Jeremy Bamber Forum

JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Roch on September 18, 2020, 11:24:PM

Title: Query re forum members
Post by: Roch on September 18, 2020, 11:24:PM
There are quite a few forum members, whose posting period didn't really coincide much with mine - or- I may not have had much involvement with them. 

Can anyone please help me understand.. at roughly what percentage of guilt, the following members perceived JB?

NotSure

OnceSaid

Sherlock
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest2181 on September 18, 2020, 11:25:PM
There are quite a few forum members, whose posting period didn't really coincide much with mine - or- I may not have had much involvement with them. 

Can anyone please help me understand.. at roughly what percentage of guilt, the following members perceived JB?

NotSure

OnceSaid

Sherlock

All three of them were 100 % guilty 😬
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: Roch on September 18, 2020, 11:27:PM
All three of them were 100 % guilty 😬

I've already got quite a few around that area. 
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest2181 on September 18, 2020, 11:27:PM
All three of them were 100 % guilty 😬

NS at 25
OS at 40
SH at 80
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest2181 on September 18, 2020, 11:33:PM
I've already got quite a few around that area.

Recent events, put me down at 65.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest2181 on September 18, 2020, 11:39:PM
Recent events, put me down at 65.

62, maybe, did he do it ?
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: Roch on September 18, 2020, 11:41:PM
NS at 25
OS at 40
SH at 80

Thank you.  Are you sure SH was as high as 80%?  I've just scanned a few of their posts.  Looks like the were neutral / just inside the JB camp?

Recent events, put me down at 65.

I'd be pretty shocked if that's the case.  I think it would represent a drop of 25-30% for you.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: David1819 on September 18, 2020, 11:42:PM
There are quite a few forum members, whose posting period didn't really coincide much with mine - or- I may not have had much involvement with them. 

Can anyone please help me understand.. at roughly what percentage of guilt, the following members perceived JB?

NotSure

OnceSaid

Sherlock

Sherlock was a firm believer of JB being innocent.

 http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8686.msg415403.html#msg415403 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8686.msg415403.html#msg415403)
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest2181 on September 18, 2020, 11:45:PM
Thank you.  Are you sure SH was as high as 80%?  I've just scanned a few of their posts.  Looks like the were neutral / just inside the JB camp?

I'd be pretty shocked if that's the case.  I think it would represent a drop of 25-30% for you.
65
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: Roch on September 18, 2020, 11:48:PM
Sherlock was a firm believer of JB being innocent.

 http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8686.msg415403.html#msg415403 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8686.msg415403.html#msg415403)

OK thanks, I think that settles it.  Did you have an opinion on the others?
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: Roch on September 18, 2020, 11:54:PM
I must be missing something.  There should be more members than I currently have on the guilty side.  I'll have to go back through members' lists.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest2181 on September 18, 2020, 11:56:PM
I must be missing something.  There should be more members than I currently have on the guilty side.  I'll have to go back through members' lists.

Random thought: What if he is innocent.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: David1819 on September 19, 2020, 12:16:AM
OK thanks, I think that settles it.  Did you have an opinion on the others?

Nope  :-\
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: ngb1066 on September 19, 2020, 11:35:AM
Recent events, put me down at 65.

Why the change?  I am genuinely interested.


Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest7363 on September 19, 2020, 11:39:AM
Why the change?  I am genuinely interested.
Yes I thought that as well NGB?
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: lookout on September 19, 2020, 11:42:AM
65





I'm not too surprised by that Hartley as your posts latterly , to me anyway, hinted at uncertainty as opposed to your posts initially. You can sense a change in some posters who were regulars.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest7363 on September 19, 2020, 11:50:AM




I'm not too surprised by that Hartley as your posts latterly , to me anyway, hinted at uncertainty as opposed to your posts initially. You can sense a change in some posters who were regulars.
Yes I’ve gone down Lookout to 99% 😂😂😂😂. Only joking my friend 👍. If NGB keeps posting I might slide down a bit more 🙈🙈
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: lookout on September 19, 2020, 11:53:AM
Yes I’ve gone down Lookout to 99% 😂😂😂😂. Only joking my friend 👍. If NGB keeps posting I might slide down a bit more 🙈🙈





I'm sure you will RJ. Take it from me. ;)
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: JackieD on September 19, 2020, 12:23:PM
Why the change?  I am genuinely interested.

I thought that might be a wind up when I saw it this morning
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest2181 on September 19, 2020, 04:59:PM
Why the change?  I am genuinely interested.

Not really changed in terms guilt, just soundness of conviction, mostly concerning JM's evidence and how it was obtained.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: ngb1066 on September 19, 2020, 05:59:PM
Not really changed in terms guilt, just soundness of conviction, mostly concerning JM's evidence and how it was obtained.

Thanks Hartley.

Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: Roch on September 20, 2020, 05:34:PM
Not really changed in terms guilt, just soundness of conviction, mostly concerning JM's evidence and how it was obtained.

I'm afraid this doesn't move you on my scale. As it is a scale of guilt.  I'm not aware of any recent developments regarding JM's evidence or how it was obtained. I did see something in The Guardian a few years back.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: Roch on September 20, 2020, 07:08:PM
There are quite a few forum members, whose posting period didn't really coincide much with mine - or- I may not have had much involvement with them. 

Can anyone please help me understand.. at roughly what percentage of guilt, the following members perceived JB?

NotSure

OnceSaid

Sherlock

Any more help available with the first two?
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest2181 on September 20, 2020, 09:18:PM
I'm afraid this doesn't move you on my scale. As it is a scale of guilt.  I'm not aware of any recent developments regarding JM's evidence or how it was obtained. I did see something in The Guardian a few years back.
Okay.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: Roch on September 22, 2020, 05:31:PM
Here's one for you all. Of the current posters Robittybob1 and Smythe, which one is the more neutral in their stance? Is it a case that you couldn't get a cigarette paper between their neutrality.. Or is one less neutral than the other?
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: lookout on September 22, 2020, 06:41:PM
Smythe, to my mind is more neutral between the two of them.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: Roch on September 22, 2020, 08:03:PM
Smythe, to my mind is more neutral between the two of them.

