Author Topic: Truth, The Whole Truth......Or That Which Others Want Us To Believe Is Truth  (Read 582 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23086
Did you see the BBC4 Documentary after the final part of the series last night? The suppression 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 however we really may not know the whole truth about the Bamber case however much we, collectively or individually may believe we do.

I m sure we don't know all of the details but enough to decide whether he did it or not.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27308





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.


This may just be an example of how people get sucked in. You seem to accept the BS about his alleged biological father -and I'm NOT talking about Leslie Marsham here- and the "risk of scandal in those quarters", but let's, for a moment, consider that it's true. Are you prepared, for one moment, to believe the Establishment would allow a small matter of family inheritance being claimed by others in the family to stand in the way of them preventing ANY person with even the tiniest connection to the RF from being hauled through courts on a mass murder charge, especially as we're also told they'd been keeping tabs on him since his birth? If they were capable of the sort of corruption and manipulation you're accusing them of, they'd have gone to any lengths to prevent it. Sheila would undoubtedly have been found guilty.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27308
Did you see the BBC4 Documentary after the final part of the series last night? The suppression 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 however we really may not know the whole truth about the Bamber case however much we, collectively or individually may believe we do.

So the Establishment was protecting it's own. Surely, if Jeremy's genes are where we're told they are, after allegedly watching over him all his life, they'd have gone out of their way to protect him, too. Not throw him to the lions.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40034

This may just be an example of how people get sucked in. You seem to accept the BS about his alleged biological father -and I'm NOT talking about Leslie Marsham here- and the "risk of scandal in those quarters", but let's, for a moment, consider that it's true. Are you prepared, for one moment, to believe the Establishment would allow a small matter of family inheritance being claimed by others in the family to stand in the way of them preventing ANY person with even the tiniest connection to the RF from being hauled through courts on a mass murder charge, especially as we're also told they'd been keeping tabs on him since his birth? If they were capable of the sort of corruption and manipulation you're accusing them of, they'd have gone to any lengths to prevent it. Sheila would undoubtedly have been found guilty.






Not necessarily would Sheila have been found guilty as even 30 odd years later it still remains to be an impossibility in the eyes of the law that a female murders all her family let alone any thought of it in 1985 so it's only natural that a male takes the wrap.
Sheila might just have been found guilty if all the facts had been presented but sadly they weren't. Colin would have best explained about Sheila's moods and behaviour especially when he wrote a pleading letter to Nevill telling him that it would be better for her and the boys if he,Colin,had them most of the time. I'd sensed Colin's concern but he'd had to choose his words carefully because it was Sheila's parents and if anyone knew what living with Sheila was like,it had been Colin.

Anyway as far as Marsham is concerned when he uttered about dis-owning or refusing knowledge of JB's existence ( didn't he forfeit/relinquish that when he handed him over as a baby ?) with all the rot about JB being a danger it will remain in the interest of all those concerned to keep him where he is ( though he's never hurt anyone ) There's more danger on the streets right now.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13515
So the Establishment was protecting it's own. Surely, if Jeremy's genes are where we're told they are, after allegedly watching over him all his life, they'd have gone out of their way to protect him, too. Not throw him to the lions.
I did not say that, I used the Thorpe case to highlight the lengths the 'establishment' will go to, to protect its own  I  but that doesn't need to be a huge conspiracy.  I am simply saying cover ups happen and the Establishment which to me includes the Criminal Justice System and the Police are capable of going to any lengths if it's in their own interests.  Their interests can be as simple as covering up their own mistakes and incompetence to protecting politicians and beyond. Maybe they discovered they were right the first time and it had to be Sheila after all? How stupid was Stan Jones etc willing to look in public? It was accepted JB was the culprit let sleeping dogs lie and save their own skins. I don't claim to know the answer but it could be that simple.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 02:28:PM by maggie »

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27308





Not necessarily would Sheila have been found guilty as even 30 odd years later it still remains to be an impossibility in the eyes of the law that a female murders all her family let alone any thought of it in 1985 so it's only natural that a male takes the wrap.
Sheila might just have been found guilty if all the facts had been presented but sadly they weren't. Colin would have best explained about Sheila's moods and behaviour especially when he wrote a pleading letter to Nevill telling him that it would be better for her and the boys if he,Colin,had them most of the time. I'd sensed Colin's concern but he'd had to choose his words carefully because it was Sheila's parents and if anyone knew what living with Sheila was like,it had been Colin.

Anyway as far as Marsham is concerned when he uttered about dis-owning or refusing knowledge of JB's existence ( didn't he forfeit/relinquish that when he handed him over as a baby ?) with all the rot about JB being a danger it will remain in the interest of all those concerned to keep him where he is ( though he's never hurt anyone ) There's more danger on the streets right now.


