Stephen Brian Smith.

[Jane]

Sorry Jane but this is a gross misrepresentation of Mike's work on the case. And bad advice to boot.  Mike's research, questions and theories should be viewed individually; and not simply tarred with some great brush of judgemental disdain.  Mike was extremely intelligent in my opinion; and he had experience first hand of corruptive police practices. The breadth and depth of his research on the case deserves respect, even if some of his claims did go well awry. I also think it fair to say that he was not a well man, for a long time and he deteriorated considerably.

Sometimes Mike was plain wrong but other times, Mike was sending a message.. if it's OK for the police to 'bend' the evidence.. then here is some of their own medicine.

It seems that both JB and MT's trial judge would agree with your assessment of MT's IQ! He loved to tell us that JB called him a "clever B*****d", and the trial judge said similar -using rather different terminology, of course!- but neither could be said to be overtly complimentary, more back-handed.

I believe, unquestionably, that MT was a good friend to JB -with the reservation that he probably had his eye on a share of the proceeds from potential book/film which would, naturally follow on from JB's release, on the back of which he allowed his imagination to run wild- but we are, after all, speaking of someone who had lived his life, with no great success!, on the wrong side of the law. I have no idea why it was that JB 'dumped' him, but it might be worth considering that one of his "wackier" ideas could, ultimately, have led to a truth being revealed, JB would sooner not have been? Whatever, I don't doubt that MT would have been very hurt by the cut off............but it didn't stop his earlier devotion from getting the better of him, and he'd had enough experience of courtroom/legal 'speak' to word his claims in a way which was entirely believable.

Conscious of the enormous affection in which MT is held by many here, who also believe his claims to be true, I won't list those I believe to be untrue, but I have ask how it was that the huge number of those whose job it was to uphold the law, saw fit to 'offload' to someone who'd spent his entire life -mostly unsuccessfully!- breaking it, only to have attempts made on his life by the Secret Service, because of what he, allegedly, knew?



 

[Zoso]

Now you have gone from the rude childish persona to the ridiculous and absurd.

And yet your the one trying to provoke an argument - you have no self concept and are EVERYTHING you accuse others of being. You are the biggest foot stamper on the forum and if you don't get your way, you're off complaining to moderators. Stand back from a mirror and take a long hard look at yourself and try smiling once in a while. Stop taking yourself and your posts so seriously, I can guarantee, no one else does. 

[Jane]

And yet your the one trying to provoke an argument - you have no self concept and are EVERYTHING you accuse others of being. You are the biggest foot stamper on the forum and if you don't get your way, you're off complaining to moderators. Stand back from a mirror and take a long hard look at yourself and try smiling once in a while. Stop taking yourself and your posts so seriously, I can guarantee, no one else does.

Wonder if he's seen/witnessed "The Mirror Crack'd"?

[Roch]

Wonder if he's seen/witnessed "The Mirror Crack'd"?

I've been watching 80's Agatha Christie episodes. Haven't reached that one yet.

[Jane]

I've been watching 80's Agatha Christie episodes. Haven't reached that one yet.

There are two versions. The original sits around Miss Marples played by an actor whose name escapes me. The newer one is more about the famous actress played by Elizabeth Taylor and I think Joan Dickson plays Miss Marples.

[Bubo bubo]

And yet your the one trying to provoke an argument - you have no self concept and are EVERYTHING you accuse others of being. You are the biggest foot stamper on the forum and if you don't get your way, you're off complaining to moderators. Stand back from a mirror and take a long hard look at yourself and try smiling once in a while. Stop taking yourself and your posts so seriously, I can guarantee, no one else does.

Of course I am but you just wish to play games. It is up to you to provide a reasoned counter argument if you disagree with my position, rather than indulge in nonsensical frivolous comments. You may call it being argumentative whereas I am inviting you to a debate with which you fail to engage. You do yourself no favours by refusing to engage, which tends to suggest that you have no answers to the evidence I present. I have at times complained to moderators but not about you or as many times as others I could name.

I take the possible MOJ of JB very seriously not just at a personal level for him who may have had his life taken away but also for the overall importance of our Criminal Justice system as a whole and whilst I may sometimes  engage in a joke or two I prefer to engage with the evidence as I see it. You on the other hand refuse to engage in anything other than parroting the Crown's case which you do not defend by producing any cogent arguments that challenge my views.

The reason this case has dragged on for over thirty years is IMO because of the State wishes to protect itself from the seismic repercussions the would shake the Judicial system to its core if it was proved that he was framed by the police and his case was deliberately stalled on numerous occasions by using that very same system to keep him imprisoned.

[Roch]

There are two versions. The original sits around Miss Marples played by an actor whose name escapes me. The newer one is more about the famous actress played by Elizabeth Taylor and I think Joan Dickson plays Miss Marples.

Hickson .

[Jane]

Hickson .

Ooops!!!!

[Jane]

Of course I am but you just wish to play games. It is up to you to provide a reasoned counter argument if you disagree with my position, rather than indulge in nonsensical frivolous comments. You may call it being argumentative whereas I am inviting you to a debate with which you fail to engage. You do yourself no favours by refusing to engage, which tends to suggest that you have no answers to the evidence I present. I have at times complained to moderators but not about you or as many times as others I could name.

