

To be fair, I think NGB did something he was asked to do and was careful how he worded his post - there was no endorsement.

If David made the claim that what he has proves Jeremy could not have staged the scene, then he isn't being truthful - it doesn't prove that at all.

That is exactly how I interpreted his response.

[Holly Goodhead]

Yup! A rather 'ironic' question though!

Pleased the irony wasn't lost!

Maybe it's worth remembering Maradonas 'Hand of God' in the 1986 world cup!  Meaning...

[david1819]

To be fair, I think NGB did something he was asked to do and was careful how he worded his post - there was no endorsement.

Yes because we all know NGB does anything I tell him for I am his puppet master.

Not bad for a pigeon

[david1819]

If NGB were like me then maybe his willingness to entertain it would be worth more.

Oh Dear.. Talk about delusions of superiority.

[Caroline]

Yes because we all know NGB does anything I tell him for I am his puppet master.

Not bad for a pigeon

He made it clear that it is not something he knows about but that on it's own, it wouldn't be enough for an appeal. I agree with him because it doesn't in any way point to Jeremy being innocent.

[Caroline]

Oh Dear.. Talk about delusions of superiority.

Jeez! You can talk!! 

[david1819]

He made it clear that it is not something he knows about but that on it's own, it wouldn't be enough for an appeal. I agree with him because it doesn't in any way point to Jeremy being innocent.

You are distorting and cherry picking what he has said. No Lawyer would submit this alone when there are other grounds to be included. that would almost be malpractice




David1819 then agreed that I could post my overall opinion of his work, without at this stage disclosing the details.  I am happy to do that and I agree with David1819's firm view,backed by the advice of Andrew Hunter, that Jeremy Bamber's legal team should review it and it should only be made public subject to their approval.



If the report is validated the question is whether it could form the basis for the CCRC to refer the case.  For various reasons, hard to explain without giving more information than I am able to here, I believe it does satisfy the requirement that it is new evidence, not available at trial.  The key question is whether it is on its own sufficient to enable the convictions to be overturned.  I am very cautious about this as I believe the CCRC have now set a very high bar in this case.  Certainly this would form a valid ground of appeal, but ideally it should be joined with other grounds.  I am no longer in the loop as far as Jeremy Bamber's legal team are concerned, and have not been since Simon McKay ceased acting, but I do know of grounds not included in previous submissions which would have been included had the CCRC referred the case to the Court of Appeal on the last application.

[david1819]

Jeez! You can talk!! 

I can? well I must be a parrot then and not a pigeon afterall

[John]

Is this the same lawyer who asked you to remove all traces of his involvement with Bamber because his children were complaining, uncomfortable and aghast that he should be supportive of a five-times murderer?

It is, he wanted all references to his involvement with Bamber expunged.

[Caroline]

You are distorting and cherry picking what he has said. No Lawyer would submit this alone when there are other grounds to be included. that would almost be malpractice




David1819 then agreed that I could post my overall opinion of his work, without at this stage disclosing the details.  I am happy to do that and I agree with David1819's firm view,backed by the advice of Andrew Hunter, that Jeremy Bamber's legal team should review it and it should only be made public subject to their approval.



If the report is validated the question is whether it could form the basis for the CCRC to refer the case.  For various reasons, hard to explain without giving more information than I am able to here, I believe it does satisfy the requirement that it is new evidence, not available at trial.  The key question is whether it is on its own sufficient to enable the convictions to be overturned.  I am very cautious about this as I believe the CCRC have now set a very high bar in this case.  Certainly this would form a valid ground of appeal, but ideally it should be joined with other grounds.  I am no longer in the loop as far as Jeremy Bamber's legal team are concerned, and have not been since Simon McKay ceased acting, but I do know of grounds not included in previous submissions which would have been included had the CCRC referred the case to the Court of Appeal on the last application.

I don't think NGB will appreciate you using him in this manner. He made it perfectly clear that neither he nor you are experts and that on it's own, it WOULD NOT be enough for an appeal. Keep trying to build yourself up though - a palm print on the bible DOES NOT prove Jeremy innocent.