The Noble Cause Framing Theory

[Jane]

I think everyone has doubts Caroline I just read an article from david james smith who visited Jeremy in jail and did a lot of research. I worried about those tears. I wondered if they were real and what he really felt. I looked and looked at his face and tried to prod and provoke different reactions. I could not say I ever felt overtly manipulated, but of course I just may not have noticed it was happening.
I had said on the way in that I feared I would find him repulsive, but in the event, I found him all too human and understandable. Except for the part of him that I felt was hidden. The corner of his soul that carried the knowledge of what had really happened that night 25 years ago,
and who really had killed his family.
He knows the truth. And he is the only person in the world who does.
Was it Sheila? Was it Jeremy?


Ralf, I read the same article. I thought it was honest  -even if I was hoping for greater clarification- and felt he'd probably reached the only conclusion possible and if he arrived at it after a face to face interview, how much MORE difficult is it for us who can only judge from a remove.
Reader, I have no idea

[Jane]

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 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.

Well. much as I dislike the tone you've adopted towards Caroline, at least you avoided the final insult. You didn't accuse her of having become like Adam.

[vidvic]

Well. much as I dislike the tone you've adopted towards Caroline, at least you avoided the final insult. You didn't accuse her of having become like Adam.

Careful April. You're messing with a superior being there. Who's about to answer you in ways you couldn't possibly hope to understand....

[Roch]

When it is suggested that police genuinely believed in Bamber's guilt, it looks to me as if the term 'police' is being used generically to mean all the police officers linked to the case.  Now I'm sorry to keep banging the drum but if you are a police officer who is in danger of being exposed for corruptive practices, what other fall back position do you have other than to say "I did what I did because I genuinely believed he was guilty / responsible".  You are not going to say "We were under immense pressure.  The man was a drug dealer and a thief who was also arrogant - he got what he deserved and we got our collar".

To be honest, I dont know which officers may have at some point claimed they genuinely thought JB was rersponsible.  But what I want to know is - what do the TFG officers believe?  Are the TFG officers prepared to state that they also genuinely believe JB was responsible - to a man?

If every one of the TFG officers who are still alive and able to claim such a thing, cannot or will not do so, then that means Jeremy Bamber is not the only person who knows the truth of what took place (from at least the point at which police became involved).  As for Bews who cannot get his own story straight about who spotted what  - sorry but personally I do not find the man convincing.   His and Miller's performance on the C5 docu were grandstanding because they were not asked any difficult questions. 

Also where does Kinneally fit in to the equation and why did he also not come to believe JB was responsible?

[lookout]

 New reports have been unearthed that have information on Sheilas' medical and psychiatric reports,,and which are due to be submitted to the CCRC at any time.
It doesn't state yet what's in the reports,,and just gave a brief outline in the Birmingham News this month.

I can only reiterrate by saying that Sheila was perhaps sectioned under the Mental Health Act at some point in her life,,and which wouldn't have been mentioned at the trial. We'll see. 

[susan]

Morning Roch

I agree many people know the truth of the happenings at WHF does Jeremy Bamber know the truth I guess only he knows that had EP known the truth they would not have had to fabricate evidence if indeed they did

[Caroline]

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 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.

Oh shut up Martin - seriously you are talking complete and utter bollocks. I'm not even going to bother dissecting the absolute pap you have just spouted. I have repeated and repeated that i have DOUBTS and your continued rubbish analysis of my reasoning is simply laughable and pathetic. I have already  said why I have doubts and believe me (which you won't but who cares!!), if you knew anything about me, you would KNOW I have absolutely no sympathy for any police force and find it abhorrent that they would use their position to frame anyone - guilty or innocent!! Debate the case and quit trying to psychoanalyse me - you really are rubbish at it and I'm sure it's very boring for everyone else - why should you or anyone else give a toss what I think?

Seriously, you use propaganda tactics more than anyone here and you ARE coming over as rather odd!!

[Caroline]

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.

Seriously??  . Have you read your posts back? Manipulative isn't a strong enough word for you!

[Caroline]

When it is suggested that police genuinely believed in Bamber's guilt, it looks to me as if the term 'police' is being used generically to mean all the police officers linked to the case.  Now I'm sorry to keep banging the drum but if you are a police officer who is in danger of being exposed for corruptive practices, what other fall back position do you have other than to say "I did what I did because I genuinely believed he was guilty / responsible".  You are not going to say "We were under immense pressure.  The man was a drug dealer and a thief who was also arrogant - he got what he deserved and we got our collar".

