Author Topic: Just joined you  (Read 2442 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Roch

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9790
Re: Just joined you
« Reply #30 on: November 21, 2016, 12:17:PM »
Prosecution at trial claimed Jeremy rang the police at 3.36am while Jeremy maintained it was 3.26am

Now Jeremy is claiming it was 03:36  ::)

What was the rationale at the time and how did it become reversed?
"She was on a mission - a date with death, in league with the devil..." 

(Mike Tesko 2012)

Offline JackiePreece

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4743
Re: Just joined you
« Reply #31 on: December 23, 2016, 11:59:PM »
Hi there everyone

My name is Amy-Lou, I am a criminologist and avidly believe in Jeremy's innocence. My partner Drew and I have followed the case a long time.
No saying that we necessarily agree with all points, how could we?
May not agree entirely with the JB Campaign LTD methods but we do both believe that Jeremy has spent 31+ years in jail wrongly

I am researching the case in sections at present and publishing some of it in blogs at
lightinthedarkness16.wordpress.com
Feel free to visit me there and follow me. Happy to get an inbox of course

Looking forward to getting into the forum
All the best
Lou

You would obviously have heard of Mark Williams Thomas a well known criminologist. He strongly believes Jeremy Bamber is innocent
"No hour of life is wasted that is spent in the saddle" Winston Churchill

Offline petey

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1192
Re: Just joined you
« Reply #32 on: December 24, 2016, 02:32:AM »
You would obviously have heard of Mark Williams Thomas a well known criminologist. He strongly believes Jeremy Bamber is innocent
Completely not true. He has never and I'm sure will never, go on record to state he strongly believes jb is innocent.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 35033
Re: Just joined you
« Reply #33 on: December 28, 2016, 10:23:AM »
Of course he won't------until the likes of Prof.David Wilson and/or QC Michael Mansfield state categorically that JB's innocent,then MWT will fall in, in agreeance.!! It's how it works.

Offline Jane J

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24116
Re: Just joined you
« Reply #34 on: December 28, 2016, 02:09:PM »
Of course he won't------until the likes of Prof.David Wilson and/or QC Michael Mansfield state categorically that JB's innocent,then MWT will fall in, in agreeance.!! It's how it works.

It might be interesting to learn the ratio of guilt verses innocence.

Offline Roch

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9790
Re: Just joined you
« Reply #35 on: December 28, 2016, 02:19:PM »
It might be interesting to learn the ratio of guilt verses innocence.

If you are including the general public, I think this is largely driven by which side controls the media (via television).  It is clear to me that those who would seek to uphold the conviction have a stranglehold on television media output.

However, if this was to be 'evened up' with defence based media output, my gut feeling is that there would be a significant reverse-swing in public opinion. 
"She was on a mission - a date with death, in league with the devil..." 

(Mike Tesko 2012)

Offline petey

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1192
Re: Just joined you
« Reply #36 on: December 28, 2016, 04:46:PM »
Of course he won't------until the likes of Prof.David Wilson and/or QC Michael Mansfield state categorically that JB's innocent,then MWT will fall in, in agreeance.!! It's how it works.

Maybe that's how things work in your world.

The reality in the real world is somewhat different.

But I guess as long as your gut tells you that's what happens then that's the most important thing. Far be it for you to take heed of information proffered to you as you have stated many times that you are not influenced 1 iota by what any other person may say. Sadly the evidence and your posting re: jb offers a very different viewpoint.

Offline Jane J

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24116
Re: Just joined you
« Reply #37 on: December 28, 2016, 04:50:PM »
If you are including the general public, I think this is largely driven by which side controls the media (via television).  It is clear to me that those who would seek to uphold the conviction have a stranglehold on television media output.

However, if this was to be 'evened up' with defence based media output, my gut feeling is that there would be a significant reverse-swing in public opinion.

Hmm. In your dreams, perhaps?

Offline Roch

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9790
Re: Just joined you
« Reply #38 on: December 28, 2016, 04:52:PM »
Hmm. In your dreams, perhaps?

Strange comment?  :-\
"She was on a mission - a date with death, in league with the devil..." 

(Mike Tesko 2012)

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 19985
Re: Just joined you
« Reply #39 on: February 10, 2017, 11:44:AM »
What was the rationale at the time and how did it become reversed?

03:25 was giving because of Jeremy's timings, he would need to explain what he did for the extra 11 mins if he called at 03:36. It changed because it now wants people to believe Nevill called, this is one of the things that caused my suspicion.
100% GUILTY - No doubts!