Author Topic: Query re forum members  (Read 776 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8958
Re: Query re forum members
« Reply #60 on: September 23, 2020, 05:01:PM »
Yep, I still think someone else could be involved, I’ve always held this view but there isn’t any concrete evidence.  I used to think he was innocent and often wished he was and posted of his innocence, but the more I studied this case I’ve swung towards guilt 👍

Thanks for clarifying Fake Justice 👍

Offline Real Justice

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5244
    • Trial related photographs
Re: Query re forum members
« Reply #61 on: September 23, 2020, 05:15:PM »
Thanks for clarifying Fake Justice 👍
No problem 👍.

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1482
Re: Query re forum members
« Reply #62 on: September 24, 2020, 10:49:PM »
Yep, I still think someone else could be involved, I’ve always held this view but there isn’t any concrete evidence.  I used to think he was innocent and often wished he was and posted of his innocence, but the more I studied this case I’ve swung towards guilt 👍

It is of course your business what you want to think, and you are to be commended for being open-minded, but one thing that bothers me a little is that you, Steve and Adam all came on this Forum affecting to be neutral or undecided, or some variation on that theme, and you all made reasonable noises and acted humbly initially.  Yet you then, in relatively short order, all started telling us how certain you are that Jeremy did it, as if it's Holy Gospel, and assured us that anybody who disagrees is talking nonsense and must be a moron.

It's all very curious, like that 3 a.m. phone call to Julie, and Susan's horseplay with a suspected mass murderer at the party. If it was me, I'd be running like Linford Christie to the nearest police station, screaming and shouting about Porsches and kiddie killers and sweating and panting for breath, demanding an audience with somebody from the Essex murder squad. Not Susan.  She's an adventurous gal.

Then there's the fact that no blood was found on the den carpet or in the cardboard box or inside the rifle barrel, even though the silencer was supposedly attached to it; and strange how Stan Jones - formerly of C11 Branch at Scotland Yard - offered his prime suspect in a double child killing the keys to the crime scene.  Thanks Stan.  Another whiskey?  Yet Jeremy, a cold calculated killer who'd planned it all out, sportingly refuses. 

It's all very strange.  It's lucky I'm not the suspicious type.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2020, 10:50:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2386
Re: Query re forum members
« Reply #63 on: September 24, 2020, 11:01:PM »
 :) :) :)
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 Real Justice

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5244
    • Trial related photographs
Re: Query re forum members
« Reply #64 on: September 25, 2020, 07:10:AM »
It is of course your business what you want to think, and you are to be commended for being open-minded, but one thing that bothers me a little is that you, Steve and Adam all came on this Forum affecting to be neutral or undecided, or some variation on that theme, and you all made reasonable noises and acted humbly initially.  Yet you then, in relatively short order, all started telling us how certain you are that Jeremy did it, as if it's Holy Gospel, and assured us that anybody who disagrees is talking nonsense and must be a moron.

It's all very curious, like that 3 a.m. phone call to Julie, and Susan's horseplay with a suspected mass murderer at the party. If it was me, I'd be running like Linford Christie to the nearest police station, screaming and shouting about Porsches and kiddie killers and sweating and panting for breath, demanding an audience with somebody from the Essex murder squad. Not Susan.  She's an adventurous gal.

Then there's the fact that no blood was found on the den carpet or in the cardboard box or inside the rifle barrel, even though the silencer was supposedly attached to it; and strange how Stan Jones - formerly of C11 Branch at Scotland Yard - offered his prime suspect in a double child killing the keys to the crime scene.  Thanks Stan.  Another whiskey?  Yet Jeremy, a cold calculated killer who'd planned it all out, sportingly refuses. 

It's all very strange.  It's lucky I'm not the suspicious type.
I think and respect everyone’s opinions, even yours where your inclined to think him guilty, yet post of his innocence.  I’ve never known Steve or  Adam say or believe him innocent?  Many posters have changed stance, even Mike, he’s always believed the police shot Sheila, but his firm view being Bamber shot the other four.

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1482
Re: Query re forum members
« Reply #65 on: September 25, 2020, 04:21:PM »
I think and respect everyone’s opinions, even yours where your inclined to think him guilty, yet post of his innocence.  I’ve never known Steve or  Adam say or believe him innocent?  Many posters have changed stance, even Mike, he’s always believed the police shot Sheila, but his firm view being Bamber shot the other four.

Please pull the other leg, my left ankle hurts.

I have never stated Jeremy is innocent, and unless something extraordinary happens like Anne Eaton falling down on her knees and saying, 'Yes, Uncle Bobby and Peter put the blood in the silencer.  I go to church every Sunday now and the Lord Saviour has forgiven me!', it's rather unlikely I will ever consider Jeremy innocent.  In fact, come to think of it, even if it is proved that the blood was planted (I still think it could be proved, which is not to say I think it was planted), that does not mean Jeremy is factually innocent.  He could still be guilty, and I rather suspect he is.

