Counting Conspiracies.

[lookout]

They count themself not me!

You don't make sense.

[guest29835]

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

The Post Office scandal was based on faulty software. 

No one is denying miscarriages of justice occur and most contain similar features.  But in Bamber's case we are being asked to believe the unbelievable: that very large numbers of unrelated individuals either conspired against Bamber or were incompetent/negligent.

I've got a second-hand car to sell.  Interested?

As I have emphasised to Roch, it is always tempting to the ego to seize on human malignancy as an explanation for miscarriages of justice, but we should only do so very reluctantly (and in sorrow more than anger), and only with the benefit of very solid evidence.  More often than not, the necessary evidence is absent. 

Equally, even when there is evidence of corruption, it is normally a wiser legal strategy to rely on mistake as the explanation.  This is because mistake is easier to prove than corruption.  I know how the law and the courts work, and I am sure NGB1066 may give his support to this.  When you start alleging corruption, you make your task harder.  You raise the bar of proof when you should be trying to reach it, and you'd better have the evidence behind you or you're in trouble. 

But even someone as conservative as I am cannot dismiss the Post Office Horzon scandal as a mere software glitch.  If that's really what you think, then I don't know what to say to you.

[guest29835]

Thanks for taking the time to rebut QC, don't tell him but I can't even be bothered to read his verbose reply and gave up after the first 5000 words of missing the point.

I tried flattering him at first as he can be even handed and make good points but it is clear he will dance on the head of pin, create straw men, invert known facts and generally bore the living daylights out of anyone he takes a dislike to which is anybody that has the temerity to disagree with him even once.

Just scroll past. He isn't fooling anyone with a brain.

This is rubbish.

Your own post was long and you have expressed your points clumsily and with indifference to accuracy.

As I read it, it became clear to me that you believe in most of what it contains and you are grinding an axe with Jeremy in mind.  It is also cheap to take shots at his campaign.  I have made critical noises about them myself and don't agree with everything they say, but your attitude is one of contempt and scorn towards them.

Whether or not all that is a true judgement of you, I responded to what I saw in a civil and polite manner and everything I say about the case itself is fair and accurate.

What about the allegation that Jeremy date raped the girl from the Chequers?  Is that fake too?

Could you confirm when Jeremy Bamber was convicted of this crime?  In which court was a fair and open trial heard that convicted him? 

Indeed, but you can add the occupants of CA7 because they were dispatched after the information received from Nevill and before Jb called, unless you want to try and argue that they wouldn't be told why they were going to WHF, just to be argumentative!

Which is not what I said.

Precisely. And if I respond it will be followed by another half million words and another until I give up and he thinks he has proven his superior intellect so I'm saving time and effort by just ignoring him.

Which is not an argument.

Oh yes, his genius theory that 4 bullet casings got kicked from the kitchen and all the way upstairs to the bedroom was the moment I dropped to my knees and wept, realising I, a mere mortal could never hope to emulate or even understand anything the great man ever said as he clearly operates at a level above all others!

Which is not what I said.

[guest29835]

One cannot escape the thought that, for the most part, your intention is not simply to play devil's advocate, but to aggressively argue, lengthily, against whatever was posted last.

This is an open discussion forum, not chit-chat at an adult education 'Try Knitting' day.

My arguments are lengthy because the post I responded to was lengthy.  Regardless of this, sometimes lengthy posts are necessary anyway in order to address detail or convey civility and/or make nuanced points.  Got a complaint about it?

If you find me aggressive, then you will need to highlight particular sentences or passages because you've lost me there.  Besides which, the post I responded to was impertinent, inaccurate, scornful and clumsy, so a touch of verbal aggression from me may be expected.

My interest is in legal justice and due process, that's what animates me, not half-baked impressions and opinions from flatmates and Essex coppers about who said what to who over a beer or a glass or two, cooked breakfasts and grinning at funerals.  Though I emphasise again: if he did it, he deserves to be punished and perhaps should have been hanged.  I have no sympathy for mass murderers.  I can't put that to you more clearly, short of drawing you a picture.

[JackieD]

This is an open discussion forum, not chit-chat at an adult education 'Try Knitting' day.

My arguments are lengthy because the post I responded to was lengthy.  Regardless of this, sometimes lengthy posts are necessary anyway in order to address detail or convey civility and/or make nuanced points.  Got a complaint about it?

