IMPORTANT NOTE: You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
BR wrote: SION JENKINS was a scapegoat for the SUSSEX POLICE who did not want to investigate the BILLIE JO killing - and because they messed it up they have tried to keep face with this decision.
Do I not remember an investigative documentary some years ago that pointed the finger at a "tramp" who had been seen in the immediate area?
JK2006
Essentially the presumption of innocence has been replaced by the presumption of guilt, as I discovered to my cost ten years ago.
Why? Because it's a better story.
BR
I believe the POLICE have a vendetta against TEACHERS and PRIESTS in particular along with MUSLIMS and WRITERS.
They go soft on Career Criminals and thugs.
SION JENKINS was a scapegoat for the SUSSEX POLICE who did not want to investigate the BILLIE JO killing - and because they messed it up they have tried to keep face with this decision.
Les
The wording of the ruling/verdict/outcome seems key in current legislation, certainly when viewing compensation
Certainly, this is true in the Bambi/Bamber case.
If the proposed appeal goes ahead, it could open up one of the biggest 'can of worms' in UK legal history - not only from the compensation stance.
If the new verdict is 'not guilty' (as I have always thought it should have been), the lawsuits will reach into the middle of the century - at enormous cost.
A brave jury will be required to confirm the guilty verdict in the light of the apparent new evidence; the most likely outcome is (IMO) a hung jury or some middle course - which may release Bamber, but not allow for claims and/or compensation.
European Courts will enter; perhaps, in any event. That is - if they look at cases c25 years old.