 I HAVE to address the Marsham issue first!! This definitely IS about stuffing people full of untruths. It is EXACTLY as you said.  He, like countless other bio parents before him and since -although it's a moot point whether he ever had any rights back then as he and Jeremy's mother weren't married, at least, where he was concerned, not to each other- relinquished all rights over their child when they agreed to their adoption. In which case, it matters not a jot to anyone, least of all, the Establishment, that Jeremy was fathered by him, and as for him being a danger, won't that be something put forward by those who'd have us believe that he was fathered by a royal? It sounds rather like "The Man In The Iron Mask" to suggest "it will remain in the interest of all those concerned to keep him where he is". If "THEY" are really capable of such deviousness I'd have thought it would have been possible to persuade another prisoner -promise them new identity- to arrange for an 'accident' to happen. No more Jeremy. Problem over.

I'd be inclined to agree you re Sheila, had she lived. However, if we accept what is alleged is Jeremy's provenance, I don't think there'd have been a problem with sacrificing her. Indeed, IF Jeremy is who he's being hinted at as being, the Establishment would have made very certain that the case never got to court, at least, not with Jeremy as the accused.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40034
It certainly wouldn't be the first time that senior officers have been involved in corruption. They think they're untouchable and ironically it's true because nothing happens to them. They do what they do because they can.
It's happened in the Eddie Gilfoyle case where it's KNOWN that corruption played a part in his conviction yet nobody is dong anything about it despite Eddie being supported by police,parliamentarians you name it but he still hasn't been granted an appeal as the CCRC have stated as far as they're concerned everything was in order as they saw it after having gone through 5 years examining thousands of pages of evidence finally decided that there was no realistic chance of him ever being acquitted. This was in 2016.
Doesn't look too rosy for JB then if the CCRC have anything to do with it. Yet they're supposed to see into MOJ's ?? It's a joke !

I wonder if animosity played a part in Eddie's case too because of his bro-in-law being in the police service at the time ( different division ) It doesn't pay to be a match when confronting the police in case it shows more intelligence and common sense than they've got.??

 

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27308
I did not say that, I used the Thorpe case to highlight the lengths the 'establishment' will go to, to protect its own  I  but that doesn't need to be a huge conspiracy.  I am simply saying cover ups happen and the Establishment which to me includes the Criminal Justice System and the Police are capable of going to any lengths if it's in their own interests.  Their interests can be as simple as covering up their own mistakes and incompetence to protecting politicians and beyond. Maybe they discovered they were right the first time and it had to be Sheila after all? How stupid was Stan Jones etc willing to look in public? It was accepted JB was the culprit let sleeping dogs lie and save their own skins. I don't claim to know the answer but it could be that simple.

I read you as presenting a case of the lengths the Establishment will go to in protecting it's own, and applied the possibility of them doing the same for anyone believed to be in a more elevated position. I understand that there are occasions where cover ups happen but if we start suspecting cover ups at every turn we risk paranoia, or just shelf sitting.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27308
It certainly wouldn't be the first time that senior officers have been involved in corruption. They think they're untouchable and ironically it's true because nothing happens to them. They do what they do because they can.
It's happened in the Eddie Gilfoyle case where it's KNOWN that corruption played a part in his conviction yet nobody is dong anything about it despite Eddie being supported by police,parliamentarians you name it but he still hasn't been granted an appeal as the CCRC have stated as far as they're concerned everything was in order as they saw it after having gone through 5 years examining thousands of pages of evidence finally decided that there was no realistic chance of him ever being acquitted. This was in 2016.
Doesn't look too rosy for JB then if the CCRC have anything to do with it. Yet they're supposed to see into MOJ's ?? It's a joke !

I wonder if animosity played a part in Eddie's case too because of his bro-in-law being in the police service at the time ( different division ) It doesn't pay to be a match when confronting the police in case it shows more intelligence and common sense than they've got.??

You see, this is an example of anti police mentality -no one is suggesting they're perfect. There are bad apples in every barrel- a blanket condemnation of police generally, it suggests another agenda. Perhaps you can tell us about the kind of system you think would be an improvement on the one we have?

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23086
Not necessarily would Sheila have been found guilty as even 30 odd years later it still remains to be an impossibility in the eyes of the law that a female murders all her family let alone any thought of it in 1985 so it's only natural that a male takes the wrap.
Sheila might just have been found guilty if all the facts had been presented but sadly they weren't. Colin would have best explained about Sheila's moods and behaviour especially when he wrote a pleading letter to Nevill telling him that it would be better for her and the boys if he,Colin,had them most of the time. I'd sensed Colin's concern but he'd had to choose his words carefully because it was Sheila's parents and if anyone knew what living with Sheila was like,it had been Colin.

Anyway as far as Marsham is concerned when he uttered about dis-owning or refusing knowledge of JB's existence ( didn't he forfeit/relinquish that when he handed him over as a baby ?) with all the rot about JB being a danger it will remain in the interest of all those concerned to keep him where he is ( though he's never hurt anyone ) There's more danger on the streets right now.

Where is that law written?

The boys were living with Colin and there had been no problems because of it.

I think Marsham's attitude was callous - but it runs in the family.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13515
I read you as presenting a case of the lengths the Establishment will go to in protecting it's own, and applied the possibility of them doing the same for anyone believed to be in a more elevated position. I understand that there are occasions where cover ups happen but if we start suspecting cover ups at every turn we risk paranoia, or just shelf sitting.
Maybe but I think we need to be aware that there is as much injustice in this country as elsewhere.  If we haven't experienced it personally we are lucky. Don't think it's paranoia to not blindly trust the system, much better to keep an open mind.  There are good and bad in all walk of life and the justice system is no different.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 03:50:PM by maggie »

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40034
You see, this is an example of anti police mentality -no one is suggesting they're perfect. There are bad apples in every barrel- a blanket condemnation of police generally, it suggests another agenda. Perhaps you can tell us about the kind of system you think would be an improvement on the one we have?




 
Seeing as the police are the bain of motorists lives perhaps it's of more importance if their time was spent more in apprehending the real criminals as it's recently been stated that police detection rates are abysmal.
Is it also necessary for the police to be present in their swarms outside pubs and clubs ? If there were two officers regularly patrolling certain areas then that would help keep the trouble down it's when they all come from nowhere and swoop in is when the trouble starts.
Bring back " Bobbies on the beat ".Another way of tackling crime is to be familiar with residents when patrolling their patches then officers can get an idea of who's troublesome. Whizzing around in cars is hardly the answer.
Re-training in spotting mental illness instead of using force during arrest. Same goes for diabetics who appear drunk when their blood sugar is low----besides them smelling of " pear-drops ".
I 've read in one area that a trained mental health nurse goes on duty with an officer. A brilliant idea.   

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27308



 
Seeing as the police are the bain of motorists lives perhaps it's of more importance if their time was spent more in apprehending the real criminals as it's recently been stated that police detection rates are abysmal.
Is it also necessary for the police to be present in their swarms outside pubs and clubs ? If there were two officers regularly patrolling certain areas then that would help keep the trouble down it's when they all come from nowhere and swoop in is when the trouble starts.
Bring back " Bobbies on the beat ".Another way of tackling crime is to be familiar with residents when patrolling their patches then officers can get an idea of who's troublesome. Whizzing around in cars is hardly the answer.
Re-training in spotting mental illness instead of using force during arrest. Same goes for diabetics who appear drunk when their blood sugar is low----besides them smelling of " pear-drops ".
I 've read in one area that a trained mental health nurse goes on duty with an officer. A brilliant idea.

It sounds as if you're suggesting that because the police spend so much unnecessary? time on motorists it could be a reason for them not spending time in detecting and apprehending real criminals? I'm fairly certain that some of those motorists will be crims on the run, I'm also certain that those in uniform chasing motorists are a different breed from detectives and the two aren't necessarily interchangeable.
I don't know if it's necessary for police to be present in swarms outside pubs and clubs but if they get a tip off that there might be trouble, a lone policeman -or even two- would hardly be enough if there was.
"Bobbies on the beat" Hmm? Bring back the days when people had respect for them, eh? There are areas where it would be out of the question for them to walk around -unless, perhaps, you think they'd benefit from carrying guns?.................and let's say they manage to get these young -soon to be grown up- criminals to court. What then? I've seen my friend's late husband, on numerous occasions, come in from work and say "I don't know why I bother". He's taken a guilty youth into court for the umpteenth time only to have him let off after which he's turned round and smirked. Haven't you said, several times, Lookout, that you're always on your guard? Against what? The only stabs you're likely to get here are verbal. Came you really blame police for having a similar attitude as a defense mechanism.
I totally agree that there could be better training to recognize mental illnesses and diabetes.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 40034
Where is that law written?

The boys were living with Colin and there had been no problems because of it.

I think Marsham's attitude was callous - but it runs in the family.






It's a fact rather than a law is it not ?

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27308





It's a fact rather than a law is it not ?


I think you'll find that some Victorian women were hung for killing their children, poison being their method of choice.