A shooting incident at White House farm

[grahameb]

Lol, like many things, you are mistaken.

NGB has posted several times that he believes there is a legal challenge to the conviction. He has been very careful to be subjective and never stated that he believes JB to be guilty or innocent, in fact he's actually stated that he does not know and either may be possible.

Given his care in providing his opinions, I don't really think it's right and proper to misrepresent his views, certainly not in some strange 'worshipping' manner, simply to bolster the views of another.

I very much respect NGB's views and his position on the forum, which is why, in my opinion, they shouldn't be used out of context.

I'm not mistaken. He has told me things that he hasn't posted on forum and I am correct in what I say of his opinions. I have spoken to him many times on the phone. It is you who are misrepresenting his views. I might of course add that he believes the same as McKay concerning the CCRC decision in rejecting the forensic evidence for the last appeal request. His reason for being careful in his posting on forum these days because of the intrusion into his private life by some of the abusers on a certain forum.

ps: He has said exactly the same as I have in stating that Bamber may or may not be guilty.

[No-Bits]

I'm not mistaken. He has told me things that he hasn't posted on forum and I am correct in what I say of his opinions. I have spoken to him many times on the phone. It is you who are misrepresenting his views. I might of course add that he believes the same as McKay concerning the CCRC decision in rejecting the forensic evidence for the last appeal request. His reason for being careful in his posting on forum these days because of the intrusion into his private life by some of the abusers on a certain forum.

ps: He has said exactly the same as I have in stating that Bamber may or may not be guilty.

Refer to my previous post.

[lookout]

Otherwise, apply your same logic to Sheila and Jeremy.

This is what the judge implied in his summing up ?

[No-Bits]

This is what the judge implied in his summing up ?

No it isn't Lookout. I think you've misunderstood the notion of joint liability.

[grahameb]

Lol, like many things, you are mistaken.

NGB has posted several times that he believes there is a legal challenge to the conviction. He has been very careful to be subjective and never stated that he believes JB to be guilty or innocent, in fact he's actually stated that he does not know and either may be possible.

Given his care in providing his opinions, I don't really think it's right and proper to misrepresent his views, certainly not in some strange 'worshipping' manner, simply to bolster the views of another.

I very much respect NGB's views and his position on the forum, which is why, in my opinion, they shouldn't be used out of context.

I'm not sure what you mean here? I think that this must represent some poor attempt by yourself to try and belittle me and my views. I know ngb's views concerning the case very well. And my using his opinion to support my argument is not some kind of "worship of him" as you said. But because he is a well respected man and a knowledgeable one. His opinions beinf a criminal barrister carry weight. But of course it is evident from what "scipio the unknown" self appointed oracle of all knowledge does not respect. NGB for your information believes this case to be a miscarriage of justice. He was introduced to this forum and to Bamber by Jackie Preece and the reason he is here is because he believes him to be innocent. That is also the reason Mike made him administrator. Jackie Preece also introduced McKay to Jeremy and he also was convinced that he is innocent and that is the reason he also represents Bamber and not for publicity as one cynic said.

[No-Bits]

I'm not sure what you mean here? I think that this must represent some poor attempt by yourself to try and belittle me and my views. I know ngb's views concerning the case very well. And my using his opinion to support my argument is not some kind of "worship of him" as you said. But because he is a well respected man and a knowledgeable one. His opinions beinf a criminal barrister carry weight. But of course it is evident from what "scipio the unknown" self appointed oracle of all knowledge does not respect. NGB for your information believes this case to be a miscarriage of justice. He was introduced to this forum and to Bamber by Jackie Preece and the reason he is here is because he believes him to be innocent. That is also the reason Mike made him administrator. Jackie Preece also introduced McKay to Jeremy and he also was convinced that he is innocent and that is the reason he also represents Bamber and not for publicity as one cynic said.

I don't think I can be any clearer, see my previous post.

Lol, like many things, you are mistaken.

NGB has posted several times that he believes there is a legal challenge to the conviction. He has been very careful to be subjective and never stated that he believes JB to be guilty or innocent, in fact he's actually stated that he does not know and either may be possible.

Given his care in providing his opinions, I don't really think it's right and proper to misrepresent his views, certainly not in some strange 'worshipping' manner, simply to bolster the views of another.

