The Noble Cause Framing Theory

[vidvic]

Am I missing something here, but why has it suddenly become a crime to point out doubts of Bamber's innocence? Caroline is not the first 'supporter' to be left wondering if they're backing the right horse and Bamber has been exposed before, in his letters, to be sometimes less than truthful.
Or has Caroline, in some eyes, committed the ultimate sin of changing her mind? Even worse, she's having doubts in a very intelligent, understandable and coherent way......
Caroline. You should take the rude, condescending insults as a back handed compliment.

[Martin]

Am I missing something here, but why has it suddenly become a crime to point out doubts of Bamber's innocence? Caroline is not the first 'supporter' to be left wondering if they're backing the right horse and Bamber has been exposed before, in his letters, to be sometimes less than truthful.
Or has Caroline, in some eyes, committed the ultimate sin of changing her mind? Even worse, she's having doubts in a very intelligent, understandable and coherent way......
Caroline. You should take the rude, condescending insults as a back handed compliment.

This has little to do with opinions or with doubts.

Caroline has now chosen to give her full support to the pro guilt group and clearly has some ulterior motive. Of course I don’t know what is really behind what she is doing, just as I don’t know what exactly was behind Bob Woffinden’s change of position. 

Andrea was at least forthcoming about one factor which made her change her mind on the case. I remember her saying that she didn’t believe Mikes stories about meetings with an informant and felt somewhat embarrassed to be associated with Mike’s conspiracy theories and all that.

Caroline now seems more in agreement with retired copper types who favour the noble cause framing theory. She is clearly committed in an absolute way to defending the police when they are accused of knowingly framing an innocent man.

I am not going to try to second guess why Caroline has joined some group and why she has agreed to do a pro guilt propaganda job on this forum, but I know that there must be some explanation and one which really has nothing to do with having doubts.

For one thing, she has never said that she was certain of Bamber’s innocence in the first place, so saying something about sometimes having doubts, just like Roch or one of the others, should have seemed like no big deal. 

My opinion about what she is really doing is based upon the change in her style of debating. She has defined her position in such a way that any evidence of Bamber’s innocence is always blocked off automatically.

Pro guilt people constantly rely upon explaining serious discrepancies as mistakes. The log entries are mistakes. What DC Clarke told Ann Eaton about the position of Sheila’s body was just a mistake. The timing of West’s log was just a mistake and so on and so on. If she were honest about her real position I would have no cause for complaint, but she has gone in for the noble cause framing theory, in the strongest sense, in which no policeman can know that Bamber is innocent. That is very calculating.

An element of malice has crept into the way she talks about Bamber. She has acquired "guilter" style.

She has become just like Bridget or Steve_uk, relentless in grinding Jeremy Bamber down.

I don’t like what I am seeing and feel I have the right to say so.

[andrea]

It wasn't just the meetings with Z, Martin. There was more to it than that, but that's old news!
People do re evaluate the case and take another look with fresh eyes, things become apparent then.

[vidvic]

I can't believe you would spend so long trying to discredit her postings rather than debating the case itself. You seem to have a real problem accepting that there would appear to be a very good chance that Bamber lied to Caroline and you simply are uncomfortable with that. It doesn't sit well with YOUR propaganda.

[guest154]

This has little to do with opinions or with doubts.

Caroline has now chosen to give her full support to the pro guilt group and clearly has some ulterior motive. Of course I don’t know what is really behind what she is doing, just as I don’t know what exactly was behind Bob Woffinden’s change of position. 

Andrea was at least forthcoming about one factor which made her change her mind on the case. I remember her saying that she didn’t believe Mikes stories about meetings with an informant and felt somewhat embarrassed to be associated with Mike’s conspiracy theories and all that. I suppose she just feels more at home with a different set of people.

Caroline now seems more in agreement with retired copper types who favour the noble cause framing theory. She is clearly committed in an absolute way to defending the police when they are accused of knowingly framing an innocent man.

I am not going to try to second guess why Caroline has joined some group and why she has agreed to do a pro guilt propaganda job on this forum, but I know that there must be some explanation and one which really has nothing to do with having doubts.

For one thing, she has never said that she was certain of Bamber’s innocence in the first place, so saying something about sometimes having doubts, just like Roch or Alias or one of the others, should have seemed like no big deal. 