Thank you for your view. I'm not sure what those members themselves think, however I would be tempted to place them in the 50%-60% guilt band. I don't have a dead on 50% option, so the only other option for neutrality would be 40%-50%.  Not sure where I'm supposed to put QC either.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 22, 2020, 08:24:PM
Here's one for you all. Of the current posters Robittybob1 and Smythe, which one is the more neutral in their stance? Is it a case that you couldn't get a cigarette paper between their neutrality.. Or is one less neutral than the other?
I think someone else did it.  Not JB or SC but a third party tidied up after SC started the massacre.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: David1819 on September 22, 2020, 08:48:PM
I think someone else did it.  Not JB or SC but a third party tidied up after SC started the massacre.

lol
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: Roch on September 22, 2020, 09:09:PM
lol

They're entitled to their opinion. I'd be interested to read more.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: lookout on September 22, 2020, 10:00:PM
It's always worth another point of view.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 22, 2020, 10:52:PM
Isn't this what JB was more or less claiming?  For some reason Julie pointed the finger at MM but maybe even they didn't know. 
MM is said to have a solid alibi so obviously they picked the wrong person.

Is there anyone else who thinks there was a third person?
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest2181 on September 22, 2020, 10:57:PM
Thank you for your view. I'm not sure what those members themselves think, however I would be tempted to place them in the 50%-60% guilt band. I don't have a dead on 50% option, so the only other option for neutrality would be 40%-50%.  Not sure where I'm supposed to put QC either.

I think QC fluctuates to be the opposite of whomever he happens to be talking to at any given moment.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: David1819 on September 22, 2020, 11:11:PM
Isn't this what JB was more or less claiming?  For reason Julie pointed the finger at MM but maybe even they didn't know. 
MM is said to have a solid alibi so obviously they picked the wrong person.

Is there anyone else who thinks there was a third person?

If you believe Jeremy received a call from Nevil implicating Sheila, the chance of a third party is practically nil.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest2181 on September 22, 2020, 11:19:PM
If you believe Jeremy received a call from Nevil implicating Sheila, the chance of a third party is practically nil.

I'm not sure he believes there was a call, just asked if there was evidence of such a call.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: David1819 on September 22, 2020, 11:22:PM
I'm not sure he believes there was a call, just asked if there was evidence of such a call.

He believes this -

I think someone else did it.  Not JB or SC but a third party tidied up after SC started the massacre.

Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest2181 on September 22, 2020, 11:27:PM
He believes this -

Well why not? We've obviously spent a long time looking at the details of the case and could dismiss such a notion, perhaps he is still learning about the case and throwing out ideas.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: David1819 on September 22, 2020, 11:47:PM
Well why not? We've obviously spent a long time looking at the details of the case and could dismiss such a notion, perhaps he is still learning about the case and throwing out ideas.

I’m simply pointing out that if “SC started the massacre“ as Robbitybob put it. A third party is not plausible. Agree?
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest2181 on September 23, 2020, 12:27:AM
I’m simply pointing out that if “SC started the massacre“ as Robbitybob put it. A third party is not plausible. Agree?

Oh David, I'm pretty sure you you could use your imagination
and come up with a scenario that it was.
But yes I agree.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 23, 2020, 12:51:AM
If you believe Jeremy received a call from Nevil implicating Sheila, the chance of a third party is practically nil.
The call could have come before the shooting got going.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 23, 2020, 12:53:AM
I'm not sure he believes there was a call, just asked if there was evidence of such a call.
I believe there was a call.  IMO Jeremy felt it would be fatal for him if he went around there without police support.  He says much the same in one of is statements.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 23, 2020, 12:56:AM
I’m simply pointing out that if “SC started the massacre“ as Robbitybob put it. A third party is not plausible. Agree?
Well only if you don't see the whole situation. 
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest2181 on September 23, 2020, 01:13:AM
I believe there was a call.  IMO Jeremy felt it would be fatal for him if he went around there without police support.  He says much the same in one of is statements.

I guess it comes down to whether you believe  his version of events.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 23, 2020, 03:29:AM
I guess it comes down to whether you believe  his version of events.

Well I will be looking for evidence that supports Jeremy's version.  But it is such a big case and very scattered information, I don't think I can afford to make it a fulltime mission.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: Adam on September 23, 2020, 07:10:AM
I guess it comes down to whether you believe  his version of events.

Best to follow the evidence. There is no evidence Sheila committed the massacre. Therefore it was Bamber,  unless as Lookout says there was an industrial frame.

A fully fit Nevill would have instantly taken the rifle back. Whether Sheila was acting aggressively or passively with it.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: lookout on September 23, 2020, 10:47:AM
Isn't this what JB was more or less claiming?  For some reason Julie pointed the finger at MM but maybe even they didn't know. 
MM is said to have a solid alibi so obviously they picked the wrong person.

Is there anyone else who thinks there was a third person?




I've given the fact re. a third person some consideration over the years , though when you think about it, because the family concerned were taken off-guard, there was no preparation in place when confronted by someone brandishing a rifle as " they're in charge " and you don't argue. It only takes a couple of shots to put them out of action.
Probably the truth of the matter is that Nevill didn't think for one minute that he'd lose control of his daughter, though in the past he has rang for JB's assistance when Sheila had been difficult. This time was different because Sheila had a gun which would very likely have scared JB just thinking about it.

I could be right in thinking that when Sheila had her melt-downs in the past that she wasn't brandishing a gun, although even if she had JB wouldn't have said so for fear of being disbelieved. 
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest7363 on September 23, 2020, 11:42:AM



I've given the fact re. a third person some consideration over the years , though when you think about it, because the family concerned were taken off-guard, there was no preparation in place when confronted by someone brandishing a rifle as " they're in charge " and you don't argue. It only takes a couple of shots to put them out of action.
Probably the truth of the matter is that Nevill didn't think for one minute that he'd lose control of his daughter, though in the past he has rang for JB's assistance when Sheila had been difficult. This time was different because Sheila had a gun which would very likely have scared JB just thinking about it.

I could be right in thinking that when Sheila had her melt-downs in the past that she wasn't brandishing a gun, although even if she had JB wouldn't have said so for fear of being disbelieved.
Its a shame Jeremy never mentions these past meltdown’s where Neville had rang him?  If he knew about these past meltdowns and is warned she was going crazy with a gun, I’m sure he’d have dialled 999.  Even to this day I’ve never heard about Jeremy claiming he had to be called to assist Neville because Sheila was being difficult.  It was a well known fact he disliked his mother, he didn’t like the fact she was giving money away to church and there was no love between Jeremy and Neville, not close at all according to Brett Collins who was with Bamber for three weeks prior to the murders, miraculously slipping off to Greece the week before the murders.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8969.0;attach=50191

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8969.0;attach=50192









Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 23, 2020, 12:22:PM
Its a shame Jeremy never mentions these past meltdown’s where Neville had rang him?  If he knew about these past meltdowns and is warned she was going crazy with a gun, I’m sure he’d have dialled 999.  Even to this day I’ve never heard about Jeremy claiming he had to be called to assist Neville because Sheila was being difficult.  It was a well known fact he disliked his mother, he didn’t like the fact she was giving money away to church and there was no love between Jeremy and Neville, not close at all according to Brett Collins who was with Bamber for three weeks prior to the murders, miraculously slipping off to Greece the week before the murders.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8969.0;attach=50191

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8969.0;attach=50192
If he thought just for a moment, well if I delay maybe Sheila will kill them and the property will become mine" is that in itself a crime?

A crime of not rendering immediate assistance?  A crime of wishing someone dead?  Is there such a crime?
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest7363 on September 23, 2020, 12:31:PM



I've given the fact re. a third person some consideration over the years , though when you think about it, because the family concerned were taken off-guard, there was no preparation in place when confronted by someone brandishing a rifle as " they're in charge " and you don't argue. It only takes a couple of shots to put them out of action.
Probably the truth of the matter is that Nevill didn't think for one minute that he'd lose control of his daughter, though in the past he has rang for JB's assistance when Sheila had been difficult. This time was different because Sheila had a gun which would very likely have scared JB just thinking about it.

I could be right in thinking that when Sheila had her melt-downs in the past that she wasn't brandishing a gun, although even if she had JB wouldn't have said so for fear of being disbelieved.
I think you only have to look at what he told Bewes while outside, “I do not like her and she doesn’t like me”
He’s also asked why his Father would phone him and not the police, he doesn’t say “he always or sometimes does” Why, because it never happened.  Strange how he changed it from Sheila to She if it was a regular occurrence?
 
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3132.0;attach=38125

Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest7363 on September 23, 2020, 12:39:PM
If he thought just for a moment, well if I delay maybe Sheila will kill them and the property will become mine" is that in itself a crime?

A crime of not rendering immediate assistance?  A crime of wishing someone dead?  Is there such a crime?
Probably a complex area and hard to prove Robbitybob? 
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: Robittybob1 on September 23, 2020, 12:42:PM
Probably a complex area and hard to prove Robbitybob?
A person is not allowed to set up booby traps, to injure tresspasses but it happens.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: David1819 on September 23, 2020, 01:27:PM
Well I will be looking for evidence that supports Jeremy's version.  But it is such a big case and very scattered information, I don't think I can afford to make it a fulltime mission.

If you need any help being directed to evidence feel free to ask.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest7363 on September 23, 2020, 01:39:PM
If you need any help being directed to evidence feel free to ask.
Maybe you could help him with your ability to spot Psychopaths?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5630.0
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: Adam on September 23, 2020, 01:54:PM
Its a shame Jeremy never mentions these past meltdown’s where Neville had rang him?  If he knew about these past meltdowns and is warned she was going crazy with a gun, I’m sure he’d have dialled 999.  Even to this day I’ve never heard about Jeremy claiming he had to be called to assist Neville because Sheila was being difficult.  It was a well known fact he disliked his mother, he didn’t like the fact she was giving money away to church and there was no love between Jeremy and Neville, not close at all according to Brett Collins who was with Bamber for three weeks prior to the murders, miraculously slipping off to Greece the week before the murders.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8969.0;attach=50191

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8969.0;attach=50192

Jeremy has never mentioned Nevill's previous calls to him.

But Lookout has inside information. Ok.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: David1819 on September 23, 2020, 02:44:PM
Maybe you could help him with your ability to spot Psychopaths?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5630.0

Or maybe you could help him with that third party idea of yours?

hi everyone, have been following the case for a long time and followed the forum since last december. Once posted under the name crooner, but not many posts. I used to like to read mikes posts and the cross examination with kaldin. Why did i leave you may ask?. As more people joined it became more interesting but not being a dab hand on a computer i found it hard to keep up with all this copy and paste and how to insert ect, so i just became a guest all the time, trouble is you dont see all the info though. I have worked in the area for a good 10 years on holiday parks, i used to talk to people about the case and a lot of people dont think jerremy did it. My view is i think there is a third party involved. Why have i come back you may ask, its nice to see good mods in charge and hoping to learn how to do all this copy and paste and inserting ect.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: lookout on September 23, 2020, 02:55:PM
Maybe you could help him with your ability to spot Psychopaths?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5630.0





" Killer "psychopaths usually show a morbid interest in their " work ". JB never came across as being one in that respect. It took him all his time to accept going to a shoot and seeing dead game birds, he was never keen, so many dead bodies in view I rather think not.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest7363 on September 23, 2020, 03:29:PM
Or maybe you could help him with that third party idea of yours?
Yep, I still think someone else could be involved, I’ve always held this view but there isn’t any concrete evidence.  I used to think he was innocent and often wished he was and posted of his innocence, but the more I studied this case I’ve swung towards guilt 👍
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: Adam on September 23, 2020, 04:22:PM
Yep, I still think someone else could be involved, I’ve always held this view but there isn’t any concrete evidence.  I used to think he was innocent and often wished he was and posted of his innocence, but the more I studied this case I’ve swung towards guilt 👍

Who else could be involved? He did not need anyone else.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest7363 on September 23, 2020, 04:31:PM
Who else could be involved? He did not need anyone else.
Nope  he didn’t, but I thought Sheila might have been involved, I know that’s not a third party, but I thought on the lines of someone else involved with the planning side of it?
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: Adam on September 23, 2020, 04:59:PM
Nope  he didn’t, but I thought Sheila might have been involved, I know that’s not a third party, but I thought on the lines of someone else involved with the planning side of it?

Sheila was fast asleep.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: David1819 on September 23, 2020, 05:01:PM
Yep, I still think someone else could be involved, I’ve always held this view but there isn’t any concrete evidence.  I used to think he was innocent and often wished he was and posted of his innocence, but the more I studied this case I’ve swung towards guilt 👍

Thanks for clarifying Fake Justice 👍
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest7363 on September 23, 2020, 05:15:PM
Thanks for clarifying Fake Justice 👍
No problem 👍.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest29835 on September 24, 2020, 10:49:PM
Yep, I still think someone else could be involved, I’ve always held this view but there isn’t any concrete evidence.  I used to think he was innocent and often wished he was and posted of his innocence, but the more I studied this case I’ve swung towards guilt 👍

It is of course your business what you want to think, and you are to be commended for being open-minded, but one thing that bothers me a little is that you, Steve and Adam all came on this Forum affecting to be neutral or undecided, or some variation on that theme, and you all made reasonable noises and acted humbly initially.  Yet you then, in relatively short order, all started telling us how certain you are that Jeremy did it, as if it's Holy Gospel, and assured us that anybody who disagrees is talking nonsense and must be a moron.

