Louis Theroux

[lookout]

You’re engaging with a troll. And the legal team issued a statement advising that the case was re-built from the ground up by a barrister and another legal professional. The troll you’re engaging with is simply reliant upon the fact that any ‘slam dunk’ evidence has long been got rid off.  Surely you can see through them and understand that?

I had a feeling straightaway and wasn't comfortable. My reason for the " non-welcome " initially.
Doesn't take long, does it ?

My Motto----Trust no-one !

[Roch]

May I suggest you read the window section within the 2001 appeal hearing and form your own opinion (Ground 3, 261 -288).  All I am saying, whether the surrounding facts are correct or not, is that the jury was told by the judge ..."how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case". 

The fact his campaign group have included the windows in the submission shows they are utterly clueless.  Firstly, the judge gave a clear direction to the jury.  Secondly, the judge's summing up was the subject of the first appeal.  Thirdly, the lawyers had a go at the windows for the 2001 appeal and the appeal court judges simply batted it away based on the judge's direction.  Time to move on folks the windows are going nowhere.  Supporters can rant and rave over what they consider to be the unfairness of it all (and verbally abuse me on the basis that I've even mentioned it) but I am afraid this is the system and process. 

The criteria for a successful appeal is NEW evidence or argument not known about at trial ie something that had the jury heard about may have brought about a different verdict.  Whatever is presented about the windows will not meet the criteria as the judge gave a clear direction as above.

It’s not about ranting and raving. It’s about recognising that there is windows related evidence that could not be argued P-R-I-O-R to the judge’s summing up. In other words, the judge’s summing up was made without having the benefit the of said evidence being argued in the first place. You can’t have it all ways - either new evidence is evidence that wasn’t heard at trial because it has only come to light since trial - OR - no new evidence matters at all, IF it clashes with the judge’s summing up.  Another way of putting it is, if the judge’a summing up can be shown to be flawed, then why can’t that flawed summing up be challenged?  Show some gumption please.

[guest29835]

I don't direct this at anybody in particular, but personally I would say we should be careful before accusing somebody of being a troll. 

Trolling in a narrow sense is intentional disruption of a Forum, and I prefer that definition as it avoids bringing into it things that aren't trolling.  If somebody disagrees with you, that does not make him or her a troll.

Commenting and posting here should be a pleasant experience for all.  None of us should have to face goading and provocation, demands that we produce links to posts from months ago or be called liars, over-the-top moral condemnation of our opinions, and constant put-downs, badgering and harassment. 

On the point in hand, as far as I am concerned, anything the Campaign Team say should be taken with a pinch of salt, simply because they are the Campaign Team and so will present everything in a slanted way - and occasionally, what they have said about the case or Jeremy has been ridiculously slanted.

It does sound like the Campaign Team are re-hashing old points, but with claims of new evidence.  Since they are claiming there is new evidence, I assume the lawyers have passed this material, or summaries of it, on to the CCRC, so I am deferring judgement about this application to the CCRC until we know more about what the lawyers have submitted and what the arguments are.  If it does turn out that the 2021 CCRC application is flawed, then we are back where we started.  We still don't know what happened at the farmhouse that night - and unless Jeremy confesses, or startling new evidence arises that factually exonerates him, we never will. 

Regardless of a rejection by the CCRC, or possibly, the Court of Appeal, I think we will always be left with the more limited and technical question of whether the convictions are safe and satisfactory, rather than the more engaging question of factual culpability and guilt or innocence. 

Even if Jeremy is one day freed as a legally-innocent man, I think there will always be a huge question mark over him.

[David1819]

You’re engaging with a troll. And the legal team issued a statement advising that the case was re-built from the ground up by a barrister and another legal professional. The troll you’re engaging with is simply reliant upon the fact that any ‘slam dunk’ evidence has long been got rid off.  Surely you can see through them and understand that?

There are barristers that will build a pile of poo from the ground up if you paid them.

[lookout]

There are barristers that will build a pile of poo from the ground up if you paid them.

Well that's one way of putting it, but You're right David.

[Roch]

There are barristers that will build a pile of poo from the ground up if you paid them.

How much of the legal team's work been has pro bono up to now? I assume obviously that the barrister etc will have been paid for court appearances.

[David1819]

Well that's one way of putting it, but You're right David.

Arlidge QC being paid by the CPS to build the case against Jeremy is one example. 

[lookout]

Arlidge QC being paid by the CPS to build the case against Jeremy is one example. 

The whole blooming case was about £££££££££££'s

[Roch]

I don't direct this at anybody in particular, but personally I would say we should be careful before accusing somebody of being a troll. 

Trolling in a narrow sense is intentional disruption of a Forum, and I prefer that definition as it avoids bringing into it things that aren't trolling.  If somebody disagrees with you, that does not make him or her a troll.

Commenting and posting here should be a pleasant experience for all.  None of us should have to face goading and provocation, demands that we produce links to posts from months ago or be called liars, over-the-top moral condemnation of our opinions, and constant put-downs, badgering and harassment. 