My opinion about what she is really doing is based upon the change in her style of debating. She has defined her position in such a way that any evidence of Bamber’s innocence is always blocked off automatically.

Pro guilt people constantly rely upon explaining serious discrepancies as mistakes. The log entries are mistakes. What DC Clarke told Ann Eaton about the position of Sheila’s body was just a mistake. The timing of West’s log was just a mistake and so on and so on. If she were honest about her real position I would have no cause for complaint, but she has gone in for the noble cause framing theory, in the strongest sense, in which no policeman can know that Bamber is innocent. That is very calculating.

An element of malice has crept into the way she talks about Bamber. She has acquired guilter style.

She has become just like Bridget or Steve_uk, relentless in grinding Jeremy Bamber down.

I don’t like what I am seeing and feel I have the right to say so.

This post is as laughable, baseless and stupid as any I've read.

Why are you trying to be Caroline's shrink. You're coming across as a strange crank trying to dis-credit her just because she dared question.

[Martin]

It wasn't just the meetings with Z, Martin. There was more to it than that, but that's old news!
People do re evaluate the case and take another look with fresh eyes, things become apparent then.

Thanks for that Larry,

My point is that it is sometimes possible to tell when a person is being manipulative in debate and that's the message I'm getting.

[Martin]

This post is as laughable, baseless and stupid as any I've read.

Why are you trying to be Caroline's shrink. You're coming across as a strange crank trying to dis-credit her just because she dared question.

You couldn’t think your way out of a supermarket.

I am talking about analysis of arguments. You wouldn't even have the concept of that.

[guest154]

You couldn’t think your way out of a supermarket.

I am talking about analysis of arguments. You wouldn't even have the concept of that.

Your constant 'analysis' of Caroline's arguments is just very creepy, I'm sure she regrets posting a picture of herself. 

From the moment she dared question you've not left her alone.

[vidvic]

You couldn’t think your way out of a supermarket.

I am talking about analysis of arguments. You wouldn't even have the concept of that.

Whilst I was analysing your argument I was struck with the phrase 'condescending prat'.

[Martin]

Your constant 'analysis' of Caroline's arguments is just very creepy, I'm sure she regrets posting a picture of herself. 

From the moment she dared question you've not left her alone.

I remember you making abusive posts to her when she first came to the forum. I also remember Jackie Preece posting threatening private messages you sent her. Talk about being creepy! So get lost.

[Martin]

Whilst I was analysing your argument I was struck with the phrase 'condescending prat'.

That’s a good post. At least back to civilisation!

[guest154]

I remember you making abusive posts to her when she first came to the forum. I also remember Jackie Preece posting threatening private messages you sent her. Talk about being creepy! So get lost.

Preecey admitted on the red she was trying to get me banned. Shame that the truth isn't important to you.

[Jane]

You couldn’t think your way out of a supermarket.

I am talking about analysis of arguments. You wouldn't even have the concept of that.

I wonder, could you BE more condescending and pompous?

[Jane]

Am I missing something here, but why has it suddenly become a crime to point out doubts of Bamber's innocence? Caroline is not the first 'supporter' to be left wondering if they're backing the right horse and Bamber has been exposed before, in his letters, to be sometimes less than truthful.
Or has Caroline, in some eyes, committed the ultimate sin of changing her mind? Even worse, she's having doubts in a very intelligent, understandable and coherent way......
Caroline. You should take the rude, condescending insults as a back handed compliment.

Vic, I can't believe Caroline is being castigated for using her brain. I suspect she's caused many of us to re-evaluate which isn't to say we're all going to flock, like lemmings to the guilty side ...........................unless doing so can be justified OR we have an experience similar to that of Paul on the road to Damascus.

[Jane]

IM sorry Maggie but I remember this Mass killer Jeremy Bamber launched a vicious attack on a fellow prisoner with a broken bottle.

 He rammed the jagged edges of a sauce bottle into his victim's face and tried to cut off his nose and ears. The inmate's scalp was also cut open. I think you have to be a little strange to be able to do this?

I think one may have to be a little strange if something of the environment doesn't rub off after spending 30 years in in. THAT or dead.