• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Jeremy Bamber

Matthew Best said:
There was no reasoning from you worth responding to. Just the usual word salad that ignored everything presented in the two articles.
Click to expand...
OK then. I have read both articles, and much, much, more about Barber's murders.
I consider him very clearly guilty, a dangerous, manipulative psychopath.
 
Bamber's attempt to have his case to the CoA has failed.

The CCRC has declined to refer the Bamber case back to the court of appeal. It has spent some four years examining four (of the ten) grounds that Bamber’s lawyers claimed undermined the safety of his conviction.
It will continue to examine the other six.

One interesting matter is the supposed interview of (now retired) police officer Nicholas Milbank by Heidi Blake for the New Yorker magazine, which alleged various inconsistencies in the police evidence. The detective, who has subsequently died, denied the interview occurred as stated.
 
It is staggering that there is definitely evidence of a 999 call from the house, and evidence that Essex Police tried to hide that, and the appeal has been refused. Reasonable doubt should also apply when appealing and there is absolutely reasonable doubt that everyone was dead inside when the police and Bamber were outside.
 
Nessie said:
It is staggering that there is definitely evidence of a 999 call from the house, and evidence that Essex Police tried to hide that, and the appeal has been refused. Reasonable doubt should also apply when appealing and there is absolutely reasonable doubt that everyone was dead inside when the police and Bamber were outside.
Click to expand...
The appeal courts looked at all of that stuff and clearly decided it wouldn't make a material difference to the verdict.
 
Vixen said:
The appeal courts looked at all of that stuff and clearly decided it wouldn't make a material difference to the verdict.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
Understand how a criminal court works. Part one: finding of facts. Facts cannot be appealed. Part 2: the appeal. An appeal can be on legal points (point of law) or procedural points (such as a mistrial, a jury member was amiss, the judge was drunk or fell asleep). You cannot appeal against established facts.
Click to expand...
 
Not sure what point is being made by Mojo. A crucial element of any appeal is whether the purported 'new evidence' - if you can call a presumed typographical error [in which a handwritten log at the police station notes time of calls received] - would have the potential to change the verdict were it to be sent back to trial.
 
A 999 call handler, giving evidence at the trial, of a 999 call made from the house, when Bamber was outside, would have altered the verdict.
 
Heidi Blake, the journalist who wrote the relatively recent 17,000 word US newspaper article claimed to have interviewed Milbank, the police officer who took the call. Millbank denied he was ever interviewed by this journalist and has since died, according to Hattenstone himself.

However, in its provisional statement of reasons, the CCRC said that subsequent to publication of the Blake article, Milbank provided a statement, dated 10 October 2024, saying: “I have never to my knowledge spoken to the New Yorker,” and that he did not know he had been talking to a journalist. Milbank, who was still an officer with Essex police at the time, has died since making the statement. GUARDIAN
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
Heidi Blake, the journalist who wrote the relatively recent 17,000 word US newspaper article claimed to have interviewed Milbank, the police officer who took the call. Millbank denied he was ever interviewed by this journalist and has since died, according to Hattenstone himself.
Click to expand...
Do you ever read other people's posts?
 
Vixen said:
Please elaborate.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
catsmate

Post in thread 'Jeremy Bamber'

Bamber's attempt to have his case to the CoA has failed.

The CCRC has declined to refer the Bamber case back to the court of appeal. It has spent some four years examining four (of the ten) grounds that Bamber’s lawyers claimed undermined the safety of his conviction.
It will continue to examine the other six.

One interesting matter is the supposed interview of (now retired) police officer Nicholas Milbank by Heidi Blake for the New Yorker magazine, which alleged various inconsistencies in the police evidence. The detective, who has subsequently died, denied the interview occurred as...

One interesting matter is the supposed interview of (now retired) police officer Nicholas Milbank by Heidi Blake for the New Yorker magazine, which alleged various inconsistencies in the police evidence. The detective, who has subsequently died, denied the interview occurred as stated.
Click to expand...
 
That's all very vague, isn't it? "Denised the interview occurred as stated"? What is that supposed to mean? The interview occurred but not in the way Blake said? Who cares? "He didn't know he'd been talking to a journalist" - either he said the things he said, or he didn't.

Unfortunately, as we've come to expect from the CCRC, the "investigation" they did doesn't seem to have included interviewing either Blake or anyone from the New Yorker and Milbank is already dead, so all they have to go on are these vague half-hearted denials that don't really deny anything important at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom