Louis Theroux

[lookout]

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

I'm still right in what I say though.

[guest29835]

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.

To be abundantly clear, I wasn't saying you have insulted anybody - it was more general comment, but agreeing with your sentiments.

[lookout]

Anyway----on with the motley.

[Roch]

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.

But not the parts that have only come to light in recent years. For example, the jury didn't see Miller in the box being questioned about the sophisticated equipment that had been used and which didn't detect any tampering with windows. Such questioning and the responses from Miller would not only have informed the jury, but also have informed the judge's summing up.

BTW if you're so bothered about the slam dunk piece of evidence being presented to the CCRC, then instead of crowing about its absence, why not campaign for its disclosure. The 'amateurs' produced a handy booklet about what's missing.

[killingeve]

I'm still right in what I say though.

Right about what?

[killingeve]

But not the parts that have only come to light in recent years. For example, the jury didn't see Miller in the box being questioned about the sophisticated equipment that had been used and which didn't detect any tampering with windows. Such questioning and the responses from Miller would not only have informed the jury, but also have informed the judge's summing up.

BTW if you're so bothered about the slam dunk piece of evidence being presented to the CCRC, then instead of crowing about its absence, why not campaign for its disclosure. The 'amateurs' produced a handy booklet about what's missing.

What parts of the appeal doc/windows do you not understand?

[Roch]

What parts of the appeal doc/windows do you not understand?

An obsession with reference to the 2002 appeal (not 2001 btw) will not get you very far on here.

[lookout]

Right about what?

About those who come onto the forum and immediately put the mockers on anything that might just look like a way forward for JB.
This submission to the CCRC was also suggested by Joe Stone QC who I'm sure is no fool.

[killingeve]

An obsession with reference to the 2002 appeal (not 2001 btw) will not get you very far on here.

And the windows period will get Bamber nowhere. 

[guest29835]

About those who come onto the forum and immediately put the mockers on anything that might just look like a way forward for JB.
This submission to the CCRC was also suggested by Joe Stone QC who I'm sure is no fool.

But Lookout, why does that matter?  This is a Forum for debating the case.  People are entitled to their opinions.  I don't see what is to be gained by second-guessing people's motives.  The poster has made some harsh remarks about the Campaign Team, but the Campaign Team are in the public eye and the remarks were not directed to any specific individual.

I honestly don't understand the direction this thread has gone off on.  It's really weird.  It's like on the other thread, all I have done is commented on the case.  I haven't insulted anybody, but I get Steve coming on making this over-the-top attack on me.

Is something funny being put in the water?

[lookout]

Yes---me whisky.

[killingeve]

About those who come onto the forum and immediately put the mockers on anything that might just look like a way forward for JB.
This submission to the CCRC was also suggested by Joe Stone QC who I'm sure is no fool.

Oh PLEEEEze do me a favour...do you honestly think a poster on an internet forum under the guise of Cambridgecutie is capable of influencing the review commission or appeal judges   

Joe Stone apparently said the people to look into the case are the review commission.  This was probably with regard to full disclosure since this was the reason the case fell on his desk?

In any event where have I put the mockers on anything?  I am just pointing out the obvious. 

[lookout]

And I'm here in opposition to your " obvious ", just so as you know.

[Roch]

And the windows period will get Bamber nowhere.

I never said it would. Some of us are interested in what actually took place.

If you're so arsed about knock out evidence, then why not share with us what you have in mind that would fit such criteria.

[Roch]

But Lookout, why does that matter?  This is a Forum for debating the case.  People are entitled to their opinions.  I don't see what is to be gained by second-guessing people's motives.  The poster has made some harsh remarks about the Campaign Team, but the Campaign Team are in the public eye and the remarks were not directed to any specific individual.

I honestly don't understand the direction this thread has gone off on.  It's really weird.  It's like on the other thread, all I have done is commented on the case.  I haven't insulted anybody, but I get Steve coming on making this over-the-top attack on me.

Is something funny being put in the water?

Nobody's put anything funny in the water. I'm just not sure we have a genuine case debater on our hands. Think Adam and 2002 Appeal, and maybe you'd be closer.