To be honest, I dont know which officers may have at some point claimed they genuinely thought JB was rersponsible.  But what I want to know is - what do the TFG officers believe?  Are the TFG officers prepared to state that they also genuinely believe JB was responsible - to a man?

If every one of the TFG officers who are still alive and able to claim such a thing, cannot or will not do so, then that means Jeremy Bamber is not the only person who knows the truth of what took place (from at least the point at which police became involved). As for Bews who cannot get his own story straight about who spotted what  - sorry but personally I do not find the man convincing.   His and Miller's performance on the C5 docu were grandstanding because they were not asked any difficult questions.

Also where does Kinneally fit in to the equation and why did he also not come to believe JB was responsible?

I agree Bews an Miller where part of the frame up. I have made my feelings clear in the past in respect of these two. This still proves nothing as far as knowing Jeremy was innocent. Kinneally came to the same conclusion as Taff Jones, I'm sure there are other officers who believed the same. I don't suppose for one moment ALL police officers were happy when the focus shifted to Jeremy.

[Roch]

Morning Roch

I agree many people know the truth of the happenings at WHF does Jeremy Bamber know the truth I guess only he knows that had EP known the truth they would not have had to fabricate evidence if indeed they did

Bridget used to suggest that JB knew the truth of what happened and was enaged in a game of picking apart EP's genuine mistakes in a bid to win freedom.  If I twisted what Bridiget expressed and threw in a dose of reaslism about police corruption that I always accused Bridget of not facing up to, the above would be changed to

'JB knew the truth of what happened and therefore was engaged in a game of picking apart EP's mistakes, corruption and scene staging to win his freedom'. 

This would mean nobody is a winner, just like DB stated.  Not EP, not the relatives, not JM and certainly not JB.  However, the first three would gain more empathy in general (than they are currently afforded).

But for me it comes back to the TFG op, the TFG officers opinions, the early dynamics around DCI Taff Jones, ACC Simpson, right at the beginning.  That's were I've been led to believe the truth is somewhere lodged.  I could be wrong of course.

[susan]

Roch  I agree I think Taff Jones knew the truth and this is where I took my innocent stand from.  Had he been left on the case and not met a sudden death the conviction would not have happened.  I ask myself did Stan Jones get a gut feeling over something he stumbled on but could not prove.  I agree think Jeremy Bamber played games with EP at the beginning and helped to convict himself

[Caroline]

Let me just clarify something here; when I said 'Only Jeremy knows the truth' I was talking about whether he was guilty or innocent. Martin has taken this (with his great wisdom) to mean that I was saying he knew what happened in the farmhouse - which would mean he was there - and as such - guilty.

However, Martin simply assumes something and runs with it. When Steve first came here, he was accused by Martin of being Starryian (whoever he is) simply because he posted from a guilty stance. There were long winded posts where Martin had used his psychological prowess to analyse and compare the writing styles of both parties. Frankly, I'd be embarrassed if I found myself descending to such lengths but as it's quite obvious they are not the same person, I'd be even more embarrassed at having never apologised!

Like I said - debate the case and the posters behind them. Sometimes people question their opinions it's a good thing to do, it doesn't mean they should have to put up with the armchair psycho babble and flawed reasoning of Martin The Great.

 

[Roch]

They offered the defence the facility to come into WHF and do any tests they wished but this wasn't taken up by the defence.

I think it was because they ran out of money Vic? But as you say they did offer.

Pity they couldn't locate the bible for the 2002 appeal though.  Especially considering it had a bloodied palm print on it.

[Caroline]

Pity they couldn't locate the bible for the 2002 appeal though.  Especially considering it had a bloodied palm print on it.

I agree!! Although it still isn't clear what happened to it?

[Jane]

Let me just clarify something here; when I said 'Only Jeremy knows the truth' I was talking about whether he was guilty or innocent. Martin has taken this (with his great wisdom) to mean that I was saying he knew what happened in the farmhouse - which would mean he was there - and as such - guilty.

However, Martin simply assumes something and runs with it. When Steve first came here, he was accused by Martin of being Starryian (whoever he is) simply because he posted from a guilty stance. There were long winded posts where Martin had used his psychological prowess to analyse and compare the writing styles of both parties. Frankly, I'd be embarrassed if I found myself descending to such lengths but as it's quite obvious they are not the same person, I'd be even more embarrassed at having never apologised!

Like I said - debate the case and the posters behind them. Sometimes people question their opinions it's a good thing to do, it doesn't mean they should have to put up with the armchair psycho babble and flawed reasoning of Martin The Great.

 

WHAT psychological prowess would you be referring to, Caroline? :D