jeremy bamber poll

[lookout]

The thing is though,,you either saw something or you didn't,,,and it was clearly written that there were two bodies in the kitchen,,,or it wouldn't have been entered as such. Nobody can make the mistake of seeing two bodies morphed into one,,,,can they.?
"Trick of the mind " like the " trick of the light ".?

[Bridget]

The thing is though,,you either saw something or you didn't,,,and it was clearly written that there were two bodies in the kitchen,,,or it wouldn't have been entered as such. Nobody can make the mistake of seeing two bodies morphed into one,,,,can they.?
"Trick of the mind " like the " trick of the light ".?

The person who wrote it didn't see anything, he wasnt there.

[lookout]

The person who wrote it didn't see anything, he wasnt there.

That's worse.

[Lugg]

The person who wrote it didn't see anything, he wasnt there.

Sorry Bridget. It is well known that I am incredibly thick. The person who wrote what?

[Bridget]

Sorry Bridget. It is well known that I am incredibly thick. The person who wrote what?

The log.

[Bridget]

That's worse.

Well what do you expect, gun in one hand, notepad in the other?

[Lugg]

The log.

Oh, you mean the log was written by the person back at the station, so he didn't see what really happened?

[Bridget]

Oh, you mean the log was written by the person back at the station, so he didn't see what really happened?

Yes that's what I mean.

[lookout]

Well what do you expect, gun in one hand, notepad in the other?

Pen behind ear and fag in mouth. Yes,,,you're right.

[Lugg]

Pen behind ear and fag in mouth. Yes,,,you're right.

Don't forget the donut in the mouth. It might explain the misheard message.

[petey]

"2 - Using the words 'conspire' and 'defraud' These are incredibly serious accusations. I certainly don't think the investigation was carried out well, but there is no way I would ever accuse the police or relatives of purposely maliciously conspiring to defraud Jeremy!"

You don’t seem to understand the basic dynamics of this case. There is simply no scenario which could be imagined where Jeremy is proven to be innocent without that implying wrongdoing on the part of the police and the relatives. The three are inseparable and are the basic reason why no evidence which Bamber can put forward, henceforth, will be accepted as strong enough to justify referring the case to the Court of Appeal. Avoiding such a scandal defines the real position of the CCRC who have almost certainly been told by the government not to refer the case. You are basically representing the pro guilt position, but somewhat dishonestly.

The commitment to supporting the police implies the commitment to supporting the guilty verdict in the face of any evidence to the contrary (apart from a “game over” situation such as policeman actually admitting that Bamber was framed.) Such a requirement is much stronger than would normally be required for a conviction to be deemed unsafe.

A referral to the Court of Appeal is virtually impossible in such a circumstance, because any evidence not strong enough to bring about an immediate acquittal will be rejected and rejected without an explanation if there is none to give.

"Two bodies found on entry."

The logs, in which it is clearly stated several times that two bodies were found on entry to the house, don’t seem to carry any weight with pro guilt people, probably because they have made a commitment to supporting authority. If those logs are correct, then the policemen who’s statements they contradict have lied. So you have to say that a number of references to two bodies and to further details consistent with Sheila having shot herself downstairs are all just mistakes. That’s where you dig your trench!

How likely is it that such a set of mutually corroborative entries are all mistaken? Random mistakes are not just unlikely to produce a logically consistent narrative. It is absurd that they should do so.

Let me see you try to explain the reporting of “One murder and one suicide.” at a time prior to when Sheila’s body was allegedly found upstairs.  I know what the usual pro guilt answer  is. They merely remind us that the CCRC have rejected that evidence which proves that it wasn’t as strong as Bamber’s supporters thought it was. And then, possibly, remind us that he was found guilty in a court of law and so on and so on.

A historian who argued in such a manner would be laughed at. “People who criticise Henry VIII should remember that he was the head of state at that time and, therefore, should show a little more respect for the decisions he made.”

And then there is this kind of drivel.
“Oh well, in all the confusion it was natural that mistakes would be made”

Let me ask a question. Why do you think the police did not report finding a beached whale downstairs? Well the answer is obvious isn’t it. The basic idea is to report what you did find, not what you didn’t find.

Interesting attempt to patronise me there thanks.

Are you saying that in your opinion it is as black and white that either JB is guilty and is correctly convicted. Or JB is innocent and the police and relatives must have therefore both purposively conspired together to convict and defraud him?!

That if a far too simplistic approach to proffer.

[guest154]

The poll makes no sense.

Isn't a poll meant to be a question with different possible answers? Not.....a lot of different questions? 

For example. Shouldn't it be.

DO YOU LIKE PIZZA?
Yes.
No.
Sometimes.

Not....a bunch of questions.   

[Bridget]

The poll makes no sense.

Isn't a poll meant to be a question with different possible answers? Not.....a lot of different questions? 

For example. Shouldn't it be.

DO YOU LIKE PIZZA?
Yes.
No.
Sometimes.

Not....a bunch of questions.   

I had the same problem!

[guest154]

I had the same problem!

Thank God!! Not just me then.

[Caroline R]

In fact the evidence of the pathologist is that with a lacerated jugular and fractured vertebrae she would not have been able to, but that is all too often ignored in favour of 'the great cover up' (what did the police stand to gain from the cover up again?).

Having already once switched from 4 murders and a suicide to 5 murders they would have looked like complete idiots to revert back to the former. Perhaps they really did think JB was guilty so just 'helped the evidence along'. It's not like this doesn't happen the more recent case of Steven Johnston is a prime example! Over zealousness and ambition can sometimes be dangerous.

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2006hcjac30.html

http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/stevenjohnston/index.html