"I haven't rehearsed what I am going to tell the jury." (JM)

[chochokeira]

Rocky
The more evidence that comes to light the tougher it would be for the guilty camp to put up an argument.

Because this is a case of circumstantial evidence everything seems to point to the jury should have found Jeremy innocent because of reasonable doubt.

Just the tiniest thing like the NOTW deal not coming to light or the withholding of some information about how bad Sheilas illness was probably would have changed the jurors verdict

Hartley was very bad tempered off late because we were all fed up with his 'I believe Mugford' statements and it was out in the open he was not impartial as he was a friend of the relatives

He kept that hidden for ages making his arguments and views more credible

It is going to be difficult to find anti Bamber people with the information out there now and there is something strange going on after Shonas message 'she was having to leave the forum'

It was a nice message and we hadn't fallen out so It's a big mystery

I agree with your first, second and third points.  Though the second point seems to have been canceled out over the years, by the relatives' genuine belief in Jeremy's guilt and their successful ability to project this belief on to their associates.  Now I suppose it could be argued that if the silencer evidence is falsified, then the relatives have a vested interest in shoring up their position.  And it becomes difficult for us to decipher whether their belief in Jeremy's guilt actually is genuine.  I suspect if it wasn't, Vidvic and Hartley would have sussed this by now.

I always got on with Hartley but at times I found his opposition to Mike exasperating.  I believe both he and Vidvic (who I have also always personally found decent) have acted out of a misplaced loyalty to the relatives.  They might disagree but that's how I see it.

I didn't see Shona's parting message but I got on very well with her, albeit we were on completely opposite sides.

I have no doubt that all of the relatives are genuinely convinced of Jeremy's guilt and that they are very forceful in presenting their views.  Both Hartley and Vidvic reflect the same views and that is not surprising given that they know some of the relatives well.  I have no problem with anyone arguing the case for guilt, and doing so forcefully.  To be challenged by someone presenting a cogent argument is healthy and forces us to justify our own positions.

My only concern about some of Hartley's posts was his goading of Mike Tesko which was unnecessary and I suspect was sometimes done in order to provoke a reaction.  On the other hand Mike is very able to look after himself so no harm was done.  Hartley certainly has a comprehensive grasp of the evidence in the case and he also clearly has access to a lot of the case papers as a result of his connections with the family.  I suspect that Hartley will return and that will good for stimulating debate.  I hope he registers as Hartley and not as Steve Augi!

Vidvic also has a good knowledge of the case as a result of his close involvement with the family at the time of the 2002 appeal.  As he has posted here he attended the Court of Appeal on each day of the appeal hearing.  He also acted as the spokesman for the family at that time.  Vidvic is also therefore well equipped to contribute to the debate here. 

I seem to recall either Vidvic or Hartley posting some time ago that at least one family member is a forum member, although does not post.  As Mike Tesko has made clear, if family members want to post here they are welcome to do so. 

I never mind being challenged on points by members who present a proper argument and avoid personal attacks.  I find that answering questions or challenges helps me to develop my own views on aspects of the case.  I hope we can attract more members to the forum and that members who have not yet posted will start to contribute.  Nobody should be afraid to ask questions or present their point of view.  We seem to have fought off the attacks by trolls and things seem to be much calmer here now.

Good points, NGB.

[jackiepreece]

Keira
You are right en masse!

There is something in it I am sure!

One of the last things Shona wrote to me was 'we could have been good friends in another lifetime'

Keira what do you think she meant and now she says she has left


We never agreed and had so many battles but she was always telling me how much she liked me and she used to Be so funny



Something has happened

[chochokeira]

Ngb as a criminal barrister have you had to contend with the problem of not being able to cross examine because someone keeps breaking down and crying.

Did you believe they were faking it?

Can't they be kept in the witness box until you can cross examine them even if it is days?

Is it common knowledge that police sometimes tell witnesses cross examination has to stop if witnesses get too upset?

