Author Topic: Truth, The Whole Truth......Or That Which Others Want Us To Believe Is Truth  (Read 669 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27335
It seems to me that we have two entirely different stories going on here. We have the version given us by EP. I'm perfectly certain that the case is now used as a training exercise in "How Not To Run An Investigation". I feel certain that, as a force, they're probably a little embarrassed by it, albeit, they got their man..................in the end.

 However, I am convinced, that much may have been done by those seeking to exonerate Jeremy, to exaggerate what occurred by showing them in as bad a light as possible. It leaves us with a choice. We accept -warts and all- what the police tell us occurred, OR we dismiss it and accept what those who are pro Jeremy tell us 'REALLY' occurred...............but before we take their version as the definitive one, perhaps we should have a close look at their possible agenda. Just how many of them lend their full support to police in general -there are more than a few who seem to think they could have done a better job- how many of them would be prepared to stand up and admit we probably have the finest police force in the world? How many of them take pleasure in "getting one over" when it comes to their dealings with police? It's very possible that such persons, whilst probably being the first to demand that "police should do something" will be doing their best to make it as difficult for them as they can. Their versions of events, all designed to make police look incompetent, are certainly likely to be very different from versions given us by police....................

.............To whit!! We're led to believe that there was more corruption, within that small unit of EP engaged in the investigation at WHF, than in the rest of the force in England, and America, it seems, don't know nuttin' when it comes to corruption...................and it all begins with a couple of 'numpties' operating in different buildings, one a civilian, deciding to withhold information just in case it was decided to prosecute Jeremy at a later date -THIS of course, has to presupposes that they already knew Jeremy and what was going to be the outcome of the incident he called about. Moving on, we have a group of 'incompetents' gathered outside the farmhouse, allegedly not knowing what to do. It matters not that their information is that there's a mentally insane woman, a paranoid schizophrenic, in there, recently released from a psych unit, brandishing a weapon that she's fully conversant with, along with her children and her parents, who'd allegedly been threatening to take them away from her. Never mind any of that, they SHOULD have gone in. To hell with the potential consequences.................which had been covered because this mad woman had allegedly had the forethought to call 999 and ask for ambulances!!! Enter -and quickly exit- another incompetent in a hurry to get to his game of golf. Then, we're told, comes the alcoholic doctor. How do we know he's an alcoholic? A Jeremy supporter once smelled alcohol on his breath, AND he carried a hip flask!!! To add to his failures, he only diagnosed Sheila as having A gunshot wound -this, later being translated into a whole OTHER story!!!- never mind that he didn't diagnose any of the victims with more than A gunshot wound. Still, at least the case seemed cut and dried. Thanks to Jeremy, they had the whole history and background of Sheila's mental illness and two hospitalizations. It was clearly a case of murders/suicide.

Enter the family. We're told, grasping, greedy, jealous, determined to do Jeremy out of his birthright. Their biggest crime? to have an alleged Freemason in their midst. We're encouraged to believe that every crime ever committed has Freemasonery at it's heart. We're further encouraged to believe that this family took it upon themselves to manipulate evidence of Sheila as the culprit -not that there had ever been any to start with which wasn't staged- towards Jeremy, and to aid and abet them in this, somehow, so we're encouraged to believe, EP manage to persuade professionals into corruption by getting them to falsify just about everything they handle which is to do with the case. Then, of course, we have the alleged intervention of Drugs Squad and Special Branch, who are there to protect Jeremy -from the drug pushers that his girl friend was allegedly one of, albeit, they were supplied by Jeremy- because of his alleged biological 'father'. One can begin to see how such ludicrousy -lunacy?- if believed, can convince one of police incompetency and corruption.

This all seems to be sucked up, unquestioningly, by Jeremy supporters, who will grab at any straw which might lead to Jeremy's freedom. They only need to hear it said that evidence exists and they're taken in, hook, line and sinker. They seem incapable of seeing the consequences of any of these fictions being fact. Everything which points to police having been corrupt, to them, appears to be further proof of Jeremy's innocence.

