The ITV Drama

[Caroline]

Sorry Caroline but in today's climate, I think this is naïve.   

I'll give you your dues, they allowed the McKay docu, which was probably facilitated by way of MWT being sympathetic to the defence.  But it was interfered with.  So part of the time that would have been taken up by more arguments in favour of Jeremy's defence was stolen by those arguing for guilt. 

Where is this portion for the other side in the drama? 

Imagine Boyce, Terezon and whoever trying to get a program commissioned today?  Wouldn't happen.  Yet a so called drama masquerading as a genuine account of events is shown over several weeks with tonnes of publicity both before and during?

I think you're being naive Roch. You have no concrete evidence that any of what you say even occurred. When I have asked, you reply with things like researcher told you or you haven't seen the evidence yourself but ..... That's not enough to interest anyone to make a drama or doc or they could find themselves in a libel suit.

Much of the publicity has been drawn from Bamber and the CT so ......

[Roch]

You will undoubtedly know it may be relied upon that "from little acorns great oaks will grow"?

Not for a moment do I believe that a drama would have been commissioned specifically to "effectively pre-empt", and thus prevent, civil unrest.

Should "a whole new army of guilters.............." pronounce their belief in his guilt, who will there be, other than a few supporters, to say they're wrong?

Jane, you misunderstand me.  It's got nothing to do with pre-empting civil unrest. 

(1) Allow a program to be commissioned from pro-guilt author.  Aim it at a mass audience.

(2) Shut out defence entirely.

(3) Pre-viewing promotion in media / press.

(4) Air the program.

(5) While the program is being dragged out over several weeks, pro-guilt articles and pro-police 'official version' articles are aired in press, to effectively back-up the 'JB guilty' message.

(6) You now have a new army of guilters… 'here's one I made earlier'.

(7) Reject anything from Bamber's legal team i.e. forensic reports; judicial reviews; CCRC applications etc.  etc.

( The new army of guilters say 'well he must be guilty, otherwise the authorities would have allowed his appeal')

(9) Less awkward questions for the police.

[Roch]

I think you're being naive Roch. You have no concrete evidence that any of what you say even occurred. When I have asked, you reply with things like researcher told you or you haven't seen the evidence yourself but ..... That's not enough to interest anyone to make a drama or doc or they could find themselves in a libel suit.

Much of the publicity has been drawn from Bamber and the CT so ......

Well tbf, there's quite a bit on the thread I put on regarding Ainsley.  What he did was wicked.

Evidence plain as day was put on here regarding Sheila's right hand.  You couldn't see it and refused it existed.  Others could see it.  It's no good pretending something isn't there - just because it doesn't fit with your stance. 

Look at CAL rejecting the (non-disclosed) Jeapes and Brown sightings out of hand.  Does she deal with the implications?  Does she understand the implications?  Even if you go down the 'WHAT APPEARED to be a rifle' line, there are problems.  As there are no rifle-like implements at any of the windows in crime scene photos.  And if you go down the line of it actually having been a rifle, then you have major problems - which is why it wasn't disclosed in the first place. 

Who is going to explain that in a drama? 

[lookout]

Yes, I agree Roch. When you have one sighting of what " appears " to look like a rifle can easily be mistaken as something else is fair enough, but there were two officers who'd decided that it was a rifle makes it indeed highly possible coming from trained officers and therefore should not have been cast aside like it has been-------along with the " trick of the light ".

[JackieD]

It's a very sly act.  It was made to win over public opinion regarding Bamber's guilt.  It's doing this by omitting facts that would support his conviction being a sham.   That is clever but sly nonetheless.

It's actually quite frightening with regards to upholding the truth in our country.  People are being manipulated 'en masse', regardless of there being disclaimers in the credits etc. 

I hear Mrs Perkins or whoever at the local shops talking about it and proclaiming evil Bamber  guilty or whatever.  People should be given facts - not brainwashing.

Absolutely spot on Roch

[sami]

people have had the so called facts for 30 yrs and they point to jb,s guilt

[Caroline]

Well tbf, there's quite a bit on the thread I put on regarding Ainsley.  What he did was wicked.

Evidence plain as day was put on here regarding Sheila's right hand.  You couldn't see it and refused it existed.  Others could see it.  It's no good pretending something isn't there - just because it doesn't fit with your stance. 

Look at CAL rejecting the (non-disclosed) Jeapes and Brown sightings out of hand.  Does she deal with the implications?  Does she understand the implications?  Even if you go down the 'WHAT APPEARED to be a rifle' line, there are problems.  As there are no rifle-like implements at any of the windows in crime scene photos.  And if you go down the line of it actually having been a rifle, then you have major problems - which is why it wasn't disclosed in the first place. 

Who is going to explain that in a drama?

I know you have written stuff on here and you may well be right, but you have no concrete evidence to go along side, hence no TV company would touch it.

