0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: ngb1066 on July 20, 2011, 04:58:PMQuote from: Poor Bambi on July 20, 2011, 04:50:PMQuote from: ngb1066 on July 20, 2011, 10:42:AMQuote from: Poor Bambi on July 20, 2011, 12:46:AMQuote from: modus tollens on July 19, 2011, 06:47:AMQuote from: Poor Bambi on July 18, 2011, 11:41:PMQuote from: tyler on July 18, 2011, 10:18:PMSorry to disappoint you.............but I have none!I have noticed that some posters are asking to see proof of Jeremy's innocence.My answer to that,is that it is all around the forum if you care to look and are intelligent enough to understand.Likewise,I would like to ask,Where is the proof that points to Jeremys guilt?Please feel free to get stuck in............... Bamber was innocent until proven guilty. He was PROVED guilty at trial and is one of a select few with a wholelife tarrif. The proof is in the offical transcripts of the trial and in his sentence.But if that isn't good enough for you I refer you to Bob Woffinden's excellent article on the MailOnLine website: I am sure you know that he is a recognised crime writer who previously had written articles supporting Bamber. Here is the link:www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387438/I-wrong-Jeremy-Bamber-says-crime-writer.htmlHow do I know you will just dismiss this out of hand? Just the same as all Bamber's supporters on here who refer every difficult question to answers 'all around the forum' as you did above!It seems to me that your posts have been lacking in any real argumentative substance. You let us know what your feelings are, what your attitude is and that’s about it. I admit that, like Rochford, I noticed a great similarity to that Felicity Jane blogger.I wonder if you could give us an intellectual response to the following quotation from the Wikipedia entry. “In 2005, the defence obtained reports from two medical experts, a Professor Marco Meloni and a Professor Cavalli, who expressed the view, based on the photographs, that Sheila had died no more than two hours before the time of the photographs or PC Woodcock's description of the leaking blood; this would place her death during the period Bamber was standing outside the house with the police.”Absolutely. Firstly you stated that the defence obtained these reports; I assume the two doctors were working at the behest of the defence team then as the police were carrying out no investigative work in 2005. As you surely know, most serious cases have experts on both sides, (often saying oppossing things), put up by their side to support their argument. Shall we call them friendly experts who will say what their employers wish to hear.Which I am sure is the case here.How can I be so sure I hear you ask?Well as stated this was in 2005; no doubt this 'evidence' would have been subsequently presented before the CCRC by the defence and as Jeremy is not getting a third appeal this argument cannot have carried any weight at all with the commission.And lastly I am surprised you asked such a silly question .... as the statement itself says the two doctors quote 'EXPRESSED THE VIEW' that Sheila died no more than two hours before the photos were taken. Any so called expert who walked into court and gave evidence 'expressing a view' would be slaughtered in cross examination and probably laughed out of the court. That is my view and I think I expressed it rather well. ;-)PB - I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. All expert witnesses can do is "express a view", i.e. give their opinion, on a specific piece of evidence. Expert witnesses are by definition not witnesses of fact and therefore what they say in court can only be their own view, i.e. opinion, on the evidence. I do not see how you can say they would be "slaughtered in cross examination" or "laughed out of court" if they "expressed a view" on Sheila's time of death. I accept that this is your view but I am afraid it is not based upon reality.Expert witnesses are often witnesses of fact; for example a DNA or fingerprint expert would be stating facts in court. If an expert witness testified that he was expressing a view on anything he had better expect some serious cross examination and be prepared to defend his testimony with something a lot better than he is 'expressing a view'.PB - I do not propose simply repeating points but I am afraid that you have misunderstood the nature of expert evidence. A DNA or fingerprint expert gives an opinion based upon his examination of material collected by others. The witness is not giving evidence of facts, he is expressing an opinion based upon his expert knowledge and experience. You are wrong about the cross examination of expert witnesses.The DNA or fingerprint expert will usually state facts. The evidence examined is or is not a match; that is a fact. Obviously in the case of a partial print or partial DNA match they might instead be asked to give their expert opinion. The certainly wouldn't be asked to express a view! We can agree to differ though.