I take the possible MOJ of JB very seriously not just at a personal level for him who may have had his life taken away but also for the overall importance of our Criminal Justice system as a whole and whilst I may sometimes  engage in a joke or two I prefer to engage with the evidence as I see it. You on the other hand refuse to engage in anything other than parroting the Crown's case which you do not defend by producing any cogent arguments that challenge my views.

The reason this case has dragged on for over thirty years is IMO because of the State wishes to protect itself from the seismic repercussions the would shake the Judicial system to its core if it was proved that he was framed by the police and his case was deliberately stalled on numerous occasions by using that very same system to keep him imprisoned.

To which end, some supporters -Okay, YOU- concoct more and more ludicrous scenarios/evidence as you see it? actually, unworthy of "cogent argument"/challenge, in the hope that you MIGHT get one right/cause someone to sit up and take notice. When they fail to do so, you resort to provocation. It's very possible that you long to "shake the Judicial system to its core" and are using the Bamber case as a platform. Trouble is, all you have is a multitude of 'ifs' -albeit, presented as facts- to back up your theories.

[Bubo bubo]

To which end, some supporters -Okay, YOU- concoct more and more ludicrous scenarios/evidence as you see it? actually, unworthy of "cogent argument"/challenge, in the hope that you MIGHT get one right/cause someone to sit up and take notice. When they fail to do so, you resort to provocation. It's very possible that you long to "shake the Judicial system to its core" and are using the Bamber case as a platform. Trouble is, all you have is a multitude of 'ifs' -albeit, presented as facts- to back up your theories.

I do not wish to shake the system to its core. I am concerned about true justice. In that case perhaps you would like to explain why there is a 'false timeline' and why it was constructed. If people do not address the questions I pose or the suggestions I make, I take the view that there is in their mind, either that,  there is no merit in the point raised or that they cannot produce a reasoned argument to counter it.

Such responses to my way of thinking suggests that I am correct in my assertion. The reason I re-challenge is not because they just ignore it and give a simple frivolous reply but because they are anti JB and cannot address issues which suggest he is innocent.

Frivolous responses to serious questions might be considered goading since there is no considered response only childish sarcasm.

I challenge both you and Zozo to explain the 'false timeline'

[Steve_uk]

I do not wish to shake the system to its core. I am concerned about true justice. In that case perhaps you would like to explain why there is a 'false timeline' and why it was constructed. If people do not address the questions I pose or the suggestions I make, I take the view that there is in their mind, either that,  there is no merit in the point raised or that they cannot produce a reasoned argument to counter it.

Such responses to my way of thinking suggests that I am correct in my assertion. The reason I re-challenge is not because they just ignore it and give a simple frivolous reply but because they are anti JB and cannot address issues which suggest he is innocent.

Frivolous responses to serious questions might be considered goading since there is no considered response only childish sarcasm.

I challenge both you and Zozo to explain the 'false timeline'

You don't really explain your posts when challenged. Something about blue socks or PC Bird. I'm still in the dark after all this time. As far as the subject of this thread is concerned, I thought the allegation was that it was Sheila Caffell testing the murder weapon outside that evening. Any other explanation I can't see is exculpatory for Jeremy Bamber.

[Bubo bubo]

You don't really explain your posts when challenged. Something about blue socks or PC Bird. I'm still in the dark after all this time. As far as the subject of this thread is concerned, I thought the allegation was that it was Sheila Caffell testing the murder weapon outside that evening. Any other explanation I can't see is exculpatory for Jeremy Bamber.

I find it strange that a man of your supposed intellect can use such an excuse to avoid addressing the questions I pose.

It was impossible to find the Blue socks in situ 31 days after the event. Bird made two witness statements on the same day listing his finds. One contains only the blue socks (used at trial) the other contains seven items related to the fire debris (Presented to COLP enquiry). Explain,

[Steve_uk]

I find it strange that a man of your supposed intellect can use such an excuse to avoid addressing the questions I pose.

It was impossible to find the Blue socks in situ 31 days after the event. Bird made two witness statements on the same day listing his finds. One contains only the blue socks (used at trial) the other contains seven items related to the fire debris (Presented to COLP enquiry). Explain,

I can't see how the inconsistencies in PC Bird's statements (which I don't have) affect the guilt or innocence of Jeremy Bamber.

[Bubo bubo]

I can't see how the inconsistencies in PC Bird's statements (which I don't have) affects the guilt or innocence of Jeremy Bamber.

It still needs an explanation. One statement is in the archives the other is discussed in detail in the transcript of his COLP interview. Why two statements? I say it is because they were trying to hide the fire debris removed from the AGA after they had moved NB. They ditched the incriminating items but had to have a record of the blue socks because they appeared in the bedroom scene photo. Explain why you think he made two different statements on the same day.

It suggests they were manipulating crime scene evidence to enable conviction and to hide the fact that there was a coverup as well as a framing.

[Steve_uk]

It still needs an explanation. One statement is in the archives the other is discussed in detail in the transcript of his COLP interview. Why two statements? I say it is because they were trying to hide the fire debris removed from the AGA after they had moved NB. They ditched the incriminating items but had to have a record of the blue socks because they appeared in the bedroom scene photo. Explain why you think he made two different statements on the same day.

It suggests they were manipulating crime scene evidence to enable conviction and to hide the fact that there was a coverup as well as a framing.

But there was no need for a cover up at that stage. Their boss, DCI Thomas "Taff" Jones was satisfied that the whole tragedy was "a domestic" and that was that.