What REALLY Convinces You That Jeremy Is Innocent/Guilty?

[nugnug]

Not sure why lambasting Bob Woffinden, or attacking his credibility has anything to do with what really happened at WHF? The bloke came up with his opinion, and unlike many on here, he had the balls to put it in print and put his name to it.  Has it made a difference to Jeremy Bamber's case? Nope! Has it kept the case in the public eye? Yep, and I'm sure Jeremy knows and appreciates the value in that. 

If you don't agree with what he has done, rather than attack him, do something positive about it, write up your own theory and put your real identity and make it easy to contact yourself, as he has.  Far better to do that than slate and destroy someones integrity for having an opinion whilst hiding behind a computer screen.  I know Bob Woffinden, he's a decent guy, I'll stand up beside him and be counted, he doesn't deserve any of this because he's got an opinion that differs from the bulk on here. I thought this was a fair place for debate, I was clearly wrong.

i probely went a bit to far there as i usually do.

for me its was the fact he claimed to have solved the case when he had clearly done nothing of the kind.

surely all writer expect some critism of there work.

[Jane]

Thanks for that, AA. It is interesting to hear this - as it is always interesting to read your posts, since you have first hand knowledge of the person, Jeremy Bamber.
You mention something that has entered my mind from time to time: that Jeremy seems to be in the dark about what happened that night and is as puzzled as the rest of us as to what really took place.
I think we (mostly Jeremy!) desperately need to see all the material held under PII. We don´t know the whole case, something is clearly missing from the equation.
We also need a report on what physical evidence was destroyed in 1996 - each and every item accounted for. Who made the order and who carried it out - it was unlawful. Why was there no consequences for the people involved in this?

There is a saying that for every action there is a consequence. It seems that some consequences take longer than others.

[Mason Doyle]

I'm not attacking him I'm just giving my opinion as to why I don't respect him. Still. I suppose he had one thing in his favour. We all know his real name.

As you do mine Grahame.  I accept its your opinion, but why not write to Bob and tell him of your opinions with your contact details of course and tell him directly rather than patronisingly call him 'Woof Woof' on here.  allow the man to defend himself to you directly perhaps. 

[Mason Doyle]

i probely went a bit to far there as i usually do.

for me its was the fact he claimed to have solved the case when he had clearly done nothing of the kind.

surely all writer expect some critism of there work.

Not a problem Nug Nug.  I agree with what you say about writers, and we do accept criticism, it goes with the job.  As a crime writer you cannot please everyone. So when a paid writer comes back and has a go back at a someone on a forum with an opinion contrary to their own, an opinion they know is fundamentally wrong, that person should accept it too. 

If I had held to account every person who slated me then most of the red forum would be in court, and my books not even published yet! There is a difference in questioning someone's integrity and disagreeing with a reasoned and valid opinion. Referring to Bob as 'Woof Woof' as one poster has, isn't valid. It's immature, in my opinion of course. I'm all for exposing Miscarriages of Justice, as is Bob, we are human beings, we are fallible, we make mistakes, doesn't everyone?

[Mason Doyle]

Woofwoof wrote a lot in defence of Jeremy. But what he is saying now in effect is that all that he has written before is complete dross.
So what is there to inspire confidence in what he has to say to us nowadays about the case? Aman who is prone to change his mind at a whim.

And you have never changed your mind Grahame? I've searched everywhere and cannot find anything where he effectively says everything he said before about Jeremy Bamber, or anything else, is complete dross, or that this decision making was on a whim?

[Aunt Agatha]

There is a saying that for every action there is a consequence. It seems that some consequences take longer than others.

Hi Alias,

Reading your post brings to mind the time Jeremy was in prison with Winston Silcott.......Silcott would be in the very same visiting room as us and he would point out Silcott stating 'Winston is a political prisoner'.  I never knew what he meant when he said it.

Ironic isn't it - how today, some of us see Jeremy as 'the political prisoner' himself.

Sad....so very sad indeed.

