Jeremy's Alibi...

[petey]

You're lucky I can't sleep tonight..replying to some of these rather hysterical posts:petey the evidence is put before a jury and it was 10-2 which does not make 99.9% I'm surprised at you coming up with that with your background. Caroline it would have been a courtesy to check with me first;as for the figures the last time I checked it had 200 hits,compared to the 4000 reads my thread on the European Union has received on what is primarily a betting site.

One more point:of course Jeremy Bamber is playing the conscience card(they all do) with some of the younger prison officers who were probably not even born when this crime was perpetrated,and of course the Establishment doesn't like malaise and uncertainty among the workforce. How many times do I have to go through the evidence which is overwhelming that Jeremy Bamber is guilty..please read back because I can't keep saying the same things and finding different words for it all..

Please do me the courtesy of not making a poor attempt to patronise me.

If you had read my post clearly I was merely reminding YOU that the precis for guilt beyond reasonable doubt is approximately 99.9%+ 

As you clearly stated in your post that he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt, I then went on from this starting point, to explain what guilt beyond reasonable doubt equated to and then to question what was the specific evidence that directed your mind that he was 99.9% culpable. If you believe him less than 99.9% guilty and you had sat on the jury, you would have had a duty to find him NOT GUILTY even if you as strongly as 99% thought he was guilty.

I hope that clears up your misunderstanding.

If your reference to my background is in relation to the fact that I am a solicitor, I work in corporate / commercial, making me no more qualified to the workings of criminal courts than other members of this forum.

[Steve_uk]

Please do me the courtesy of not making a poor attempt to patronise me.

If you had read my post clearly I was merely reminding YOU that the precis for guilt beyond reasonable doubt is approximately 99.9%+ 

As you clearly stated in your post that he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt, I then went on from this starting point, to explain what guilt beyond reasonable doubt equated to and then to question what was the specific evidence that directed your mind that he was 99.9% culpable. If you believe him less than 99.9% guilty and you had sat on the jury, you would have had a duty to find him NOT GUILTY even if you as strongly as 99% thought he was guilty.

I hope that clears up your misunderstanding.

If your reference to my background is in relation to the fact that I am a solicitor, I work in corporate / commercial, making me no more qualified to the workings of criminal courts than other members of this forum.

Well I'm sorry I wasn't trying to patronize you. I just don't think that the term "beyond reasonable doubt " means that you have to be 99.9% certain.

[petey]

Well I'm sorry I wasn't trying to patronize you. I just don't think that the term "beyond reasonable doubt " means that you have to be 99.9% certain.

Percentages of guilt are abitrary, so there is no definitive percentage given in English Law and no guidance on percentage will ever be given by any judge.

However, it is a widely help belief in legal circles that "beyond reasonable doubt" equates to approximately 99.9%. Certainly 99% is not enough.

[Jane]

I've read so much maggie I can't just lay my hands on it immediately.Please withdraw the last sentence Patti..after everything has run like water off a duck's back since I read Martin's comment at 6-00am this morning that is the most disgraceful thing written yet,and as it's personal it's even worse than Mike's boom boom Sheila thread.

Having gone back to read Matin's 6am post, it appears to have enormous support, unlike MOST of what you have, thus far, written.

I think I can speak for others when I say that NOBODY objects to your views, only the way in which you present them. That I happen not to like a flamboyant, Mills and Boon style of writing is neither here nor there, but may I remind you this is real life, not fiction. My strongest objection to your posts is your insistance on telling us what was in the minds of those of whom you write, which tells ME more about what's going on in your mind than what MAY have been going on in theirs. On another thread you tell us that AEs "sole concern" was about Sheila not having done it. How do you know this? What ever you find out there on line is going to be slanted towards how the writer sees Jeremy, so it can hardly be unbiased. My contention of AEs "sole concern" is that with half a million pounds in the equation, it's distribution and its' potential loss to them, Sheila's reputation may have been part of her agenda.

