Example of how Relatives Names are Blackened.

[nugnug]

a convicted killer cant sue anybody one he has no character to destroy in law.

and how can you sue someone for agreeing with the verdict of a court.

[tyler]

a convicted killer cant sue anybody one he has no character to destroy in law.

and how can you sue for agreeing with the verdict of a court.

Good points Nugs...........and I thought that you had to have money to sue?

[lookout]

Hi lookout I was hearing that on the news and I ask myself what is going on in the minds of people who at random kill innocent children.  He must have had a grudge against the school or some of the parents.When I hear about gang related killings I can understand this more although I do not condone murder for whatever reason.,  I ask myself at times like this where is my God

Susan,,the killer killed his mother first.!

[tyler]

a convicted killer cant sue anybody one he has no character to destroy in law.

and how can you sue someone for agreeing with the verdict of a court.

I have been informed that prisoner can and do sue people. Didn't Sutcliffe successfully sue for physical attacks that he received. Apparently a prisoner is currently suing the prison service for breach of privacy!  I must admit though,I know nothing about all things connected with law.
I do however (much to hubby's chagrin) know my way around ebay! 

[nugnug]

yes they can sue people but they wouldn't get very fasr suing for libel.

and you cant sue someone for saying your a murderer if legally you are.

[lookout]

I have been informed that prisoner can and do sue people. Didn't Sutcliffe successfully sue for physical attacks that he received. Apparently a prisoner is currently suing the prison service for breach of privacy!  I must admit though,I know nothing about all things connected with law.
I do however (much to hubby's chagrin) know my way around ebay! 

Jeremy also sued for his injuries he received inside prison.

E-bay has been my life-saver at times.

[tyler]

yes they can sue people but they wouldn't get very fasr suing for libel.

and sue someone for saying your a murderer if legally you are.

Ah yes,I see your point.I havent quite woken up yet.......sorry!

[killingeve]

Don't worry,Steve,,Jeremy will sue once he's able to.  I don't see what his behaviour has to do with anything.It's not a hanging offence.

Hi Lookout

I have read Colin's book and Wilkes'.  Imo there's nothing in either that's really defamatory it's just Steve_uk's interpretation and the way he tells it with add-ons and embellishment.  Of course it's easier for Colin to believe that Jeremy was responsible rather than the mother of his children who Colin treated appallingly at times.

Steve_uk constantly quotes James Richard like a mantra.   James was a student a Goldsmiths and a friend of Julie's and is quoted as saying that Jeremy said "I hate my f*****g parents".  If this was said it is important to  understand the context and lead up but we know neither.  My brother recently asked me if I could put together some photos of our childhood which he wanted to show someone.  As I was doing this I found some of myself at ballet which I showed to my brother and other family members.  In one I was about 2 yoa (awww I look so cute), on the stage and looked petrified whilst at the same time concentrating on what I was suppose to be doing.  I jokingly said my parents should have been reported to social services for sending me to ballet and putting me on the stage at 2 yoa and that I've been pscychologically scarred by the experience.  Neither of which are true as I only have the vaguest memories of the ballet.  I might have added "I f*****g hate my parents" which would also hold no truth but this illustrates how innocent comments can be taken out of context. 

On the flip side Jean Boutell, the Bambers housekeeper for 20 yrs, states she never heard JB say anything negative about his family.  This was a woman who knew JB from the age of 4 to 24 and who as housekeeper wld have observed all sorts of things close up.  And who June thought highly of as evidenced by the 1k bequest in her will and yet Steve_uk conveniently forgets this.

[Bridget]

Petey,you say if you saw compelling evidence that any of the relatives were liars,cheats etc? What about theft and dishonesty? Time and again we hear about JB robbing the caravan park and therefore
 What kind of underhand character he is.Well what about the court documents on this very forum regarding the Pargeters taking the relatives to court.It clearly states how PE stole from N and J Bamber Ltd after their deaths and ran the company into the ground! Should we just whitewash over this fact that proved PE to be a thief? Was it acceptable,because he too was a victim of the murders?

If I recall correctly, these were accusations made by BW which Peter was never given the opportunity to answer, or at least if he did his answers have never been posted. The investigation went nowhere because, again IIRC, the executors did not feel he had done anything to the detriment of the estate, and commented that the business actually turned a larger profit under Peter than it had done under Neville.

[lookout]

Hi Lookout

I have read Colin's book and Wilkes'.  Imo there's nothing in either that's really defamatory it's just Steve_uk's interpretation and the way he tells it with add-ons and embellishment.  Of course it's easier for Colin to believe that Jeremy was responsible rather than the mother of his children who Colin treated appallingly at times.

Steve_uk constantly quotes James Richard like a mantra.   James was a student a Goldsmiths and a friend of Julie's and is quoted as saying that Jeremy said "I hate my f*****g parents".  If this was said it is important to  understand the context and lead up but we know neither.  My brother recently asked me if I could put together some photos of our childhood which he wanted to show someone.  As I was doing this I found some of myself at ballet which I showed to my brother and other family members.  In one I was about 2 yoa (awww I look so cute), on the stage and looked petrified whilst at the same time concentrating on what I was suppose to be doing.  I jokingly said my parents should have been reported to social services for sending me to ballet and putting me on the stage at 2 yoa and that I've been pscychologically scarred by the experience.  Neither of which are true as I only have the vaguest memories of the ballet.  I might have added "I f*****g hate my parents" which would also hold no truth but this illustrates how innocent comments can be taken out of context. 