Not for a moment am I suggesting that corruption doesn't exist within organizations. However, I don't believe it exists to the extent that everyone connected to a case -other than the accused- is guilty of it, which is what we're being asked to believe.


Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40043
If it wasn't so serious it would be laughable-----akin to a Brian Rix farce.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27335
If it wasn't so serious it would be laughable-----akin to a Brian Rix farce.


It would, Lookout. Sadly, that's exactly what it's been turned into, rather than what it actually is.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40043

It would, Lookout. Sadly, that's exactly what it's been turned into, rather than what it actually is.





I bet it's left a few reeling having gone through the case from start to finish as well as asking umpteen questions---------which should have ALL been answered in court at the trial.

This alone whether a supporter of guilt or innocence is most definitely worth another long hard look as well as another day in court with the words " beyond reasonable doubt " one way or the other for JB's guilt was NEVER  proven beyond reasonable doubt in the first place which I must admit as being strange given the length of the sentencing but hay-ho who am I to argue with the law ?

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13526

It would, Lookout. Sadly, that's exactly what it's been turned into, rather than what it actually is.
Anyone who watched the drama and following documentary about the Jeremy Thorpe case can see the power of the Establishment. If ever there was a farce that is it. It reinforces that anything is possible and we the people only know what we are allowed to know until somehow the truth is forced out. Why trust EP anymore than anyone else in authority?  It should always be questioned. Don't know what is the true reason they might be hiding the truth, it does sound far fetched but that doesn't mean they didn't manipulate. Norman Scott was rubbished and defamed as 'weak' but appears to be rather strong, a survivor.  Reviled but still wanting the truth against all the odds. It's easy to defame people who have no power, he was called 'unstable' , fantasist', paranoid etc. the words 'narcissist', 'psychopath' weren't fashionable.  To commit the crime Jeremy Bamber committed he surely has to be severely disordered but is he? There is no proof he is to public knowledge only hearsay which is used to support people's own opinions. 
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 11:23:AM by maggie »

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40043
Hello Maggie.

I remember vividly when this first came about. The newspapers were packed to the gunnels with the story and this docu-play certainly highlighted the absolute corruption which was abound. It will have opened a lot of eyes as well as cans of worms.
You can bet your life the " whole " truth is well buried under the work of the " establishment " as it invariably is when such a crime surfaces. I remember my mother saying that the truth will never come out.
Norman Scott will be hounded for the rest of his life for just being a friend nothing more.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13526
Hello Maggie.

I remember vividly when this first came about. The newspapers were packed to the gunnels with the story and this docu-play certainly highlighted the absolute corruption which was abound. It will have opened a lot of eyes as well as cans of worms.
You can bet your life the " whole " truth is well buried under the work of the " establishment " as it invariably is when such a crime surfaces. I remember my mother saying that the truth will never come out.
Norman Scott will be hounded for the rest of his life for just being a friend nothing more.
Well, it's a bit off topic but no doubt Jeremy Thorpe groomed and raped Scott. My argument is that the Establishment can close ranks against anyone if it's in their interests. The question is .. Have they done this to JB and if so why?  It doesn't have to be big deal spy or drug stuff and would more likely be far more mundane.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 11:42:AM by maggie »

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40043
In this,the Bamber case those who can only say that JB was " convicted by a jury"so must be guilty" is not correct as it would only apply where there'd never been a MOJ.

Evidence should be re-examined,it's JB's right as well as everyone else's who find themselves in a similar situation where evidence was withheld.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6319
It seems to me that we have two entirely different stories going on here. We have the version given us by EP. I'm perfectly certain that the case is now used as a training exercise in "How Not To Run An Investigation". I feel certain that, as a force, they're probably a little embarrassed by it, albeit, they got their man..................in the end.

 However, I am convinced, that much may have been done by those seeking to exonerate Jeremy, to exaggerate what occurred by showing them in as bad a light as possible. It leaves us with a choice. We accept -warts and all- what the police tell us occurred, OR we dismiss it and accept what those who are pro Jeremy tell us 'REALLY' occurred...............but before we take their version as the definitive one, perhaps we should have a close look at their possible agenda. Just how many of them lend their full support to police in general -there are more than a few who seem to think they could have done a better job- how many of them would be prepared to stand up and admit we probably have the finest police force in the world? How many of them take pleasure in "getting one over" when it comes to their dealings with police? It's very possible that such persons, whilst probably being the first to demand that "police should do something" will be doing their best to make it as difficult for them as they can. Their versions of events, all designed to make police look incompetent, are certainly likely to be very different from versions given us by police....................