Or would you think Mugford herself would you use this tactic



Great thread Keira and one more reason this forum is so valuable

I have had experience of this on a number of occasions.  When a witness breaks down and cries it interrupts the flow of the evidence.  It therefore can be a tactic used by a witness to gain more time to think of the answer to the question.  Obviously in some cases a witness is genuinely upset rather than playing for time, and this is particularly difficult for counsel.  For example great care is needed in cross examining a child witness or a victim in a rape trial.  The judge will normally grant short adjournments for the witness to compose him/herself, and the cross examination then continues.  Counsel has the accept the interruptions and cope as well as possible.  Counsel can continue to cross examine until all the required questions have been put to the witness, however long that may take.

I had to cross examine nuns from a local convent once. Most of them flushed with embarrassment at almost every question, hid their faces in their hands, appeared to pray throughout and repeatedly wept. Although I was scrupulously polite, I felt like a serial abuser. After the hearing, I apologised for any discomfort my questions had caused and was told: the legal victory is yours, but the moral victory is ours.

Never again!

[chochokeira]

Keira
You are right en masse!

There is something in it I am sure!

One of the last things Shona wrote to me was 'we could have been good friends in another lifetime'

Keira what do you think she meant and now she says she has left


We never agreed and had so many battles but she was always telling me how much she liked me and she used to Be so funny



Something has happened

I don't know what Shona meant, Jackie, but I do think she will return.

[grahameb]

Ngb as a criminal barrister have you had to contend with the problem of not being able to cross examine because someone keeps breaking down and crying.

Did you believe they were faking it?

Can't they be kept in the witness box until you can cross examine them even if it is days?

Is it common knowledge that police sometimes tell witnesses cross examination has to stop if witnesses get too upset?

Or would you think Mugford herself would you use this tactic



Great thread Keira and one more reason this forum is so valuable

I have had experience of this on a number of occasions.  When a witness breaks down and cries it interrupts the flow of the evidence.  It therefore can be a tactic used by a witness to gain more time to think of the answer to the question.  Obviously in some cases a witness is genuinely upset rather than playing for time, and this is particularly difficult for counsel.  For example great care is needed in cross examining a child witness or a victim in a rape trial.  The judge will normally grant short adjournments for the witness to compose him/herself, and the cross examination then continues.  Counsel has the accept the interruptions and cope as well as possible.  Counsel can continue to cross examine until all the required questions have been put to the witness, however long that may take.

I had to cross examine nuns from a local convent once. Most of them flushed with embarrassment at almost every question, hid their faces in their hands, appeared to pray throughout and repeatedly wept. Although I was scrupulously polite, I felt like a serial abuser. After the hearing, I apologised for any discomfort my questions had caused and was told: the legal victory is yours, but the moral victory is ours.

Never again!

Aha! but was it a moral victory for them? Are their consciences really clear before God and themselves? If a legal victory is not a moral victory as well, then it is not true justice. The two should go together. The one thing that will finally excuse or condemn us is our conscience. Unfortunately there is such a thing as a "seared" conscience.

[grahameb]

Keira
You are right en masse!

There is something in it I am sure!

One of the last things Shona wrote to me was 'we could have been good friends in another lifetime'

Keira what do you think she meant and now she says she has left


We never agreed and had so many battles but she was always telling me how much she liked me and she used to Be so funny



Something has happened

I don't know what Shona meant, Jackie, but I do think she will return.

Bot Neil and myself have noticed that most of the anti Bambers have deleted their accounts. We have not done so. Why would they do that? Why not just stay silent? Do you think they know something that we don't? Or perhaps they know something that we DO? That is that Jeremy WILL get his appeal and they don't want to be embarrased?

[Newbury1]

Keira
You are right en masse!

There is something in it I am sure!

One of the last things Shona wrote to me was 'we could have been good friends in another lifetime'

Keira what do you think she meant and now she says she has left


We never agreed and had so many battles but she was always telling me how much she liked me and she used to Be so funny



Something has happened

I don't know what Shona meant, Jackie, but I do think she will return.

Bot Neil and myself have noticed that most of the anti Bambers have deleted their accounts. We have not done so. Why would they do that? Why not just stay silent? Do you think they know something that we don't? Or perhaps they know something that we DO? That is that Jeremy WILL get his appeal and they don't want to be embarrassed?

Grahame, I like to think I am reasonably neutral (not pro / not anti, but interested).

