Trudie steps down:

[guest29835]

Lookout is a respected member who makes you look like the stray, autistic ingenu you probably are.

I was addressing you, actually, just in case there is any doubt.  I have no problem with Lookout at all.

You're the creep.

[Steve_uk]

I was addressing you, actually, just in case there is any doubt.  I have no problem with Lookout at all.

You're the creep.

..and you're the guy with Asperger's Syndrome struggling with some red brick university assignment.

[guest29835]

For the record, I've never set foot in a university. 

For some reason, there are people on the internet, and in real life, who take it upon themselves to rush around telling other adults what they should and shouldn't discuss in their free time.

As an exemplar of this behaviour, for some reason, the poster above reacts like a shocked maiden aunt or red-faced colonel [depends on what sex he is] whenever anybody mentions anything remotely adverse or negative about Julie Mugford.

These people often come from professional backgrounds that involve exercising petty authority over others - a classic example being members of the teaching profession.

These people are conditioned in a certain attitude that they are here to 'put you right' and correct you and tell you how to behave.  They carry this condescending attitude into other aspects of their lives.

If I wish to come on this forum and make posts, then I will do so, provided I have the permission of the forum owners and on the basis that my posts are within the rules of the forum.  In that regard, I may theorise, discuss, and debate anything I like.  If the forum owners have an objection to something I say and want me to take it down, I will because it's their prerogative. 

It is not the prerogative of Steve or Jim or Mandy or Joe Blow or Mary Bloggs, or even Jeremy Bamber.  You, Steve [or, if you're female, Stevie?] are just a random individual, a nobody, and you have no authority or standing whatever.

If, for any reason, you find this unacceptable, please address it to the forum owners who, I am sure, will take the appropriate action.  They may - I only say may - appoint you to an important position, such as Director of Moral Deportment on the Forum.  I can see you in the role of a sort of forum monitor, jumping in to tell us all what we can say and not say and issuing rebukes as appropriate.  I think that would be very much up your street.

But for the time being, I will carry on posting as I please.

Thank you.

[Steve_uk]

 I've never tried to stop you from posting. The only thing which might is your own insecurity and paranoia.

[guest29835]

I've never tried to stop you from posting. The only thing which might is your own insecurity and paranoia.

Speaking as somebody who lacks the benefit of a university education, I must say, this last post of yours seems self-contradictory.

Anyway, it also seems to me that it's not a matter of stopping people from posting, it's more that you are taking steps to deter or discourage it, and in the process, you are revealing your own insecurity and paranoia

You may want to reflect on a certain Shakespearean aphorism, much-misused, but here rather appropriate, I think.

[JackieD]

What are these 'obvious reasons'?  I think people are too preoccupied with playing clever games rather than getting to the kernel of things.

To me, this is quite simple: It's not about whether Jeremy is innocent.  Nobody knows that other than Jeremy and I can't read his mind. 

Even if Jeremy had been caught red-handed holding the rifle above Nevill's body, it wouldn't follow that Jeremy is legally guilty.  We would need to establish that Jeremy had acted in a lucid frame of mind.

This is about the safety and satisfactoriness of his convictions.

The right to a fair trial does not end with the trial itself.  It continues for so long as there are protestations of innocence or any sort of doubt.

But the right to a fair trial applies to both sides.  The Crown, on behalf of the community, have a right to a fair trial.  Jeremy, especially, has the right to see a fair trial done.  People should try to practice what they preach and we need transparency now - from everybody.  From Jeremy.  From the CPS and DPP.  From Essex Police, COLP and the Metropolitan Police.

That means EVERYTHING needs to be public material and out in the open.  All cards on the table. 

A man serving a whole life order in a close confined prison maintains his absolute innocence, consistently, for approaching 40 years.  Is there a precedent for this in England?

The public interest in open disclosure of all case materials is now compelling.

Whatever the truth of Jeremy's culpability, the authorities cannot be trusted and their pleas of justification for withholding materials are hypocritical.

The investigating force unlawfully destroyed material evidence of forensic significance, in open defiance of a court order.

The senior investigating officer took evidence home with him and then destroyed it.

Disclosure of supposedly 'non-material' evidence has been ragged and reluctant, and it turns out that much of this evidence is of materiality after all and casts doubt on the prosecution case.

The police try to explain all their inconsistencies away as errors and mistakes in the heat of the incident, which is convenient for them.

The central prosecution witness was herself a criminal and gave inadmissible and non-dispositive evidence to emotionally-sway a jury.  The extent of her involvement with the police is still protected under PII, an abuse and misuse of protections that are meant to ensure national security and frustrate organised crime - neither a factor in this case.

She also lied to the trial about her cannabis use and lied about her financial dealings with a newspaper.

A detective under the influence of alcohol collected dubious evidence from relatives who had a vital financial interest in seeing the accused convicted.  He then failed to secure this evidence and lost a grey hair attached to it, that could have been a rabbit hair - a fact not reported to the laboratory.

The senior scenes of crime officer dismantled this evidence under non-sterilised conditions before he passed it to the FSS.

The trial judge misled the jury as to the interpretation of the blood evidence.

The whole thing is a fiasco and a shambles from the moment Jeremy - probably - picked up that rifle, and the cause of his terrible actions goes deeper, into his adoption and the family dynamics that ensued.  It is not too much of a stretch to suppose that he is both perpetrator and victim in this saga.

A fair appellate court must now see all the evidence and decide.  Not if he is innocent, but whether the conviction is safe and satisfactory. 

No more of these games.

Why is this case so strange, why still non disclosure, why was evidence destroyed, why was Jeremy solicitor offered a job by CCRC and why did the authorities hide the fact that Julie Mugford did the deal with the NOTW before the trial

[Steve_uk]

Speaking as somebody who lacks the benefit of a university education, I must say, this last post of yours seems self-contradictory.

Anyway, it also seems to me that it's not a matter of stopping people from posting, it's more that you are taking steps to deter or discourage it, and in the process, you are revealing your own insecurity and paranoia

You may want to reflect on a certain Shakespearean aphorism, much-misused, but here rather appropriate, I think.

No I'm correcting what I perceive to be mistakes. It's called debate and this is the Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion.

[guest29835]

It's called debate

Not really.  To me, debate requires a culture in which people are open, honest and civil.  You are disqualified on at least two of those precepts.  I just don't like engaging with you and would prefer not to.