It's all very curious, like that 3 a.m. phone call to Julie, and Susan's horseplay with a suspected mass murderer at the party. If it was me, I'd be running like Linford Christie to the nearest police station, screaming and shouting about Porsches and kiddie killers and sweating and panting for breath, demanding an audience with somebody from the Essex murder squad. Not Susan.  She's an adventurous gal.

Then there's the fact that no blood was found on the den carpet or in the cardboard box or inside the rifle barrel, even though the silencer was supposedly attached to it; and strange how Stan Jones - formerly of C11 Branch at Scotland Yard - offered his prime suspect in a double child killing the keys to the crime scene.  Thanks Stan.  Another whiskey?  Yet Jeremy, a cold calculated killer who'd planned it all out, sportingly refuses. 

It's all very strange.  It's lucky I'm not the suspicious type.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: JackieD on September 24, 2020, 11:01:PM
 :) :) :)
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest7363 on September 25, 2020, 07:10:AM
It is of course your business what you want to think, and you are to be commended for being open-minded, but one thing that bothers me a little is that you, Steve and Adam all came on this Forum affecting to be neutral or undecided, or some variation on that theme, and you all made reasonable noises and acted humbly initially.  Yet you then, in relatively short order, all started telling us how certain you are that Jeremy did it, as if it's Holy Gospel, and assured us that anybody who disagrees is talking nonsense and must be a moron.

It's all very curious, like that 3 a.m. phone call to Julie, and Susan's horseplay with a suspected mass murderer at the party. If it was me, I'd be running like Linford Christie to the nearest police station, screaming and shouting about Porsches and kiddie killers and sweating and panting for breath, demanding an audience with somebody from the Essex murder squad. Not Susan.  She's an adventurous gal.

Then there's the fact that no blood was found on the den carpet or in the cardboard box or inside the rifle barrel, even though the silencer was supposedly attached to it; and strange how Stan Jones - formerly of C11 Branch at Scotland Yard - offered his prime suspect in a double child killing the keys to the crime scene.  Thanks Stan.  Another whiskey?  Yet Jeremy, a cold calculated killer who'd planned it all out, sportingly refuses. 

It's all very strange.  It's lucky I'm not the suspicious type.
I think and respect everyone’s opinions, even yours where your inclined to think him guilty, yet post of his innocence.  I’ve never known Steve or  Adam say or believe him innocent?  Many posters have changed stance, even Mike, he’s always believed the police shot Sheila, but his firm view being Bamber shot the other four.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest29835 on September 25, 2020, 04:21:PM
I think and respect everyone’s opinions, even yours where your inclined to think him guilty, yet post of his innocence.  I’ve never known Steve or  Adam say or believe him innocent?  Many posters have changed stance, even Mike, he’s always believed the police shot Sheila, but his firm view being Bamber shot the other four.

Please pull the other leg, my left ankle hurts.

I have never stated Jeremy is innocent, and unless something extraordinary happens like Anne Eaton falling down on her knees and saying, 'Yes, Uncle Bobby and Peter put the blood in the silencer.  I go to church every Sunday now and the Lord Saviour has forgiven me!', it's rather unlikely I will ever consider Jeremy innocent.  In fact, come to think of it, even if it is proved that the blood was planted (I still think it could be proved, which is not to say I think it was planted), that does not mean Jeremy is factually innocent.  He could still be guilty, and I rather suspect he is.

I don't post of Jeremy's innocence, rather I start from the presumption of innocence, a different thing.  My approach to this case, like all cases, is summarised in the words of Sir Frederick Geoffrey Lawrence, Q.C., in his closing speech for the defence in R v Adams.  I suggest you read it: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10311.0.html

As I never tire of reminding people, the presumption of innocence is the only way to approach the case in a fair and neutral manner.  Of course, at the criminal appeal level, the presumption is formally reversed into a presumption of guilt, because Jeremy stands convicted by a jury, but even an appeal judge will, for practical reasons, begin with the presumption of innocence, simply because it's the only way to sensibly test the Crown's case on the appeal points raised, whatever they may be.  By doing so, the court builds a conservative picture of how sustainable the convictions are at that point.

For me, what the presumption of innocence translates to is that, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, I give Jeremy the benefit of any doubt.  That's not because I like Jeremy or I'm his mate.  I'm not.  I don't like child killers.  I repeat, the reason I do this is because it is the only way to test the strength of the Crown's case.

I expect all this will fall on deaf ears, but I hope it will make sense to somebody.

Turning to you and the other dogmatic guilters and your emoticons, I did not say that any of you previously claimed or affected to believe Jeremy innocent.  As you nearly-always do, you twist what I say into something slightly different, so that it suits you rhetorically.  It's a sign of intellectual dishonesty to do this and doesn't reassure me about the validity of anything you say.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest7363 on September 25, 2020, 05:36:PM
Please pull the other leg, my left ankle hurts.

I have never stated Jeremy is innocent, and unless something extraordinary happens like Anne Eaton falling down on her knees and saying, 'Yes, Uncle Bobby and Peter put the blood in the silencer.  I go to church every Sunday now and the Lord Saviour has forgiven me!', it's rather unlikely I will ever consider Jeremy innocent.  In fact, come to think of it, even if it is proved that the blood was planted (I still think it could be proved, which is not to say I think it was planted), that does not mean Jeremy is factually innocent.  He could still be guilty, and I rather suspect he is.

I don't post of Jeremy's innocence, rather I start from the presumption of innocence, a different thing.  My approach to this case, like all cases, is summarised in the words of Sir Frederick Geoffrey Lawrence, Q.C., in his closing speech for the defence in R v Adams.  I suggest you read it: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10311.0.html

As I never tire of reminding people, the presumption of innocence is the only way to approach the case in a fair and neutral manner.  Of course, at the criminal appeal level, the presumption is formally reversed into a presumption of guilt, because Jeremy stands convicted by a jury, but even an appeal judge will, for practical reasons, begin with the presumption of innocence, simply because it's the only way to sensibly test the Crown's case on the appeal points raised, whatever they may be.  By doing so, the court builds a conservative picture of how sustainable the convictions are at that point.