On the flip side Jean Boutell, the Bambers housekeeper for 20 yrs, states she never heard JB say anything negative about his family.  This was a woman who knew JB from the age of 4 to 24 and who as housekeeper wld have observed all sorts of things close up.  And who June thought highly of as evidenced by the 1k bequest in her will and yet Steve_uk conveniently forgets this.

Hi NN,you're right of course. Certain embarrassing moments in ones life,caused by parents,does bring on an " out of character " reaction,,to which when something such as Jeremy may have said,,wouldn't always have been taken literally. Just a spur of the moment remark rarely taken seriously.

[Bridget]

On the flip side Jean Boutell, the Bambers housekeeper for 20 yrs, states she never heard JB say anything negative about his family.  This was a woman who knew JB from the age of 4 to 24 and who as housekeeper wld have observed all sorts of things close up.  And who June thought highly of as evidenced by the 1k bequest in her will and yet Steve_uk conveniently forgets this.

Given Jean's closeness to June, he was hardly likely to make such comments in her presence was he?

I agree though that context is important.

[petey]

With friends like Petey who needs enemies! Petey gets a lot of praise from the Ian Stephens gang. I wonder why that is? As a general rule, I wouldn’t take advice from a man my enemies praise. I would suspect him.

Notice how Petey doesn’t often (if ever) address particular issues with respect to the evidence. He just keeps reminding us that Jeremy was convicted by a jury and that his appeals have failed and so on and so on.  The rejection of exculpatory evidence by the CCRC is taken by him to establish that the evidence was not really strong evidence after all.

 If Jeremy Bamber were an american citizen like Amanda Knox, there would be scathing criticism of the CCRC by scientific experts. The reasons given by them for rejecting a submission would be put under close scrutiny. The rejection of evidence requires justification. Bamber’s defence should consider the argument that by withholding the precise explanation for rejection, they are preventing the inadequate reasons from being exposed.

 What are the specific reasons for rejecting the evidence of professors Meloni and Cavalli who concurred in the view that Sheila could not have been dead for more that two hours when the photographs showing blood still running were taken? Petey has nothing to say on issues such as that.

Petey and his friends just do their “dismissive” act. They remind us that the CCRC rejected the evidence and use that as their argument. For the most part, that’s all the pro guilt crowd can do! The evidence was not evidence because the CCRC rejected it. And of course, the same goes for the Arizona tests. Let us be clear about this. These below are two different arguments

To maintain that the CCRC rejected scientific evidence because it was inconclusive is not the same as to maintain that it is inconclusive because they rejected it. The latter is really Petey’s argument, not the former. In logic, it’s recognised as a fallacy and it’s called argument from authority.

The truth is that they have rejected the evidence of expert witnesses without having gained the support of other experts to oppose them. That’s cheating! A television documentary on Bamber! I would say a large part of it should focus upon  the conduct of the CCRC in their handling of the case.

Any need for a personal attack? Who are you trying to insinuate that I am?

I don't know you or anybody else on this forum. I have posted my honest opinions. Whether you choose to believe it or not if you have read my previous posts over the years, you will see I err on the side of JB being innocent.

I have not seen the submissions or the reasons for refusal therefore cannot accurately say that the CCRC have refused exculpatory evidence.

It has been discussed that the testing that was carried out in Arizona was not conclusive enough and more tests are needed. Therefore it is my personal belief that the CCRC rejected scientific evidence because it was inconclusive and further testing is required.

[killingeve]

Given Jean's closeness to June, he was hardly likely to make such comments in her presence was he?

I agree though that context is important.

Hi Bridget

Well according to RB and BW, who were close to June and NB, JB made negative comments in their presence. 

Lets take RB "Oh Uncle Bobby I could easily kill my parents".  If this was said it could be argued that Jeremy perceived his Uncle Bobby as viewing him (JB) with some skepticism perhaps partly due to differences in personality etc and JB being the adopted son of unknown birth parents, carrying 'bad blood', alien genes etc and JB simply fuelled this by 'shock' comments.   

[petey]

Having been found guilty doesn't mean a thing,neither does it prove that he was guilty.
Michael George was found guilty.
Stephan Kischkow was found guilty.
Colin Stagg was found guilty.
Susan May was found guilty.
Eddie Gilfoyle was found guilty.
Amanda Knox was found guilty.
Sion Jenkins was found guilty.

So it goes on. Now tell me the full definition of a guilty verdict,outlining all the results from the investigation,disregarding the " who said/did what " brigade. It was a matter for the police and the police only.

BTW,I don't have tunnel vision,,I don't need followers as I'm not a sheep,,have a mind of my own,never listen to gossip or hearsay, and always follow what I think is right and proper,without being prompted by those wearing blinkers.

Being found guilty has a massive impact. Of course in English legal history there have been miscarriages of justice and there will continue to be so. However these are very much an absolutely tiny percentage.

If you want me to be facetious, Colin Stagg was never found guilty as following the judges scathing comments at trial, the prosecution withdrew their case and he was aquitted.

On a seperate note a number of people continue to believe that both Sion Jenkins and less so Amanda Knox are actually guilty.

[nugnug]

the point he is makeing constant repetion of words he was found guilty is rather stupid.