.............To whit!! We're led to believe that there was more corruption, within that small unit of EP engaged in the investigation at WHF, than in the rest of the force in England, and America, it seems, don't know nuttin' when it comes to corruption...................and it all begins with a couple of 'numpties' operating in different buildings, one a civilian, deciding to withhold information just in case it was decided to prosecute Jeremy at a later date -THIS of course, has to presupposes that they already knew Jeremy and what was going to be the outcome of the incident he called about. Moving on, we have a group of 'incompetents' gathered outside the farmhouse, allegedly not knowing what to do. It matters not that their information is that there's a mentally insane woman, a paranoid schizophrenic, in there, recently released from a psych unit, brandishing a weapon that she's fully conversant with, along with her children and her parents, who'd allegedly been threatening to take them away from her. Never mind any of that, they SHOULD have gone in. To hell with the potential consequences.................which had been covered because this mad woman had allegedly had the forethought to call 999 and ask for ambulances!!! Enter -and quickly exit- another incompetent in a hurry to get to his game of golf. Then, we're told, comes the alcoholic doctor. How do we know he's an alcoholic? A Jeremy supporter once smelled alcohol on his breath, AND he carried a hip flask!!! To add to his failures, he only diagnosed Sheila as having A gunshot wound -this, later being translated into a whole OTHER story!!!- never mind that he didn't diagnose any of the victims with more than A gunshot wound. Still, at least the case seemed cut and dried. Thanks to Jeremy, they had the whole history and background of Sheila's mental illness and two hospitalizations. It was clearly a case of murders/suicide.

Enter the family. We're told, grasping, greedy, jealous, determined to do Jeremy out of his birthright. Their biggest crime? to have an alleged Freemason in their midst. We're encouraged to believe that every crime ever committed has Freemasonery at it's heart. We're further encouraged to believe that this family took it upon themselves to manipulate evidence of Sheila as the culprit -not that there had ever been any to start with which wasn't staged- towards Jeremy, and to aid and abet them in this, somehow, so we're encouraged to believe, EP manage to persuade professionals into corruption by getting them to falsify just about everything they handle which is to do with the case. Then, of course, we have the alleged intervention of Drugs Squad and Special Branch, who are there to protect Jeremy -from the drug pushers that his girl friend was allegedly one of, albeit, they were supplied by Jeremy- because of his alleged biological 'father'. One can begin to see how such ludicrousy -lunacy?- if believed, can convince one of police incompetency and corruption.

This all seems to be sucked up, unquestioningly, by Jeremy supporters, who will grab at any straw which might lead to Jeremy's freedom. They only need to hear it said that evidence exists and they're taken in, hook, line and sinker. They seem incapable of seeing the consequences of any of these fictions being fact. Everything which points to police having been corrupt, to them, appears to be further proof of Jeremy's innocence.

Not for a moment am I suggesting that corruption doesn't exist within organizations. However, I don't believe it exists to the extent that everyone connected to a case -other than the accused- is guilty of it, which is what we're being asked to believe.

"A straw man is a logical fallacy which occurs when a debater intentionally misrepresents their opponent's argument as a weaker version, and rebuts said version — rather than their opponent's genuine argument. Intentional strawmanning is usually done with a certain goal in mind, including:

1.Avoiding real debate against an opponent's real argument, because the misrepresenter risks losing in fair debate

2.Making the opponent's position appear ridiculous as a way of poisoning the well"



"A theory without facts is fantasy"

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40043
Well, it's a bit off topic but no doubt Jeremy Thorpe groomed and raped Scott. My argument is that the Establishment can close ranks against anyone if it's in their interests. The question is .. Have they done this to JB and if so why?  It doesn't have to be big deal spy or drug stuff and would more likely be far more mundane.