I don't post of Jeremy's innocence, rather I start from the presumption of innocence, a different thing.  My approach to this case, like all cases, is summarised in the words of Sir Frederick Geoffrey Lawrence, Q.C., in his closing speech for the defence in R v Adams.  I suggest you read it: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10311.0.html

As I never tire of reminding people, the presumption of innocence is the only way to approach the case in a fair and neutral manner.  Of course, at the criminal appeal level, the presumption is formally reversed into a presumption of guilt, because Jeremy stands convicted by a jury, but even an appeal judge will, for practical reasons, begin with the presumption of innocence, simply because it's the only way to sensibly test the Crown's case on the appeal points raised, whatever they may be.  By doing so, the court builds a conservative picture of how sustainable the convictions are at that point.

For me, what the presumption of innocence translates to is that, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, I give Jeremy the benefit of any doubt.  That's not because I like Jeremy or I'm his mate.  I'm not.  I don't like child killers.  I repeat, the reason I do this is because it is the only way to test the strength of the Crown's case.

I expect all this will fall on deaf ears, but I hope it will make sense to somebody.

Turning to you and the other dogmatic guilters and your emoticons, I did not say that any of you previously claimed or affected to believe Jeremy innocent.  As you nearly-always do, you twist what I say into something slightly different, so that it suits you rhetorically.  It's a sign of intellectual dishonesty to do this and doesn't reassure me about the validity of anything you say.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2020, 04:27:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline Real Justice

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5244
    • Trial related photographs
Re: Query re forum members
« Reply #66 on: September 25, 2020, 05:36:PM »
Please pull the other leg, my left ankle hurts.

I have never stated Jeremy is innocent, and unless something extraordinary happens like Anne Eaton falling down on her knees and saying, 'Yes, Uncle Bobby and Peter put the blood in the silencer.  I go to church every Sunday now and the Lord Saviour has forgiven me!', it's rather unlikely I will ever consider Jeremy innocent.  In fact, come to think of it, even if it is proved that the blood was planted (I still think it could be proved, which is not to say I think it was planted), that does not mean Jeremy is factually innocent.  He could still be guilty, and I rather suspect he is.

I don't post of Jeremy's innocence, rather I start from the presumption of innocence, a different thing.  My approach to this case, like all cases, is summarised in the words of Sir Frederick Geoffrey Lawrence, Q.C., in his closing speech for the defence in R v Adams.  I suggest you read it: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10311.0.html

As I never tire of reminding people, the presumption of innocence is the only way to approach the case in a fair and neutral manner.  Of course, at the criminal appeal level, the presumption is formally reversed into a presumption of guilt, because Jeremy stands convicted by a jury, but even an appeal judge will, for practical reasons, begin with the presumption of innocence, simply because it's the only way to sensibly test the Crown's case on the appeal points raised, whatever they may be.  By doing so, the court builds a conservative picture of how sustainable the convictions are at that point.

For me, what the presumption of innocence translates to is that, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, I give Jeremy the benefit of any doubt.  That's not because I like Jeremy or I'm his mate.  I'm not.  I don't like child killers.  I repeat, the reason I do this is because it is the only way to test the strength of the Crown's case.

I expect all this will fall on deaf ears, but I hope it will make sense to somebody.

Turning to you and the other dogmatic guilters and your emoticons, I did not say that any of you previously claimed or affected to believe Jeremy innocent.  As you nearly-always do, you twist what I say into something slightly different, so that it suits you rhetorically.  It's a sign of intellectual dishonesty to do this and doesn't reassure me about the validity of anything you say.
Yawn Yawn Yawn 😂😂😂

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1482
Re: Query re forum members
« Reply #67 on: September 25, 2020, 05:50:PM »
Yawn Yawn Yawn 😂😂😂😂

Exactly.  Your arrogant, dismissive, unintelligent, emoticon-laced reply sums you up.  Though you are in breach of Forum Rules and, like Steve and Adam, a complete hypocrite, I favour allowing you to continue because each time you do so, you show yourself up for what you are.  Please, post some more emoticons.  Be our guest.  Bring out the child within.

The English gave the world, among other things, common law, jury trials, the presumption of innocence, Blackstone's ratio, and the rules of cricket. 

"It's not cricket", the English say, or did when I was younger.  The complaint arises not simply because someone is not following whatever are the rules or conventions of a situation, but because rules and conventions are considered a basis for fairness, which is ultimately what matters most.

That's what distinguishes England - and countries influenced by England - from other places.  Other places believe in rules for their own sake, which ultimately is totalitarianism, and is what happens when people stop being fair and just.

Murder is not fair and just, I know, but the rules say that the case must be well proven, otherwise it is not fair on the accused and, furthermore, we risk innocent people being imprisoned and, ultimately, all our liberties will be in peril. 

A barrister once told me, "The most important thing in a criminal trial is to hear the other side."  Injustices happen when people forget this and make up their minds without listening to the defence (or the prosecution, if the bias is towards the accused).
« Last Edit: September 25, 2020, 05:52:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline Real Justice

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5244
    • Trial related photographs
Re: Query re forum members
« Reply #68 on: September 25, 2020, 05:55:PM »
Exactly.  Your arrogant, dismissive, unintelligent, emoticon-laced reply sums you up.  Though you are in breach of Forum Rules and, like Steve and Adam, a complete hypocrite, I favour allowing you to continue because each time you do so, you show yourself up for what you are.  Please, post some more emoticons.  Be our guest.  Bring out the child within.

