Criticism of QC"s posts on the Bamber case.

[guest29835]

The more the merrier

I love how - a bit like Adam does - she criticises people for long posts but doesn't hesitate to write long posts herself when she feels like it, including previously cutting-and-pasting reams of stuff.  I assume she expects us to read it all and if we don't, she'll screech that we must agree with her.

Admittedly, I have spent too long on this thread trying to reason with horses that can be lead to water but obstinately refuse to be sensible and drink.

[Adam]

Scipio used to write long posts. It was a bit like walking through treacle as they were littered with spelling mistakes.

Mike sometimes writes long posts.

I need to skim read QC's posts. In the middle of one of his posts this week, he wrote about how I believed Bamber shot Sheila in her bed & how he had discussed this with me extensively. My Sheila scenario has never included this.

[guest29835]

Scipio used to write long posts. It was a bit like walking through treacle as they were littered with spelling mistakes.

Mike sometimes writes long posts.

I need to skim read QC's posts. In the middle of one of his posts this week, he wrote about how I believed Bamber shot Sheila in her bed & how he had discussed this with me extensively. My Sheila scenario has never included this.

I have never said you believed that.  I think you're mistaken and need to correct this.

[JackieD]

I love how - a bit like Adam does - she criticises people for long posts but doesn't hesitate to write long posts herself when she feels like it, including previously cutting-and-pasting reams of stuff.  I assume she expects us to read it all and if we don't, she'll screech that we must agree with her.

Admittedly, I have spent too long on this thread trying to reason with horses that can be lead to water but obstinately refuse to be sensible and drink.

As I have said before your patience with Adam is off the scale and now Holly. Life’s to short

[lookout]

As I have said before your patience with Adam is off the scale and now Holly. Life’s to short

I'm fast losing patience with Adam and his inane " stances " and who's who in the guilt/ innocence stakes.

[Adam]

I have never said you believed that.  I think you're mistaken and need to correct this.

'Adam explains it by Jeremy carrying Sheila while she is asleep, but I see too many holes and uncertainties in that.  I went over this exhaustively with Adam last year (2020).'

[guest29835]

'Adam explains it by Jeremy carrying Sheila while she is asleep, but I see too many holes and uncertainties in that.  I went over this exhaustively with Adam last year (2020).'

Yes, and?  Your point, Adam?  I never claimed that you said Jeremy shot Sheila in her bed.  I know that has never been your position.  That was my idea, and even then, I don't believe that is what happened.  So I think you are mistaken.

[Rob_]

Well QC all I can say is keep posting away! and I hope one day all your posts turn into a book. Though I might want a chessboard off you first!

[guest29835]

I'm fast losing patience with Adam and his inane " stances " and who's who in the guilt/ innocence stakes.

I won't say anything more because, according to Cambridgecutie, I can't have an opinion on the case as I'm not a psychologist or psychoanalyst.

Who are these people who come on the Forum with this impertinence?

[Roch]

I won't say anything more because, according to Cambridgecutie, I can't have an opinion on the case as I'm not a psychologist or psychoanalyst.

Who are these people who come on the Forum with this impertinence?

In their current guise, Cambridge is advocating a stance whereby the case is essentially a rigid collection of professionals' expert views, summing up, and the restrictions posed by a subjective interpretation of legal process regarding further appeals.

[David1819]

I won't say anything more because, according to Cambridgecutie, I can't have an opinion on the case as I'm not a psychologist or psychoanalyst.

Who are these people who come on the Forum with this impertinence?

Next time somebody insists psychologists are useful in crime investigations, show them the video in the link below.

https://streamable.com/ea9k2f

[Steve_uk]

As for criticism of QC's posts on the case.. it may be true this member is posting long winded posts that appear to go off on a tangent - perhaps even self indulgent.

But the ones doing the criticism should start at the beginning of his posting record and work their way forward in roughly chronological order. He simply dismantles the prosecution case, with ease.

I very much doubt that the members criticising his later posts would have the bottle to tackle his earlier posts.

He does no such thing. He gives premises as fact and builds from there.

[Steve_uk]

If some posts are long, it's because I enjoy writing, the case has so many angles to it, and (this is something Steve gets right) the case requires a literary angle to understand the psychological motives of those involved in it. You can take it or leave it.  But why complain about it?  It's a bit dispiriting really.  Nobody has said (not that I expected this or demand it), 'Oh thanks QC, I really enjoyed staying up late sitting by the fire reading that....'  Instead, I get, 'How dare you write a long piece that exceeds [insert arbitrary word limit]'.

I always think it's a bit silly criticising somebody's style of posting (assuming it's innocuous), because at the end of the day, we're all volunteers.  Nobody forces anybody to read anything on here.  Think a post is too long?  Too many big words for you?  Just look at something else.  It's not as if my posts insult anybody here, or anybody at all. 

But the reason they are getting worked up is that in some of my posts, I do ask the questions and put the points that should be put, especially in regard to Julie Mugford and Colin Caffell.

The bottom line is that the guilt camp don't want to discuss the case, they just want to control the debate and they are abusive and disruptive. 

In much the same vein, Roch, you made observations about Carol Ann Lee's book.  Just like the abusive posters on here affect to be 'ordinary people who concluded that Jeremy is guilty', similarly Carol Ann Lee affects to be a good faith writer, writing from a neutral standpoint, who just so happened to conclude that Jeremy is guilty.

But it's not inocuous. In fact it's obscene to take an admission of guilt of five murders and segue into David Gwillam's and Laurence Olivier's acting ability.

[Adam]

But it's not inocuous. In fact it's obscene to take an admission of guilt of five murders and segue into David Gwillam's and Laurence Olivier's acting ability.

Surely Bamber's acting was not as bad as Sir Laurence's in 'Wild Geese 2'.