Author Topic: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence  (Read 730 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2017
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #15 on: July 19, 2020, 07:58:PM »
What else could he have done, faced with the overwhelming evidence that Jeremy was guilty? As it was the latter wanted not only a £436000 inheritance, he wanted a £100000 newspaper deal, a large sum for nude photographs of his dead sister, and Anji Greaves in his bed to boot.

Absolute rubbish
There was nothing overwhelming??
Jeremy would never have been convicted if the jury were aware of the deal Mugford had already made with the NOW
It’s been established that Mugford was a pathological liar
She would literally have done anything for money or fame
Why the police ever allowed her to go to Canada and work with children beggars beieve
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 JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2017
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #16 on: July 19, 2020, 08:03:PM »
What else could he have done, faced with the overwhelming evidence that Jeremy was guilty? As it was the latter wanted not only a £436000 inheritance, he wanted a £100000 newspaper deal, a large sum for nude photographs of his dead sister, and Anji Greaves in his bed to boot.

If Jeremy is innocent as he has always claimed he deserves the biggest payout ever given out in a miscarriage of justice case especially as this case has seen so much vital evidence witheld for no good reason

You seem to be very jealous about Anjie Greaves???
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 QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #17 on: July 19, 2020, 09:28:PM »
If Jeremy is innocent as he has always claimed he deserves the biggest payout ever given out in a miscarriage of justice case especially as this case has seen so much vital evidence witheld for no good reason

You seem to be very jealous about Anjie Greaves???

Julie was a bit plain and it's surprising Jeremy - who is supposed to be a psychopath, according to Dr. Steve and various other lettered "experts" - decided on a relationship with her.  I should have thought that Anji Greaves was more Jeremy's speed, him being a ruthless murdering psycho and everything.  I may have more to say on that topic, though.  Notwithstanding Julie's moral faults in traditionalist June's eyes, I think Julie was a facsimile of June and the relationship with this plain-ish and aspirant local girl came about as a result of a subconscious drive to placate his adoptive mother.  With his mother dead, the funeral marked the end of not just Jeremy's adoptive family but also the end (or the beginning of the end) of the relationship with Julie.

Anyway, regarding this whole thing about Jeremy trying to sell nude/pornographic pictures of his deceased adoptive sister, is there any serious evidence for the allegation?  For the record, I don't accept the word of The Sun or its journalists as serious evidence.  If a Sun journalist told me it's 3 a.m. and it's Jeremy on the line, I'd write a formal letter of complaint to the Curator of Horology at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, arguing that their clocks are wrong.

In short, I cannot believe a single word Mike Fielder says.  I also wonder if he actually even met with Jeremy or just with Brett Collins.  But that is not to say the allegation is untrue.  In fact, there are some points to commend Mike Fielder's story and he may be telling the truth on this occasion, it's just that I can't rely on his word.  Is there corroboration from Brett Collins?
« Last Edit: July 20, 2020, 12:00:AM by QCChevalier »

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8584
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #18 on: July 19, 2020, 11:49:PM »

Anyway, regarding this whole thing about Jeremy trying to sell nude/pornographic pictures of his deceased adoptive sister, is there any serious evidence for the allegation?


No evidence for it. A user on this forum called Gringo is the expert on this subject if you want to know more.

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #19 on: July 20, 2020, 12:01:AM »
No evidence for it. A user on this forum called Gringo is the expert on this subject if you want to know more.

Thanks. 

Online Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11269
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #20 on: July 20, 2020, 12:16:AM »
No evidence for it. A user on this forum called Gringo is the expert on this subject if you want to know more.

No disrespect to Gringo - but Caroline is also a strong poster on this subject, as is Bill Robertson.  But in all honesty, Caroline might edge it.

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #21 on: July 20, 2020, 01:51:AM »
Thanks.
  http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10127.0.html 
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6754.0.html

The above two threads discuss in detail Fielder's previous libel and perjury and his own words when interviewed some years later about the alleged photos.
    Hope they are helpful.
   

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #22 on: July 20, 2020, 02:09:AM »
  http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10127.0.html 
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6754.0.html

The above two threads discuss in detail Fielder's previous libel and perjury and his own words when interviewed some years later about the alleged photos.
    Hope they are helpful.
 

Thanks.

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #23 on: July 20, 2020, 02:10:AM »
Just going back to the photographs, I find this video commentary very helpful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-asOtK6ot0&t=16s

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #24 on: July 20, 2020, 02:19:AM »
Just looking at those threads linked above, I have to say some of the anti-Bamber posters come across as hysterical and really quite barmy.  It's frightening.  There are reams of posts in which people are basically ranting and raving like psychotic lunatics. 

I have never known a case that gets people worked up like this - with the exception of the McCann case, which I steer clear of mainly for that reason.

I wonder why anti-Bamber people who have no connection to the family are so emotional?  I do appreciate that two little boys were killed and it's appalling, but getting yourself into such a state can't be healthy for you.  It's almost like Jeremy Bamber runs these people's lives, yet they don't realise it.

Even if you were connected to the case, and it was somebody in your family who had been killed, it can't be healthy for you to allow it to take over your life like that.  You have move on. 

