Jeremy Bamber, one of Britain’s most notorious multiple killers, may be on the verge of being set free 25 years after he was given a life sentence for murdering five members of his family.
Whether he will be set free or not is a complicated matter.
But the story is that the Court of Appeal might quash his conviction.
One bit that really disturbs me:
Even if he overcomes the first hurdle, the Court of Appeal is unlikely to sit for at least six months.
Why? If the contention is that an innocent man sits in jail, why wait? Bugger that for a lark, get the judges in, cut into their evenings or weekends if necessary, and get on with it.
But the other part of it: if the sentence is quashed, does he get the (huge) inheritance back?