For me, what the presumption of innocence translates to is that, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, I give Jeremy the benefit of any doubt.  That's not because I like Jeremy or I'm his mate.  I'm not.  I don't like child killers.  I repeat, the reason I do this is because it is the only way to test the strength of the Crown's case.

I expect all this will fall on deaf ears, but I hope it will make sense to somebody.

Turning to you and the other dogmatic guilters and your emoticons, I did not say that any of you previously claimed or affected to believe Jeremy innocent.  As you nearly-always do, you twist what I say into something slightly different, so that it suits you rhetorically.  It's a sign of intellectual dishonesty to do this and doesn't reassure me about the validity of anything you say.
Yawn Yawn Yawn 😂😂😂
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest29835 on September 25, 2020, 05:50:PM
Yawn Yawn Yawn 😂😂😂😂

Exactly.  Your arrogant, dismissive, unintelligent, emoticon-laced reply sums you up.  Though you are in breach of Forum Rules and, like Steve and Adam, a complete hypocrite, I favour allowing you to continue because each time you do so, you show yourself up for what you are.  Please, post some more emoticons.  Be our guest.  Bring out the child within.

The English gave the world, among other things, common law, jury trials, the presumption of innocence, Blackstone's ratio, and the rules of cricket. 

"It's not cricket", the English say, or did when I was younger.  The complaint arises not simply because someone is not following whatever are the rules or conventions of a situation, but because rules and conventions are considered a basis for fairness, which is ultimately what matters most.

That's what distinguishes England - and countries influenced by England - from other places.  Other places believe in rules for their own sake, which ultimately is totalitarianism, and is what happens when people stop being fair and just.

Murder is not fair and just, I know, but the rules say that the case must be well proven, otherwise it is not fair on the accused and, furthermore, we risk innocent people being imprisoned and, ultimately, all our liberties will be in peril. 

A barrister once told me, "The most important thing in a criminal trial is to hear the other side."  Injustices happen when people forget this and make up their minds without listening to the defence (or the prosecution, if the bias is towards the accused).
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest7363 on September 25, 2020, 05:55:PM
Exactly.  Your arrogant, dismissive, unintelligent, emoticon-laced reply sums you up.  Though you are in breach of Forum Rules and, like Steve and Adam, a complete hypocrite, I favour allowing you to continue because each time you do so, you show yourself up for what you are.  Please, post some more emoticons.  Be our guest.  Bring out the child within.

The English gave the world, among other things, common law, jury trials, the presumption of innocence, Blackstone's ratio, and the rules of cricket. 

"It's not cricket", the English say, or did when I was younger.  The complaint arises not simply because someone is not following whatever are the rules or conventions of a situation, but because rules and conventions are considered a basis for fairness, which is ultimately what matters most.

That's what distinguishes England - and countries influenced by England - from other places.  Other places believe in rules for their own sake, which ultimately is totalitarianism, and is what happens when people stop being fair and just.

Murder is not fair and just, I know, but the rules say that the case must be well proven, otherwise it is not fair on the accused and, furthermore, we risk innocent people being imprisoned and, ultimately, all our liberties will be in peril. 

A barrister once told me, "The most important thing in a criminal trial is to hear the other side."  Injustices happen when people forget this and make up their minds without listening to the defence (or the prosecution, if the bias is towards the accused).
Thanks for letting me stay Fake QC 😂😂😂😂😂
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest29835 on September 25, 2020, 06:17:PM
Thanks for letting me stay Fake QC 😂😂😂😂😂

No problem.  I just wish you and Myster would let me join in at Cluedo.  I've been in a sulk ever since.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: JackieD on September 25, 2020, 06:21:PM
Thanks for letting me stay Fake QC 😂😂😂😂😂


Are you not surprised why an intelligent experienced person like Neil has supported Jeremy so much


The English gave the world, among other things, common law, jury trials, the presumption of innocence, Blackstone's ratio, and the rules of cricket. 

"It's not cricket", the English say, or did when I was younger.  The complaint arises not simply because someone is not following whatever are the rules or conventions of a situation, but because rules and conventions are considered a basis for fairness, which is ultimately what matters most.

That's what distinguishes England - and countries influenced by England - from other places.  Other places believe in rules for their own sake, which ultimately is totalitarianism, and is what happens when people stop being fair and just.

Murder is not fair and just, I know, but the rules say that the case must be well proven, otherwise it is not fair on the accused and, furthermore, we risk innocent people being imprisoned and, ultimately, all our liberties will be in peril. 

A barrister once told me, "The most important thing in a criminal trial is to hear the other side."  Injustices happen when people forget this and make up their minds without listening to the defence (or the prosecution, if the bias is towards the
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest7363 on September 25, 2020, 06:24:PM
No problem.  I just wish you and Myster would let me join in at Cluedo.  I've been in a sulk ever since.
Pop over to Red, I’m sure he or they would accommodate you 👍.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest29835 on September 25, 2020, 06:38:PM
Pop over to Red, I’m sure he or they would accommodate you 👍.

And Adam didn't recommend me for the CT on one of his threads, even after my Crispy theory.  I even backed him up about Eastenders and Peggy and Pat.  That's what thanks you get.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest29835 on September 25, 2020, 07:05:PM
Anyway RJ, me and Roch have you lined up for the eponymous role of Dryland in our new Scandi-style TV detective drama, set in north-east Essex.

We know you're normally typecast as the boorish 70s-style 'no-nonsense' copper, a la The Sweeney.  But we think it's now time for you to mature a little into a more considered, intellectual role.

We did consider Myster, as he's quite cultured, but in the end we thought he should be cast as the Chief Constable.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: Steve_uk on September 25, 2020, 09:08:PM
It is of course your business what you want to think, and you are to be commended for being open-minded, but one thing that bothers me a little is that you, Steve and Adam all came on this Forum affecting to be neutral or undecided, or some variation on that theme, and you all made reasonable noises and acted humbly initially.  Yet you then, in relatively short order, all started telling us how certain you are that Jeremy did it, as if it's Holy Gospel, and assured us that anybody who disagrees is talking nonsense and must be a moron.

It's all very curious, like that 3 a.m. phone call to Julie, and Susan's horseplay with a suspected mass murderer at the party. If it was me, I'd be running like Linford Christie to the nearest police station, screaming and shouting about Porsches and kiddie killers and sweating and panting for breath, demanding an audience with somebody from the Essex murder squad. Not Susan.  She's an adventurous gal.