Afterall, it does not affect me directly whether JB is in or out. I do, however, believe in justice and there are definitely questionable elements over this case that need to be resolved

This was a recent pm I sent and may reflect the current feeling.

I think JB might get out, based on -

1) The exceptional time given by CCRC.

2) That there appears to be more evidence (photographic / written) coming to light that indicates possible EP/ relatives evidence tampering (although this doesn't prove innocence it undermines the original prosecution case and this is the weak point the defence are on to).

3) Simon McKay (and other reasonably high profile figures) joining the JB band wagon.

4) JB's continued claim of innocence and that he has been locked up for over 25 years.

I still think he knows more about that night than he has ever let on!!

I don't post too much now as I think the various areas of debate have been done - it's down to the CCRC now  .

[grahameb]

Keira
You are right en masse!

There is something in it I am sure!

One of the last things Shona wrote to me was 'we could have been good friends in another lifetime'

Keira what do you think she meant and now she says she has left


We never agreed and had so many battles but she was always telling me how much she liked me and she used to Be so funny



Something has happened

I don't know what Shona meant, Jackie, but I do think she will return.

Bot Neil and myself have noticed that most of the anti Bambers have deleted their accounts. We have not done so. Why would they do that? Why not just stay silent? Do you think they know something that we don't? Or perhaps they know something that we DO? That is that Jeremy WILL get his appeal and they don't want to be embarrassed?

Grahame, I like to think I am reasonably neutral (not pro / not anti, but interested).

Afterall, it does not affect me directly whether JB is in or out. I do, however, believe in justice and there are definitely questionable elements over this case that need to be resolved

This was a recent pm I sent and may reflect the current feeling.

I think JB might get out, based on -

1) The exceptional time given by CCRC.

2) That there appears to be more evidence (photographic / written) coming to light that indicates possible EP/ relatives evidence tampering (although this doesn't prove innocence it undermines the original prosecution case and this is the weak point the defence are on to).

3) Simon McKay (and other reasonably high profile figures) joining the JB band wagon.

4) JB's continued claim of innocence and that he has been locked up for over 25 years.

I still think he knows more about that night than he has ever let on!!

I don't post too much now as I think the various areas of debate have been done - it's down to the CCRC now  .

There is a lot of truth in what you sayNick. But one of the reasons I think that makes it true is that the antis always argue from (1) the original evidence and do not stray much further than that, because they in actual fact refuse to believe in any of the evidence that has since been found and (2) because they refuse to believe in all this evidence that has been revealed they really have run out of steam, because they have nowhere to go any more. This explains the fact that Mike's Z thread is one of the forums longest threads. This gave the opposition something fresh to argue about and it livened up the forum with new speculation for a bit.

[ngb1066]

Nick  -  I hope you will carry on posting.  I still think there is some time to go before the CCRC announce their final decision.

 

[jackiepreece]

Nick please keep posting impartial posters are rare

I am going to keep posting on twitter people should come and have a look at the forum

There is no better source than this

[chochokeira]

Ngb as a criminal barrister have you had to contend with the problem of not being able to cross examine because someone keeps breaking down and crying.

Did you believe they were faking it?

Can't they be kept in the witness box until you can cross examine them even if it is days?

Is it common knowledge that police sometimes tell witnesses cross examination has to stop if witnesses get too upset?

Or would you think Mugford herself would you use this tactic



Great thread Keira and one more reason this forum is so valuable

I have had experience of this on a number of occasions.  When a witness breaks down and cries it interrupts the flow of the evidence.  It therefore can be a tactic used by a witness to gain more time to think of the answer to the question.  Obviously in some cases a witness is genuinely upset rather than playing for time, and this is particularly difficult for counsel.  For example great care is needed in cross examining a child witness or a victim in a rape trial.  The judge will normally grant short adjournments for the witness to compose him/herself, and the cross examination then continues.  Counsel has the accept the interruptions and cope as well as possible.  Counsel can continue to cross examine until all the required questions have been put to the witness, however long that may take.

I had to cross examine nuns from a local convent once. Most of them flushed with embarrassment at almost every question, hid their faces in their hands, appeared to pray throughout and repeatedly wept. Although I was scrupulously polite, I felt like a serial abuser. After the hearing, I apologised for any discomfort my questions had caused and was told: the legal victory is yours, but the moral victory is ours.