Quote from: Poor Bambi on July 20, 2011, 04:50:PMQuote from: ngb1066 on July 20, 2011, 10:42:AMQuote from: Poor Bambi on July 20, 2011, 12:46:AMQuote from: modus tollens on July 19, 2011, 06:47:AMQuote from: Poor Bambi on July 18, 2011, 11:41:PMQuote from: tyler on July 18, 2011, 10:18:PMSorry to disappoint you.............but I have none!I have noticed that some posters are asking to see proof of Jeremy's innocence.My answer to that,is that it is all around the forum if you care to look and are intelligent enough to understand.Likewise,I would like to ask,Where is the proof that points to Jeremys guilt?Please feel free to get stuck in............... Bamber was innocent until proven guilty. He was PROVED guilty at trial and is one of a select few with a wholelife tarrif. The proof is in the offical transcripts of the trial and in his sentence.But if that isn't good enough for you I refer you to Bob Woffinden's excellent article on the MailOnLine website: I am sure you know that he is a recognised crime writer who previously had written articles supporting Bamber. Here is the link:www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387438/I-wrong-Jeremy-Bamber-says-crime-writer.htmlHow do I know you will just dismiss this out of hand? Just the same as all Bamber's supporters on here who refer every difficult question to answers 'all around the forum' as you did above!It seems to me that your posts have been lacking in any real argumentative substance. You let us know what your feelings are, what your attitude is and that’s about it. I admit that, like Rochford, I noticed a great similarity to that Felicity Jane blogger.I wonder if you could give us an intellectual response to the following quotation from the Wikipedia entry. “In 2005, the defence obtained reports from two medical experts, a Professor Marco Meloni and a Professor Cavalli, who expressed the view, based on the photographs, that Sheila had died no more than two hours before the time of the photographs or PC Woodcock's description of the leaking blood; this would place her death during the period Bamber was standing outside the house with the police.”Absolutely. Firstly you stated that the defence obtained these reports; I assume the two doctors were working at the behest of the defence team then as the police were carrying out no investigative work in 2005. As you surely know, most serious cases have experts on both sides, (often saying oppossing things), put up by their side to support their argument. Shall we call them friendly experts who will say what their employers wish to hear.Which I am sure is the case here.How can I be so sure I hear you ask?Well as stated this was in 2005; no doubt this 'evidence' would have been subsequently presented before the CCRC by the defence and as Jeremy is not getting a third appeal this argument cannot have carried any weight at all with the commission.And lastly I am surprised you asked such a silly question .... as the statement itself says the two doctors quote 'EXPRESSED THE VIEW' that Sheila died no more than two hours before the photos were taken. Any so called expert who walked into court and gave evidence 'expressing a view' would be slaughtered in cross examination and probably laughed out of the court. That is my view and I think I expressed it rather well. ;-)PB - I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. All expert witnesses can do is "express a view", i.e. give their opinion, on a specific piece of evidence. Expert witnesses are by definition not witnesses of fact and therefore what they say in court can only be their own view, i.e. opinion, on the evidence. I do not see how you can say they would be "slaughtered in cross examination" or "laughed out of court" if they "expressed a view" on Sheila's time of death. I accept that this is your view but I am afraid it is not based upon reality.Expert witnesses are often witnesses of fact; for example a DNA or fingerprint expert would be stating facts in court. If an expert witness testified that he was expressing a view on anything he had better expect some serious cross examination and be prepared to defend his testimony with something a lot better than he is 'expressing a view'.PB - I do not propose simply repeating points but I am afraid that you have misunderstood the nature of expert evidence. A DNA or fingerprint expert gives an opinion based upon his examination of material collected by others. The witness is not giving evidence of facts, he is expressing an opinion based upon his expert knowledge and experience. You are wrong about the cross examination of expert witnesses.
