Author Topic: Justice for Jeremy  (Read 1296 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1885
Re: Justice for Jeremy
« Reply #30 on: June 14, 2020, 02:06:PM »
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/4650-truth-is-stranger-than-fiction-but-it-is-because-fiction

Steve as the list grows of all the points that should be included in a new documentary maybe you would like to highlight any of the points the general public are actually aware of

You may then grasp why there is a need for a factual documentary

The general public are in the dark

FACT
From Colin Caffells
His relationship with Sheila was one of brotherly love. He was very proud of having a beautiful sister who was a photographic model

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8455
Re: Justice for Jeremy
« Reply #31 on: June 14, 2020, 02:29:PM »
Steve as the list grows of all the points that should be included in a new documentary maybe you would like to highlight any of the points the general public are actually aware of

You may then grasp why there is a need for a factual documentary

The general public are in the dark

FACT

They need to be aware of all rumours and hearsay from the Frog and Beans.  ::)

Online Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12368
Re: Justice for Jeremy
« Reply #32 on: June 14, 2020, 02:46:PM »
Both of the points you make are rubbish.  However I really cannot be bothered to debate with you.
I am sick of your snide comments, which started a couple of years ago when you told me I didn't know one end of a silencer from another. This was included in a thread which later mysteriously disappeared, I presume because you were losing the argument. You then tried banning me but I was reinstated for some reason. Every other post you have been making is an attempt to discredit Julie Smerchanski's evidence, a woman who made a mistake in life like many 20somethings yet who is not now allowed to live out the remainder of her life in a family setting as millions of others aspire to without you dredging every minutiae of the case up, with no regard to how this may be affecting herself, her family, or Colin.

For the guilters Jeremy Bamber is a calculating, cold-blooded murderer of five, who gambled and lost. He blew the brains out of two six-year-old boys and spattered them on the bedhead behind. He killed his parents in the most vicious way, along with a mentally-ill young woman on whom he laid the blame for the whole diablerie.

He belongs where he is: incarcerated for the rest of his natural life.



« Last Edit: June 14, 2020, 02:47:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5092
Re: Justice for Jeremy
« Reply #33 on: June 14, 2020, 03:56:PM »
I am sick of your snide comments, which started a couple of years ago when you told me I didn't know one end of a silencer from another. This was included in a thread which later mysteriously disappeared, I presume because you were losing the argument. You then tried banning me but I was reinstated for some reason. Every other post you have been making is an attempt to discredit Julie Smerchanski's evidence, a woman who made a mistake in life like many 20somethings yet who is not now allowed to live out the remainder of her life in a family setting as millions of others aspire to without you dredging every minutiae of the case up, with no regard to how this may be affecting herself, her family, or Colin.

For the guilters Jeremy Bamber is a calculating, cold-blooded murderer of five, who gambled and lost. He blew the brains out of two six-year-old boys and spattered them on the bedhead behind. He killed his parents in the most vicious way, along with a mentally-ill young woman on whom he laid the blame for the whole diablerie.

He belongs where he is: incarcerated for the rest of his natural life.

I have frequently been irritated not by your arguments but by the personally offensive way you sometimes express them, particularly it would seem when I am involved on the other side of the argument.  You object to my consistent argument that whether JM has told the truth or has lied she comes out of the case extremely badly.

I do not know about a thread which "mysteriously disappeared".  Threads are sometimes pruned where offensive personal attacks are made, but never because an argument is being lost or won on either side.  It for others to decide if I have ever lost an argument with you.  I do not believe I have, although I accept that is a subjective view.

I did not "try" banning you.  I imposed a 24 hour ban on you one evening for repeatedly making personal attacks. I imposed a similar ban on another member.  I reviewed the bans the following morning.  In your case I lifted the ban early and in the other case I extended it.

I accept that I have vigorously challenged JM's evidence and have provided detailed reasoning for that and for the proposition that this is a very significant factor in relation to the safety of the convictions at trial. 

The rest of your post is your opinion and of course you are entitled to express it, as others are equally entitled to agree or disagree with it.