Never again!

Aha! but was it a moral victory for them? Are their consciences really clear before God and themselves? If a legal victory is not a moral victory as well, then it is not true justice. The two should go together. The one thing that will finally excuse or condemn us is our conscience. Unfortunately there is such a thing as a "seared" conscience.

I sympathise with everyone concerned in the case, Grahame. Modern employment law, while providing a vital platform of rights and protection for staff, can be a minefield for small employers. The nuns were entitled to expect a reasonable standard of conduct from their staff, for the sake of their residents if not for the nuns themselves. They did not, however, understand or follow the correct disciplinary and dismissal procedures. A warning and support for this employee would have been the appropriate response, not dismissal.

The nuns were lovely people who had dedicated their lives to the care of the sick - yet the same was true of the nurse who was dismissed. I felt the law was unnecessarily heavy handed with the convent, a reinstatement order - issued by ACAS, for example -  coupled with employment rights' training might have been a far better way to have dealt with the case.

That the law tends to be so tough with those -  employers for example -  who do not follow correct statutory procedures to the letter, is all the more reason why the law should be equally scrupulous in applying its own procedures to itself.
 
In Jeremy's case, however, the law, to its great shame, has failed to do that and, as a result, Jeremy has been denied a fair trial.

[Newbury1]

Keira
You are right en masse!

There is something in it I am sure!

One of the last things Shona wrote to me was 'we could have been good friends in another lifetime'

Keira what do you think she meant and now she says she has left


We never agreed and had so many battles but she was always telling me how much she liked me and she used to Be so funny



Something has happened

I don't know what Shona meant, Jackie, but I do think she will return.

Bot Neil and myself have noticed that most of the anti Bambers have deleted their accounts. We have not done so. Why would they do that? Why not just stay silent? Do you think they know something that we don't? Or perhaps they know something that we DO? That is that Jeremy WILL get his appeal and they don't want to be embarrassed?

Grahame, I like to think I am reasonably neutral (not pro / not anti, but interested).

Afterall, it does not affect me directly whether JB is in or out. I do, however, believe in justice and there are definitely questionable elements over this case that need to be resolved

This was a recent pm I sent and may reflect the current feeling.

I think JB might get out, based on -

1) The exceptional time given by CCRC.

2) That there appears to be more evidence (photographic / written) coming to light that indicates possible EP/ relatives evidence tampering (although this doesn't prove innocence it undermines the original prosecution case and this is the weak point the defence are on to).

3) Simon McKay (and other reasonably high profile figures) joining the JB band wagon.

4) JB's continued claim of innocence and that he has been locked up for over 25 years.

I still think he knows more about that night than he has ever let on!!

I don't post too much now as I think the various areas of debate have been done - it's down to the CCRC now  .

There is a lot of truth in what you sayNick. But one of the reasons I think that makes it true is that the antis always argue from (1) the original evidence and do not stray much further than that, because they in actual fact refuse to believe in any of the evidence that has since been found and (2) because they refuse to believe in all this evidence that has been revealed they really have run out of steam, because they have nowhere to go any more. This explains the fact that Mike's Z thread is one of the forums longest threads. This gave the opposition something fresh to argue about and it livened up the forum with new speculation for a bit.

The position with the forum it that it has become a them and us scenario between the two opposing sides.

One group is holding the castle (Anti) and the other looking to take it (Pro).

The Anti's just have to hold their position (entrench), whilst the pro's have to move forward with what ever ammo and resource they have.

The Pro's having thrown all they have at the moment, have not yet breached the anti's position.

The anti's remain entrenched, whilst the Pro's regroup, gather more ammo and look to communicate more effectively with each other.

The position has currently reached a stalemate with a lull in the fighting, until the next push.

The troops are also becoming bored and frustrated by the lack of activity, which had let to some desertions and in-fighting.

But come the next push will the Pro's have enough ammo to dislodge the Anti's or are the Pro's firing duds - phew !! 

It should all be over by Christmas 

[ngb1066]

Keira
You are right en masse!

There is something in it I am sure!

