Example of how Relatives Names are Blackened.

[killingeve]

NaNu/Caroline Hi to you both. I have said on several occasions that Steve has ZERO interest in what is said by others, often including the few who agree with him. IMO, Steve's only interest is in online oratory and he enjoys seeing the words  he has written as opposed to just listening to the sound of his own voice.

Hi April1

I totally agree   

He appears to have had a bypass insofar as the ability to hold a two-way conversation goes.  His need to dominate the airwaves is imo rather worrying at times 

[hourglass]

Hi lookout sorry have to disagree slightly on the post regarding steve uk.  I feel he wants so much for Jeremy to be guilty but is struggling with the evidence against him so he is making more up to try and cement the verdict in his own head.  I was quite puzzled at how he knew Jeremy brought cannabis or took from Amsterdam in an empty toothpaste tube.  He knows far too much tittle tattle about what Julie and Jeremy did or did not do for my liking it is not all a figment of his imagination.  What she said what he said must be some truth in there somewhere.

He is correct in this as I have seen this in one of the JM statements.  I have had the tedium of reading statements by these disagreeable people.  Steve is definately correct.

Also I disagree strongly with attacks on any one person.  It is just petty and unhelpful.  If you want to run a club then have a closed form and do not ask for outside comments.

[Caroline R]

I think my point has been missed, I was trying to say that comments are more about what Steve thinks than on specific issues! Perhaps we should try and drag things back to issues concerning JB and not just Steve's opinions of them - I know it's easy to get dragged in but it just ends up distracting the debate away from the topic and back to points which have already been done to death. Just my opinion, but if you read back you'll find that Steve is mentioned even more than JB - which is a little ironic. 

[Jane]

Susan/Tyler, I think you're both totally correct. The more of us he can convince of Jeremy's guilt, the more certain he can allow himself to be of his guilt. There's just one problem. IMO, he's going entirely the wrong way about it and if he stopped sneering at psychology for long enough, he'd realize that using some reverse psychology might actually work. At the moment everything he says gives us cause to defend Jeremy, which is probably a little unrealistic. If he changed his approach more of us MAY concede a point or two.

[susan]

Hi Caroline  the point is steve will not allow us to discuss anything.  If it is something he does not like he can becme quite rude and sarcastic.  If I say post upto you he will answer my post with something entirely irrelevant to what I was saying.  He takes topics over with his own theories like last night he said I accused him of being responsible for Crispy's death I asked twice for him to highlight my post where I had suggested this totally ridiculous suggestion he just totally ignored me.  He takes over the forum with his own theories and N/N is right he is using this forum as his own personal soap box.

[killingeve]

He is correct in this as I have seen this in one of the JM statements.  I have had the tedium of reading statements by these disagreeable people.  Steve is definately correct.

Also I disagree strongly with attacks on any one person.  It is just petty and unhelpful.  If you want to run a club then have a closed form and do not ask for outside comments.

Hi Hourglass

I did read in Roger Wilkes' book (I think) about cannabis in toothpaste tubes.  Possibly wit stats too - it's a long time since I read them.

The forum would be a waste of time without differences in opinion.  The problem with Steve_uk is that he posts AT posters and at times is unable to engage in debate in a 'reasonable' manner.

For example one of Steve_uk's very first posts makes reference to Pamela Boutflour referring to Sheila as a 'zombie'.  PB made a witness statement but there's no reference to her using this descritption of Sheila whatsover.  Despite this being pointed out to Steve_uk he continues to persist.  Please also bear in mind that this is a lady, who if still alive, would now be well into her 90's and was brought up and lived in rural Essex within the farming community.  The word 'zombie' is very unlikely to have featured in her vocabularly and this is supported by her witness statement.

[Jane]

Hi Caroline  the point is steve will not allow us to discuss anything.  If it is something he does not like he can becme quite rude and sarcastic.  If I say post upto you he will answer my post with something entirely irrelevant to what I was saying.  He takes topics over with his own theories like last night he said I accused him of being responsible for Crispy's death I asked twice for him to highlight my post where I had suggested this totally ridiculous suggestion he just totally ignored me.  He takes over the forum with his own theories and N/N is right he is using this forum as his own personal soap box.

Susan, I think you will find that he attacks and accuses when he is on the losing end of an argument. Last night was a prime example. The debate regarding Crispy had gone on interminably and whilst we were all offering different possibilites, most were valid. Steve however, wouldn't accept the validity of anything we said and refused to back down by throwing into the mix totally irrelevant and fatuous soundbites. I think the closest he has come to truth is when he, albeit, inadvertantly said he would continue to "persecute" Jeremy.

[susan]

Hi april  as far as Crispy was concerned all I asked him was why did Crispy barking when Jeremy entered through a window not wake Ralph.  Never got an answer then I got cannabis in toothpaste tubes which I never asked him about when I objected to him referring to Crispy as a mutt what did he do in the next post describe Crispy as a mangy old dog.  In my opinion he lashes out if he thinks he can hurt a poster who has asked him a reasonale question.  The only person he is letting down is himself.  When it suits him June is a light sleeper then she is a heavy sleeper.  Jeremy lost a marigold glove then after I had mentioned about clothes being burnt in the Aga he decides the gloves were burnt in the Aga.  When I said the police would smell the burning rubber well they were only latex gloves before an empty pkt of marigold gloves was found in the field.  I just give up.  Hope he does answer my post which I have put up for Nickos who is very sensible.