I really don't understand the mentality.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2020, 02:23:AM by QCChevalier »

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #25 on: July 20, 2020, 02:36:AM »
Just going back to the photographs, I find this video commentary very helpful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-asOtK6ot0&t=16s
   http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9559.0.html  The video is discussed at length in thread above

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #26 on: July 20, 2020, 02:41:AM »
Just looking at those threads linked above, I have to say some of the anti-Bamber posters come across as hysterical and really quite barmy.  It's frightening.  There are reams of posts in which people are basically ranting and raving like psychotic lunatics.

I have never known a case that gets people worked up like this - with the exception of the McCann case, which I steer clear of mainly for that reason.

I wonder why anti-Bamber people who have no connection to the family are so emotional?  I do appreciate that two little boys were killed and it's appalling, but getting yourself into such a state can't be healthy for you.  It's almost like Jeremy Bamber runs these people's lives, yet they don't realise it.

Even if you were connected to the case, and it was somebody in your family who had been killed, it can't be healthy for you to allow it to take over your life like that.  You have move on. 

I really don't understand the mentality.
   You should see the state of them before the more hysterical rants are removed by moderators

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #27 on: July 20, 2020, 02:47:AM »
   http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9559.0.html  The video is discussed at length in thread above

Thank you for all your trouble.

I gather from the thread that the voice is Peter Tatchell's.  I don't share his views on things generally, but I have to say, he does a good job with the narration in my opinion and the video is interesting and informative.  It puts me in the picture, if you'll pardon the pun.

As for the thread, unfortunately I don't have time to wade through a lengthy thread like that and I can quickly see that most of it consists of disruption and goading posts from anti-Bamber people, so I'll stick to reading your own posts on it, skipping the rest.  I am not biased in the Bamber case.  I just want to read about the evidence and facts and come to my own conclusions. 
« Last Edit: July 20, 2020, 02:52:AM by QCChevalier »

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #28 on: July 20, 2020, 02:51:AM »
   You should see the state of them before the more hysterical rants are removed by moderators

I kind of lean towards viewing Jeremy as guilty, but what is the point of getting so worked up about it?  I just don't understand it.  I could maybe understand if a poster is a family member, but even then, why let Jeremy run your life like that? 

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #29 on: July 20, 2020, 03:48:AM »
Thank you for all your trouble.

I gather from the thread that the voice is Peter Tatchell's.  I don't share his views on things generally, but I have to say, he does a good job with the narration in my opinion and the video is interesting and informative.  It puts me in the picture, if you'll pardon the pun.

As for the thread, unfortunately I don't have time to wade through a lengthy thread like that and I can quickly see that most of it consists of disruption and goading posts from anti-Bamber people, so I'll stick to reading your own posts on it, skipping the rest.  I am not biased in the Bamber case.  I just want to read about the evidence and facts and come to my own conclusions.
   That is, unfortunately, the playbook of most anti Bamber posters. Most are here to disrupt rather than discuss.
    The non disclosure thread being a particularly egregious example of the disruptive tactics employed to  derail informative debates. It is impossible to view the gradual removal of negatives over the years and the circumstances and timing surrounding those removals as anything but sinister.
    The destruction and withholding of evidence over the years has been deliberate and seems specifically targeted and timed which makes it difficult to accept innocent explanations for the destruction/removal.
    As an example; the Peter Tatchell narrated video gives the timeline of the ongoing "curation" of the photographic record by Essex Police. Negatives of the gun cupboard taken on 7/8/85 are removed by Essex Police prior to an inspection of the negatives by a defence expert. The CCRC themselves admitted that the missing negatives were significant to the safety of the conviction, albeit in a roundabout way. A comment regarding this from the previously mentioned thread below;
   Interesting to see that Peter Tatchell is getting more involved. His narration seemed lacklustre to me, given his experience in public speaking, but he is high profile so his apparent growing involvement in the campaign should give it a boost.
     The mendacity of EP is exposed for anyone who cares to look. Full strips of negatives in 2001 turning into partial and sliced strips by 2012 along with explanations which contradict earlier claims. The CCRC acceptance of the the explanations offered by Mr. Eastbrook, on behalf of EP, show the CCRC as nothing more than gatekeepers.
     The following gem from the CCRC cannot be left unremarked.

     "As stated above, on the occasions when the negative strips have been cut short the subject matter  (with the exception of the gun cupboard) is not of significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction"

     The exact protocols used by the CCRC to discern that photographs they hadn't seen from negatives that no longer existed were of no evidential value is something we can only guess at. Even worse though is the admission shoved into brackets as if it doesn't matter.
     The tacit admission that the negative strips of the gun cupboard were not only cut short but were of "significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction".
      So the CCRC are aware that strips have been cut some time between 2001 and 2012. They apply some mysterious test which shows that the missing negatives are not important, except for the ones that are, but dismiss the ones that are, even though they  themselves concede that these missing negatives are of evidential value. No further reasoning is offered.
     
      I am sure that it is all a huge coincidence that the negative strips containing pictures of the gun cupboard have been cut short. I imagine EP and those relatives involved in the "finding of the silencer" ::) must be disappointed that the pictures showing the gun cupboard were cut short. They would be able to prove once and for all that the silencer had been there all along and that it wasn't a fabrication by dishonest and greedy relatives with the connivance of dishonest officers. If only... ;D

      The gun cupboard and its contents are clearly of the utmost importance in this case given the dubious and much disputed chain of custody of the contents of said cupboard. That the CCRC  dismiss the fact of the missing negatives without explanation, despite recognising the "significance to the safety of the conviction", does nothing to inspire confidence in either their integrity or competence.