Did JM ever really love Jeremy Bamber?

[paulg]

Paulg

How many times would you say in the last 50 years has a hit man been used to murder 2 children

Just a guess

Do you know something Jackie, probabilities, possibilities, odds and History are my love, its whats helped me become one of the best strategists  at strategic games on the internet...that i choose to play.

I've no idea what the answer is, my concern would be whether it is possible in this case, and it is.

[andrea]

nah then paulg hows tha doin lad?

[paulg]

Gerald/NGB

I'm just going to dip my lickle toe into the conversation, and ask you to both play nicely.

Now the little digs are well written, and subtle, and remind me of 2 aristocrats slapping each other round the face with gloves, just before a duel. So, as i said above, guns away, and lets play nicely.

PaulG  - I try to be courteous in my posts but "Gerald" has gone beyond what is acceptable in an argument in accusing me of lying.  I take exception to that and I do not think it is fair to place my posts in the same category as his.

Okeedokee, i read his reply "clearly you haven't" more as a non belief in your knowledge of the subject, rather than i think you're lying. Call it one of the subtle digs i mentioned earlier, and i don't have to insult your intelligence by pointing out your own retorts...but the "very true" is on a par, subtle.

Now, all i ask, is that you both use your knowledge to make informed arguments, without the subtle digs, i thank you.

Please reread the post where the words "clearly you haven't" appear.  It is a clear reference to my statement that I had experience in the law of defamation and had advised publishers on the subject. You are glossing over it by suggesting an alternative interpretation which simply does not wash.  This was a clear allegation that I had lied.

I am afraid that I do not accept your admonition to me as as forum moderator and would expect moderators to intervene when an unsupported accusation of lying is levelled by one forum member against another.  Frankly if you do not like my response then tough, I am obviously wasting my time posting here.  You can ban me if you like.  I have got plenty of other things to do with my time. I hope other moderators will intervene here and see that the right approach is now made to this.

I will await posts from other moderators before posting further.

   

Tbh no i don't like your post, i believe what i have highlighted to you can be interpreted two ways. Someone questioned your knowledge, you used a cheap shot with "very true", and when asked to fall into line, you're now behaving like a spoilt child...and this is said with mod hat off.

And just to add, and not directed at you NGB, but it doesn't worry me if i'm a moderator here or not, i call things as i see them, please feel free Mike to remove my moderator title.

[jon]

Paul what you getting involved for your a moderator not a copper of the net !! As anyone complained to you?           Gerald seems capable of looking after himself and i for one was enjoying it !!

[clifford]

Gerald/NGB

I'm just going to dip my lickle toe into the conversation, and ask you to both play nicely.

Now the little digs are well written, and subtle, and remind me of 2 aristocrats slapping each other round the face with gloves, just before a duel. So, as i said above, guns away, and lets play nicely.

Please refer to my new thread, regarding moderating.
All opinions are welcomed , but I think Ngb you have come under needless fire.
I would be interested in Geralds qualifications, as I know a lot of barrack room lawyers.

PaulG  - I try to be courteous in my posts but "Gerald" has gone beyond what is acceptable in an argument in accusing me of lying.  I take exception to that and I do not think it is fair to place my posts in the same category as his.

Okeedokee, i read his reply "clearly you haven't" more as a non belief in your knowledge of the subject, rather than i think you're lying. Call it one of the subtle digs i mentioned earlier, and i don't have to insult your intelligence by pointing out your own retorts...but the "very true" is on a par, subtle.

Now, all i ask, is that you both use your knowledge to make informed arguments, without the subtle digs, i thank you.

Please reread the post where the words "clearly you haven't" appear.  It is a clear reference to my statement that I had experience in the law of defamation and had advised publishers on the subject. You are glossing over it by suggesting an alternative interpretation which simply does not wash.  This was a clear allegation that I had lied.

