Conspirational Framework - Jeremy's Conviction

[Adam]

Quite right Adam, I thought that was a bit harsh.

This started when Jan accused me of seeing something after I said I had not seen it. Apparently it's been 'mentioned on here several times'. Susan then making an offensive comment.

Hopefully the serious issue of whether the independent body,  the DPP were corrupt in this case can be looked into.

[susan]

You say things. Then deny saying them. Asking me to find you're own posts because you have not got the capacity to.

Adam how can you be so cruel to me I thought you wanted to help me.

[lookout]

Nobody has to " ask " anyone to be corrupt,if the seed is already sown in being that way inclined,then situations where corruption becomes a necessary evil comes naturally.  Ordinary members of the public haven't a clue that certain laws can be bent by the very ones who uphold law and order.
Usually the top brass are responsible as they have to be obeyed. 
   

[Adam]

Nobody has to " ask " anyone to be corrupt,if the seed is already sown in being that way inclined,then situations where corruption becomes a necessary evil comes naturally.  Ordinary members of the public haven't a clue that certain laws can be bent by the very ones who uphold law and order.
Usually the top brass are responsible as they have to be obeyed. 
   

Do you believe the DPP were already corrupt in 1985. Approving Bamber's submission without any evidence was just one of many ?

Bit of a waste of tax payers money having the DPP in the first place then. 

[susan]

Adam how can you be so cruel to me I thought you wanted to help me.

Adam on a serious note I do apologise if my remark upset or annoyed you it was not my intention. You have indeed always sought posts out for me when I have asked you.  Thank you.

[lookout]

Do you believe the DPP were already corrupt in 1985. Approving Bamber's submission without any evidence was just one of many ?

Bit of a waste of tax payers money having the DPP in the first place then.

I WASN'T saying that they were already corrupt,but if the tendency is there to be so--------------

[Jan]

From the original post "The Home Office appointed forensic scientists were, in effect, part of the prosecution team.  They were not expected to demonstrate scientific impartiality.  Their role was to use scientific arguments to bolster the prosecution case.  They were paid by the government and they were expected to support the police, not undermine them.  "

I must admit I did not realise this. Very interesting .

I was trying to read the statement after the trial which said that the forensic reports were not submitted until sept when ainsley took over?

Or did I misunderstand that?

[lookout]

Oh God it gets worse if that's the case.

[lookout]

Was anyone helping Jeremy ?? From where I'm sitting it didn't seem so.

[Jane]

From the original post "The Home Office appointed forensic scientists were, in effect, part of the prosecution team.  They were not expected to demonstrate scientific impartiality.  Their role was to use scientific arguments to bolster the prosecution case.  They were paid by the government and they were expected to support the police, not undermine them.  "

I must admit I did not realise this. Very interesting .

I was trying to read the statement after the trial which said that the forensic reports were not submitted until sept when ainsley took over?

Or did I misunderstand that?

Is there a suggestion here that such is a one off, employed solely in the Jeremy Bamber case?

[Jan]

Sorry I am new to all this iPad stuff not sure I can post it

[Jan]

The annoying thing is he knew what should have been done and was annoyed at the time but just went along with it. Why did not he insist on going to the scene ? And then he could have seen everything he needed to . And also get a ballistics expert involved ? Now that I understand his role more I can understand.

[lookout]

Think how many lives have finished due to slipshod investigations and " mistakes ". Mainly by those who were at the height of their jobs. Unforgiveable.

[Jan]

I think generally the opinion was it was better to have a few innocent people in jail than guilty people free. Where as today there is perhaps too much leaning the other way as the proof has to be absolute before you can get a conviction.

But I do think that the powers who be are aware of what went on in this period of time and should take that into account . They need to dig deeper .

I suggested once before an amnesty for anyone involved in the case who would come forward with information and just put things right.

Do people always want retribution ? Or sometimes is the truth and freedom just enough?

[lookout]

 The way the country is,I think retribution is higher on the list than even bothering seeking the truth,or listening to reason. It's easier to lay blame nowadays and with the help of the media a frenzy is soon whipped up to seek revenge rather than stopping and thinking and people are herded in that direction.