Author Topic: starryian  (Read 32213 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline andrea

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1385
Re: starryian
« Reply #75 on: August 01, 2012, 11:21:PM »
Im actually still a member here, roch.
On Ilkley Moor Baht'at.

Offline Moe Cassani

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
Re: starryian
« Reply #76 on: August 01, 2012, 11:32:PM »
Actually Moe, eventhough I'm not particularly advocating a third party there are possibilities.  For a start do we know that Jeremy waking from a deep sleep accepted that it was his father who rang him in a state of anxiety asking for help.  There is a possibility that Jeremy heard words from a voice which was like his father saying words he recognised would only come from his father convincing him it was Ralph on the phone...it may not have been, the power of suggestion is very strong.  Lots of people as witnesses swear they saw things that they couldn't have possibly seen.
Maggie you cannot be serious? I had to read what you wrote several times as I thought you had made a mistake. The statement absolutely beggars belief in terms of sheer implausibility.
Have you read what Bamber actually said to the police that night over the phone? 'My father sounded reallly terrified' I tried to ring him back but I couldn't get through'. This isnt a dream or hearing voices that werent his father's. Maggie this was a very lucid description. There was no vagueness or misunderstanding. He told PC West exactly what his father had said. He cannot now start to change the goalposts.
That phone call is something that during his trial the prosecution said was Bamber's 'fatal mistake'
Nothing can ever hide this. He told police that his father phoned him, and he knows it. He cannot ever plausibly retract that, not now or ever.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2012, 11:34:PM by Moe Cassani »

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: starryian
« Reply #77 on: August 01, 2012, 11:41:PM »
Maggie you cannot be serious? I had to read what you wrote several times as I thought you had made a mistake. The statement absolutely beggars belief in terms of sheer implausibility.
Have you read what Bamber actually said to the police that night over the phone? 'My father sounded reallly terrified' I tried to ring him back but I couldn't get through'. This isnt a dream or hearing voices that werent his father's. Maggie this was a very lucid description. There was no vagueness or misunderstanding. He told PC West exactly what his father had said. He cannot now start to change the goalposts.
That phone call is something that during his trial the prosecution said was Bamber's 'fatal mistake'
Nothing can ever hide this. He told police that his father phoned him, and he knows it. He cannot ever plausibly retract that, not now or ever.
I know he told the police and I know he believes it was his father, I didn't say he was trying to change the goal posts, I'm just saying that anything is possible and he may have made a mistake.  Surely sometimes thinking outside the box is good.  It is a possibility to wake from a deep sleep, answer a phone call and still be trying to wake up.  I'm  not saying Jeremy has doubts but I am talking about possibilities.  If you work from facts but the first fact is flawed then ther whole thinking which eminates from that is flawed.  Just a thought.

Offline Moe Cassani

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
Re: starryian
« Reply #78 on: August 01, 2012, 11:48:PM »
Well this is the point Moe, if he isn't a psychopath as has been proved he has no personality dissorder unless he has something which has never come to light before he can't be guilty because I cannot see that a person of warmth, love and feeling could possibly perpitrate such a horrendous crime to the people who had cared for him since he was a tiny baby.
Strange you should say that because on his first arrest in 1974 Ted Bundy was also examined by psychiatrists numerous times and declared to be 'not psychopathic' In 1989 some 11 years after his arrest Ted Bundy was given a lie detector test and passed. However a psychiatrist was incredulous that he was not diagnosed psychopathic many years before. But he also stated how easily it is for these people to fool them. Ted Bundy was sent to the electric chair some months later short after to confessing to some 15 murders.
I dont know much about psychopaths but it is clear that Bundy was a psychopath. This doesn't mean Bamber is. I am merely pointing out that psychologists can be easily fooled by them. You are=gument about Bamber being a 'person of warmth, love and feeling' really doesnt help decide his innocence or guilt. It is logical evidence that will.

Offline Moe Cassani

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
Re: starryian
« Reply #79 on: August 01, 2012, 11:50:PM »
I know he told the police and I know he believes it was his father, I didn't say he was trying to change the goal posts, I'm just saying that anything is possible and he may have made a mistake.  Surely sometimes thinking outside the box is good.  It is a possibility to wake from a deep sleep, answer a phone call and still be trying to wake up.  I'm  not saying Jeremy has doubts but I am talking about possibilities.  If you work from facts but the first fact is flawed then ther whole thinking which eminates from that is flawed.  Just a thought.
OK Maggie I accept that. However, I have grave doubts an appeal court would even entertain that one. It is just not provable in his case.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: starryian
« Reply #80 on: August 01, 2012, 11:56:PM »
OK Maggie I accept that. However, I have grave doubts an appeal court would even entertain that one. It is just not provable in his case.
I accept an appeal court wouldn't look at it but it is a possibility.  Jerremy has to prove he didn't do it...who did is a different question. :)

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: starryian
« Reply #81 on: August 02, 2012, 12:06:AM »
Night all. :D

Offline Bridget

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5065
Re: starryian
« Reply #82 on: August 02, 2012, 12:35:AM »
Are you speaking to me or is that a general comment, I find it very hard to believe that Jeremy did it for many reasons.  I suspect strongly that it was Sheila, it may even have been a third party. To claim anyone MUST have done it is a mistake we have no proof at this point in time. 
I wonder what your reasoning is that makes you so sure that Jeremy did it, rather than Sheila, apart from the fact that he was found guilty eventhough you are aware of many miscarriages of justice.

