Author Topic: The Noble Cause Framing Theory  (Read 65867 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: The Noble Cause Framing Theory
« Reply #45 on: April 27, 2014, 04:16:PM »
oh i certanly buy it i remember what paddy hill said.

Would you like to share it with the rest of us?  ;D ;D
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17250
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: The Noble Cause Framing Theory
« Reply #46 on: April 27, 2014, 04:32:PM »
paddy hill said that the police told him straght they dident care weather he was innocent or guilty they needed a conviction.

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: The Noble Cause Framing Theory
« Reply #47 on: April 27, 2014, 04:38:PM »
nugnug I watched the programme on TV wherein that statement was made and I believe it to be true.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: The Noble Cause Framing Theory
« Reply #48 on: April 27, 2014, 04:48:PM »
So do I. It's what I've said all along.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: The Noble Cause Framing Theory
« Reply #49 on: April 27, 2014, 06:35:PM »
paddy hill said that the police told him straght they dident care weather he was innocent or guilty they needed a conviction.

Who is Paddy Hill? Which programme? However, they didn't need to convict an innocent man, they had Sheila.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: The Noble Cause Framing Theory
« Reply #50 on: April 27, 2014, 06:43:PM »
Hi Caroline  Paddy Hill was one of the Birmingham 6 another MOJ released after serving 16 years for a crime they did not commit.  Paddy Hill is still fighting for justice in the way of an apology but guess he will never get one.  He was interviewed on TV and he said the police told them we know you did not do it but we need a conviction.

As far as Jeremy Bamber is concerned perhaps and I am only saying perhaps the police thought he was guilty but had no evidence so found some to get him convicted :'( just a thought.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: The Noble Cause Framing Theory
« Reply #51 on: April 27, 2014, 06:48:PM »
Hi Caroline  Paddy Hill was one of the Birmingham 6 another MOJ released after serving 16 years for a crime they did not commit.  Paddy Hill is still fighting for justice in the way of an apology but guess he will never get one.  He was interviewed on TV and he said the police told them we know you did not do it but we need a conviction.

As far as Jeremy Bamber is concerned perhaps and I am only saying perhaps the police thought he was guilty but had no evidence so found some to get him convicted :'( just a thought.

Ha, ha!!! Oh that Paddy Hill  ;D ;D ;D ;D. I thought Nug Nug was talking about someone involved in the Jeremy Bamber case. I have never said the police wouldn't frame an innocent man - however, I don't believe they would knowingly frame an innocent man when they already had a clear suspect. I agree, that he was framed but he was framed because they thought he was guilty.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: The Noble Cause Framing Theory
« Reply #52 on: April 27, 2014, 06:56:PM »
Caroline I agree they would frame an innocent man but only when they had no other suspect and in the case of the Birmingham 6 they had nobody and they seem to fit the bill :'(

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: The Noble Cause Framing Theory
« Reply #53 on: April 27, 2014, 07:02:PM »
Caroline I agree they would frame an innocent man but only when they had no other suspect and in the case of the Birmingham 6 they had nobody and they seem to fit the bill :'(

As did the Gilford Four, Stepan Kiszko and Barry George (to name a few) but these instances are difference because they were framed to clear the case. They already had a pretty good suspect in Sheila so why change tack and 'knowingly' frame an innocent man? It makes no sense!!
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17579
Re: The Noble Cause Framing Theory
« Reply #54 on: April 27, 2014, 07:19:PM »
Some interesting remarks on this thread.  Just some thoughts.  First of all, it isn't in the logs regarding a murder and a suicide.  it's in Neil Davidson's CoLP interview transcript.  However, he does impart that he was allegedly confused as to whether the message referred to one body or two bodies.  Personally I do not buy the generic version police statements tallying around a mistaken identity. Therefore the logs imply to me that there were indeed two bodies, one female and one male.

If we take the line that police believed JB was guilty and this is why they framed him - I would be wary of a certain set of officers trying to fall back on that defence.  I dont know where the suggestion first originated, but it was expressed repeatedly a while ago that DS Stan Jones wasn't told the truth about what had happened that morning until several years later or at least a good while later.  It has also been expressed on many occasions, most recently by Bambergate that there in effect two sets of officers.  One set involved in the actual raid, who dont feel they should take responsibility for the later instructions of their superiors... and the superiors themselves, who gave the TFG those instructions. 

As for some of the other officers, I wouldn't trust somebody like Bob Miller or Ron Cook as far as I could spit them.  Therefore why should I believe if they or similar colleagues try to claim they framed somebody purely because he was guilty?  This was the line given to Ray Hollingsworth a few years ago when he spoke with some Essex Police officers.  However if we look at the situation at the actual time in 1985, a senior officer reviewed the case evidence as late as early September and his findings where that the evidence pointed towards Sheila as having been culpable for the killings, effectively backing Taff Jones's stance to that date.  this does not match up with EP genuinely believing in JB's guilt.  Clearly one set of officers worked towards claiming JB was culpable (using fair means or foul) while another set refused to play ball. 

Possibly a tenuous link but there is the Anecdote from the late Campion about KMcK boasting at the post conviction party re JB having been falsely sent down.

Also, if nothing went wrong with the TFG operation, why where a team of 'informatives' brought in to re-enact the operation and learn?  What could be learned by re-enacting a raid that had taken place on a silent farmhouse with all occupants already having been found dead by the original TFG?