If you find me aggressive, then you will need to highlight particular sentences or passages because you've lost me there.  Besides which, the post I responded to was impertinent, inaccurate, scornful and clumsy, so a touch of verbal aggression from me may be expected.

My interest is in legal justice and due process, that's what animates me, not half-baked impressions and opinions from flatmates and Essex coppers about who said what to who over a beer or a glass or two, cooked breakfasts and grinning at funerals.  Though I emphasise again: if he did it, he deserves to be punished and perhaps should have been hanged.  I have no sympathy for mass murderers.  I can't put that to you more clearly, short of drawing you a picture.

Perfect and concise

[killingeve]

This is an open discussion forum, not chit-chat at an adult education 'Try Knitting' day.

My arguments are lengthy because the post I responded to was lengthy.  Regardless of this, sometimes lengthy posts are necessary anyway in order to address detail or convey civility and/or make nuanced points.  Got a complaint about it?

If you find me aggressive, then you will need to highlight particular sentences or passages because you've lost me there.  Besides which, the post I responded to was impertinent, inaccurate, scornful and clumsy, so a touch of verbal aggression from me may be expected.

My interest is in legal justice and due process, that's what animates me, not half-baked impressions and opinions from flatmates and Essex coppers about who said what to who over a beer or a glass or two, cooked breakfasts and grinning at funerals.  Though I emphasise again: if he did it, he deserves to be punished and perhaps should have been hanged.  I have no sympathy for mass murderers.  I can't put that to you more clearly, short of drawing you a picture.

In which case I would recommend you study the scientific and physical evidence and stay away from podcasts by the CT!

[guest29835]

In which case I would recommend you study the scientific and physical evidence and stay away from podcasts by the CT!

I have studied the facts and evidence and I have repeatedly expressed scepticism about claims from Jeremy and his Campaign Team.  I have no axe to grind, other than a belief in legal justice and scorn for people like you who carry yourself arrogantly on here but don't understand the case nearly as well as you think you do.

[lookout]

Those podcasts are taken from legal documentation and NOT something cobbled up by the CT.

[killingeve]

I have studied the facts and evidence and I have repeatedly expressed scepticism about claims from Jeremy and his Campaign Team.  I have no axe to grind, other than a belief in legal justice and scorn for people like you who carry yourself arrogantly on here but don't understand the case nearly as well as you think you do.

Where have I claimed any sort of understanding of the case?  It was you who was ridiculing those who wish to debate certain aspects of the case, referring them to 'Try Knitting' day.  I understand at one time the word 'knitting' was a banable offence!

[Adam]

Those podcasts are taken from legal documentation and NOT something cobbled up by the CT.

It's never been any other way.

[lookout]

It's never been any other way.

CC thinks so---then again she knows everything.

[killingeve]

I've got a second-hand car to sell.  Interested?

As I have emphasised to Roch, it is always tempting to the ego to seize on human malignancy as an explanation for miscarriages of justice, but we should only do so very reluctantly (and in sorrow more than anger), and only with the benefit of very solid evidence.  More often than not, the necessary evidence is absent. 

Equally, even when there is evidence of corruption, it is normally a wiser legal strategy to rely on mistake as the explanation.  This is because mistake is easier to prove than corruption.  I know how the law and the courts work, and I am sure NGB1066 may give his support to this.  When you start alleging corruption, you make your task harder.  You raise the bar of proof when you should be trying to reach it, and you'd better have the evidence behind you or you're in trouble. 

But even someone as conservative as I am cannot dismiss the Post Office Horzon scandal as a mere software glitch.  If that's really what you think, then I don't know what to say to you.

If not faulty software then what do you believe was the cause of these wrongful convictions?

I have worked in large organisations where millions have been thrown at IT projects only for them never to be fully implemented because they couldn't iron out all the faults in the initial rollout.  By the time they had fixes for the faults the software was out of date Another fine example is the NHS https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/18/nhs-records-system-10bn

The senior management of ICL/Fuijitsu probably knew it wasn't fit for purpose but did not want to incur financial penalties for going over time so signed it off. 

[killingeve]

CC thinks so---then again she knows everything.

I know a lot about some things but little about most. 

[Munksa]

Those podcasts are taken from legal documentation and NOT something cobbled up by the CT.

True but with interpretation of their own!

[Armchair Detective]

Those podcasts are taken from legal documentation and NOT something cobbled up by the CT.

My favourite is when they trot out the woman that had a few holidays at the caravan park and waved to Jeremy sometimes.