Louis Theroux

[guest29835]

Yes---me whisky.

The drink would certainly explain the behaviour of one or two on here.

[killingeve]

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

You're on the side of the losing team then as I can assure this submission will go nowhere.

[Roch]

You're on the side of the losing team then as I can assure this submission will go nowhere.

Nobody has disputed that with you, so I'm not sure why you're so attached to telling us. Why not instead, impart your wisdom on what would constitute a winning submission?

[killingeve]

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.

You will be pleased to know I have no intention of hanging around.  I had a look through the documents after watching the ITV prog back in 2020 and I had some spare time during lockdown.  Just made a few posts after the Sky doc and listening to the podcast. 

I might revisit when the review commission reaches the inevitable.   

[Roch]

You will be pleased to know I have no intention of hanging around.  I had a look through the documents after watching the ITV prog back in 2020 and I had some spare time during lockdown.  Just made a few posts after the Sky doc and listening to the podcast. 

I might revisit when the review commission reaches the inevitable.

How predictable. Let me translate that. You're an expert in the 2002 appeal. You're an expert in slating the Campaign Team and the recent submissions. You know fuck all about the case outside of those two distinctions. You'll be back to gloat when the submissions are rejected, even though most people on here a braced for failure anyway.  Well done you.

[JackieD]

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.

Hear, hear

[JackieD]

You're on the side of the losing team then as I can assure this submission will go nowhere.

You must have a very sad life when you continue to make ridiculous comment

You just don’t know so your comments are a complete waste of space

It’s like the Simon Hall case all over again

[Roch]

You must have a very sad life when you continue to make ridiculous comment

It's not that her comment is ridiculous, it's that she treats members as if we don't already know there's a potentially high risk of failure.

Then she will come back and crow, if such failure occurs, as if to say 'see..  I told you so'.

[killingeve]

How predictable. Let me translate that. You're an expert in the 2002 appeal. You're an expert in slating the Campaign Team and the recent submissions. You know fuck all about the case outside of those two distinctions. You'll be back to gloat when the submissions are rejected, even though most people on here a braced for failure anyway.  Well done you.

You're obviously not an expert on Priti Patel.  Firstly she is very right wing; prior to joining the cabinet, where she will now have to toe the party line, she was an advocate for the death penalty.  Secondly, she is on record as being supportive of Bamber's relatives who she considers to be the victims in all of this. 

I have reported your post for the use of foul language and that you continue to make it personal.

[killingeve]

You must have a very sad life when you continue to make ridiculous comment

You just don’t know so your comments are a complete waste of space

It’s like the Simon Hall case all over again

What similarities exist between the cases of Hall and Bamber?

I have reported your post as you continue to make it personal.

[Roch]

You're obviously not an expert on Priti Patel.  Firstly she is very right wing; prior to joining the cabinet, where she will now have to toe the party line, she was an advocate for the death penalty.  Secondly, she is on record as being supportive of Bamber's relatives who she considers to be the victims in all of this. 

I have reported your post for the use of foul language and that you continue to make it personal.

I'm well aware of Priti Patel. I'm not sure why you have referred to her. People probably campaign that Nigel Farage  should show more empathy towards people in dinghies. That doesn't mean he will. But it also doesn't mean that such people shouldn't campaign to that affect.

If you knew anything about the submissions, you would know that the topic of PP's interference is included within them.

[killingeve]

It's not that her comment is ridiculous, it's that she treats members as if we don't already know there's a potentially high risk of failure.

Then she will come back and crow, if such failure occurs, as if to say 'see..  I told you so'.

Anyone who is capable of reading material objectively will appreciate Bamber's support group are not fit for purpose however well intentioned they might be. 

What happens after the submission is thrown out?  These people will still persist in the same vein without pausing to think 'ok maybe we need to go back to the drawing board and rethink our entire strategy'.  Instead they will accuse the review commission of being corrupt.  They will no doubt seek a judicial review and when that fails they will accuse the judges of being corrupt.  And perhaps unsurprisingly they will all end up in 'Liars Lobby'!  Worse still they will attempt to use the same material again and again and again but just tweak it slightly to the extent the review commission will be obliged to review it again.  If Bamber dies in the interim they will still seek a posthumous pardon. 

[guest29835]

At the end of the recent podcast Bamber's supporters refer the audience to a website run on his behalf.  If you want insulting and slanderous nonsense this seems to me to be the go-to place.  It features a section titled 'Liars Lobby' which includes police officers amongst many others.  Quite ironic given your statement above!   

The entire website is a paradise for cranks and conspiracy theorists.

As a neutral commenter on this case and keen to get to the bottom of things, I'd appreciate it if you could just fill me in.

Which of the claims made on the 'Liars Lobby' page are untrue?

Link:  https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/liars-lobby

Thanks.

[killingeve]

I'm well aware of Priti Patel. I'm not sure why you have referred to her. People probably campaign that Nigel Farage  should show more empathy towards people in dinghies. That doesn't mean he will. But it also doesn't mean that such people shouldn't campaign to that affect.

If you knew anything about the submissions, you would know that the topic of PP's interference is included within them.

And if you knew anything about how the review commission works you will know the subject of PP is completely meaningless. 

[Roch]

And if you knew anything about how the review commission works you will know the subject of PP is completely meaningless.

The subject of PP relates to her being the MP in whose constituency, certain individuals reside who have been accused wrongdoing or interference in the case. Regardless of whether the CCRC will bat it aside, the exposure of wrongdoing and any associated protective practices on the part of their MP, should be applauded. If you want to doth your cap to everyone in a position of authority, then knock yourself out. We won't stop you.