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: The Noble Cause Framing Theory
« Reply #55 on: April 27, 2014, 07:28:PM »
Caroline think Taff Jones thought Sheila responsible but think Stan Jones thought Jeremy was the culprit so Taff was removed from the case and evidence against Jeremy was engineered so it must have been a gut feeling Stan had but what really gets me if Jeremy had been guilty how did he carry out the crime i.e. get Sheila in such a position to shoot her in the neck and so many other aspects confuse me.  Did Jeremy brain wash Sheila into committing the crimes did he have an accomplice or is he just plain innocent I am clueless to say the least and would be happy for guilty supporters to help me out here I have posted twice before asking this question but no response at all :'(

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: The Noble Cause Framing Theory
« Reply #56 on: April 27, 2014, 07:32:PM »
I would also add that I had explored the "noble theory" in respect of the police and the family . I think mainly that has been "thinking out loud" and then posting those thoughts , because sometimes the replies put you back on track.

I think that is my inherent trait of wanting to see some good in every person. I find it hard to accept that an innocent man would be framed - however I know that it is possible and it has happened before in other cases .

I think it always good to re-visit that list in the OP of what would PROVE innocence. And in every case the police must have known what the truth was.






Knowing the truth is one thing,,Jansus. Admitting it is another  :-[

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: The Noble Cause Framing Theory
« Reply #57 on: April 27, 2014, 07:35:PM »
Hello Roch

excellent post.  Thanks for confusing me more than ever will go back and digest your post again.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: The Noble Cause Framing Theory
« Reply #58 on: April 27, 2014, 07:41:PM »
Some interesting remarks on this thread.  Just some thoughts.  First of all, it isn't in the logs regarding a murder and a suicide.  it's in Neil Davidson's CoLP interview transcript.  However, he does impart that he was allegedly confused as to whether the message referred to one body or two bodies.  Personally I do not buy the generic version police statements tallying around a mistaken identity. Therefore the logs imply to me that there were indeed two bodies, one female and one male.

If we take the line that police believed JB was guilty and this is why they framed him - I would be wary of a certain set of officers trying to fall back on that defence.  I dont know where the suggestion first originated, but it was expressed repeatedly a while ago that DS Stan Jones wasn't told the truth about what had happened that morning until several years later or at least a good while later.  It has also been expressed on many occasions, most recently by Bambergate that there in effect two sets of officers.  One set involved in the actual raid, who dont feel they should take responsibility for the later instructions of their superiors... and the superiors themselves, who gave the TFG those instructions. 

As for some of the other officers, I wouldn't trust somebody like Bob Miller or Ron Cook as far as I could spit them.  Therefore why should I believe if they or similar colleagues try to claim they framed somebody purely because he was guilty?  This was the line given to Ray Hollingsworth a few years ago when he spoke with some Essex Police officers.  However if we look at the situation at the actual time in 1985, a senior officer reviewed the case evidence as late as early September and his findings where that the evidence pointed towards Sheila as having been culpable for the killings, effectively backing Taff Jones's stance to that date.  this does not match up with EP genuinely believing in JB's guilt.  Clearly one set of officers worked towards claiming JB was culpable (using fair means or foul) while another set refused to play ball. 

Possibly a tenuous link but there is the Anecdote from the late Campion about KMcK boasting at the post conviction party re JB having been falsely sent down.

Also, if nothing went wrong with the TFG operation, why where a team of 'informatives' brought in to re-enact the operation and learn?  What could be learned by re-enacting a raid that had taken place on a silent farmhouse with all occupants already having been found dead by the original TFG?

Yes, I remember Campion mentioning KMck's claim but I also remember that KMck also said that the reason the police knew Jeremy wasn't guilty, was because they knew a 'drugs gang' had killed them all. Now that takes us down another avenue which I just don't believe. I believe KMck said it, I just don't believe it.

I have also obviously heard about the 're-enactment' but do we know that that's what it was? And even if it was, how does it relate to the framing of an innocent man?

We will have to disagree on the two bodies in the kitchen, I believe Sheila died where she was shot and was found where she died. The log which states 'In communication with someone inside the farmhouse' could simply have meant they were trying to rouse someone because it is followed by 'Met with no response' - they tried to communicate with someone, but no one replied. And Sheila being found on the left side of the bed could simply have meant that she was found TO the left OF the bed.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Online Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21084
Re: The Noble Cause Framing Theory
« Reply #59 on: April 27, 2014, 07:51:PM »
Caroline think Taff Jones thought Sheila responsible but think Stan Jones thought Jeremy was the culprit so Taff was removed from the case and evidence against Jeremy was engineered so it must have been a gut feeling Stan had but what really gets me if Jeremy had been guilty how did he carry out the crime i.e. get Sheila in such a position to shoot her in the neck and so many other aspects confuse me.  Did Jeremy brain wash Sheila into committing the crimes did he have an accomplice or is he just plain innocent I am clueless to say the least and would be happy for guilty supporters to help me out here I have posted twice before asking this question but no response at all :'(
Susan the nature of schizophrenia involves the difficulty differentiating between fantasy and reality,and if you can imagine being woken up in the middle of the night and led to your death in a matter of seconds is how I perceive this crime. As for Police, trust in them has been eroded along with many professionals including politicians,teachers,clergy and others. I believe in cock-up rather than conspiracy in this case because as Adam has said it would be just too much of a coincidence for all the events of this crime to have fallen into place as they did leaving Jeremy out in the cold regarding the purported telephone call from Nevill and his three calls to Julie in the space of a few hours.