My Challenge To The Supporters

[David1819]

In 2017 I asked Jeremy via a third party about the tactics that Rivlin had prepared for the Trial.

Means little if you didn't ask directly.

I need to be a bit careful what I say about this because I have discussed it with Jeremy Bamber so I know his own views on the matter.  Obviously he was at the trial and I was not so I have to take seriously Jeremy's views on how his case was handled.  I do not want to breach confidences, but I do not think Jeremy would mind me saying that he felt that given the constraints imposed by the non disclosure of evidence his two barristers did a reasonable job.
 

[lookout]

Sad as it is, there aren't many people left from my era who can speak out about how things used to be, when there was RESPECT ! The word and its meaning is dead in the water.
Imagine, having respect for the police and the law in the 40's/ 50's and 60's ?  What happened ?

[David1819]

Thanks David1819.  I can see details about a sender but who's the author of this rambling document?

I don't know who the author is. But I believe they are correct about how the silencer became contaminated.

[guest29835]

What has any of the above got to do with the fact he never mentioned the 'movement' at the window to anyone: police, judiciary, family, Colin, Julie etc.  You're a Northern numpty and don't deserve the HS2 rail link to the South!!!!!!!!!!

Good for you, Cambridgecutie!  These Northern oiks don't know they've been born!

I think you should put together a comprehensive dossier making a case for a ban of all these Northerners from the Forum. 

[killingeve]

I don't know who the author is. But I believe they are correct about how the silencer became contaminated.

Oh I didn't get that far as I was finding it too boring!  I will go back and take another look.  Cheers buddy. 

[David1819]

Good for you, Cambridgecutie!  These Northern oiks don't know they've been born!

I think you should put together a comprehensive dossier making a case for a ban of all these Northerners from the Forum.

I think QT has been drinking late at night again. 

[Bill Robertson]

Means little if you didn't ask directly.

Tedious; I did ask directly in writing, response in writing was obtained by a person visiting JB and forwarded to me.

[killingeve]

Good for you, Cambridgecutie!  These Northern oiks don't know they've been born!

I think you should put together a comprehensive dossier making a case for a ban of all these Northerners from the Forum.

It would be interesting to see if there's any correlation between supporters and geography. 

[lookout]

I got if from here.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7638.msg366316.html#msg366316

David would you know if the CT/ their legal team have seen this ? It's a bit sickening but not entirely surprising to me anyway.

[David1819]

Tedious; I did ask directly in writing, response in writing was obtained by a person visiting JB and forwarded to me.

How can you ask directly via a third party? That's on oxymoron. Anyway do you have the letters?

[David1819]

David would you know if the CT/ their legal team have seen this ? It's a bit sickening but not entirely surprising to me anyway.

I doubt it.

[killingeve]

Sad as it is, there aren't many people left from my era who can speak out about how things used to be, when there was RESPECT ! The word and its meaning is dead in the water.
Imagine, having respect for the police and the law in the 40's/ 50's and 60's ?  What happened ?

There was also a lot of oppression in the period you mention and people had fewer freedoms and rights. 

You don't have respect for the police and the law today.  If you did you wouldn't be a Bamber supporter. 

RESPECT is a two way thing. 

[Jane]

In 2017 I asked Jeremy via a third party about the tactics that Rivlin had prepared for the Trial. The following text is agreed by Jeremy as accurate. Jeremy said that Rivlin did not discuss tactics and said that he doesn't believe that he had any. Jeremy said Rivlin would not challenge the police and when Jeremy told him that he (Rivlin) had to expose the relatives as liars Rivlin told him "I can't do that". When Jeremy expressed to Rivlin that he ought to try to show that Sheila was responsible he said that he wasn't allowed to do that because Sheila wasn't being prosecuted, he was.

Jeremy said that during the trial Rivlin didn't challenge anyone, which is apparent from reading trial testimony. Indeed, Rivlin defended himself when Drake was giving him a mild dressing down by pointing out that he had only accused one witness, Julie Mugford, of lying on oath.

Jeremy said he is convinced that Rivlin had already conceded defeat before the trial commenced and was just going through the motions.

I have no reason to doubt what YOU say, but it appears that there may be room to question what JB has said. Not for the first time has it occurred to me that his story changes according to whom he's telling it. Various posters here have shown such to be the case.

I, too have said, that JB's counsel weren't convinced of his innocence -OR were more convinced that the evidence against him outweighed what could be offered in his favour. I'm aware it shouldn't make a difference and that the Defence should do their best to defend, but maybe JB didn't make it easy for them to do so?

[lookout]

There was also a lot of oppression in the period you mention and people had fewer freedoms and rights. 

You don't have respect for the police and the law today.  If you did you wouldn't be a Bamber supporter. 

RESPECT is a two way thing.

I have little respect for many but I wouldn't show it.

[killingeve]

I think QT has been drinking late at night again.

Again?!