Quote from: ngb1066 on July 20, 2011, 10:42:AMQuote from: Poor Bambi on July 20, 2011, 12:46:AMQuote from: modus tollens on July 19, 2011, 06:47:AMQuote from: Poor Bambi on July 18, 2011, 11:41:PMQuote from: tyler on July 18, 2011, 10:18:PMSorry to disappoint you.............but I have none!I have noticed that some posters are asking to see proof of Jeremy's innocence.My answer to that,is that it is all around the forum if you care to look and are intelligent enough to understand.Likewise,I would like to ask,Where is the proof that points to Jeremys guilt?Please feel free to get stuck in............... Bamber was innocent until proven guilty. He was PROVED guilty at trial and is one of a select few with a wholelife tarrif. The proof is in the offical transcripts of the trial and in his sentence.But if that isn't good enough for you I refer you to Bob Woffinden's excellent article on the MailOnLine website: I am sure you know that he is a recognised crime writer who previously had written articles supporting Bamber. Here is the link:www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387438/I-wrong-Jeremy-Bamber-says-crime-writer.htmlHow do I know you will just dismiss this out of hand? Just the same as all Bamber's supporters on here who refer every difficult question to answers 'all around the forum' as you did above!It seems to me that your posts have been lacking in any real argumentative substance. You let us know what your feelings are, what your attitude is and that’s about it. I admit that, like Rochford, I noticed a great similarity to that Felicity Jane blogger.I wonder if you could give us an intellectual response to the following quotation from the Wikipedia entry. “In 2005, the defence obtained reports from two medical experts, a Professor Marco Meloni and a Professor Cavalli, who expressed the view, based on the photographs, that Sheila had died no more than two hours before the time of the photographs or PC Woodcock's description of the leaking blood; this would place her death during the period Bamber was standing outside the house with the police.”Absolutely. Firstly you stated that the defence obtained these reports; I assume the two doctors were working at the behest of the defence team then as the police were carrying out no investigative work in 2005. As you surely know, most serious cases have experts on both sides, (often saying oppossing things), put up by their side to support their argument. Shall we call them friendly experts who will say what their employers wish to hear.Which I am sure is the case here.How can I be so sure I hear you ask?Well as stated this was in 2005; no doubt this 'evidence' would have been subsequently presented before the CCRC by the defence and as Jeremy is not getting a third appeal this argument cannot have carried any weight at all with the commission.And lastly I am surprised you asked such a silly question .... as the statement itself says the two doctors quote 'EXPRESSED THE VIEW' that Sheila died no more than two hours before the photos were taken. Any so called expert who walked into court and gave evidence 'expressing a view' would be slaughtered in cross examination and probably laughed out of the court. That is my view and I think I expressed it rather well. ;-)PB - I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. All expert witnesses can do is "express a view", i.e. give their opinion, on a specific piece of evidence. Expert witnesses are by definition not witnesses of fact and therefore what they say in court can only be their own view, i.e. opinion, on the evidence. I do not see how you can say they would be "slaughtered in cross examination" or "laughed out of court" if they "expressed a view" on Sheila's time of death. I accept that this is your view but I am afraid it is not based upon reality.Expert witnesses are often witnesses of fact; for example a DNA or fingerprint expert would be stating facts in court. If an expert witness testified that he was expressing a view on anything he had better expect some serious cross examination and be prepared to defend his testimony with something a lot better than he is 'expressing a view'.
