The Threat.

[susan]

Mr Gee do you mean I should have done what lookout did i.e. googled latest news on Jeremy Bamber did that yesterday nothing on the Paul Harrison article in the SSE just done it again now nothing so this is why I wondered where she got the story. Maybe news getting upto The Highlands comes by snail and will be here next week

[scipio_usmc]

I agree.  It makes it sound more sinister.

Not just more sinister. A protector is usually someone very close to someone else like a "right hand man".  It will either be a personal relationship, business or mixed but they will be involved in protecting the person physically or protecting the person's reputation. They do it because they are paid or because of the close personal relationship.

It is a much different relationship than just believing he is innocent and saying so. Running his website and thereby publishing propaganda on his behalf doesn't even rise to the level in my eyes.

[Adam]

Any author that is going to write a book about the case is going to make Jeremy look more guilty. If the book is going to be anywhere near half decent and accurate.

Even if they also approach the case on the assumption that there was a MOJ. As Harrison did.

There is just so much circumstantial and forensic evidence against Jeremy. As well as the common sense argument that it could not be Sheila. There was also not a MOJ & Jeremy has failed to get off on a technicality.

[nugnug]

i suggest we contact paul harrison about it and ask if he would be kind enough to show us a copy.

[Mr. Gee]

Excuse me asking this question - but why were you getting such appalling treatment? I thought you were a supporter of Jeremy? Not that ir matters either way as no one should have to put up with what you have described , but I dont quite understand?

It stems from way back to the facebook page. It would take too long for her to reitterate it. In short there were some who did send abuse to her and I took sides and unfortunately wrongly supported those who were abusing her and I said some things that I now regret.

But it must be understood although not excused that AA then joined the guilty abusive facebook page and that was an indication that she also was agreeing with them. Shortly after that I saw what was really going on in that facebook supporters group and left as the people they were fighting were themselves and gossip was flying this way and that and I also was accused of various things by some. So I cut myself off from everyone in the supporters group and came here.

Unfortunately the same abusers followed me here and began a campaign of abuse on members of this forum including Mike. But it appears that inspite of my public apology to two of those who demanded apologies for my past actions are still accusing me of the same things. Christ said that if we do not forgive those who trespass against us then neither shal we be forgiven.

Now you may say to yourselves what has that religious stuff got to do with me? Well Jesus was a brilliant judge of human nature and he could see that if we continue in holding grudges even if the person concerned has apologised to you then that grudge will continue to grow until it becomes part of your very nature and your unforgiving nature will eventually become part of you and you will find that you will not be able to extricate yourself from it.

I fear that this has already happened in some judging by the way they keep on about past evils against them? The way ahead for those people to become forgiving towards their fellow human beings. There are none who are perfect, I less that some. But we can at least stive for a forgiving spirit even if there are those who cannot.

[scipio_usmc]

Any author that is going to write a book about the case is going to make Jeremy look more guilty. If the book is going to be anywhere near half decent and accurate.

Even if they also approach the case on the assumption that there was a MOJ. As Harrison did.

There is just so much circumstantial and forensic evidence against Jeremy. As well as the common sense argument that it could not be Sheila. There was also not a MOJ & Jeremy has failed to get off on a technicality.

I don't know what you mean by more guilty.

The fact he was convicted says he is guilty.  A good book would lay out the evidence of why he was convicted and his appeals failed.  It would thus explain why he was found guilty.  That doesn't mae him more guilty it just explains the verdict and establishes why he was found guilty.

A good book would also evaluate the various claims raised by the defense at trial, on appeal and even those not raised on appeal because they were too weak but have been publicly leveled by supporters.

A good book would lay out everything so people unfamilair with the case would be aware of all aspects.

Part of that would entail obtaining information not publicly relesed such as everything to do with the 2009 CCRC submission and rejection so that the arguments made could be spelled out as well as why they were rejected.

That would round out things well. 

The person would definitely want to obtain the trial testimony so that it could be accurately quoted from as well- certainly the testimony of the key witnesses. If you are going to write a book you need quotes and references. Otherwise I consider it a wasted effort. 

[scipio_usmc]

i suggest we contact paul harrison about it and ask if he would be kind enough to show us a copy.

If he wasn't banned fromt he baord he might have been willing to post it here. I have doubts he will thoughnow. He likely is sore over that.

[Mr. Gee]

Mr Gee do you mean I should have done what lookout did i.e. googled latest news on Jeremy Bamber did that yesterday nothing on the Paul Harrison article in the SSE just done it again now nothing so this is why I wondered where she got the story. Maybe news getting upto The Highlands comes by snail and will be here next week

This is your post:

Patti the only thing lookout did wrong was not to tell the truth about her source.  It is an insult to my intelligence the feeble source she gave me I know exactly what went on and I find it disappointing and very sad.

Lookout DID give the source of her information. She said the Express. Why would you say she was lying?

[Mr. Gee]

If he wasn't banned fromt he baord he might have been willing to post it here. I have doubts he will thoughnow. He likely is sore over that.

A good motive to publish to a newspaper implicating bot ngb and Jacqui?

