Some on here hide behind "false identity" when making allegations?

[grahameb]

Well that's the argument isn't it, but i believe the defence were aware of much more than is being made out, if they did not have certain things, then they most certainly should have known that they existed.

And again, to date (bar the current submission), nothing has been released which shows that a MOJ occurred.

So, what things do you think that the defence were aware of that they claim they didn't know?

[Hartley]

So, what things do you think that the defence were aware of that they claim they didn't know?

I'm not referring to the defences claims, more the claims made on the forum.

But as an example, the logs, if they have only been released recently, then it begs the question why the original defence didn't ask where they were.

[smiffy]

FAO SMIFFY

Before your post above was edited, you said that your opinion is more sound than someone who has had mental problems, which is about 70 percent of the population.

Can i ask you what makes your opinion so superior and valid to, say, mine?

Are you of the opinion that the posts or ideas of someone who has had mental health problems should not be taken seriously nor any credit be attached to them? Discuss?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Unfortunately I've had to delete smiffy's post. Andrea is entitled to believe what she wants to believe. And her reply does not warrant such an insensitive reply.

[grahameb]

I'm not referring to the defences claims, more the claims made on the forum.

But as an example, the logs, if they have only been released recently, then it begs the question why the original defence didn't ask where they were.

Which logs were those?

[bob]

ah answer to first question..
well your rather thick in my view and also you have demonstrated unbalanced thinking. 

You're really quite a sad little man, aren't you?

[Hartley]

Which logs were those?

All of them.

[Chochokeira]

Which is back to what I have previously said, he did not need to be diagnosed as being mentally ill, either before or after to have carried out the murders.

Profiling and stereotyping is all well and good, but it doesn't out weigh and override other evidence.

If profiling were not important, Hartley, there would not have been a deterimined attempt by some to blacken Jeremy's character in the eyes of the police and via the tabloids. That was all about constructing a profile of Jeremy as the murderer, when in fact his true profile suggests nothing of the kind

[andrea]

You might not like it but here's the truth.

ah answer to first question..
well your rather thick in my view and also you have demonstrated unbalanced thinking. 

answer to second....
Not my opinion or claimed opinion Andrea...
so it is an opinion you formed ...so you yourself created the issue.
Taking someones ideas or posts seriously involves the person making them being able to back them up with balanced argument and reasoning and presenting the case. When this is not done, then one questions the poster and the posters background as to how they form posts and ideas that do not seem to be constructed on firm foundations. Logic not applied properly for instance.

If you think im thick and have unbalanced thinking i suggest you read some of your own posts, especially the ones regarding cucumbers. Idiot.

[Chochokeira]

I'm not referring to the defences claims, more the claims made on the forum.

But as an example, the logs, if they have only been released recently, then it begs the question why the original defence didn't ask where they were.

In some cases the defence were misled by the police. It's no good denying this happened, Hartley, it's well documented, for example:

Debate in Parliament
9 Feb 2005 : 4 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter MP

"With the Bamber case, the key issue has been, and remains, the non-disclosure of evidence to the defence. Early in 2004, Bamber's new defence team looked at the evidence again, and exhibit 29 caught their attention in particular. It was a document listing some radio messages from the scene of the crime. The defence wondered whether it might be the first page of a longer document rather than a complete document in itself, so they sought clarification. Essex constabulary was adamant that exhibit 29 was a whole document and had been available to the defence for the trial. Unconvinced, Bamber's defence team took the matter to court in March 2004. It was successful, and the police produced the entire document. Exhibit 29, it transpired, was not a single-page document, and Bamber's solicitors received by fax a 24-page summary of radio communications. They then took the unusual step of writing to both the trial judge and the chief prosecution counsel, inquiring if either had known at the time of the trial of the existence of the lengthier log of radio messages. Both replied that they had not."

[Chochokeira]

In some cases the defence were misled by the police. It's no good denying this happened, Hartley, it's well documented, for example:

Debate in Parliament
9 Feb 2005 : 4 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter MP

"With the Bamber case, the key issue has been, and remains, the non-disclosure of evidence to the defence. Early in 2004, Bamber's new defence team looked at the evidence again, and exhibit 29 caught their attention in particular. It was a document listing some radio messages from the scene of the crime. The defence wondered whether it might be the first page of a longer document rather than a complete document in itself, so they sought clarification. Essex constabulary was adamant that exhibit 29 was a whole document and had been available to the defence for the trial. Unconvinced, Bamber's defence team took the matter to court in March 2004. It was successful, and the police produced the entire document. Exhibit 29, it transpired, was not a single-page document, and Bamber's solicitors received by fax a 24-page summary of radio communications. They then took the unusual step of writing to both the trial judge and the chief prosecution counsel, inquiring if either had known at the time of the trial of the existence of the lengthier log of radio messages. Both replied that they had not."

It's interesting to note that it wasn't only the defence that was misled by the police on this but the prosecution and trial judge too.

This obviously begs the question of how many other documents the police have unjustly withheld.

Jeremy Bamber's right to a fair trial was appallingly prejudiced by the police witholding documents in this manner.

And I've not yet mentioned the injustice of documents witheld under PII.

[mertol22]

Smiffy i think an apology is due to Andrea , i think you are out of line mate.

[andrea]

Thanks Mertol and Bob xx

[Chochokeira]

It's interesting to note that it wasn't only the defence that was misled by the police on this but the prosecution and trial judge too.

This obviously begs the question of how many other documents the police have unjustly withheld.

Jeremy Bamber's right to a fair trial was appallingly prejudiced by the police witholding documents in this manner.

And I've not yet mentioned the injustice of documents witheld under PII.

And this disgraceful  injustice continues:

"The points that I have made—I could make many others if we had more time—give rise to grave concern about Bamber's conviction. Their common theme is the non-disclosure of evidence by the police.

Nearly 16 years after the White House farm murders, the defence first saw the second bundle of photographs.

After nearly 19 years, the defence team discovered that there was a full radio log, a telephone log and an incident report, of which it had previously been unaware.

It is the understatement of all understatements to say that such non-disclosure is deeply worrying. Even worse, it is still going on. "

Debate in Parliament
9 Feb 2005 : 4 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter MP

[grahameb]

All of them.

I thought they were referred to in court at the trial? All except one log of a telephone call that was found later?

[Chochokeira]

Bamber's defence team has repeatedly asked for access to the following:

first, the notebooks and other papers of Inspector Jones, who headed the initial investigation and firmly believed in Bamber's innocence;

secondly, the findings of the coroner who inquired into Inspector Jones's sudden death, which have never been made public;

thirdly, the audio recordings of all telephone and radio messages from White House farm;

fourthly, the audio recordings describing the scene of the crime;

fifthly, the video recordings of the scene of the crime;

and sixthly, the original radio and telephone messages log and incident report.

All are still being withheld from the defence. On every occasion on which the defence team has asked for them, Essex constabulary has refused to provide them. I put it directly to the Minister—and ask her to respond—that that is surely an intolerable state of affairs.

In December I tabled a written question asking the Home Secretary to instruct Essex constabulary to give Mr. Bamber's solicitors all audio tapes relating to events at White House farm. The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety replied:

"The disclosure of information held by Essex Constabulary is a matter for the Chief Officer of the force".

Unfortunately, the chief constable has made his position clear: he will not co-operate. One wonders why not."

Debate in Parliament
9 Feb 2005 : 4 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter MP