 

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21474
Re: Justice for Jeremy
« Reply #34 on: June 14, 2020, 06:59:PM »
I have frequently been irritated not by your arguments but by the personally offensive way you sometimes express them, particularly it would seem when I am involved on the other side of the argument.  You object to my consistent argument that whether JM has told the truth or has lied she comes out of the case extremely badly.

I do not know about a thread which "mysteriously disappeared".  Threads are sometimes pruned where offensive personal attacks are made, but never because an argument is being lost or won on either side.  It for others to decide if I have ever lost an argument with you.  I do not believe I have, although I accept that is a subjective view.

I did not "try" banning you.  I imposed a 24 hour ban on you one evening for repeatedly making personal attacks. I imposed a similar ban on another member.  I reviewed the bans the following morning.  In your case I lifted the ban early and in the other case I extended it.

I accept that I have vigorously challenged JM's evidence and have provided detailed reasoning for that and for the proposition that this is a very significant factor in relation to the safety of the convictions at trial. 

The rest of your post is your opinion and of course you are entitled to express it, as others are equally entitled to agree or disagree with it.

Do you believe Julie lied about everything because as Jeremy says, she was jilted. Or do you believe she just lied about the NOTW deal?
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Online Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12368
Re: Justice for Jeremy
« Reply #35 on: June 14, 2020, 07:58:PM »
I have frequently been irritated not by your arguments but by the personally offensive way you sometimes express them, particularly it would seem when I am involved on the other side of the argument.  You object to my consistent argument that whether JM has told the truth or has lied she comes out of the case extremely badly.

I do not know about a thread which "mysteriously disappeared".  Threads are sometimes pruned where offensive personal attacks are made, but never because an argument is being lost or won on either side.  It for others to decide if I have ever lost an argument with you.  I do not believe I have, although I accept that is a subjective view.

I did not "try" banning you.  I imposed a 24 hour ban on you one evening for repeatedly making personal attacks. I imposed a similar ban on another member.  I reviewed the bans the following morning.  In your case I lifted the ban early and in the other case I extended it.

I accept that I have vigorously challenged JM's evidence and have provided detailed reasoning for that and for the proposition that this is a very significant factor in relation to the safety of the convictions at trial. 

The rest of your post is your opinion and of course you are entitled to express it, as others are equally entitled to agree or disagree with it.
But you haven't. There was a 21-page statement made by the then Julie Mugford and you have challenged none of it. What you are doing is skirting around the edges with the Alan Dovey bank business, the NOTW deal and the immunity from prosecution, the latter not being out of the ordinary in a murder trial. You still have a habit of keeping things under your hat (and that's as personal as I will ever get with you henceforth), which is either ridiculous after 35 years or is marginalizing this site in favour of your other legal interactions, the outcome of which it appears members here are none the wiser.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2020, 08:02:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1885
Re: Justice for Jeremy
« Reply #36 on: June 14, 2020, 08:50:PM »
Steve you haven’t replied to my post ?????
From Colin Caffells
His relationship with Sheila was one of brotherly love. He was very proud of having a beautiful sister who was a photographic model

Online Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12368
Re: Justice for Jeremy
« Reply #37 on: June 14, 2020, 09:28:PM »
Steve you haven’t replied to my post ?????
The Bamber supporters are trying to get him off on a technicality. You are talking about procedure rather than the fundamentals of the case, namely that Jeremy Bamber mooted the idea of killing his family and sounded Julie out, that she went to the Police post-murders with a detailed account of her association with him from Autumn 1983, that a sound moderator with Sheila's blood inside was found in a downstairs cupboard and that after a trial he was found guilty of five murders in October 1986 at Chelmsford Crown Court, and that everything since is either speculation, obfuscation or both.


Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1885
Re: Justice for Jeremy
« Reply #38 on: June 14, 2020, 10:07:PM »
It’s simple Steve just answer my post

The general public and the jury need to know the true facts about this case
From Colin Caffells
His relationship with Sheila was one of brotherly love. He was very proud of having a beautiful sister who was a photographic model

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21474
Re: Justice for Jeremy
« Reply #39 on: June 15, 2020, 10:58:AM »
The Bamber supporters are trying to get him off on a technicality. You are talking about procedure rather than the fundamentals of the case, namely that Jeremy Bamber mooted the idea of killing his family and sounded Julie out, that she went to the Police post-murders with a detailed account of her association with him from Autumn 1983, that a sound moderator with Sheila's blood inside was found in a downstairs cupboard and that after a trial he was found guilty of five murders in October 1986 at Chelmsford Crown Court, and that everything since is either speculation, obfuscation or both.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/white-house-farm-killer-jeremy-22187273.amp&ved=2ahUKEwiJptGEx4PqAhXsTxUIHda-DSIQyM8BMAB6BAgHEAQ&usg=AOvVaw0gmRKaCKByDDaTEQzrzlnT&ampcf=1

Looks like Jeremy will be free soon. There is 'bombshell' evidence.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 43603
Re: Justice for Jeremy
« Reply #40 on: June 15, 2020, 11:11:AM »
The Bamber supporters are trying to get him off on a technicality. You are talking about procedure rather than the fundamentals of the case, namely that Jeremy Bamber mooted the idea of killing his family and sounded Julie out, that she went to the Police post-murders with a detailed account of her association with him from Autumn 1983, that a sound moderator with Sheila's blood inside was found in a downstairs cupboard and that after a trial he was found guilty of five murders in October 1986 at Chelmsford Crown Court, and that everything since is either speculation, obfuscation or both.





Steve, Jeremy has never wanted releasing on a technicality. Why should he when he's got all the evidence he needs that it wasn't him-----it's far more difficult for a person and those who support him ( lawyers etc ) to bring about evidence for something that you were never a part of. Evidence involves those who got it wrong not about any wrong-doing committed by Jeremy.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 43603
Re: Justice for Jeremy
« Reply #41 on: June 15, 2020, 11:29:AM »
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/white-house-farm-killer-jeremy-22187273.amp&ved=2ahUKEwiJptGEx4PqAhXsTxUIHda-DSIQyM8BMAB6BAgHEAQ&usg=AOvVaw0gmRKaCKByDDaTEQzrzlnT&ampcf=1

Looks like Jeremy will be free soon. There is 'bombshell' evidence.





At long last, a good feeling about the submission to CCRC. It is said that a new broom sweeps cleaner and with Yvonne in the " driving seat " it doesn't look as though she's going to let the grass grow. For the first time, I've felt positive about the way this is heading.

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11136
Re: Justice for Jeremy
« Reply #42 on: June 15, 2020, 02:31:PM »
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/white-house-farm-killer-jeremy-22187273.amp&ved=2ahUKEwiJptGEx4PqAhXsTxUIHda-DSIQyM8BMAB6BAgHEAQ&usg=AOvVaw0gmRKaCKByDDaTEQzrzlnT&ampcf=1

Looks like Jeremy will be free soon. There is 'bombshell' evidence.

CAL's remarks are a disgrace.  The Mirror should be seeking an alternative opinion to those claims, to balance the article.  CAL is not a ballistics expert.

As for 'bombshell' I don't like it when they use those terms.

Wonder if there's anything else on the PB/DB blood grouping.

« Last Edit: June 15, 2020, 02:32:PM by Roch »

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8455
Re: Justice for Jeremy
« Reply #43 on: June 15, 2020, 02:40:PM »
CAL's remarks are a disgrace.  The Mirror should be seeking an alternative opinion to those claims, to balance the article.  CAL is not a ballistics expert.

As for 'bombshell' I don't like it when they use those terms.

Wonder if there's anything else on the PB/DB blood grouping.

Has CAL been consulting the tarot cards again?

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11136
Re: Justice for Jeremy
« Reply #44 on: June 15, 2020, 02:47:PM »
Has CAL been consulting the tarot cards again?

Looks like it.