Question for NGB

[grahameb]

Don't mention me then Bob you are looking stupider by the minute

Why don't you get back to smiting random people

I do like the way I seem to have riled you guilty lot

Firstly Ngb, then Simon, I bet you can't wait for the next important person to be announced who is helping Jeremy

"stupider" ............ I think you mean, more stupid?

Hey Vic. That's reader's job.

[grahameb]

Neil,

As far as I can tell, posters on both sides have a good deal of respect for you.
You conduct yourself well, and try to be reasoned in your responses.

Unfortunately, Jackie Preece seems to have hijacked you as her pet.

If I was you I would be a tad embarrassed about that. In particular, I suspect you are a bit embarrassed by a lot of the stuff she posts on "your behalf", but understandably feel unable to comment.

But let's see if we can set that aside for a moment...

I would like to know... assuming you have had access to more evidence than most of us... how certain are you that Jeremy Bamber is innocent?

Thanks,
Bob.

I have reported this abusive post/thread to the mods due the outrageous personal attacks it makes on NGB and Jackie and the flagrant breach of forum rules it represents.

Oh come on... Jackie has just done exactly what Bob accuses her of in this thread. But if NGB is indeed "working 24/7 on Jeremy's case" he can only toe the JB line can't he? So the question itself is a little unfair. Maybe NGB should consider whether posting on a forum such as this sits well with his other work.

I disagree concerning Jackie. She was deliberately provoked. It was Bob who started this thread in order to snipe at Jackie and other members. Moreover his post was unnecessary as he knows already what ngb's position is concerning Jeremy.

[grahameb]

Calling somebody their pet when there is no substance to the claim is insulting in my book and in many other peoples too.

It's insulting to jackie, but not to NGB.

Yes I agree. It is insulting to Jackie. But it is also casting doubt upon ngb's character.

[chochokeira]

Calling somebody their pet when there is no substance to the claim is insulting in my book and in many other peoples too.

It's insulting to jackie, but not to NGB.

I disagree. Bob's post is a highly offensive attempt to smear and belittle a much respected mod, NGB, as Jackie's 'pet'. It makes no difference that Bob craftily tries to get himself off the hook by claiming to respect NGB and by attempting to shift the focus of his attack largely to Jackie, he still smears NGB by association with the claim that he is 'Jackie's pet' - which NGB most certainly is not.

This is also yet another attempt by Bob to inflame bad feeling among forum members and start a row. If Bob believes he has a bona fide complaint he should make this via the complaints system.

I accept that the same applies to me, I should not have vented my anger by responding with a personal attack against Bob. I should have confined my response to the complaints system. I apologise for this and will accept a ban if applied without a murmur.

[chochokeira]

Bob is also attempting to cause bad feeling between two forum members who are assisting Jeremy to fight for an Appeal. It's all too clear what Bob's game is here.

[ngb1066]

Quote from Bob:

I would like to know... assuming you have had access to more evidence than most of us... how certain are you that Jeremy Bamber is innocent?

Bob  - Most of the evidence I have seen is posted on this forum.  I have had access to additional evidence as a result of my contact with Jeremy, but I formed my view on the case before I had seen any of the additional evidence.  I have been interested in the case since the time of the events and I followed the trial and the 2002 appeal with interest.  I only started looking at the evidence in detail when I discovered this forum, in January this year.  I read through the material posted by Mike and analysed the evidence in the way I would have done if I had been instructed in the case.  I started to post here on matters where I felt my own experience, in particular in relation to firearms, might enable me to add something to the debate.

As a result of my posts Jackie contacted me and suggested that I should write to Jeremy.  I did not do this at first, but when I felt I had read enough to form a firm view I wrote to Jeremy and received a reply.  Jeremy subsequently put me on his telephone list, which has enabled us to discuss the case on a regular basis.

The starting point for my approach to the case is that Jeremy Bamber did not receive a fair trial as a result of material evidence being withheld from the defence.  There were lines of enquiry which would undoubtedly have been pursued by Jeremy's counsel at trial had they had information which has subsequently become available.  The resistance by the prosecution to providing full disclosure even now, 26 years later, gives me serious cause for concern.  The approach of the CCRC to the case has been and remains sadly lacking in my view.  These factors are sufficient in themselves to cause me to support Jeremy Bamber.  Justice needs to be done and to be seen to be done. 