On the point in hand, as far as I am concerned, anything the Campaign Team say should be taken with a pinch of salt, simply because they are the Campaign Team and so will present everything in a slanted way - and occasionally, what they have said about the case or Jeremy has been ridiculously slanted.

It does sound like the Campaign Team are re-hashing old points, but with claims of new evidence.  Since they are claiming there is new evidence, I assume the lawyers have passed this material, or summaries of it, on to the CCRC, so I am deferring judgement about this application to the CCRC until we know more about what the lawyers have submitted and what the arguments are.  If it does turn out that the 2021 CCRC application is flawed, then we are back where we started.  We still don't know what happened at the farmhouse that night - and unless Jeremy confesses, or startling new evidence arises that factually exonerates him, we never will. 

Regardless of a rejection by the CCRC, or possibly, the Court of Appeal, I think we will always be left with the more limited and technical question of whether the convictions are safe and satisfactory, rather than the more engaging question of factual culpability and guilt or innocence. 

Even if Jeremy is one day freed as a legally-innocent man, I think there will always be a huge question mark over him.

If slam dunk evidence has been destroyed or ferreted away somewhere, then it's arguably not an option for the CT or legal team to produce it to the CCRC. I suggest if anyone wants such evidence to be prised from the grip of EP or whichever agency has custody, instead of vaunting it over supporters, they could apply pressure by campaigning to obtain its release. It's not like there isn't a list of stuff missing. What's missing was made public several years ago in a handy booklet. I don't think this person is here to disagree, I just think that they're here on a wind up. They could of course be a non-conspirational supporter (the type who doesn't like to criticise the authorities in this case). I have somebody in mind as to who that might be.  In fact, I would be OK with that. Rather that, than a wind up merchant.

[lookout]

It's been a familiar pattern for years when there's been a hint of an appeal. Posters come onboard and do their worst.

[killingeve]

It’s not about ranting and raving. It’s about recognising that there is windows related evidence that could not be argued P-R-I-O-R to the judge’s summing up. In other words, the judge’s summing up was made without having the benefit the of said evidence being argued in the first place. You can’t have it all ways - either new evidence is evidence that wasn’t heard at trial because it has only come to light since trial - OR - no new evidence matters at all, IF it clashes with the judge’s summing up.  Another way of putting it is, if the judge’a summing up can be shown to be flawed, then why can’t that flawed summing up be challenged?  Show some gumption please.

Have you actually read the parts of the appeal document I referred you to?  Of course the window evidence went before the court.  And you tell me to show some gumption. 

[Steve_uk]

Please be assured that I am not unduly worried about anything at this moment in my life 

I have no idea why you appear to want to shoot the messenger.  I am simply stating how high the bar is set post trial/conviction.

I have no particular view on Bamber's guilt or innocence and I find the whole pigeonholing and taking sides here very infantile.  If those posting here wish to debate the case like adults they should expect to have their assumptions, views etc challenged and not take personal affront.

Hear, hear!

[killingeve]

It's been a familiar pattern for years when there's been a hint of an appeal. Posters come onboard and do their worst.

I have been a member here for almost 19 months long before I was even aware of Bamber's March 2021 submission. 

[guest29835]

Please be assured that I am not unduly worried about anything at this moment in my life 

I have no idea why you appear to want to shoot the messenger.  I am simply stating how high the bar is set post trial/conviction.

I have no particular view on Bamber's guilt or innocence and I find the whole pigeonholing and taking sides here very infantile.  If those posting here wish to debate the case like adults they should expect to have their assumptions, views etc challenged and not take personal affront.

I agree 100%.  But as you will appreciate, there is a way of going about it, and one or two people on here have a way of going about it that puts people off, and over the years, people have voted with their feet and stopped posting. With the best will in the world, normal people don't want to come on a Forum and converse with unpleasant or maladjusted people who have mental problems.  There are other things to be doing.

You haven't told us really what your view is on the case.  If it turns out you disagree with me, there will be points when the discussions between us are heated and other points when it's impeccably civil, but as long as you don't insult me, I won't be insulting you or making it personal or anything like that.  I haven't called you a troll, for one thing.

I agree that there needs to be more adult and civil behaviour all round and some people on here need to take a good hard look at themselves.  However, one or two are here with an agenda and are close to the case.  Assuming you are genuine, I'm sure you have already guessed who those one or two people are.

[killingeve]

I agree 100%.  But as you will appreciate, there is a way of going about it, and one or two people on here have a way of going about it that puts people off, and over the years, people have voted with their feet and stopped posting. With the best will in the world, normal people don't want to come on a Forum and read unpleasant things.  There are other things to be doing.

You haven't told us really what your view is on the case.  If it turns out you disagree with me, there will be points when the discussions between us are heated and other points when it's impeccably civil, but as long as you don't insult me, I won't be insulting you or making it personal or anything like that.  I haven't called you a troll, for one thing.

I agree that there needs to be more adult and civil behaviour all round and some people on here need to take a good hard look at themselves.  However, one or two are here with an agenda and are close to the case.  Assuming genuine, I'm sure you have already guessed who those one or two people are.

I haven't insulted anyone here.  And no you haven't referred to me as a troll.  I have reported those who have and hope the moderator will take action.