The abusive remarks towards Jeremy Bamber

[SIMONJONES]

Is Sutherst still on the case NGB?

I don't think there would be any reason for Sutherst to be involved anymore.

This was an interesting development at the time, but like so many others, there was an explanation that was conceeded by Sutherst.

The CCRC gave me a run down of this over the telephone at the time, and what they said was later confirmed by Vic.

It was another false lead in a case that has nowhere left to go.

Simon McKay can experiment on Zebra's, Donkey's or anything he likes, it won't be making any difference to things.

[ngb1066]

Any idea why they never came to the farm?

It was for a variety of reasons.  This was a time when Jeremy Bamber was considering whether to change his legal representation and that did have an impact on the process.  I believe that an inspection to validate or refute Sutherst's original conclusions would be a good idea.

 

[ngb1066]

Is Sutherst still on the case NGB?

No, Peter Sutherst is no longer instructed.  Another expert was lined up by the defence to carry out the inspection of the Aga surround but the arrangements for this had not been made by the time of the final submissions.

[ngb1066]

I don't think there would be any reason for Sutherst to be involved anymore.

This was an interesting development at the time, but like so many others, there was an explanation that was conceeded by Sutherst.

The CCRC gave me a run down of this over the telephone at the time, and what they said was later confirmed by Vic.

It was another false lead in a case that has nowhere left to go.

Simon McKay can experiment on Zebra's, Donkey's or anything he likes, it won't be making any difference to things.

Ray - That is a very dismissive comment to make about Simon McKay.  The tests and reports he commissioned were focussed on evidence at the very heart of the case, although time ran out and the further tests required were not carried out.  As far as Peter Sutherst is concerned the position was a little more complex than you suggest.  You should also bear in mind that his input pre-dated Simon Mckay's involvement.

You should be cautious about relying upon disparaging comments about Jeremy Bamber's prospects made by a case worker at the CCRC.  You more than many will be aware of the CCRC's shortcomings, as a result of your involvement in the Simon Hall case.  Would you accept at face value a comment made by someone at the CCRC about Simon's case?

 

[Lugg]

Well for a start I do not accept "what is really happening here" as being anymore than two sides of an argument. Mike Tesko wasn't 'around' when it happened either, nor were many people that argue for or against his guilt. I doubt you knew the family before and I doubt you have ever met anyone connected with the case since. So I believe that argument to be a poor one.

In your opening paragraph you list regular insults..."He is a "liar" or "effeminate" or a "druggy" or "vain" or he is "greedy" and of course we are reminded at every opportunity that he is a "child killer"

As I believe him guilty, naturally, I believe him to be a liar. Even without my belief in his guilt, there are incidents before conviction where he wasn't truthful. Only yesterday I highlighted a clear lie, that he told to Mike Tesko, there are others too, in his letters and statements to the press.
As I would never criticise anyones sexuality, this does not refer to me and I would not defend anyone who did. Yes, he did drugs, he did coke, but he also supplied. This for me takes him beyond simple adolecent experimentation. Why do people supply? To make money.
Why did a seemingly wealthy, good looking, young man, sell drugs for money? Because he was greedy.
Why does a wealthy, good looking, young man, sleep around? Why does he want a sports car? Holidays abroad? Highly fashionable gear? Probably vain? Who can blame him?! I'd have wanted the same.

In a parallel universe we find......

Soi explain your remark Vic

Statement on bamberbollocks.com - august 2003

? So you think it justified to insult the reasearchers of this website just because you disagree with them. Another ploy I fear by the relatives abd their vassals to call Bambers supporters abusive names. Yet isf they say the same hing about the relatives you cry "foul"

Also I see that you are implying that I am a liar. Exactly the type of insult that I describe in my original post that come from the opposition.
I'm affraid that your continued insults against Bamber and his supporters only go to confirm and establish my complaint. I see that you even "justify" your insults by reasoning that you can call him what you like because he was found guilty in a court of law. Another point that I have addressed in original post.

To believe one guilty is no excuse to continually abuse them and do everything in your power to denigrate him and his supporters. Just because you "belive" something to be true does not make that thing true. Neither does it giuve you the right o declare open season upon him and his supporters to say anything and everything derogatory under the sun. If you want us to respect the relatives, then you had better wise up on this abuse lark.

[Lugg]

No no no no!. Let's get this thread back on track. If the relatives are to be respected. Then I suggest that JB ought to be also and all this name calling towards his supporters stop right now. That is what this thread is all about. Please do not try and derail it by bringing in Southurst and other stuff just so the opposition can continue their vile abuse.

[Lugg]

Ray - That is a very dismissive comment to make about Simon McKay.  The tests and reports he commissioned were focussed on evidence at the very heart of the case, although time ran out and the further tests required were not carried out.  As far as Peter Sutherst is concerned the position was a little more complex than you suggest.  You should also bear in mind that his input pre-dated Simon Mckay's involvement.

You should be cautious about relying upon disparaging comments about Jeremy Bamber's prospects made by a case worker at the CCRC.  You more than many will be aware of the CCRC's shortcomings, as a result of your involvement in the Simon Hall case.  Would you accept at face value a comment made by someone at the CCRC about Simon's case?

That Neil is the kind of remark I am talking about. Derogatory things made EVEN about Bambers Lawyers. Disgusting!.

[ngb1066]

That Neil is the kind of remark I am talking about. Derogatory things made EVEN about Bambers Lawyers. Disgusting!.

I agree Lugg, it is unfortunate that snide comments are made about Simon McKay.  He deserves credit for the hard work and skill he has applied to this case, all entirely without payment even for his out of pocket expenses.