The English gave the world, among other things, common law, jury trials, the presumption of innocence, Blackstone's ratio, and the rules of cricket. 

"It's not cricket", the English say, or did when I was younger.  The complaint arises not simply because someone is not following whatever are the rules or conventions of a situation, but because rules and conventions are considered a basis for fairness, which is ultimately what matters most.

That's what distinguishes England - and countries influenced by England - from other places.  Other places believe in rules for their own sake, which ultimately is totalitarianism, and is what happens when people stop being fair and just.

Murder is not fair and just, I know, but the rules say that the case must be well proven, otherwise it is not fair on the accused and, furthermore, we risk innocent people being imprisoned and, ultimately, all our liberties will be in peril. 

A barrister once told me, "The most important thing in a criminal trial is to hear the other side."  Injustices happen when people forget this and make up their minds without listening to the defence (or the prosecution, if the bias is towards the accused).
Thanks for letting me stay Fake QC 😂😂😂😂😂

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1482
Re: Query re forum members
« Reply #69 on: September 25, 2020, 06:17:PM »
Thanks for letting me stay Fake QC 😂😂😂😂😂

No problem.  I just wish you and Myster would let me join in at Cluedo.  I've been in a sulk ever since.

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2386
Re: Query re forum members
« Reply #70 on: September 25, 2020, 06:21:PM »
Thanks for letting me stay Fake QC 😂😂😂😂😂


Are you not surprised why an intelligent experienced person like Neil has supported Jeremy so much


The English gave the world, among other things, common law, jury trials, the presumption of innocence, Blackstone's ratio, and the rules of cricket. 

"It's not cricket", the English say, or did when I was younger.  The complaint arises not simply because someone is not following whatever are the rules or conventions of a situation, but because rules and conventions are considered a basis for fairness, which is ultimately what matters most.

That's what distinguishes England - and countries influenced by England - from other places.  Other places believe in rules for their own sake, which ultimately is totalitarianism, and is what happens when people stop being fair and just.

Murder is not fair and just, I know, but the rules say that the case must be well proven, otherwise it is not fair on the accused and, furthermore, we risk innocent people being imprisoned and, ultimately, all our liberties will be in peril. 

A barrister once told me, "The most important thing in a criminal trial is to hear the other side."  Injustices happen when people forget this and make up their minds without listening to the defence (or the prosecution, if the bias is towards the
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 Real Justice

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5244
    • Trial related photographs
Re: Query re forum members
« Reply #71 on: September 25, 2020, 06:24:PM »
No problem.  I just wish you and Myster would let me join in at Cluedo.  I've been in a sulk ever since.
Pop over to Red, I’m sure he or they would accommodate you 👍.

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1482
Re: Query re forum members
« Reply #72 on: September 25, 2020, 06:38:PM »
Pop over to Red, I’m sure he or they would accommodate you 👍.

And Adam didn't recommend me for the CT on one of his threads, even after my Crispy theory.  I even backed him up about Eastenders and Peggy and Pat.  That's what thanks you get.

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1482
Re: Query re forum members
« Reply #73 on: September 25, 2020, 07:05:PM »
Anyway RJ, me and Roch have you lined up for the eponymous role of Dryland in our new Scandi-style TV detective drama, set in north-east Essex.

We know you're normally typecast as the boorish 70s-style 'no-nonsense' copper, a la The Sweeney.  But we think it's now time for you to mature a little into a more considered, intellectual role.

We did consider Myster, as he's quite cultured, but in the end we thought he should be cast as the Chief Constable.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2020, 07:06:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12962
Re: Query re forum members
« Reply #74 on: September 25, 2020, 09:08:PM »
It is of course your business what you want to think, and you are to be commended for being open-minded, but one thing that bothers me a little is that you, Steve and Adam all came on this Forum affecting to be neutral or undecided, or some variation on that theme, and you all made reasonable noises and acted humbly initially.  Yet you then, in relatively short order, all started telling us how certain you are that Jeremy did it, as if it's Holy Gospel, and assured us that anybody who disagrees is talking nonsense and must be a moron.

It's all very curious, like that 3 a.m. phone call to Julie, and Susan's horseplay with a suspected mass murderer at the party. If it was me, I'd be running like Linford Christie to the nearest police station, screaming and shouting about Porsches and kiddie killers and sweating and panting for breath, demanding an audience with somebody from the Essex murder squad. Not Susan.  She's an adventurous gal.

Then there's the fact that no blood was found on the den carpet or in the cardboard box or inside the rifle barrel, even though the silencer was supposedly attached to it; and strange how Stan Jones - formerly of C11 Branch at Scotland Yard - offered his prime suspect in a double child killing the keys to the crime scene.  Thanks Stan.  Another whiskey?  Yet Jeremy, a cold calculated killer who'd planned it all out, sportingly refuses. 

It's all very strange.  It's lucky I'm not the suspicious type.
You're pig-ignorant as usual.