Then there's the fact that no blood was found on the den carpet or in the cardboard box or inside the rifle barrel, even though the silencer was supposedly attached to it; and strange how Stan Jones - formerly of C11 Branch at Scotland Yard - offered his prime suspect in a double child killing the keys to the crime scene.  Thanks Stan.  Another whiskey?  Yet Jeremy, a cold calculated killer who'd planned it all out, sportingly refuses. 

It's all very strange.  It's lucky I'm not the suspicious type.
You're pig-ignorant as usual.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: Steve_uk on September 25, 2020, 09:15:PM
Please pull the other leg, my left ankle hurts.

I have never stated Jeremy is innocent, and unless something extraordinary happens like Anne Eaton falling down on her knees and saying, 'Yes, Uncle Bobby and Peter put the blood in the silencer.  I go to church every Sunday now and the Lord Saviour has forgiven me!', it's rather unlikely I will ever consider Jeremy innocent.  In fact, come to think of it, even if it is proved that the blood was planted (I still think it could be proved, which is not to say I think it was planted), that does not mean Jeremy is factually innocent.  He could still be guilty, and I rather suspect he is.

I don't post of Jeremy's innocence, rather I start from the presumption of innocence, a different thing.  My approach to this case, like all cases, is summarised in the words of Sir Frederick Geoffrey Lawrence, Q.C., in his closing speech for the defence in R v Adams.  I suggest you read it: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10311.0.html

As I never tire of reminding people, the presumption of innocence is the only way to approach the case in a fair and neutral manner.  Of course, at the criminal appeal level, the presumption is formally reversed into a presumption of guilt, because Jeremy stands convicted by a jury, but even an appeal judge will, for practical reasons, begin with the presumption of innocence, simply because it's the only way to sensibly test the Crown's case on the appeal points raised, whatever they may be.  By doing so, the court builds a conservative picture of how sustainable the convictions are at that point.

For me, what the presumption of innocence translates to is that, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, I give Jeremy the benefit of any doubt.  That's not because I like Jeremy or I'm his mate.  I'm not.  I don't like child killers. I repeat, the reason I do this is because it is the only way to test the strength of the Crown's case.

I expect all this will fall on deaf ears, but I hope it will make sense to somebody.

Turning to you and the other dogmatic guilters and your emoticons, I did not say that any of you previously claimed or affected to believe Jeremy innocent.  As you nearly-always do, you twist what I say into something slightly different, so that it suits you rhetorically.  It's a sign of intellectual dishonesty to do this and doesn't reassure me about the validity of anything you say.
That's big of you, considering you believe Jeremy Bamber 96% guilty even on a bad day.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest29835 on September 25, 2020, 09:20:PM
You're pig-ignorant as usual.

No, I'm right - as usual.  I've been through all the threads and seen all the messages. 
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest29835 on September 25, 2020, 09:32:PM
That's big of you, considering you believe Jeremy Bamber 96% guilty even on a bad day.

You're grandstanding again.  I realise that, as a member of the English chattering classes, you never miss an opportunity to show us how moral you are, but this is supposed to be a discussion forum about the case and related issues, not a soap box for you to show off your fake and contrived 'compassion'.  If you really had any regard for the feelings of the victims, you would stop using that avatar - for a start.

If we're applying the standard that a juror would, then we have to agree that if the evidence is not sufficient to convict, then we are not entitled to convict - or we shouldn't.  I realise that most people, including you, have real trouble wrapping your heads around the concept of a standard of proof and how a strict evidence-based view of a case can differ from one's intuition and suspicions, but your ignorance is not my problem.

I'm essentially just following the rules.  I must add that I don't like people who commit murder, just to emphasise that this - for me - is not a matter of personal or tribal sympathy, it is purely about evidence.
Even if I suspect somebody is factually guilty, I have to also acknowledge reasonable doubt, if there is such doubt.  Here there is.

What is your issue with that, exactly?

If you do take issue with it, can I recommend you write to your local MP and the Lord Chief Justice, as they are the people responsible for setting the rules, and you should take it up with them, not blame me and disrupt this Forum because you want to show off how moral you are.

And on the subject of morality, I don't believe locking up people on the basis of weak or unsafe evidence is very moral, for the reasons I have already explained.  If you disagree on some philosophical basis, then tell us why you disagree, but don't attack people just for applying the rules that are clear and commonly accepted.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: Steve_uk on September 25, 2020, 10:24:PM
You're grandstanding again.  I realise that, as a member of the English chattering classes, you never miss an opportunity to show us how moral you are, but this is supposed to be a discussion forum about the case and related issues, not a soap box for you to show off your fake and contrived 'compassion'. If you really had any regard for the feelings of the victims, you would stop using that avatar - for a start.

If we're applying the standard that a juror would, then we have to agree that if the evidence is not sufficient to convict, then we are not entitled to convict - or we shouldn't.  I realise that most people, including you, have real trouble wrapping your heads around the concept of a standard of proof and how a strict evidence-based view of a case can differ from one's intuition and suspicions, but your ignorance is not my problem.

I'm essentially just following the rules.  I must add that I don't like people who commit murder, just to emphasise that this - for me - is not a matter of personal or tribal sympathy, it is purely about evidence.
Even if I suspect somebody is factually guilty, I have to also acknowledge reasonable doubt, if there is such doubt.  Here there is.

What is your issue with that, exactly?

If you do take issue with it, can I recommend you write to your local MP and the Lord Chief Justice, as they are the people responsible for setting the rules, and you should take it up with them, not blame me and disrupt this Forum because you want to show off how moral you are.

And on the subject of morality, I don't believe locking up people on the basis of weak or unsafe evidence is very moral, for the reasons I have already explained.  If you disagree on some philosophical basis, then tell us why you disagree, but don't attack people just for applying the rules that are clear and commonly accepted.
There's very little difference (if any) between my avatar and this: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10322.0.html
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest29835 on September 25, 2020, 11:38:PM
There's very little difference (if any) between my avatar and this: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10322.0.html

Once again you reply with the upmost dishonesty and disingenuousness, qualities that are your hallmark. 

There is no comparison.  That thread - which you ruined, as you ruin everything by sticking your stupid, pompous, sanctimonious, self-righteous, hypocritical nose into things - was a respectful tribute to the victims and is a single use of a photograph in the public domain that falls within fair dealing under UK copyright law. 

Your continual obstinate use of an avatar showing the victims without the permission of Colin Caffell serves no critical or other functional purpose, is tasteless and offensive, adds an inappropriate emotional dimension to the forum and gives an undeserved air of authority to your posts.  You represent nobody except yourself.  Your repeated claims to be an advocate for Colin Caffell and Julie Smerchanski amount to nothing but narcissism.  Your emotional bullying is disgusting.  This is a discussion forum, not a 'struggle session' for Steve_UK, and we are allowed to have different views and opinions to yours and you have no right to shame us.

