The Noble Cause Framing Theory

[grahameb]

You're setting yourself up as quite the psychologist except that having doubts isn't a personality trait and people who have doubts ate 'not ALL the same'. You talk regularly about propaganda and you're more guilty of it than anyone. It seems if you don't believe Jeremy is 100% innocent, you're some kind of conspirator in a venture to change everyone else's mind. However, unless you can say you believe Jeremy to be 100% innocent, you have doubts and belong to the group you just described. I'd say that was nearly everyone on the board. Given that none of us know what happened a 100% belief is just blind faith.

I think we can say with confidence that either Bamber is 100% innocent or he is 100% guilty. What we cannot say with confidence is that we believe 100% that he is either guilty or he is innocent. In other words he is either 100% innocent or he is 100% guilty. If he is innocent he is innocent. I because I am not in full possession of ALL the facts cannot be 100% either way. This in no way affects his being innocent.
All I can say with all certainty is that he did not have a fair trial because of (1) how the main exhibit was handled and because of JM's testimony that could have been false because she could have been swayed by (2) The £25000 deal she made with the NOTW. (3) Because she consciously lied to the judge about that deal. Thus potentially rendering her testimony null and void.
These three things cause me to come down more on the side of innocency than on the side of guilty.

[lookout]

Good post,Jansus.  I would firmly agree that it has been and still remains to be a cover-up. Whether it be intentionally or not,,I do think that it's high time that somebody came forward to admit that " mistakes were made ".

How I wish that those who'd believed at the time,,in what they saw was true,,had spoken out then,regardless.  Maybe they did,,but their spoken truth was met with," well others didn't see it,so you must be wrong ",,and so we have a majority swaying the beliefs of one or two people,,what chance do you stand when you try and convince your " superiors " ?

[jon]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2614068/A-gangster-left-rot-sealed-barrel-stench-corruption-goes-top.html
Interesting read !!

[lookout]

How many people would have done what JM did ??

[lookout]

Revenge is sweet and best served cold----------------and calculating.

[Jan]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2614068/A-gangster-left-rot-sealed-barrel-stench-corruption-goes-top.html
Interesting read !!

Very interesting article Jon.

I think it also shows that police corruption can sometimes lead to guilty men being released . It can work both ways. Break the rules and you can have a MOJ or allow guilty people to get off scott free. That is why the rules are there in the beginning and if you can not get a conviction in the correct way then surely that conviction is not secure in the first place.

[lookout]

Even the assistant director of public prosecutions was " at it ",,in his letter to EP where he'd stated that with " considerable hesitation " that JM would not be prosecuted for her crimes,,,while discussing the prosecution of JB.
So if the above isn't persuasion,,I don't know what is. Hence her having received payment for " services rendered " to suit the EP and prosecution. How absolutely disgusting is this ? Except that it would have been explained in an entirely different manner to the gobbins in the courtroom.
They must think we all came off the last banana boat to believe that.

[grahameb]

How many people would have done what JM did ??

If there is anyone who doubts that JM could have lied and have kept that lie all these years just to ruin JB's life then they need to rethink just what the human species are capable of just to get revenge. I have seen this kind of thing a lot during the past few weeks. One time is a woman who was lying about her husband molesting her and their child just in order to not only get sole possession of their child. But also get get him banned completely from seeing their child. The man of course is completely innocent. Court letters were sent to him and were not passed on by his wife. She tried to bribe others to lie for her about her husband.
He eventually got a letter to attend court and he of course turned up. The wife did not expect this and so neither her nor her solicitor were prepared fo him being there. He had evidence prepared to proved that she lied. Recordings an cctv to prove his innocence.
This is just one wickedness that some women are prepared to carry out just out of spite. Several people who she got to support her saw straight through her scheme after a little time.
I can really believe that JM could and possibly did carry out just such a campaign out of spite when their relationship broke up.

[lookout]

I can well believe it too Grahame,,as over the years,,there have been some wicked acts of revenge carried out.
I reckon the assistant prosecutor,,if left to his OWN devices,,would not have allowed JM off the hook. He most definitely was persuaded by EP,,,who badly wanted this conviction. Then to cap it all,,HMV in the background pressing/forcing the issue between the prosecutor and EP to re-charge Jeremy,after the first failed conclusion by " Taff " Jones.

I'm sure you've also read that women DO kill during acts of revenge too.

[susan]

Hello Grahame  I do believe JM was a woman scorned but also a woman facing serious criminal charges which seemed to disappear

[lookout]

 Susan,,the manner in which JM escaped those charges was nothing less than corruption.
 Would it happen to any of us ? No,,it blood-well wouldn't. The difference being that here,,there was a conviction at stake. Talk about desperate.

[Jan]

I wonder in which year it was considered that immunity for crimes should not be allowed for potential critical witnesses?

[lookout]

Immunity for a criminal is still used against another criminal in exchange for information/evidence.

[lookout]

 Though this appeared to resemble bribery because there was money involved as an end result,,which would probably come under a different part of the law-----------or not,,as the case may be.
I see it as a corrupt and a cunning practice.

[lookout]

 I wonder if there's anything stopping Jeremy from giving his side of the story to a newspaper ?
 I don't know the laws in this situation.

 If indeed he could,,then it would help him to financially embark on future dealings perhaps through court,etc.