One of the last things Shona wrote to me was 'we could have been good friends in another lifetime'

Keira what do you think she meant and now she says she has left


We never agreed and had so many battles but she was always telling me how much she liked me and she used to Be so funny



Something has happened

I don't know what Shona meant, Jackie, but I do think she will return.

Bot Neil and myself have noticed that most of the anti Bambers have deleted their accounts. We have not done so. Why would they do that? Why not just stay silent? Do you think they know something that we don't? Or perhaps they know something that we DO? That is that Jeremy WILL get his appeal and they don't want to be embarrassed?

Grahame, I like to think I am reasonably neutral (not pro / not anti, but interested).

Afterall, it does not affect me directly whether JB is in or out. I do, however, believe in justice and there are definitely questionable elements over this case that need to be resolved

This was a recent pm I sent and may reflect the current feeling.

I think JB might get out, based on -

1) The exceptional time given by CCRC.

2) That there appears to be more evidence (photographic / written) coming to light that indicates possible EP/ relatives evidence tampering (although this doesn't prove innocence it undermines the original prosecution case and this is the weak point the defence are on to).

3) Simon McKay (and other reasonably high profile figures) joining the JB band wagon.

4) JB's continued claim of innocence and that he has been locked up for over 25 years.

I still think he knows more about that night than he has ever let on!!

I don't post too much now as I think the various areas of debate have been done - it's down to the CCRC now  .

There is a lot of truth in what you sayNick. But one of the reasons I think that makes it true is that the antis always argue from (1) the original evidence and do not stray much further than that, because they in actual fact refuse to believe in any of the evidence that has since been found and (2) because they refuse to believe in all this evidence that has been revealed they really have run out of steam, because they have nowhere to go any more. This explains the fact that Mike's Z thread is one of the forums longest threads. This gave the opposition something fresh to argue about and it livened up the forum with new speculation for a bit.

The position with the forum it that it has become a them and us scenario between the two opposing sides.

One group is holding the castle (Anti) and the other looking to take it (Pro).

The Anti's just have to hold their position (entrench), whilst the pro's have to move forward with what ever ammo and resource they have.

The Pro's having thrown all they have at the moment, have not yet breached the anti's position.

The anti's remain entrenched, whilst the Pro's regroup, gather more ammo and look to communicate more effectively with each other.

The position has currently reached a stalemate with a lull in the fighting, until the next push.

The troops are also becoming bored and frustrated by the lack of activity, which had let to some desertions and in-fighting.

But come the next push will the Pro's have enough ammo to dislodge the Anti's or are the Pro's firing duds - phew !! 

It should all be over by Christmas 

I very much doubt it!

[Newbury1]

Keira
You are right en masse!

There is something in it I am sure!

One of the last things Shona wrote to me was 'we could have been good friends in another lifetime'

Keira what do you think she meant and now she says she has left


We never agreed and had so many battles but she was always telling me how much she liked me and she used to Be so funny



Something has happened

I don't know what Shona meant, Jackie, but I do think she will return.

Bot Neil and myself have noticed that most of the anti Bambers have deleted their accounts. We have not done so. Why would they do that? Why not just stay silent? Do you think they know something that we don't? Or perhaps they know something that we DO? That is that Jeremy WILL get his appeal and they don't want to be embarrassed?

Grahame, I like to think I am reasonably neutral (not pro / not anti, but interested).

Afterall, it does not affect me directly whether JB is in or out. I do, however, believe in justice and there are definitely questionable elements over this case that need to be resolved

This was a recent pm I sent and may reflect the current feeling.

I think JB might get out, based on -

1) The exceptional time given by CCRC.

2) That there appears to be more evidence (photographic / written) coming to light that indicates possible EP/ relatives evidence tampering (although this doesn't prove innocence it undermines the original prosecution case and this is the weak point the defence are on to).

3) Simon McKay (and other reasonably high profile figures) joining the JB band wagon.

4) JB's continued claim of innocence and that he has been locked up for over 25 years.

I still think he knows more about that night than he has ever let on!!

I don't post too much now as I think the various areas of debate have been done - it's down to the CCRC now  .

