0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I wanted to stert a new poll and exclude the last one.thankyou.
I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, or that I'm surprised by the suggestion that it does, I'm saying that Lord Denning's comments do not support the point you are making.
The point you appear to be making (or supporting) is that the police would try to cover their 'mistakes' (the mistake in this case being that they incorrectly turned their attention from Sheila to JB) by inventing or concealing evidence which would lead to the opposite (original) conclusion. You then sought to support that point using Denning's comments. To me there is a world of difference between a police force investigating various lines of enquiry before concluding that one of them is sufficient for a prosecution, and the situation on which Denning commented and which I do not believe was intended to refer to the police at all.
I don´t understand how they could reach any conclusion after botching up pretty much every aspect of this case.Boggles the mind.
"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.