I am not fooled and see through you and I will reply to each and every attack you make on me with the upmost scorn and contempt.  Each time you attempt to abuse me, I will abuse you back tenfold and denounce you with vigour.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest7363 on September 26, 2020, 08:27:AM
No, I'm right - as usual.  I've been through all the threads and seen all the messages.
The Fraudulent slip 👍.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: Jane on September 26, 2020, 08:46:AM
The Fraudulent slip 👍.


Arrogance
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest29835 on September 26, 2020, 12:34:PM
The Fraudulent slip 👍.

What's fraudulent about it?

You, Steve and Adam came on here affecting to be neutral or something similar, then you each suddenly become dogmatic guilters.

It's all very interesting and I know that you don't like attention being drawn to it.
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest29835 on September 26, 2020, 12:38:PM

Arrogance

Which part is arrogant?

Arrogance is a rather subjective concept.  You could ascribe arrogance to anybody you dislike, couldn't you.  If, as in your case, it's used simply to dismiss another person or their views, then how is it any different in principle to calling somebody a liar?

It's all just abuse at the end of the day, and all you are doing is demeaning yourself.  Why are you even getting involved in this, Jane?  At least when I use such terms, I do it in response to it being used against me, but like Steve, you come on here looking for a virtual fight. 
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: Steve_uk on September 26, 2020, 02:59:PM
Once again you reply with the upmost dishonesty and disingenuousness, qualities that are your hallmark. 

There is no comparison.  That thread - which you ruined, as you ruin everything by sticking your stupid, pompous, sanctimonious, self-righteous, hypocritical nose into things - was a respectful tribute to the victims and is a single use of a photograph in the public domain that falls within fair dealing under UK copyright law. 

Your continual obstinate use of an avatar showing the victims without the permission of Colin Caffell serves no critical or other functional purpose, is tasteless and offensive, adds an inappropriate emotional dimension to the forum and gives an undeserved air of authority to your posts.  You represent nobody except yourself.  Your repeated claims to be an advocate for Colin Caffell and Julie Smerchanski amount to nothing but narcissism.  Your emotional bullying is disgusting.  This is a discussion forum, not a 'struggle session' for Steve_UK, and we are allowed to have different views and opinions to yours and you have no right to shame us.

I am not fooled and see through you and I will reply to each and every attack you make on me with the upmost scorn and contempt.  Each time you attempt to abuse me, I will abuse you back tenfold and denounce you with vigour.
Nobody is singling you out for any malicious purpose. It's you who is making yourself a target with what you write and denying any member a reasonable right of reply lest we provoke a temper tantrum within, and contrary to your assertion that there is no such thing as free speech I'm writing things now which will be left by the moderators because it's a genuine point of view, even though it may be different from yours.

You say you are 96% certain on a bad day (on a good day may I presume that that figure reaches as high as 100% or am I going to be wilfully attacked for this?) that Jeremy Bamber is guilty of five murders, yet you loathe childkillers, and Jeremy Bamber is not a predator?

How on earth can you subjoin those statements and expect people to accept them without question? How do you think they make Colin feel? He's a private person and probably will never register with this forum, so yes I am going to speak for him. It's the same with Julie. I'm putting forward their point of view. It's not a personal attack on you (or didn't start out that way), however hypersensitive you have become.

You say Jeremy may have shot Sheila in bed, then stripped the bedclothes and started the laundry in an effort to clean up. Once again you are affronted because somebody challenges you on this ludicrous proposition.

You have made anti-semitic remarks on this site, followed by your own historical perspective of the Second World War (or did you thumb through some David Irving book?) that Adolf Hitler should have been granted a free ride in the East. Once again you have no concept of the offence you have caused not just the Jewish community but the ordinary citizen at large because often you don't follow through your arguments to their logical conclusion.

I wouldn't mind your posts if you didn't negatively comment on so many others', not forgetting of course the number of regulars who have been put off posting altogether due to your new imposed rules of correct orthography at all times (another rule you Sir have broken on occasion). Some of your posts and some of your reasoning I have enjoyed, but it's getting to the stage now where the impact of you as a member of this site may reach a tipping point where the negativity does outweigh the undoubted postive contribution you have at times have made.



Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: JackieD on September 26, 2020, 04:29:PM
Nobody is singling you out for any malicious purpose. It's you who is making yourself a target with what you write and denying any member a reasonable right of reply lest we provoke a temper tantrum within, and contrary to your assertion that there is no such thing as free speech I'm writing things now which will be left by the moderators because it's a genuine point of view, even though it may be different from yours.

You say you are 96% certain on a bad day (on a good day may I presume that that figure reaches as high as 100% or am I going to be wilfully attacked for this?) that Jeremy Bamber is guilty of five murders, yet you loathe childkillers, and Jeremy Bamber is not a predator?

How on earth can you subjoin those statements and expect people to accept them without question? How do you think they make Colin feel? He's a private person and probably will never register with this forum, so yes I am going to speak for him. It's the same with Julie. I'm putting forward their point of view. It's not a personal attack on you (or didn't start out that way), however hypersensitive you have become.

You say Jeremy may have shot Sheila in bed, then stripped the bedclothes and started the laundry in an effort to clean up. Once again you are affronted because somebody challenges you on this ludicrous proposition.

You have made anti-semitic remarks on this site, followed by your own historical perspective of the Second World War (or did you thumb through some David Irving book?) that Adolf Hitler should have been granted a free ride in the East. Once again you have no concept of the offence you have caused not just the Jewish community but the ordinary citizen at large because often you don't follow through your arguments to their logical conclusion.

I wouldn't mind your posts if you didn't negatively comment on so many others', not forgetting of course the number of regulars who have been put off posting altogether due to your new imposed rules of correct orthography at all times (another rule you Sir have broken on occasion). Some of your posts and some of your reasoning I have enjoyed, but it's getting to the stage now where the impact of you as a member of this site may reach a tipping point where the negativity does outweigh the undoubted postive contribution you have at times have made.

What absolute rubbish

Colins a private person ???????
Are you out of your mind???????