The pictures that BR posted were odd, they were hazy and we have no idea where they came from. Even if I gave them the benefit of the doubt, Nevill had marks on his arms and he didn't kill anyone. Marks such as the ones being claimed could be defence marks but they weren't even mentioned in Vanezis's notes, written at the time of the autopsy's. He mentioned those on Nevill, no reason not to mention marks on Sheila, especially at that juncture. Remember that the man maintained that Sheila COULD have committed suicide, were he part of the conspiracy, he's have leaned heavily on the murder side. If marks are there, there was no reason not to mention them - even if you support a guilty Jeremy.

As far as there being a rifle spotted, the word 'appeared' is important. However, we haven't seen the CS photographs of either the box room or the twins room which is where she was indicating. I don't hold much store with that either.

[David1819]

Jane, you misunderstand me.  It's got nothing to do with pre-empting civil unrest. 

(1) Allow a program to be commissioned from pro-guilt author.  Aim it at a mass audience.

(2) Shut out defence entirely.

(3) Pre-viewing promotion in media / press.

(4) Air the program.

(5) While the program is being dragged out over several weeks, pro-guilt articles and pro-police 'official version' articles are aired in press, to effectively back-up the 'JB guilty' message.

(6) You now have a new army of guilters… 'here's one I made earlier'.

(7) Reject anything from Bamber's legal team i.e. forensic reports; judicial reviews; CCRC applications etc.  etc.

( The new army of guilters say 'well he must be guilty, otherwise the authorities would have allowed his appeal')

(9) Less awkward questions for the police.

This TV show is not a conspiracy Roch 

[Roch]

This TV show is not a conspiracy Roch 

If you think authorities have no influence on media, you're mistaken.  Much of our press is owned by billionaires.  Officials in TV at a suitable level will know what's allowed and what isn't allowed.

[Jane]

Jane, you misunderstand me.  It's got nothing to do with pre-empting civil unrest. 

(1) Allow a program to be commissioned from pro-guilt author.  Aim it at a mass audience.

(2) Shut out defence entirely.

(3) Pre-viewing promotion in media / press.

(4) Air the program.

(5) While the program is being dragged out over several weeks, pro-guilt articles and pro-police 'official version' articles are aired in press, to effectively back-up the 'JB guilty' message.

(6) You now have a new army of guilters… 'here's one I made earlier'.

(7) Reject anything from Bamber's legal team i.e. forensic reports; judicial reviews; CCRC applications etc.  etc.

( The new army of guilters say 'well he must be guilty, otherwise the authorities would have allowed his appeal')

(9) Less awkward questions for the police.

WAY too convoluted, Roch. I guess if one conspiracy theory doesn't work, 9 might, but it doesn't work for me.

[Roch]

WAY too convoluted, Roch. I guess if one conspiracy theory doesn't work, 9 might, but it doesn't work for me.

There's nothing new about authorities controlling the media on certain issues. It's happened since television began. There's no conspiracy, it's common practice.

[Roch]

I know you have written stuff on here and you may well be right, but you have no concrete evidence to go along side, hence no TV company would touch it.

The pictures that BR posted were odd, they were hazy and we have no idea where they came from. Even if I gave them the benefit of the doubt, Nevill had marks on his arms and he didn't kill anyone. Marks such as the ones being claimed could be defence marks but they weren't even mentioned in Vanezis's notes, written at the time of the autopsy's. He mentioned those on Nevill, no reason not to mention marks on Sheila, especially at that juncture. Remember that the man maintained that Sheila COULD have committed suicide, were he part of the conspiracy, he's have leaned heavily on the murder side. If marks are there, there was no reason not to mention them - even if you support a guilty Jeremy.

As far as there being a rifle spotted, the word 'appeared' is important. However, we haven't seen the CS photographs of either the box room or the twins room which is where she was indicating. I don't hold much store with that either.

I'll have to reply later on or tomorrow.

[Jane]

If you think authorities have no influence on media, you're mistaken.  Much of our press is owned by billionaires.  Officials in TV at a suitable level will know what's allowed and what isn't allowed.

It sounds as is you're suggesting "1984" should have been re-titled as "1985-2020"

[sami]

There's nothing new about authorities controlling the media on certain issues. It's happened since television began. There's no conspiracy, it's common practice.

rough justice the tv series comes to mind.there was some trying to put pressure on the program makers,cant remember what it was about but it did happen

[David1819]

If you think authorities have no influence on media, you're mistaken.  Much of our press is owned by billionaires.  Officials in TV at a suitable level will know what's allowed and what isn't allowed.

Which is why in 2012 ITV made a documentary showing Philip Boyce, Simon Mckay and JB (on the phone). And CI-UK made a documentary showing Peter Suthurst insinuating the relatives created the scratch marks.