I very much respect NGB's views and his position on the forum, which is why, in my opinion, they shouldn't be used out of context.

[grahameb]

I don't think I can be any clearer, see my previous post.

Sorry hartley, you're wrong.

[No-Bits]

Sorry hartley, you're wrong.

Bearing in mind that you have just posted this:

ps: He has said exactly the same as I have in stating that Bamber may or may not be guilty.

I don't really understand what you are arguing against. 

[No-Bits]

No it isn't Lookout. I think you've misunderstood the notion of joint liability.

Lookout, if you get the chance, there is a BBC film/drama that was on recently called 'Common', it is still available to watch on iplayer. Without spoiling it, it involves a stabbing case in which JE was to be used as a basis for conviction.

It's worth a watch.

[grahameb]

Bearing in mind that you have just posted this:

I don't really understand what you are arguing against. 

I'm arguing against your comment where you said I'm only using ngb to bolster up my argument because I worship him. But I am supporting my argument by ngb because of his knowledge of the case ande because being a criminal barrister he has worked it out to his own satisfaction. That is one of the reasons I hold my views that there may be a strong possibilty that Bamber may indeed be innocent. Because I also hold the same views as ngb. You say you respect him. But I can remember you arguing against him in a disrespectful fashion. If you say you respect him? I respect him more, because of his knowledge of the case.

[No-Bits]

I'm arguing against your comment where you said I'm only using ngb to bolster up my argument because I worship him. But I am supporting my argument by ngb because of his knowledge of the case ande because being a criminal barrister he has worked it out to his own satisfaction. That is one of the reasons I hold my views that there may be a strong possibilty that Bamber may indeed be innocent. Because I also hold the same views as ngb. You say you respect him. But I can remember you arguing against him in a disrespectful fashion. If you say you respect him? I respect him more, because of his knowledge of the case.

As I've said, I've been incredibly clear in my posts, the fact that you've repeated the contents of my my post and claimed them as your views also, I am struggling to see your argument.

Okay the 'Worship' thing was probably a bit of a cheap shot, but the reality is, that is how your post came across.

[grahameb]

As I've said, I've been incredibly clear in my posts, the fact that you've repeated the contents of my my post and claimed them as your views also, I am struggling to see your argument.

Okay the 'Worship' thing was probably a bit of a cheap shot, but the reality is, that is how your post came across.

My argument was that I represented ngb's views correctly. Yours was that I didn't. If he posts on here that I have misrepresented his views then I will back down and apologise to him and to you.

[Jan]

Taff Jones was indeed incompetent.  He decided who did it based on hearing what Jeremy had told police and what he observed at the scene.  He made up his mind before the evidence was processed and after it was processed and proved him wrong he refused to waiver. 

Keneally's report doesn't matter it is opinion just like anything from Taff Jones.  His job was to review the case.  Their opinions do not mean spit and are not discoverable material. If Kineally believed Jeremy was innocent as well then obviously he was not very skilled either or didn't review it in depth supposedly he reviewed it in 1 day if Mike is correct but usually he sisn't nor are any other Jeremy supporters I have noticed. 


What is relevant discoverable material is the evidence in the case not opinions of police and the relevant evidence was all released to the defense.

No It was not all released to the defence and I posted a list of evidence which they were not supplied with

There is evidence on the forum in an email from EP that there are 200 boxes under PII which they are refusing ( for a whole long list of reasons to release)

It was used as a defence for the changing of exhibit numbers that it was because of a transfer to the second file ( murder not suicide)  so I don't get your argument at all

Lastly if he is proved right and Jeremy is innocent perhaps he was not so incompetent after all

[No-Bits]

My argument was that I represented ngb's views correctly. Yours was that I didn't. If he posts on here that I have misrepresented his views then I will back down and apologise to him and to you.

You don't need to apologise. As I said, you attempted to reinforce your own views by indicating that that they are the same as those held by NGB, rattling off his CV in an attempt to add further weight to your own views.

It doesn't and I don't believe that they are.

[grahameb]

You don't need to apologise. As I said, you attempted to reinforce your own views by indicating that that they are the same as those held by NGB, rattling off his CV in an attempt to add further weight to your own views.

It doesn't and I don't believe that they are.

Well lets see if he posts first shall we. If I am wrong and have misrepresented his views then he deserves an apology. But if not then that means I'm right and have correctly represented him.