There is a lot of truth in what you sayNick. But one of the reasons I think that makes it true is that the antis always argue from (1) the original evidence and do not stray much further than that, because they in actual fact refuse to believe in any of the evidence that has since been found and (2) because they refuse to believe in all this evidence that has been revealed they really have run out of steam, because they have nowhere to go any more. This explains the fact that Mike's Z thread is one of the forums longest threads. This gave the opposition something fresh to argue about and it livened up the forum with new speculation for a bit.

The position with the forum it that it has become a them and us scenario between the two opposing sides.

One group is holding the castle (Anti) and the other looking to take it (Pro).

The Anti's just have to hold their position (entrench), whilst the pro's have to move forward with what ever ammo and resource they have.

The Pro's having thrown all they have at the moment, have not yet breached the anti's position.

The anti's remain entrenched, whilst the Pro's regroup, gather more ammo and look to communicate more effectively with each other.

The position has currently reached a stalemate with a lull in the fighting, until the next push.

The troops are also becoming bored and frustrated by the lack of activity, which had let to some desertions and in-fighting.

But come the next push will the Pro's have enough ammo to dislodge the Anti's or are the Pro's firing duds - phew !! 

It should all be over by Christmas 

I very much doubt it!

I didn't say which one 

That was the comment they made about the First World War - and we know it unfortunately wasn't  over by that first Christmas

[grahameb]

Keira
You are right en masse!

There is something in it I am sure!

One of the last things Shona wrote to me was 'we could have been good friends in another lifetime'

Keira what do you think she meant and now she says she has left


We never agreed and had so many battles but she was always telling me how much she liked me and she used to Be so funny



Something has happened

I don't know what Shona meant, Jackie, but I do think she will return.

Bot Neil and myself have noticed that most of the anti Bambers have deleted their accounts. We have not done so. Why would they do that? Why not just stay silent? Do you think they know something that we don't? Or perhaps they know something that we DO? That is that Jeremy WILL get his appeal and they don't want to be embarrassed?

Grahame, I like to think I am reasonably neutral (not pro / not anti, but interested).

Afterall, it does not affect me directly whether JB is in or out. I do, however, believe in justice and there are definitely questionable elements over this case that need to be resolved

This was a recent pm I sent and may reflect the current feeling.

I think JB might get out, based on -

1) The exceptional time given by CCRC.

2) That there appears to be more evidence (photographic / written) coming to light that indicates possible EP/ relatives evidence tampering (although this doesn't prove innocence it undermines the original prosecution case and this is the weak point the defence are on to).

3) Simon McKay (and other reasonably high profile figures) joining the JB band wagon.

4) JB's continued claim of innocence and that he has been locked up for over 25 years.

I still think he knows more about that night than he has ever let on!!

I don't post too much now as I think the various areas of debate have been done - it's down to the CCRC now  .

There is a lot of truth in what you sayNick. But one of the reasons I think that makes it true is that the antis always argue from (1) the original evidence and do not stray much further than that, because they in actual fact refuse to believe in any of the evidence that has since been found and (2) because they refuse to believe in all this evidence that has been revealed they really have run out of steam, because they have nowhere to go any more. This explains the fact that Mike's Z thread is one of the forums longest threads. This gave the opposition something fresh to argue about and it livened up the forum with new speculation for a bit.

The position with the forum it that it has become a them and us scenario between the two opposing sides.

One group is holding the castle (Anti) and the other looking to take it (Pro).

The Anti's just have to hold their position (entrench), whilst the pro's have to move forward with what ever ammo and resource they have.

The Pro's having thrown all they have at the moment, have not yet breached the anti's position.

The anti's remain entrenched, whilst the Pro's regroup, gather more ammo and look to communicate more effectively with each other.

The position has currently reached a stalemate with a lull in the fighting, until the next push.

The troops are also becoming bored and frustrated by the lack of activity, which had let to some desertions and in-fighting.

But come the next push will the Pro's have enough ammo to dislodge the Anti's or are the Pro's firing duds - phew !! 

It should all be over by Christmas 

I very much doubt it!

I didn't say which one 

That was the comment they made about the First World War - and we know it unfortunately wasn't  over by that first Christmas

It didn't last for 26 years either.