[ngb1066]

Not just more sinister. A protector is usually someone very close to someone else like a "right hand man".  It will either be a personal relationship, business or mixed but they will be involved in protecting the person physically or protecting the person's reputation. They do it because they are paid or because of the close personal relationship.

It is a much different relationship than just believing he is innocent and saying so. Running his website and thereby publishing propaganda on his behalf doesn't even rise to the level in my eyes.

Yes, I  agree with your assessment on this.  The words read to me by the journalist implied that I had power or influence beyond that which a lawyer would have, which clearly is nonsense.  The objective was to place me near the centre of this.  It was a shock hearing the words.



   

[susan]

Mr Gee why are you interfering in my posts to lookout when I asked lookout the question where did you get the story she told me I just googled latest news on Jeremy Bamber and it came up I did the same it did not appear for me then my posts are removed what am I expected to think and I have just googled latest news on Jeremy Bamber the story did not come up. Don't be taking it out on me because you get abuse and give it as well. I said to you recently always two sides to every story.

[Mr. Gee]

1) I explained why the logical assumption is either a wacko Jeremy supporter is behind the letter or Harrison/someone involved with Harrison did it as a publicity stunt.
Or a wacky guilty? There are plenty of those.

2) I laid out how the article states the letter came a mere week after he went to Jackie's employer and she was rebuked and hanging on to her job by a thread and thus implies Jackie did it as retribution.
I didn't notice that that was what he was implying, He just wrote about her offering him names and addresses. Which I might add appears to be to be a dubious accusation, as he did indeed encourage her in his pm to her? This seems to be why he wrote the article?

3) I pointed out that while the article didn't mention it, we know Jackie is a Jeremy zealot and know of the altercation between Jackie and Harrison that happened on this board.  That altercation can indeed be interpreted in combination with being rebuked as a motive to potentially write such a letter.  Thus I can see how some here would think such. Remember that the altercation also involved ngb and that was the reason he was banned. This also should not be held up as proof that it was Jackie who sent the alleged letter. Also I think in the absence of PH publishing the letter it must therefore be referred to as "alleged"

4) I mentioned others know Jackie better, including people who said she stalked them.  They have  abetter basis than me to know if she would do something so stupid.  I reserved judgment as to whether she did so or not because I don't know her well enough to make an informed decision as to whether she would do something like that or not.
I also know Jackie even better than her accusers, who in fact do not know her at all. Yet you have conveniently thrown out my testimony of her character. Is this what lawyers do in order to make the accused look more guilty? I testified that it was not Jackie who sent that "alleged" letter as it is not in her character to do so. She is passionate in what she does, but she is not fanatical as some falsly assume

To try to hide from the article's implications would be pointless. It implies Jackie did it not NGB.
I note your interpretation of PH's words. If that is so then it borders on libel and he should answer to the law for that.

The way the article tossed NGB in is bizarre because it is an aside.  Writers do that all the time too.  The article doesn't discuss how he is relevant beyond claiming the letter says something about him being a protector.  It is a classic case of why I hate news articles.
Bizarre is exactly what it is and if PH has said this then that is proof that the rest of his accusations are in fact wrong and should be treated with the utmost contempt and dare I say it? As lies even?

The article should have directly quoted from the letter if it was going to mention NGB so we could see the full context.  Did it mention others being his protector as well?  What was the full upshot in relation to the threat?  Did it suggest NGB would be one of the agents carrying out the threat?  Probably not because if so then the journalist would have quoted the letter.  If not I don't even understand why to mention NGB in the article except to try making it look like a bigger mystery than is likely the case.
I agree with you on that one. The letter should have been published. Then perhaps that would have stopped all this wild and unjust speculation about ngb and Jackie.



   

[Mr. Gee]

Any author that is going to write a book about the case is going to make Jeremy look more guilty. If the book is going to be anywhere near half decent and accurate.

Even if they also approach the case on the assumption that there was a MOJ. As Harrison did.

There is just so much circumstantial and forensic evidence against Jeremy. As well as the common sense argument that it could not be Sheila. There was also not a MOJ & Jeremy has failed to get off on a technicality.

What do you mean, more guilty? That statement actually goes to prove that such a book about Bambers guilt would be pointless. To whom is this book directed?

[Mr. Gee]

Mr Gee why are you interfering in my posts to lookout when I asked lookout the question where did you get the story she told me I just googled latest news on Jeremy Bamber and it came up I did the same it did not appear for me then my posts are removed what am I expected to think and I have just googled latest news on Jeremy Bamber the story did not come up. Don't be taking it out on me because you get abuse and give it as well. I said to you recently always two sides to every story.

I'm not abusing you or anybody else susan. Show me where I have abused anybody since my apology? Your accusations are both unjust and unfair susan.

[scipio_usmc]

Yes, I  agree with your assessment on this.  The words read to me by the journalist implied that I had power or influence beyond that which a lawyer would have, which clearly is nonsense.  The objective was to place me near the centre of this.  It was a shock hearing the words.

As long as the article bothered to mention you it should have quoted the claims made in the letter so people could evaluate the logic of the claims instead of just including a cryptic protector claim that doesn't flow with the rest of the article well.