That does not answer your question about how sure I am of Jeremy's innocence. As I have explained I do not need to be sure of his innocence to support his efforts to secure the release of evidence which has been withheld and to win a fresh appeal.  However I do of course have an opinion on the case.  There are aspects of the evidence which can be viewed as tending to support guilt, but there are other aspects of the evidence which tend to support innocence.  My own opinion is that the evidence in support of innocence is stronger than the evidence in support of guilt.  I believe that the most plausible scenario is that Sheila was responsible.  In my view there could never be absolute proof of innocence.  What I believe may be established is that Jeremy was convicted upon the basis of incomplete and in some respects false evidence.  If that is established Jeremy should be acquitted.  The interests of justice demand that.

       

[grahameb]

Quote from Bob:

I would like to know... assuming you have had access to more evidence than most of us... how certain are you that Jeremy Bamber is innocent?

Bob  - Most of the evidence I have seen is posted on this forum.  I have had access to additional evidence as a result of my contact with Jeremy, but I formed my view on the case before I had seen any of the additional evidence.  I have been interested in the case since the time of the events and I followed the trial and the 2002 appeal with interest.  I only started looking at the evidence in detail when I discovered this forum, in January this year.  I read through the material posted by Mike and analysed the evidence in the way I would have done if I had been instructed in the case.  I started to post here on matters where I felt my own experience, in particular in relation to firearms, might enable me to add something to the debate.

As a result of my posts Jackie contacted me and suggested that I should write to Jeremy.  I did not do this at first, but when I felt I had read enough to form a firm view I wrote to Jeremy and received a reply.  Jeremy subsequently put me on his telephone list, which has enabled us to discuss the case on a regular basis.

The starting point for my approach to the case is that Jeremy Bamber did not receive a fair trial as a result of material evidence being withheld from the defence.  There were lines of enquiry which would undoubtedly have been pursued by Jeremy's counsel at trial had they had information which has subsequently been available.  The resistance by the prosecution to providing full disclosure even now, 26 years later, gives me serious cause for concern.  The approach of the CCRC to the case has been and remains sadly lacking in my view.  These factors are sufficient in themselves to cause me to support Jeremy Bamber.  Justice needs to be done and to be seen to be done. 

That does not answer your question about how sure I am of Jeremy's innocence. As I have explained I do not need to be sure of his innocence to support his efforts to secure the release of evidence which has been withheld and to win a fresh appeal.  However I do of course have an opinion on the case.  There are aspects of the evidence which can be viewed as tending to support guilt, but there are other aspects of the evidence which tend to support innocence.  My own opinion is that the evidence in support of innocence is stronger than the evidence in support of guilt.  I believe that the most plausible scenario is that Sheila was resonsible.  In my view there could never be absolute proof of innocence.  What I believe may be established is that Jeremy was convicted upon the basis of incomplete and in some respects false evidence.  If that is established Jeremy should be acquiitted.  The interests of justice demand that.

     

Great post ngb. I think that you have echoed completely my thoughts on the case, but with words that I could never hope to write.

[ngb1066]

Neil,

As far as I can tell, posters on both sides have a good deal of respect for you.
You conduct yourself well, and try to be reasoned in your responses.

Unfortunately, Jackie Preece seems to have hijacked you as her pet.

If I was you I would be a tad embarrassed about that. In particular, I suspect you are a bit embarrassed by a lot of the stuff she posts on "your behalf", but understandably feel unable to comment.

But let's see if we can set that aside for a moment...

I would like to know... assuming you have had access to more evidence than most of us... how certain are you that Jeremy Bamber is innocent?

Thanks,
Bob.

I have reported this abusive post/thread to the mods due the outrageous personal attacks it makes on NGB and Jackie and the flagrant breach of forum rules it represents.

Oh come on... Jackie has just done exactly what Bob accuses her of in this thread. But if NGB is indeed "working 24/7 on Jeremy's case" he can only toe the JB line can't he? So the question itself is a little unfair. Maybe NGB should consider whether posting on a forum such as this sits well with his other work.

I do not claim that I work on the case "24/7".  I have given my opinion on aspects of the case when asked by Jeremy and at his request I have reviewed a number of documents.  When I am asked I give an honest opinion, even when that opinion is not what Jeremy wants to hear.  I believe that it is only fair to Jeremy to do that and that those who tell him only what he wants to hear are not helping him.  I believe Jeremy respects the fact that I tell him directly what I think.  It is not the case that I "can only toe the JB line."  When I have expressed opinions on this forum they are my own opinions and they have not always been the same as the views of Jeremy and his team.  I have posted earlier that I am not a member of Jeremy's legal team.  I am not acting as his counsel and if I were I would not feel able to post on this forum.  As it is I am perfectly free to do so.