[grahameb]

As you do mine Grahame.  I accept its your opinion, but why not write to Bob and tell him of your opinions with your contact details of course and tell him directly rather than patronisingly call him 'Woof Woof' on here.  allow the man to defend himself to you directly perhaps.

Why? I know someone who knows him personally and even she couldn't understand why he changed his mind. He was mentioned and I gave my opinion that's all. I have known this case from the beginning and although I have learned a lot since then, not once have I changed my allegiance. Especially on something that has been known from the first. Still. Let's see what you yourself have got to offer when your own book comes out.

[nugnug]

And you have never changed your mind Grahame? I've searched everywhere and cannot find anything where he effectively says everything he said before about Jeremy Bamber, or anything else, is complete dross, or that this decision making was on a whim?

whati really cant understand is why he changed his mind at that moment he seemed to change his mind when the evidence what he had previously said.

i wonder weather he really has changed his mind.

[lookout]

I remember that case,AA. The PC Blakelock murder where Winston had been accused. A terrible MOJ.

[tyler]

It is Bob Woffinden's perogative to change his mind re; guilt/innocence,but I can see why people were upset with the article he wrote. Some people tend to believe as gospel everything that is written in the press and the article was based on pure speculation (the wetsuit) and as for the moving around of the telephones,if he had done his homework and read the telephone engineer's (Mr Pike) statement,he would have known at least that the bedroom telephone was in situ in the kitchen on the Monday prior to the murders. So yes,a very misleading article I think.

[nugnug]

and as he wasn't new to the case you would think he would know that.


i wonder weather he actually wrote that articall or weather ricard webster wrote it.

[Mason Doyle]

Why? I know someone who knows him personally and even she couldn't understand why he changed his mind. He was mentioned and I gave my opinion that's all. I have known this case from the beginning and although I have learned a lot since then, not once have I changed my allegiance. Especially on something that has been known from the first. Still. Let's see what you yourself have got to offer when your own book comes out.

Grahame, as you state: 'you have known this case from the beginning'...you have 'not once changed your allegiance.' Thats good, I respect that.  However, I don't think Bob ever had an allegiance, (unless your person says different), nor do I, like me , he researched and came to a conclusion, we differ in our conclusions, so what, thats life. I don't bear grudges or question his integrity or patronisingly call him Woof Woof because we differ in opinion. Simples really. 

Having a sly dig at me or my book doesn't help or work to be honest, you say you were there at the beginning, great.  Me, I wasn't, I didn't witness the murders, I simply attended the trial, spoke to cops, witnesses et al, at the time, and much later, I also, post trial, communicated with Jeremy Bamber, thats my professional role, I profile serious offenders.  So maybe what 'I have to offer' is never going to match your own in depth knowledge. It's all about opinions Grahame, not damning people because someone else tells you something which may or may not be true. Easiest way to find out if it is true, ask them direct. That's what I did with Jeremy and everyone else, I questioned them face to face on many things they said and claimed.

Ultimately, what matters to me, I don't want my friends unfairly slated or their integrity questioned, if you have something to say about Bob then give him a chance to respond, you are appealing for Jeremy to get a fair hearing, then perhaps you should do so yourself. Contact Bob, but word of advice, don't call him Woof Woof.

[Mason Doyle]

and as he wasn't new to the case you would think he would know that.


i wonder weather he actually wrote that articall or weather ricard webster wrote it.

All articles, stories are amended.  There is one article online, an alleged quote from me that quotes me about this case, it's totally wrong, I never made such comments, they were twisted to suit, to sell newspapers. I complained and received a letter of apology. I don't know Bob's circumstances so cannot support them one way or another in this case, but I do know he is a genuine and fair guy, he's dealt with 'crims' of all kinds, he knows them, sadly, as has been claimed on here, he isn't susceptible or prone to whimsical fancies. Ultimately, its editors make the decisions in newspapers and in the media, their job is to sell newspapers, so the more controversial they are the better. The only way of finding out is by someone speaking on here speaking with him and asking him directly.

[nugnug]

where could we get hold of him i quie like the idea of contacting him personally.

[Mason Doyle]

I shall PM you