[Jane]

Hi april  as far as Crispy was concerned all I asked him was why did Crispy barking when Jeremy entered through a window not wake Ralph.  Never got an answer then I got cannabis in toothpaste tubes which I never asked him about when I objected to him referring to Crispy as a mutt what did he do in the next post describe Crispy as a mangy old dog.  In my opinion he lashes out if he thinks he can hurt a poster who has asked him a reasonale question.  The only person he is letting down is himself.  When it suits him June is a light sleeper then she is a heavy sleeper.  Jeremy lost a marigold glove then after I had mentioned about clothes being burnt in the Aga he decides the gloves were burnt in the Aga.  When I said the police would smell the burning rubber well they were only latex gloves before an empty pkt of marigold gloves was found in the field.  I just give up.  Hope he does answer my post which I have put up for Nickos who is very sensible.

Dear Susan, it has been noted. Not only does Steve like all I's dotted and all T's crossed, he juggles them around to suit his own purpose first

[killingeve]

I don't accept that interpretation of events. The smoking gun is this conversation with Charles Marsden,because the Defence has to explain how there can possibly be two serial killers on the loose in one house on the only the second occasion in 365 days when all the family are under one roof and they are all killed.

I will persist in my persecution of Jeremy Bamber until he is decent enough to own up. A deathbed confession will suffice.

Hi Steve_uk

Imo, albeit I'm not legally trained, the defence should have made a much, much better job of explaining to the jury how in a family of 4 where none were biologically related but two members had a long history of mental illness, a third member free of ever having had any mental illness/personality disorder was being tried for the murder of 5 family members!    If Jeremy is guilty this would mean 3 of the 4 non-biologically related family members were mentally ill/personality disordered!!

 

[Jane]

Hi Steve_uk

Imo, albeit I'm not legally trained, the defence should have made a much, much better job of explaining to the jury how in a family of 4 where none were biologically related but two members had a long history of mental illness, a third member free of ever having had any mental illness/personality disorder was being tried for the murder of 5 family members!    If Jeremy is guilty this would mean 3 of the 4 non-biologically related family members were mentally ill/personality disordered!!

 

And the question which follows, regardless of its' validity, is how 2 unrelated children without any history of psychological/mental disorder in either family, should BOTH end up with one.

[lookout]

And the question which follows, regardless of its' validity, is how 2 unrelated children without any history of psychological/mental disorder in either family, should BOTH end up with one.

I'd end up with a disorder too if I was living with someone who was fanatical about religion.
It's clear that Sheila followed in Junes' footsteps in that direction when the term " devils' child/children " came into play.

[Lugg]

Dear Susan, it has been noted. Not only does Steve like all I's dotted and all T's crossed, he juggles them around to suit his own purpose first

It's called knight jump tactics.

[Steve_uk]

Hi Hourglass

I did read in Roger Wilkes' book (I think) about cannabis in toothpaste tubes.  Possibly wit stats too - it's a long time since I read them.

The forum would be a waste of time without differences in opinion.  The problem with Steve_uk is that he posts AT posters and at times is unable to engage in debate in a 'reasonable' manner.

For example one of Steve_uk's very first posts makes reference to Pamela Boutflour referring to Sheila as a 'zombie'.  PB made a witness statement but there's no reference to her using this descritption of Sheila whatsover.  Despite this being pointed out to Steve_uk he continues to persist.  Please also bear in mind that this is a lady, who if still alive, would now be well into her 90's and was brought up and lived in rural Essex within the farming community.  The word 'zombie' is very unlikely to have featured in her vocabularly and this is supported by her witness statement.
[/quoThe "zombie" remark is mentioned here and if you give me time I'll find it elsewhere.http://youknowwhokilledyoudontyou.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/innocent-man-part-13.html
You'll have to wait an hour as there's a programme on about a man murdering his American wife..

[hourglass]

Hi Hourglass

I did read in Roger Wilkes' book (I think) about cannabis in toothpaste tubes.  Possibly wit stats too - it's a long time since I read them.

The forum would be a waste of time without differences in opinion.  The problem with Steve_uk is that he posts AT posters and at times is unable to engage in debate in a 'reasonable' manner.

For example one of Steve_uk's very first posts makes reference to Pamela Boutflour referring to Sheila as a 'zombie'.  PB made a witness statement but there's no reference to her using this descritption of Sheila whatsover.  Despite this being pointed out to Steve_uk he continues to persist.  Please also bear in mind that this is a lady, who if still alive, would now be well into her 90's and was brought up and lived in rural Essex within the farming community.  The word 'zombie' is very unlikely to have featured in her vocabularly and this is supported by her witness statement.

Hello NN,

I would accept all that but email and forum posting is a terrible tool with all the immediate effect of a conversation but people think it has the legal effect of a written statement.  I say things that I do not always mean in emails and postings and afterwards wish I had written better.  I have assumed that Steve may have heard something said that is not in a witness statement.  I would not like to work with only witness statements proporting to be the only truth.  We freely disregard other witness statements when they do not agree with our point of view so I can not get hung up about a "Zombie" reference one way or another.  It is quite an old term, not exactly bibilical but certainly in use for at least 100 years.  Whether or not in common Essex vocabulary I am not qualified to say.