I am afraid that I do not accept your admonition to me as as forum moderator and would expect moderators to intervene when an unsupported accusation of lying is levelled by one forum member against another.  Frankly if you do not like my response then tough, I am obviously wasting my time posting here.  You can ban me if you like.  I have got plenty of other things to do with my time. I hope other moderators will intervene here and see that the right approach is now made to this.

I will await posts from other moderators before posting further.

   

[clifford]

Gerald/NGB

I'm just going to dip my lickle toe into the conversation, and ask you to both play nicely.

Now the little digs are well written, and subtle, and remind me of 2 aristocrats slapping each other round the face with gloves, just before a duel. So, as i said above, guns away, and lets play nicely.

PaulG  - I try to be courteous in my posts but "Gerald" has gone beyond what is acceptable in an argument in accusing me of lying.  I take exception to that and I do not think it is fair to place my posts in the same category as his.

Okeedokee, i read his reply "clearly you haven't" more as a non belief in your knowledge of the subject, rather than i think you're lying. Call it one of the subtle digs i mentioned earlier, and i don't have to insult your intelligence by pointing out your own retorts...but the "very true" is on a par, subtle.

Now, all i ask, is that you both use your knowledge to make informed arguments, without the subtle digs, i thank you.

Please reread the post where the words "clearly you haven't" appear.  It is a clear reference to my statement that I had experience in the law of defamation and had advised publishers on the subject. You are glossing over it by suggesting an alternative interpretation which simply does not wash.  This was a clear allegation that I had lied.

I am afraid that I do not accept your admonition to me as as forum moderator and would expect moderators to intervene when an unsupported accusation of lying is levelled by one forum member against another.  Frankly if you do not like my response then tough, I am obviously wasting my time posting here.  You can ban me if you like.  I have got plenty of other things to do with my time. I hope other moderators will intervene here and see that the right approach is now made to this.

I will await posts from other moderators before posting further.

   
[/quote
I don,t know what happened to my post, so I will repeat.
Ngb you are a valued member. I do not know Geralds qualifacations, perhaps he is a barrack room lawyer I do not know, but I will say that I do not like his aggresive attitude, and found it uncalled for.
It does seem that all the anti,s are aggressive [there are ecceptions].
Keep posting Ngb your knowlege is appriciated.

[clifford]

Early start again folks, so I have got to go[who said good]
Lock horn again tommorrow,sleep well.

[Gerald]

Gerald/NGB

I'm just going to dip my lickle toe into the conversation, and ask you to both play nicely.

Now the little digs are well written, and subtle, and remind me of 2 aristocrats slapping each other round the face with gloves, just before a duel. So, as i said above, guns away, and lets play nicely.

PaulG  - I try to be courteous in my posts but "Gerald" has gone beyond what is acceptable in an argument in accusing me of lying.  I take exception to that and I do not think it is fair to place my posts in the same category as his.

Okeedokee, i read his reply "clearly you haven't" more as a non belief in your knowledge of the subject, rather than i think you're lying. Call it one of the subtle digs i mentioned earlier, and i don't have to insult your intelligence by pointing out your own retorts...but the "very true" is on a par, subtle.

Now, all i ask, is that you both use your knowledge to make informed arguments, without the subtle digs, i thank you.

Please reread the post where the words "clearly you haven't" appear.  It is a clear reference to my statement that I had experience in the law of defamation and had advised publishers on the subject. You are glossing over it by suggesting an alternative interpretation which simply does not wash.  This was a clear allegation that I had lied.

I am afraid that I do not accept your admonition to me as as forum moderator and would expect moderators to intervene when an unsupported accusation of lying is levelled by one forum member against another.  Frankly if you do not like my response then tough, I am obviously wasting my time posting here.  You can ban me if you like.  I have got plenty of other things to do with my time. I hope other moderators will intervene here and see that the right approach is now made to this.

I will await posts from other moderators before posting further.

   

I don,t know what happened to my post, so I will repeat.
Ngb you are a valued member. I do not know Geralds qualifacations, perhaps he is a barrack room lawyer I do not know, but I will say that I do not like his aggresive attitude, and found it uncalled for.
It does seem that all the anti,s are aggressive [there are ecceptions].
Keep posting Ngb your knowlege is appriciated.