Quote from: Poor Bambi on July 20, 2011, 12:46:AMQuote from: modus tollens on July 19, 2011, 06:47:AMQuote from: Poor Bambi on July 18, 2011, 11:41:PMQuote from: tyler on July 18, 2011, 10:18:PMSorry to disappoint you.............but I have none!I have noticed that some posters are asking to see proof of Jeremy's innocence.My answer to that,is that it is all around the forum if you care to look and are intelligent enough to understand.Likewise,I would like to ask,Where is the proof that points to Jeremys guilt?Please feel free to get stuck in............... Bamber was innocent until proven guilty. He was PROVED guilty at trial and is one of a select few with a wholelife tarrif. The proof is in the offical transcripts of the trial and in his sentence.But if that isn't good enough for you I refer you to Bob Woffinden's excellent article on the MailOnLine website: I am sure you know that he is a recognised crime writer who previously had written articles supporting Bamber. Here is the link:www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387438/I-wrong-Jeremy-Bamber-says-crime-writer.htmlHow do I know you will just dismiss this out of hand? Just the same as all Bamber's supporters on here who refer every difficult question to answers 'all around the forum' as you did above!It seems to me that your posts have been lacking in any real argumentative substance. You let us know what your feelings are, what your attitude is and that’s about it. I admit that, like Rochford, I noticed a great similarity to that Felicity Jane blogger.I wonder if you could give us an intellectual response to the following quotation from the Wikipedia entry. “In 2005, the defence obtained reports from two medical experts, a Professor Marco Meloni and a Professor Cavalli, who expressed the view, based on the photographs, that Sheila had died no more than two hours before the time of the photographs or PC Woodcock's description of the leaking blood; this would place her death during the period Bamber was standing outside the house with the police.”Absolutely. Firstly you stated that the defence obtained these reports; I assume the two doctors were working at the behest of the defence team then as the police were carrying out no investigative work in 2005. As you surely know, most serious cases have experts on both sides, (often saying oppossing things), put up by their side to support their argument. Shall we call them friendly experts who will say what their employers wish to hear.Which I am sure is the case here.How can I be so sure I hear you ask?Well as stated this was in 2005; no doubt this 'evidence' would have been subsequently presented before the CCRC by the defence and as Jeremy is not getting a third appeal this argument cannot have carried any weight at all with the commission.And lastly I am surprised you asked such a silly question .... as the statement itself says the two doctors quote 'EXPRESSED THE VIEW' that Sheila died no more than two hours before the photos were taken. Any so called expert who walked into court and gave evidence 'expressing a view' would be slaughtered in cross examination and probably laughed out of the court. That is my view and I think I expressed it rather well. ;-)PB - I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. All expert witnesses can do is "express a view", i.e. give their opinion, on a specific piece of evidence. Expert witnesses are by definition not witnesses of fact and therefore what they say in court can only be their own view, i.e. opinion, on the evidence. I do not see how you can say they would be "slaughtered in cross examination" or "laughed out of court" if they "expressed a view" on Sheila's time of death. I accept that this is your view but I am afraid it is not based upon reality.
Quote from: modus tollens on July 19, 2011, 06:47:AMQuote from: Poor Bambi on July 18, 2011, 11:41:PMQuote from: tyler on July 18, 2011, 10:18:PMSorry to disappoint you.............but I have none!I have noticed that some posters are asking to see proof of Jeremy's innocence.My answer to that,is that it is all around the forum if you care to look and are intelligent enough to understand.Likewise,I would like to ask,Where is the proof that points to Jeremys guilt?Please feel free to get stuck in............... Bamber was innocent until proven guilty. He was PROVED guilty at trial and is one of a select few with a wholelife tarrif. The proof is in the offical transcripts of the trial and in his sentence.But if that isn't good enough for you I refer you to Bob Woffinden's excellent article on the MailOnLine website: I am sure you know that he is a recognised crime writer who previously had written articles supporting Bamber. Here is the link:www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387438/I-wrong-Jeremy-Bamber-says-crime-writer.htmlHow do I know you will just dismiss this out of hand? Just the same as all Bamber's supporters on here who refer every difficult question to answers 'all around the forum' as you did above!It seems to me that your posts have been lacking in any real argumentative substance. You let us know what your feelings are, what your attitude is and that’s about it. I admit that, like Rochford, I noticed a great similarity to that Felicity Jane blogger.I wonder if you could give us an intellectual response to the following quotation from the Wikipedia entry. “In 2005, the defence obtained reports from two medical experts, a