 

[Lugg]

Im sorry lugg this is the first time i do not agree with certain statements in your post? A lot of good posters have been driven off by being anti bamber and i do not have to repeat the language used, not many posters who believe jeremy guilty now post at all. This forum is prob 90 per cent pro bamber with moderators who do a good job by the way who are nearly always pro bamber so any nonsense is took care of straight away i feel.  If we drive the likes of vidvic or hartley or any anti bamber which has happened away you will have a forum that just pats each other on the back. Sometimes emotions take over lugg and i understand what you went through which was awful but do what i do and stop the bus sometimes and get off, as i am writting this i have just had a phone call about some horrible news on the holiday park i worked on in essex for ten years so i am signing off for now.

Ralph I simply cannot agree with your post. Do you actually agree with all the abusive posts directed towards Bamber and his supporters, and now even towards his legal team? This lop sided treatment is the main thrust of my post and I hope this thread.
The almost "santimonious" attitude of the opposition against Bamber and his defenders and the lies about him that are only backed up by hearsay. We are supposed to tolerate this? It's ok for you to bring up old stuff. But since this so called "truce" the supporters are the only one's who have abided by it. You can disagree with someone without calling them names like "hypocrite" and "bamberbollocks.org". This is both disgusting and objectionable. As for antis leaving. Well we also have some excellent posters on the pro bambers leaving as well. So that's not an issue as far as I can see? People will do what they will. But if we are to have a good "clean" forum then this effort must come from both sides. I for one am not going to suck up to the relatives because of the sanctimonious attitude some have towards them.

[SIMONJONES]

Ray - That is a very dismissive comment to make about Simon McKay.  The tests and reports he commissioned were focussed on evidence at the very heart of the case, although time ran out and the further tests required were not carried out.  As far as Peter Sutherst is concerned the position was a little more complex than you suggest.  You should also bear in mind that his input pre-dated Simon Mckay's involvement.

You should be cautious about relying upon disparaging comments about Jeremy Bamber's prospects made by a case worker at the CCRC.  You more than many will be aware of the CCRC's shortcomings, as a result of your involvement in the Simon Hall case.  Would you accept at face value a comment made by someone at the CCRC about Simon's case?

A Zebra will be water off a ducks back to Simon McKay.

The 'disparaging comments' re. Sutherst turned out to be 'deadly accurate'.

Anything the CCRC have relayed to me by telephone or email has proved to be reliable.

So, in answer to your final point....well, yeah why not?

[Lugg]

A Zebra will be water off a ducks back to Simon McKay.

The 'disparaging comments' re. Sutherst turned out to be 'deadly accurate'.

Anything the CCRC have relayed to me by telephone or email has proved to be reliable.

So, in answer to your final point....well, yeah why not?

That's strange SJ. I thought this case was dead in the water according to you? So why do you seem to think that any kind of disparaging comment against those who are helping Bamber is justified in any way? Come to think of it, why are you here if you think the case is dead in the water? You interest in the case tells me that it is still quite alive to you?

[ngb1066]

A Zebra will be water off a ducks back to Simon McKay.

I do not think Simon McKay would lose any sleep over your comment, but I still think it is unnecessary and unfair to be so dismissive of his efforts.

The 'disparaging comments' re. Sutherst turned out to be 'deadly accurate'.

Fair enough but since the further work has not yet been undertaken it is not possible to say that Sutherst's conclusions were invalid.

Anything the CCRC have relayed to me by telephone or email has proved to be reliable.

Again, fair enough insofar as this relates to facts, but opinions about the case generally are just that and you cannot say whether they are reliable or not.

So, in answer to your final point....well, yeah why not?

Do you really mean that?  If the CCRC dismiss the submissions you helped to prepare last year about the "alternative suspects" are you saying you would simply accept their view?

[Lugg]

Do you really mean that?  If the CCRC dismiss the submissions you helped to prepare last year about the "alternative suspects" are you saying you would simply accept their view?

I wonder if we we get the same comment if they dismiss the Simon Hall case? Interesting.
Also I am wondering by what authority the particular person at the CCRC has to divulge confidential information to RH?

[guest154]

No no no no!. Let's get this thread back on track. If the relatives are to be respected. Then I suggest that JB ought to be also and all this name calling towards his supporters stop right now. That is what this thread is all about. Please do not try and derail it by bringing in Southurst and other stuff just so the opposition can continue their vile abuse.

You think the people who believe Bamber innocent are abused? You should try being someone who believes him being guilty.....then you'd truly understand it.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone abused for simply supporting Bamber, but when a Bamber supporter seems to blindingly follow suit when they show little knowledge is where things become uneasy.

I don't think it is correct to promote the feeling that there is much abuse between those for and against Bamber on this forum - most people seem to get along very well. I would say that if anyone is having problems with other members then it is likely because of who they are and their personality more than their stance on the case.

[SIMONJONES]

I wonder if we we get the same comment if they dismiss the Simon Hall case? Interesting.
Also I am wondering by what authority the particular person at the CCRC has to divulge confidential information to RH?

Well Lugg, I have no influence over what the CCRC may or may not do, I'll always know I put months into this case and it has been an incredible experience, and an education.

Stephanie Hall has done far more than me.

All I did with the CCRC in both the Bamber case and that of Simon Hall was pick up the phone and ask them some questions, surely there is nothing stopping anyone else doing that.

They do have a press office ( or at least they did ).

So a press officer is not likely to be leaking anything of a 'confidential' nature.

I don't think the media picked up much on the Sutherst aftermath, that was why I phoned Birmingham.

It's only fair to add that I have had contact with David Jessel in relation to Simon's case, but this was only to get an overview of the way to process some findings.












What 'confidential information'?