I apologise Maggie, it was a general comment but I have aimed it at you. I hate it when people do that to me so I should know better.

My reason for believing that Jeremy did it is not so much evidence that it was him, but the total lack of evidence that it was Sheila. She had no opportunity to conceal any such evidence, and he did - that's the very simplified version!
....just cos I eat worms...

Offline Martin

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 272
Re: starryian
« Reply #83 on: August 02, 2012, 07:32:AM »
I agree NBG, Although Harters and I have had a falling out, he is an intellegent poster.  but I knew that this was not the real Hartley.
These posters have come in different guises. I suppose the the real Hartley is flattered by this.
Starryian is the same as the dim infection on the other side, neither are equiped with a brain. They all come up with the same chestnut[ Julie was brave, bah].



Starryian wrote the following in reply to Andrea. He said he considers Julie Mugford to be an accessory before the fact. This looks like a big about face for Admin as he is also known. You don't really buy it that Starryian is a newbie do you?
Quote

Quote from: Andrea on June 04, 2012, 01:29:15 PM

    Excellent post Ian, thanks for that. 8((()*/

    Do you think it possible that Bamber could have had an accomplice?

To be honest with you Andrea I do not think so. Like all narcissistic psychopaths Bamber probably congratulated himself on his own abilities on carrying out this crime. I strongly suspect that he revelled in his own ingenuity. The closest we are ever going to get to an accomplice is Julie Mugford. I realise that this is not a popular idea, but I have to state it. I believe that Mugford was an accessory before the fact. She had knowledge of Bambers intentions some 8 months before the actual killings.
She has openly stated that he used her as a 'sounding board' for ideas on killing his family. On one such occasion she stated that Bamber had asked her to obtain some powerful tranquilisers from her own doctor so that he could drug his family and burn down the house with them inside it. Alarm bells should have started ringing here! I know she was probably blindly in love with this man and was somewhat taken by surprise that he has actually gone through with his threats, but when you analyse the whole thing, Mugford had the power to have prevented this appalling massacre from ever happening simply by picking up the phone. I believe that this formed a great part of her guilt later when she finally came forward and told her story to the police. She could may well have prevented it. She defends herself from this notion that she claims 'it was just idle talk' I beg to differ. A person who constantly and continually talks about murdering his family and then tries out different ideas and methods to accomplish that should have set the alarm bells ringing, and ringing loudly. I am not in any way suggesting Mugfords complicity in the actual murders themselves but I am suggesting that she had prior knowledge and this was overlooked in order to obtain a conviction. This is also not to say that her evidence was in any way faulty, untruthful or misleading. I think she told the truth in court. I believe that she was very lucky that she was not charged with being an accessory before the fact. We must take it into consideration and remember that before we heap gushing praise on this lady.

My guess is that this was not so much a change of opinion as a policy change. Admin felt that too much sympathy for Julie was making them look morally stupid. Just a guess.

 
« Last Edit: August 02, 2012, 07:46:AM by Martin »

Offline andrea

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1385
Re: starryian
« Reply #84 on: August 02, 2012, 08:55:AM »
Starryian is NOT admin, he is a newbie. Just thought i would say.
On Ilkley Moor Baht'at.

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16117
Re: starryian
« Reply #85 on: August 02, 2012, 02:24:PM »
Starryian is NOT admin, he is a newbie. Just thought i would say.

So is your admin John then ?

Offline Moe Cassani

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
Re: starryian
« Reply #86 on: August 02, 2012, 04:18:PM »
Starryian wrote the following in reply to Andrea. He said he considers Julie Mugford to be an accessory before the fact. This looks like a big about face for Admin as he is also known. You don't really buy it that Starryian is a newbie do you?
My guess is that this was not so much a change of opinion as a policy change. Admin felt that too much sympathy for Julie was making them look morally stupid. Just a guess.
I have debated with starry on this and he stands by his view that Mugford was an accessory after the fact - technically. He said that does not make Mugford a less credible witness - maybe? I am not sure. Maybe some here can enlighten me on this?
He is not admin but he is a full member. Nice guy and willing to debate with you sensibly. I have not got any problem with the man. He has helped clear up some points I had, along with some posters on this forum.  :)
« Last Edit: August 02, 2012, 04:20:PM by Moe Cassani »