Aggressive attitude, are you for real?

Here is what NGB has said to me:

You are as offensive as you are ignorant.

You have the arrogance to lecture me on a subject about which your extremely limited knowledge is based upon a quick internet search.

It is not worth spending more time trying to educate someone of your limited intellect.


The burden of proving a particular point in any case can shift several times, for evidential reasons which are beyond the scope of this lecture and would certainly be beyond your comprehension.

You are totally out of your depth but also obnoxious in the way you attempt to mount an argument.


You have no knowledge of the law other than snippets taken from the internet, in some cases out of date and taken out of context.

You are similar to another poster now barred from this site - in fact similar in many ways.

I doubt if you know the meaning of "authority".

I see no reason to give someone like you a free (and necessarily in your case lengthy) lecture on any aspect of law

Perhaps you would be so kind to show me what I have said to justify any of that?

It does seem that all the anti,s are aggressive

And then show me where I have said that I am an "anti".

[chochokeira]

Gerald/NGB

I'm just going to dip my lickle toe into the conversation, and ask you to both play nicely.

Now the little digs are well written, and subtle, and remind me of 2 aristocrats slapping each other round the face with gloves, just before a duel. So, as i said above, guns away, and lets play nicely.

PaulG  - I try to be courteous in my posts but "Gerald" has gone beyond what is acceptable in an argument in accusing me of lying.  I take exception to that and I do not think it is fair to place my posts in the same category as his.

Okeedokee, i read his reply "clearly you haven't" more as a non belief in your knowledge of the subject, rather than i think you're lying. Call it one of the subtle digs i mentioned earlier, and i don't have to insult your intelligence by pointing out your own retorts...but the "very true" is on a par, subtle.

Now, all i ask, is that you both use your knowledge to make informed arguments, without the subtle digs, i thank you.

Please reread the post where the words "clearly you haven't" appear.  It is a clear reference to my statement that I had experience in the law of defamation and had advised publishers on the subject. You are glossing over it by suggesting an alternative interpretation which simply does not wash.  This was a clear allegation that I had lied.

I am afraid that I do not accept your admonition to me as as forum moderator and would expect moderators to intervene when an unsupported accusation of lying is levelled by one forum member against another.  Frankly if you do not like my response then tough, I am obviously wasting my time posting here.  You can ban me if you like.  I have got plenty of other things to do with my time. I hope other moderators will intervene here and see that the right approach is now made to this.

I will await posts from other moderators before posting further.

   

ngb,

I agree with Cliff's statement. You are a valued member of this forum who has made many invaluable contributions to members' knowledge and understanding. I very much hope that you will not leave.

I have had little time to properly look at this exchange until now as I've been working on a report. Having now looked at this thread, my view is that Gerald's comment to you during the initial part of your exchanges on this thread

"clearly you haven't"

is unacceptable and is an attempt to goad and provoke you into a row with Gerald.


Gerald,

I will repeat to you what I have said to ngb. Having looked at this thread, my view is that your comment to ngb during the initial part of your exchanges on this thread

"clearly you haven't"

is unacceptable and is an attempt to goad and provoke ngb into rowing with you. 

I am therefore issuing a warning to you not repeat unacceptable and provocatory posts of this nature.

I have to collect a file from my office now, but I shall return to this issue either later this evening or tomorrow.

[Gerald]

I am therefore issuing a warning to you not repeat unacceptable and provocatory posts of this nature.

If you took the time to actually read this thread you would see that I have already retracted it, not that it needed retracting.

[curiousessex]

Curious you have got me really confused now can you explain exactly what you mean and explain as if you think JB is guilty

All I can say is so much doesn't make sense if a hit man was used JB would have had an alibi.  The scene was left as a suicide if JB had been in London with Julie it would have stayed a suicide.  If JB was responsible he would have used a solicitor he would have acted differently in the witness box.

