police and relatives and ex girlfriend conspired to frame Jeremy

[susan]

Andrea  I've had both think I liked the peasant best

[Lugg]

Andrea  I've had both think I liked the peasant best

You've got to wash them well though.

[susan]

Hi Lugg especially if he is a Yorkshire peasant Ha Ha Ha

[lookout]

If you think about it for awhile, you might come to the realisation that the comment you made is completely idiotic. Your thinking-if that’s the right word for it-is highly similar to that of Nickos and of plenty others. What’s missing is a basic recognition of the most elementary forms of argument.

Proof of the verdict, which of course is well documented and not in question, does not constitute proof of guilt.

Petey uses this false argument a lot as well. As an educated man, he should know better. The basic line is to remind the supporters of Jeremy that he was found guilty in a court of law etc. etc. Further support for that position is provided by reminding us that the defendant’s Appeals have failed and so on and so on.

The rejection of scientific evidence by the CCRC is taken to be proof that the experts were mistaken, even if all that happened was that their opinion was ignored. You people seem to think that you’re talking to a crowd of peasants in the middle ages.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

Spoken like a professional,Martin.

[tonyb]

If you think about it for awhile, you might come to the realisation that the comment you made is completely idiotic. Your thinking-if that’s the right word for it-is highly similar to that of Nickos and of plenty others. What’s missing is a basic recognition of the most elementary forms of argument.

Proof of the verdict, which of course is well documented and not in question, does not constitute proof of guilt.

Petey uses this false argument a lot as well. As an educated man, he should know better. The basic line is to remind the supporters of Jeremy that he was found guilty in a court of law etc. etc. Further support for that position is provided by reminding us that the defendant’s Appeals have failed and so on and so on.

The rejection of scientific evidence by the CCRC is taken to be proof that the experts were mistaken, even if all that happened was that their opinion was ignored. You people seem to think that you’re talking to a crowd of peasants in the middle ages.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

Martin, I think ill forgive you for insinuating I'm an idiot.  Facts are sacred, fact is JB is guilty, as found by a jury of his peers. Now as that is the fact, you have now to prove he is innocent, as opposed to not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I've always thought this,and been shouted down for it. But there again,I don't believe 90% of what I read as fact,especially when there is nothing to substantiate it,or them....

[coleen]

Why on Earth would the Bfamily conspire to set Jeremy up as the murderer of his entire family. The family are not that wealthy with the land they farm being rented from the Church. I know about Osea Caravan Site as I had a caravan on there and I have seen Mr Nevill Bamber he was a large man and a very polite person. His cousins are certainly not the type to sit around and discuss Jeremy let alone set him up. I wonder if there is something that happened and we are not privvy to it, after all Jeremy passed the lie detector does any member know what questions he was asked? It has long been suspected that Jeremy did not act alone.

[lookout]

Why on Earth would the Bfamily conspire to set Jeremy up as the murderer of his entire family. The family are not that wealthy with the land they farm being rented from the Church. I know about Osea Caravan Site as I had a caravan on there and I have seen Mr Nevill Bamber he was a large man and a very polite person. His cousins are certainly not the type to sit around and discuss Jeremy let alone set him up. I wonder if there is something that happened and we are not privvy to it, after all Jeremy passed the lie detector does any member know what questions he was asked? It has long been suspected that Jeremy did not act alone.

Not a conspiracy as such,Coll,,but misguided "evidence" handed out by the police to which everyone believed,,,without thought. Unfortunately,the justice system wasn't as it seemed,at the time,,,and sadly,things haven't changed much over the years.
The case was so badly handled that it led to suspicion among the officers and extended family.

[Lugg]

Martin, I think ill forgive you for insinuating I'm an idiot.  Facts are sacred, fact is JB is guilty, as found by a jury of his peers. Now as that is the fact, you have now to prove he is innocent, as opposed to not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I've always thought this,and been shouted down for it. But there again,I don't believe 90% of what I read as fact,especially when there is nothing to substantiate it,or them....

They needed men like you on the original jury Tony. Because there was nothing to substantiate the silencer finding and no one to back up JM's testimony either.

[Lugg]

Why on Earth would the Bfamily conspire to set Jeremy up as the murderer of his entire family. The family are not that wealthy with the land they farm being rented from the Church. I know about Osea Caravan Site as I had a caravan on there and I have seen Mr Nevill Bamber he was a large man and a very polite person. His cousins are certainly not the type to sit around and discuss Jeremy let alone set him up. I wonder if there is something that happened and we are not privvy to it, [after all Jeremy passed the lie detector does any member know what questions he was asked? It has long been suspected that Jeremy did not act alone.

I think it was, "Did you murder your family?" Answer, "No".

[susan]

Coleen if you go to the Official Bamber Site I think some of the questions are listed if I remember just three of them don't quote me as I could be wrong

[susan]

Hi tonyb  Jeremy Bamber was found guilty by a majority verdict not a unanimous one so it must leave an element of doubt and you are quite right it is upto his Defence to prove the verdict was unsafe.

[Bridget]

http://jeremybamber.org/lie-detecor/

[guest7363]

http://jeremybamber.org/lie-detecor/

Thanks for that bridget, it seems all he had to answer was yes or no, is that standard practice?

[OnceSaid]

He said we were talking to people as if we were a load of pheasants. Personally I've never spoken to a pheasant. Have you?

The way that I read it was that Martin was meaning tonyb and Petey when he wrote "you people" and he felt they were talking to JB supporters like peasants from the middle ages.

[susan]

Hi oncesaid  I read it the same way as you tonyb and petey are the peasants not us Lugg I will modify this post to read tonyb and petey were talking to JB supporters as if they were peasants.  Think that is what was meant but still not sure.