Offline grahameb

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11830
Re: starryian
« Reply #87 on: August 06, 2012, 07:10:PM »
I have debated with starry on this and he stands by his view that Mugford was an accessory after the fact - technically. He said that does not make Mugford a less credible witness - maybe? I am not sure. Maybe some here can enlighten me on this?
He is not admin but he is a full member. Nice guy and willing to debate with you sensibly. I have not got any problem with the man. He has helped clear up some points I had, along with some posters on this forum.  :)
If Bamber is guilty then JM is an accessory after the fact and should have stood trial for that offence. I have always held that view. Because she did not, this makes the police guilty of obstructing the course of justice in that they refused to charge her for this crime and they should set up an enquiry into that.

If on the other hand Jeremy is innocent, then JM should be charged with pergery. Plus obstructing the course of justice, as she had drawn the police away from their original investigations.

Note: There is nothing and no one to back up JM's story. It is her word against Bamber. It is the argument of the anti Bambers that because JB was found guilty in a court of law then that should be termed a fair trial and therefore he is rightfully in prison. But one must remember that even if a 1000 people believe in a wrong thing. It is still a wrong thing. There have been so many doubts regarding this case among members of the public. MP's, Law students and even barristers and solicitors and so many who find the so called evidence troubling, that this alone should force a general inquiry concerning the evidence and more disturbing the lack of evidence. I believe myself that even if there is the smallest of doubts about JB's guilt, that this should be enough to stir everybody's conscience to ask within themselves whether this man is in fact innocent. For if he is innocent, then that surely is not true British justice?

« Last Edit: August 06, 2012, 07:12:PM by grahame »

mertol22

  • Guest
Re: starryian
« Reply #88 on: August 06, 2012, 07:36:PM »
If Bamber is guilty then JM is an accessory after the fact and should have stood trial for that offence. I have always held that view. Because she did not, this makes the police guilty of obstructing the course of justice in that they refused to charge her for this crime and they should set up an enquiry into that.

If on the other hand Jeremy is innocent, then JM should be charged with pergery. Plus obstructing the course of justice, as she had drawn the police away from their original investigations.

Note: There is nothing and no one to back up JM's story. It is her word against Bamber. It is the argument of the anti Bambers that because JB was found guilty in a court of law then that should be termed a fair trial and therefore he is rightfully in prison. But one must remember that even if a 1000 people believe in a wrong thing. It is still a wrong thing. There have been so many doubts regarding this case among members of the public. MP's, Law students and even barristers and solicitors and so many who find the so called evidence troubling, that this alone should force a general inquiry concerning the evidence and more disturbing the lack of evidence. I believe myself that even if there is the smallest of doubts about JB's guilt, that this should be enough to stir everybody's conscience to ask within themselves whether this man is in fact innocent. For if he is innocent, then that surely is not true British justice?
This is just my point grahame as i said recently, if JM had a clean sheet even i might just believe what she said, she was a crook, and she was lying, the evidence that sent JB to a life sentence must also be seen as having no opt outs,JB could not prove then or now what JB has supposed to have said, she can always come forward with proof anytime.

Offline Moe Cassani

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
Re: starryian
« Reply #89 on: August 06, 2012, 07:38:PM »
If Bamber is guilty then JM is an accessory after the fact and should have stood trial for that offence. I have always held that view. Because she did not, this makes the police guilty of obstructing the course of justice in that they refused to charge her for this crime and they should set up an enquiry into that.

If on the other hand Jeremy is innocent, then JM should be charged with pergery. Plus obstructing the course of justice, as she had drawn the police away from their original investigations.

Note: There is nothing and no one to back up JM's story. It is her word against Bamber. It is the argument of the anti Bambers that because JB was found guilty in a court of law then that should be termed a fair trial and therefore he is rightfully in prison. But one must remember that even if a 1000 people believe in a wrong thing. It is still a wrong thing. There have been so many doubts regarding this case among members of the public. MP's, Law students and even barristers and solicitors and so many who find the so called evidence troubling, that this alone should force a general inquiry concerning the evidence and more disturbing the lack of evidence. I believe myself that even if there is the smallest of doubts about JB's guilt, that this should be enough to stir everybody's conscience to ask within themselves whether this man is in fact innocent. For if he is innocent, then that surely is not true British justice?
Thing is Grahame,
that the law courts and the appeal courts believe him to be guilty beyond any doubt. Whether you agree with that is neither here nor there. Whether you can prove otherwise is an entirely different matter. You say there are doubts? - two failed appeals say there isn't. The smalles of evidence? that is not the way courts work. In order for them to spend a considerable sum of the taxpayers money you better be darn sure and the appeal court say not.
This is the hard truth - accept it or provide fresh evidence to prove otherwise. This is the ONLY route left to Jeremy Bamber.