He carried out media interviews after trial and told bare faced lies

He had no intention of getting back with Sheila and he knew her state of mind was so back she was planning to kill herself

What a nasty individual? Maybe part of Sheilas mental health problems was because of the physical abuse she suffered at the hands of Colin

Where has Colin documented his part in Sheilas demise
He was actually grinning in the interview after trial and I’m not surprised he played the part of poor Colin like a pro and then fast forward 30 years and he is on Lorraine flogging his rehashed book and telling Lorraine Sheila couldn’t have been the murderer because you would have to be a crack shot ????

Considering Colins part in Sheilas mental health problems he could have kept quiet but he sold her out for the price of a few books

That poor girl she never stood a chance of a happy life
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: JackieD on September 26, 2020, 04:39:PM
What are the links between DA and suicide?
? Every day almost 30 women attempt suicide as a result of experiencing domestic abuse


Let’s post some truth on this forum
Title: Re: Query re forum members
Post by: guest29835 on September 26, 2020, 05:39:PM
Nobody is singling you out for any malicious purpose. It's you who is making yourself a target with what you write and denying any member a reasonable right of reply lest we provoke a temper tantrum within, and contrary to your assertion that there is no such thing as free speech I'm writing things now which will be left by the moderators because it's a genuine point of view, even though it may be different from yours.

This is rubbish.  I welcome constructive criticism.  The problem is that you, Adam, Real Justice and others want to come on here and abuse people and hide behind the concepts of 'fair comment' and 'free speech' while doing so.

I think you'll find that the Forum Rules do not, in either letter or spirit, allow the style of posting that you consider to be 'free speech' and 'criticism'. 

You know very well what my objection is but you, Real Justice and Adam continue with your abuse, which is why I treat you with absolute and total contempt.

That is the only way to respond to bullies.

You say you are 96% certain on a bad day (on a good day may I presume that that figure reaches as high as 100% or am I going to be wilfully attacked for this?) that Jeremy Bamber is guilty of five murders, yet you loathe childkillers, and Jeremy Bamber is not a predator?

How on earth can you subjoin those statements and expect people to accept them without question? How do you think they make Colin feel? He's a private person and probably will never register with this forum, so yes I am going to speak for him. It's the same with Julie. I'm putting forward their point of view. It's not a personal attack on you (or didn't start out that way), however hypersensitive you have become.

Here we have an example of your low intellect and ignorance.  I have explained all this, over and over and over and over at length.  You misrepresent me out of plain mischief, conflating two completely different issues: our general attitude to people who commit grave wrongs, on the one hand, and the standard of proof, on the other.

Why do you misrepresent me like this and seek to cause trouble?  You do it because you are a bully and a troublemaker, plain and simple.

I deplore murderers, especially when the act is premeditated.  People who murder children are abhorrent to me.  But there is a requirement to prove the case in law, and unless the case is proved, then the accused must be acquitted and released.

In all criminal cases, the standard of proof is that a jury (or other trier of fact) must be sure.  Sure is a synonym for 'beyond reasonable doubt'.  There will always be a small element of doubt, in virtually every case, even when somebody is caught red-handed, but to convict the doubt must be minor or residual, or concern peripheral matters.

I use percentages to help understand this and I am not the only person who explains it this way.  To me, 'beyond reasonable doubt' means you are 99% sure.  You can never be 100% sure, for the reason given above: there will always be some doubt, even if only because we can't see inside somebody's mind.  Anybody who says they are 100% sure is just arguing beyond reason.

My belief is that Jeremy is most probably guilty, which you could say is a certainty in excess of 90%, and is based on suspicion and intuition and some of the evidence, most of the points having been covered by myself in one or two threads I started.

But I am not 99% certain.  The small amount of doubt is not minor doubt, it concerns quite important things, and as these discussions have gone on, I have to say, I am left unimpressed by the prosecution case and I am certainly not impressed by the guilt camp I encounter online.


You say Jeremy may have shot Sheila in bed, then stripped the bedclothes and started the laundry in an effort to clean up. Once again you are affronted because somebody challenges you on this ludicrous proposition.

I don't recall saying that Jeremy would have had to do the laundry.  Couldn't he have just left the blooded sheets (if any) with other blooded sheets?  I seem to recall reading that the police then burned all that evidence later that day or the day after. 

It is not a ludicrous proposition.

You have made anti-semitic remarks on this site, followed by your own historical perspective of the Second World War (or did you thumb through some David Irving book?) that Adolf Hitler should have been granted a free ride in the East. Once again you have no concept of the offence you have caused not just the Jewish community but the ordinary citizen at large because often you don't follow through your arguments to their logical conclusion.

I have not made anti-Semitic remarks.

You are lying, as you have done previously.  The form your lies take is to twist what I say into something shameful or offensive so that you can then attack me.  You do this because you know you cannot defeat me in an argument.  You're not clever enough.

I know the discussion you are referring to and I am confident I said nothing at all that was anti-Semitic.

You are a liar.

I wouldn't mind your posts if you didn't negatively comment on so many others',

My God, you are complete and total hypocrite!  This very post of yours is an attack on me.  Your hypocrisy is almost psychopathic.  You seem to have no self-awareness at all.

Steve, the very reason for the trouble between us is because of your habit of commenting negatively on people's posts and being personal.  You started all this. 

not forgetting of course the number of regulars who have been put off posting altogether due to your new imposed rules of correct orthography at all times (another rule you Sir have broken on occasion).

You, again, lie.  I have imposed no such rule. 

Let me repeat: the only person here who has criticised spelling is YOU. 

You are a bare-faced liar.

Please also post a list of the people I have offended.  I am virtually certain it will be a list of people who attacked me first.

Some of your posts and some of your reasoning I have enjoyed, but it's getting to the stage now where the impact of you as a member of this site may reach a tipping point where the negativity does outweigh the undoubted postive contribution you have at times have made.

Again, can I remind you of the following:

(i). this is not your forum;
(ii). you have no authority over me or anybody else here, or (probably) anybody anywhere.

You are just a nobody. 

Furthermore, can I remind you that it was your own behaviour that kicked-off the conflagration between us.  You are the one who started all this.  I'm simply responding to your behaviour, Steve.

Likewise, I am sarcastic to Adam because Adam is sarcastic to me and other people he disagrees with.  I am simply responding to Adam's behaviour by dishing out to him what he dishes out to others.

It's called culture.

If the culture is toxic, then that is how people will behave.

I think your real problem is that you have been getting away with toxic behaviour for years and you've become comfortable and you're not used to being called-out on it and challenged, and if we're honest, I think the moderators have been indulgent with you.

They are not coming to your rescue any more, and since you're only getting what you've been dishing out to others, you have no basis for complaint.