Of course they'll close ranks if it's thought that it's going to affect the " Establishment " in any way and yes,I would say that this has happened in the JB case taking into consideration the position of his bio-father and the risk of scandal in those quarters as well as the botched but questionable police investigation which appeared to have been openly biased towards the relatives------------even though they'd " allegedly ?" found the smoking gun before benefitting. So much jiggery-pokery went on it's not surprising that the now legal team didn't know where to start.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40043
The thread should read------- The Truth,the Whole Truth and Nothing Like the Truth !!

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23262
"A straw man is a logical fallacy which occurs when a debater intentionally misrepresents their opponent's argument as a weaker version, and rebuts said version — rather than their opponent's genuine argument. Intentional strawmanning is usually done with a certain goal in mind, including:

1.Avoiding real debate against an opponent's real argument, because the misrepresenter risks losing in fair debate

2.Making the opponent's position appear ridiculous as a way of poisoning the well"

You should know ALL about strawmanning - you're an expert at it! This is why you keep posting insults and BS. You''re doing it now but are too dumb to realise!

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 20559
"A straw man is a logical fallacy which occurs when a debater intentionally misrepresents their opponent's argument as a weaker version, and rebuts said version — rather than their opponent's genuine argument. Intentional strawmanning is usually done with a certain goal in mind, including:

1.Avoiding real debate against an opponent's real argument, because the misrepresenter risks losing in fair debate

2.Making the opponent's position appear ridiculous as a way of poisoning the well"

What a pity David is goading again and not contributing towards the thread discussion.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27335
Anyone who watched the drama and following documentary about the Jeremy Thorpe case can see the power of the Establishment. If ever there was a farce that is it. It reinforces that anything is possible and we the people only know what we are allowed to know until somehow the truth is forced out. Why trust EP anymore than anyone else in authority?  It should always be questioned. Don't know what is the true reason they might be hiding the truth, it does sound far fetched but that doesn't mean they didn't manipulate. Norman Scott was rubbished and defamed as 'weak' but appears to be rather strong, a survivor.  Reviled but still wanting the truth against all the odds. It's easy to defame people who have no power, he was called 'unstable' , fantasist', paranoid etc. the words 'narcissist', 'psychopath' weren't fashionable.  To commit the crime Jeremy Bamber committed he surely has to be severely disordered but is he? There is no proof he is to public knowledge only hearsay which is used to support people's own opinions.


Whilst I can see that there was every reason for the "Establishment" to conceal, from the general public, the fact that one of their own number -a member of the ruling class- was SHOCK! HORROR!! queer!!!! I can find no justifiably reason for them to need to convict an innocent man to the point where it required the potential corruption and defamation of character of ALL those connected to it.
We've been drip fed various,and always salacious, titbits. We may have failed to notice them over time. We certainly won't have thought what they might look like if they were presented as a whole. This, in full knowledge that it's an incomplete exercise, is what I've attempted to do. You may not agree, but to me, it leaves standing the Jeremy Thorpe farce.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13526

Whilst I can see that there was every reason for the "Establishment" to conceal, from the general public, the fact that one of their own number -a member of the ruling class- was SHOCK! HORROR!! queer!!!! I can find no justifiably reason for them to need to convict an innocent man to the point where it required the potential corruption and defamation of character of ALL those connected to it.
We've been drip fed various,and always salacious, titbits. We may have failed to notice them over time. We certainly won't have thought what they might look like if they were presented as a whole. This, in full knowledge that it's an incomplete exercise, is what I've attempted to do. You may not agree, but to me, it leaves standing the Jeremy Thorpe farce.
Did you see the BBC4 Documentary after the final part of the series last night? The suppression of evidence and support of one of their own who tried to kill another man 5 times to keep his power?   I use it as an example of what the Establishment is capable of. A witness was called to a police station where his original statement was destroyed and he was ordered to sign a rewritten one with all mention of Thorpe removed shows how corrupt the law can be. I'm not comparing like with like and indeed they were very different cases but we really may not know the whole truth about the Bamber case however much we, collectively or individually may believe we do.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 01:30:PM by maggie »