[Caroline R]

You can think what you like Caroline;we live in a democracy but it might have been polite to check with me first to tell me you were going to post that link..we'll let the other forum members judge..I'm really not too bothered,just had the thing been reversed I know what I would have done. As for sticking to the facts well maybe my latest post on Sheila might surprise you a little..

an I Steve? Can I really think what I like? So kind and so very glad to have your endorsement . If you're after an apology (as I have seen you try to wheedle from other posters) sorry, I'm not apologising for something that is openly available for other people to see. If you're embarrassed about it, then you shouldn't have put it out there. The other forum members haven't mentioned it and you seem to give scant regard to what they think anyway. As someone else has just mentioned, it's not what you say, but how you say it along with your 'attempts' at armchair psychology and mind reading skills. I don't think anything you write will surprise me Steve, but I doubt very much that it will be guided by fact!

[susan]

Morning Caroline R  with regard to recent post with steve what link did you put up without his consent.  Curious to read it.

[andrea]

I, like you steve believe Bamber is guilty, thats why hes been locked up for more than half of his life.

NONE OF US where there that morning at Whf, but the evidence points JB. The jury agreed 27 years ago and so have the CCRC and CoA, Bamber stays where he is.

Now, will somebody please explain how Sheila managed to run upstairs, past plod, and have no blood down her front.

[Caroline R]

Morning Caroline R  with regard to recent post with steve what link did you put up without his consent.  Curious to read it.

I'll let Steve provide it for you but it's just more of the same

[grahameb]

Please do me the courtesy of not making a poor attempt to patronise me.

If you had read my post clearly I was merely reminding YOU that the precis for guilt beyond reasonable doubt is approximately 99.9%+ 

As you clearly stated in your post that he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt, I then went on from this starting point, to explain what guilt beyond reasonable doubt equated to and then to question what was the specific evidence that directed your mind that he was 99.9% culpable. If you believe him less than 99.9% guilty and you had sat on the jury, you would have had a duty to find him NOT GUILTY even if you as strongly as 99% thought he was guilty.

I hope that clears up your misunderstanding.

If your reference to my background is in relation to the fact that I am a solicitor, I work in corporate / commercial, making me no more qualified to the workings of criminal courts than other members of this forum.

Petey where did the idea of 12 members of a jury come from? We keep harping on the 10-2 therefore he is guilty. But surely it is only what men decided to have 12 members of the jury? Yet we all seem to accept the results as gospel truth.

[susan]

Hi Caroline R  I wont bother then I have a bad headache as it is

[lookout]

I, like you steve believe Bamber is guilty, thats why hes been locked up for more than half of his life.

NONE OF US where there that morning at Whf, but the evidence points JB. The jury agreed 27 years ago and so have the CCRC and CoA, Bamber stays where he is.

Now, will somebody please explain how Sheila managed to run upstairs, past plod, and have no blood down her front.

Exactly,Andrea. None of us were there. So where's the evidence that points to JB. I don't want any repetative spiel either.

[andrea]

The phone call, his behaviour, he told people. NO EVIDENCE POINTS TO SHEILA

[andrea]

Lookout how do you think sheila got upstairs without getting blood down her front?

[grahameb]

I, like you steve believe Bamber is guilty, thats why hes been locked up for more than half of his life.

NONE OF US where there that morning at Whf, but the evidence points JB. The jury agreed 27 years ago and so have the CCRC and CoA, Bamber stays where he is.

Now, will somebody please explain how Sheila managed to run upstairs, past plod, and have no blood down her front.

The fact that the appeal courts and the ccrc rejected Bambers appeal does not mean that they go over the whole case each time there's an appeal. All it means is that they consider what the defence has presented as new evidence. They don't retry the whole case each time. Therefore what they endorse is quite minimal and is therefore in a lot of ways quite divorced from the original case. But lack of evidence does not necessarily prove that he did it. Just as some say the lack of evidence does not prove that Sheila did it. Yet they are content to believe that She didn't do it. Why then not judge JB by the same standard?

[Caroline R]

The phone call, his behaviour, he told people. NO EVIDENCE POINTS TO SHEILA

No evidence points to JB except supposition and hearsay!