I hope that this clarifies the position.

   

[chochokeira]

Quote from Bob:

I would like to know... assuming you have had access to more evidence than most of us... how certain are you that Jeremy Bamber is innocent?

Bob  - Most of the evidence I have seen is posted on this forum.  I have had access to additional evidence as a result of my contact with Jeremy, but I formed my view on the case before I had seen any of the additional evidence.  I have been interested in the case since the time of the events and I followed the trial and the 2002 appeal with interest.  I only started looking at the evidence in detail when I discovered this forum, in January this year.  I read through the material posted by Mike and analysed the evidence in the way I would have done if I had been instructed in the case.  I started to post here on matters where I felt my own experience, in particular in relation to firearms, might enable me to add something to the debate.

As a result of my posts Jackie contacted me and suggested that I should write to Jeremy.  I did not do this at first, but when I felt I had read enough to form a firm view I wrote to Jeremy and received a reply.  Jeremy subsequently put me on his telephone list, which has enabled us to discuss the case on a regular basis.

The starting point for my approach to the case is that Jeremy Bamber did not receive a fair trial as a result of material evidence being withheld from the defence.  There were lines of enquiry which would undoubtedly have been pursued by Jeremy's counsel at trial had they had information which has subsequently become available.  The resistance by the prosecution to providing full disclosure even now, 26 years later, gives me serious cause for concern.  The approach of the CCRC to the case has been and remains sadly lacking in my view.  These factors are sufficient in themselves to cause me to support Jeremy Bamber.  Justice needs to be done and to be seen to be done. 

That does not answer your question about how sure I am of Jeremy's innocence. As I have explained I do not need to be sure of his innocence to support his efforts to secure the release of evidence which has been withheld and to win a fresh appeal.  However I do of course have an opinion on the case.  There are aspects of the evidence which can be viewed as tending to support guilt, but there are other aspects of the evidence which tend to support innocence.  My own opinion is that the evidence in support of innocence is stronger than the evidence in support of guilt.  I believe that the most plausible scenario is that Sheila was responsible.  In my view there could never be absolute proof of innocence.  What I believe may be established is that Jeremy was convicted upon the basis of incomplete and in some respects false evidence.  If that is established Jeremy should be acquitted.  The interests of justice demand that.

     

Good post, NGB, +1

[vidvic]

"There are aspects of the evidence which can be viewed as tending to support guilt, but there are other aspects of the evidence which tend to support innocence."

And that is why we're all here. NGB should be praised for his honesty and gets much respect from me for this post.

Well done Bob, for asking the question.

[grahameb]

"There are aspects of the evidence which can be viewed as tending to support guilt, but there are other aspects of the evidence which tend to support innocence."

And that is why we're all here. NGB should be praised for his honesty and gets much respect from me for this post.

Well done Bob, for asking the question.

Bob could have asked the question without insulting others. In any case ngb has made his position clear on other occasions. So, no. Not well done bob.

[chochokeira]

"There are aspects of the evidence which can be viewed as tending to support guilt, but there are other aspects of the evidence which tend to support innocence."

And that is why we're all here. NGB should be praised for his honesty and gets much respect from me for this post.

Well done Bob, for asking the question.

Bob could have asked the question without insulting others. In any case ngb has made his position clear on other occasions. So, no. Not well done bob.

Well said, Grahame +1

[nugnug]

i don't see why any poster should have to explain themselves to other posters

[Roch]

In my view there could never be absolute proof of innocence

ngb / anyone...

Can I please ask,

If high res blow-ups of Sheila Caffell's crime scene and mortuary photographs exist, how is it not possible to establish that the time of death for Sheila is outside any time frame feasible for Jeremy Bamber to been responsible for her death?

I still cannot understand this aspect of the case.

[ngb1066]

In my view there could never be absolute proof of innocence

ngb / anyone...

Can I please ask,

If high res blow-ups of Sheila Caffell's crime scene and mortuary photographs exist, how is it not possible to establish that the time of death for Sheila is outside any time frame feasible for Jeremy Bamber to been responsible for her death?

I still cannot understand this aspect of the case.

There are high resolution images now available to the defence which show Sheila at WHF and at the mortuary.  The defence are looking into the aspect of the case whch you highlight.  Although I am not an expert on this type of evidence, my feeling is that it will prove very difficult to fix a time of death, even to within a range, from examination of photographs alone.  This is another example of the poor police work in this case.  The correct procedure was for the pathologist to have attended the crime scene and examined the bodies there.  The police did not consider this to be necessary.