You would have to show me something definate proving JB s guilt re the telephone calls rather than him just forgetting or just muddling up times because I forget times even important times so maybe I am the wrong person to put the argument to but please explain it to me in detail.

Jackie

I will try to explain, as per your request, from a perspective of Jeremy being guilty.

Jeremy states he was woken from his sleep by a telephone call from his father at between 03.15 and 03.30 a.m. You can hear this in Jeremy's own words if you follow the link below

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/31/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-extracts-of-the-convicted-killer-discussing-his-case-115875-22887323/

Jeremy confirms his father tells him Sheila has got hold of the gun.

Jeremy admits calling Julie.

Jeremy admits to telling Julie about trouble at the farm.

Three flatmates testified in a court of law they heard the telephone in the flat ringing at ‘about 3.a.m.,’ ‘3.12 a.m.,’ and ‘two-something”. - NGB has confirmed on this forum that testimony in court is what counts above any witness statements that may have been taken. - Two of these witnesses fall outside your voiced concern about them being involved in a cheque fraud which would contribute to them being a potentially unreliable witnesses.

It is impossible for Jeremy to have rung Julie's flat in London to advise of trouble at the farm at ‘about 3.a.m.,’ ‘3.12 a.m.,’ and ‘two-something”, if by his own admission, he is still asleep before 03.15 and 03.30 am.

Jeremy would also, by his own admission, be telling of trouble at the farm before he is alerted to the fact that there is any trouble at the farm by a telephone call from Nevill.

Jeremy could only possibly know of there being trouble at the farm by other means i.e. he was there

As such Jeremy's defence falls apart by his own admission when compared against two other credible witnesses.

Does this make sense with regard to your specific request?

[hartley]

My advice if anyone wants to listen?

I think if mods feel that they need to take action then they should do so via pm's and not in full view on the forum, otherwise you'll have idiots like me sticking my oar in.

[Gerald]

I quite agree with your refreshing comments Gerald.  I have just come back from a busy day away and read this thread over quickly tonight.  Ngb1066 has shown himself to be rather shallow yet again and quite incapable of acceding to constructive criticism.  It was ngb1066 who fired the first volley of abuse against Gerald, it was most certainly uncalled for.

You are as offensive as you are ignorant.  You accuse me of being a liar when you have no basis whatsoever for doing so.  That says far more about you than it does about me.  You have the arrogance to lecture me on a subject about which your extremely limited knowledge is based upon a quick internet search.  I on the other hand do know what I am talking about.  It is not worth spending more time trying to educate someone of your limited intellect.

Gerald, I found your explanation of libel and defamation rather enlightening, it is clear that certain members of this forum should take a long hard look at themselves in this context as they have done nothing but defame Julie Mugford for months and tried their damnedest to ridicule and besmirch her.

I believe ngb1066 owes Gerald an apology for such behaviour.

I don't expect, or even want an apology. All I want is for NGB to either accept that he has made a mistake, or tell me why I am wrong. Standard stuff for a barrister I would have thought.

[curiousessex]

My advice if anyone wants to listen?

I think if mods feel that they need to take action then they should do so via pm's and not in full view on the forum, otherwise you'll have idiots like me sticking my oar in.

Hartley

I think you are being unfair on yourself.............. certainly not an idiot in my opinion........... but then again who am I to comment if you want to libel yourself.

By the way I was sorry to read of your loss re the 7/7 tragedy.

[paulg]

Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:

1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone).   It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.

and this:

Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue.  When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action.  Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.

That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.

Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.

One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.

So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.

This really is school boy law.

Do you think JM could earn more than the 25k she got paid of the NOW , if she sued ?

I have no idea.

Very true!

I second that!

You see Keira, this is goading, it took place before any so called lying comment by Gerald. What makes it worse, is you chose to "second the comment" rather than act.

Since then, you've read back through the thread, decided that Gerald is guilty, this forum can not be moderated.