New silencer tests set to cast serious doubt upon safety of convictions...

[maggie]

Yes but I think that's just because they hadn't got their stories straight re the silencer at that point!!

It's a sort of clue there was something dodgy going on.

[mrstiggywinkle]

With the wealth of factual information available on this forum, there really is no need for scenario's facts are far more interesting!!

Although you may have loads of facts; you don't actually have the truth.

In those circumstances, all you can have is scenarios and supposition; or in other words, 'guesses'.

[Caroline R]

Although you may have loads of facts; you don't actually have the truth.

In those circumstances, all you can have is scenarios and supposition; or in other words, 'guesses'.

I don't believe I said we did have the truth, I was talking about statements and evidence from the case. They aren't guesses or scenarios. They  may or may not be true but that's surely the purpose of debate - to find the flaws in what was taken as fact at the time and used to convict. Not to dream up new scenarios which were never considered and can't be proven one way or another!!

[mrstiggywinkle]

I don't believe I said we did have the truth, I was talking about statements and evidence from the case. They aren't guesses or scenarios. They  may or may not be true but that's surely the purpose of debate - to find the flaws in what was taken as fact at the time and used to convict. Not to dream up new scenarios which were never considered and can't be proven one way or another!!

Regardless of whether you have statements; test results; facts; evidence etc, none of it means anything unless it is used in a variety of scenarios.
Just because a scenario crops up which nobody else had previously thought about, doesn't mean it should be excluded just because it doesn't fit with prominent members thinking.
Face it, without scenarios, there would be no need for the forum.

[grahameb]

Although you may have loads of facts; you don't actually have the truth.

In those circumstances, all you can have is scenarios and supposition; or in other words, 'guesses'.

Unfortunately those facts that we have do not point to Jeremy's guilt. There is no evidence apart from circumstantial evidence (which is what he was convicted on). There are far too many senarios (guesses) as you say on the part of those who think he's guilty for my liking and they "judge" Bamber on those guesses which sometimes enter into the world of fantasy, that they have concocted in their own minds. Yet as you say we do not have the truth. It all may have happened in a way that no one has even thought of, or any of us thoughty possible?

[grahameb]

Regardless of whether you have statements; test results; facts; evidence etc, none of it means anything unless it is used in a variety of scenarios.
Just because a scenario crops up which nobody else had previously thought about, doesn't mean it should be excluded just because it doesn't fit with prominent members thinking.
Face it, without scenarios, there would be no need for the forum.

Well at the least we could discuss the facts that we have. And the evidence that we have. If discussed honestly all we can say is that there is no hard evidence apart from what certain people have claimed that could ever convict Bamber. Unfortunately he was convicted on a senario.

What we need to do on this forum is to discuss the evidence and the facts. For it is only evidence and facts that will free him or condemn him. Not our own ideas as to how it might have happened. After that silly poorly constructed documentary we all saw on tv the other day we had a good number of people join the forum to see if that documentary matched up to the facts. To the surprise of some it did not. Why? Because in the documentary all you had was a senario as to how it happened by Miller.

Therefore this forum and its archives is a very useful place if you need to check the facts and the evidence. That is the reason Mike set it up and that is the reason many intelligent posters reside on here. Not to read the load of bull***t senarios that some come up with. I don't like senarios. I think they are a waste of time and I think that the forum would be a far better place without them. Because we all end up discussing someone else's fantasy.

[mrstiggywinkle]

1) Therefore this forum and its archives is a very useful place if you need to check the facts and the evidence.
2) Because we all end up discussing someone else's fantasy.

1) Agreed - but then what do you actually do with the facts and evidence?
You cannot draw your own conclusion without a fabricating a scenario from the facts and evidence.

2) Yes, possibly; but because their fantasy (scenario) doesn't square with your own, you wish to dismiss it.

[grahameb]

1) Agreed - but then what do you actually do with the facts and evidence?
You cannot draw your own conclusion without a fabricating a scenario from the facts and evidence.

2) Yes, possibly; but because their fantasy (scenario) doesn't square with your own, you wish to dismiss it.

As I said I don't do senarios. But if they do not square with the facts or the evidence I tell them so.
Why would I not draw my own conclusion if I do not fabricate a senarion? What a jury does is compare the facts and the evidence and then come to a conclusion. Unfortunately the Bamber jury did not do this. They unfortunately listened to the conclusions of the judge which according to the available evidence was wrong. You can draw conclusions without fantasising on how it could have happened. Because as you rightly point out any senario we concoct will inevitably be wrong.

[lookout]

As I said I don't do senarios. But if they do not square with the facts or the evidence I tell them so.
Why would I not draw my own conclusion if I do not fabricate a senarion? What a jury does is compare the facts and the evidence and then come to a conclusion. Unfortunately the Bamber jury did not do this. They unfortunately listened to the conclusions of the judge which according to the available evidence was wrong. You can draw conclusions without fantasising on how it could have happened. Because as you rightly point out any senario we concoct will inevitably be wrong.

That's because the jury were blinded by science involving guns,rifles,silencers/moderators,,which they knew eff all about. These were people " picked off the street,laymen " like myself wouldn't know one end from the other,,and so as Grahame mentioned,were following the judge and what he had to say,rather than their own thoughts on the case. Granted,,it was complex,,but only because it was made to sound that way.

[mrstiggywinkle]

All I am saying is that given a file containing evidence and facts (regardless of how correct or incorrect that material may be); nobody can judge that evidence or those facts without coming to a conclusion.

I trust nobody will disagree with that statement.

However, in the circumstances of any case including this one;  given the evidence or facts (whether they are correct or fabricated) to enable one to reach a conclusion as to what happened based upon the evidence and facts, one must construct a mental scenario; a supposition; a speculation; (or if one wishes, a fantasy).

Bearing in mind the adversarial legal system this case would fall under, one barrister could well be right and one could well be wrong; who knows which is which; but both would have to lay before the jury a scenario of what each barrister thinks may have occurred.

It is all speculation until the truth is known, therefore many ideas should be given credence, not just a few.

[susan]

Hello mrstiggywinkle

I agree with what you are saying we do all have our own theories of the events at WHF on the fateful night.  You may or not be aware that Paul Harrison's (AKA Mason Doyle )book will be published early Spring and this book will be based on facts and not conjecture or hearsay so maybe we all we have a better idea what happened on and during the investigation connected with the murders at WHF and what is truth or otherwise.

[Jan]

Hello mrstiggywinkle

I agree with what you are saying we do all have our own theories of the events at WHF on the fateful night.  You may or not be aware that Paul Harrison's (AKA Mason Doyle )book will be published early Spring and this book will be based on facts and not conjecture or hearsay so maybe we all we have a better idea what happened on and during the investigation connected with the murders at WHF and what is truth or otherwise.

But all the facts and evidence is not available because it is held by the police under PII so unfortunately there will still not be  a full story unless the audio tapes etc are released.

[susan]

Hello Jansus

You could be right but I am sure many documents held have now been released or uncovered.  I am very excited about the book as it will give us answers to many unanswered questions and I eagerly await the publication.

[Jan]

yes me as well -there is a wealth of information on here so it is difficult to find sometimes . But as far as I know the information under the PII could hold the vital information that may prove innocence rather than a mis-trial .That is what is so frustrating.

I am still trying to keep an open mind - but so far  I still have not been convinced he is guilty.

[Alias]

Hi susan, so nice to have you back!