Professor Marco Meloni and a Professor Cavalli, who expressed the view, based on the photographs, that Sheila had died no more than two hours before the time of the photographs or PC Woodcock's description of the leaking blood; this would place her death during the period Bamber was standing outside the house with the police.”Absolutely. Firstly you stated that the defence obtained these reports; I assume the two doctors were working at the behest of the defence team then as the police were carrying out no investigative work in 2005. As you surely know, most serious cases have experts on both sides, (often saying oppossing things), put up by their side to support their argument. Shall we call them friendly experts who will say what their employers wish to hear.Which I am sure is the case here.How can I be so sure I hear you ask?Well as stated this was in 2005; no doubt this 'evidence' would have been subsequently presented before the CCRC by the defence and as Jeremy is not getting a third appeal this argument cannot have carried any weight at all with the commission.And lastly I am surprised you asked such a silly question .... as the statement itself says the two doctors quote 'EXPRESSED THE VIEW' that Sheila died no more than two hours before the photos were taken. Any so called expert who walked into court and gave evidence 'expressing a view' would be slaughtered in cross examination and probably laughed out of the court. That is my view and I think I expressed it rather well. ;-)
Quote from: Poor Bambi on July 18, 2011, 11:41:PMQuote from: tyler on July 18, 2011, 10:18:PMSorry to disappoint you.............but I have none!I have noticed that some posters are asking to see proof of Jeremy's innocence.My answer to that,is that it is all around the forum if you care to look and are intelligent enough to understand.Likewise,I would like to ask,Where is the proof that points to Jeremys guilt?Please feel free to get stuck in............... Bamber was innocent until proven guilty. He was PROVED guilty at trial and is one of a select few with a wholelife tarrif. The proof is in the offical transcripts of the trial and in his sentence.But if that isn't good enough for you I refer you to Bob Woffinden's excellent article on the MailOnLine website: I am sure you know that he is a recognised crime writer who previously had written articles supporting Bamber. Here is the link:www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387438/I-wrong-Jeremy-Bamber-says-crime-writer.htmlHow do I know you will just dismiss this out of hand? Just the same as all Bamber's supporters on here who refer every difficult question to answers 'all around the forum' as you did above!It seems to me that your posts have been lacking in any real argumentative substance. You let us know what your feelings are, what your attitude is and that’s about it. I admit that, like Rochford, I noticed a great similarity to that Felicity Jane blogger.I wonder if you could give us an intellectual response to the following quotation from the Wikipedia entry. “In 2005, the defence obtained reports from two medical experts, a Professor Marco Meloni and a Professor Cavalli, who expressed the view, based on the photographs, that Sheila had died no more than two hours before the time of the photographs or PC Woodcock's description of the leaking blood; this would place her death during the period Bamber was standing outside the house with the police.”
Quote from: tyler on July 18, 2011, 10:18:PMSorry to disappoint you.............but I have none!I have noticed that some posters are asking to see proof of Jeremy's innocence.My answer to that,is that it is all around the forum if you care to look and are intelligent enough to understand.Likewise,I would like to ask,Where is the proof that points to Jeremys guilt?Please feel free to get stuck in............... Bamber was innocent until proven guilty. He was PROVED guilty at trial and is one of a select few with a wholelife tarrif. The proof is in the offical transcripts of the trial and in his sentence.But if that isn't good enough for you I refer you to Bob Woffinden's excellent article on the MailOnLine website: I am sure you know that he is a recognised crime writer who previously had written articles supporting Bamber. Here is the link:www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387438/I-wrong-Jeremy-Bamber-says-crime-writer.htmlHow do I know you will just dismiss this out of hand? Just the same as all Bamber's supporters on here who refer every difficult question to answers 'all around the forum' as you did above!
Sorry to disappoint you.............but I have none!I have noticed that some posters are asking to see proof of Jeremy's innocence.My answer to that,is that it is all around the forum if you care to look and are intelligent enough to understand.Likewise,I would like to ask,Where is the proof that points to Jeremys guilt?Please feel free to get stuck in...............
There are some you cannot teach, ngb. There comes a point where you must just leave the willingly blind to fumble aling with their own white sticks if they refuse help.
Quote from: grahame on July 21, 2011, 10:40:AMThere are some you cannot teach, ngb. There comes a point where you must just leave the willingly blind to fumble aling with their own white sticks if they refuse help.I don't think you're being very excellent to me with that comment!<Stamps foot> Can't we all just get 'aling'?
