The main prosecution forensic case

[Caroline]

That's a bit paranoid isn't it?

No.

[Jane]

What did I start, April?

When one person makes an accusatory remark to another it gives others permission to do the same. You said I'd offended you. I hope I made it clear that it wasn't intended. You wouldn't let it go despite this. Then someone else jumped in and accused me of being condescending. Then I was hauled over the coals because apparently, my use of capitals -for emphasis!!!!!!!!!!!- meant I was shouting.

Funny how all this began because, from the way a post was worded, it sounded as if the poster was upset, and I offered my support.

[Jane]

That's a bit paranoid isn't it?

You should try standing in my shoes, Grahame. Guess what? It started because I offered support to someone who I believed had been upset.

[Alias]

When one person makes an accusatory remark to another it gives others permission to do the same. You said I'd offended you. I hope I made it clear that it wasn't intended. You wouldn't let it go despite this. Then someone else jumped in and accused me of being condescending. Then I was hauled over the coals because apparently, my use of capitals -for emphasis!!!!!!!!!!!- meant I was shouting.

Funny how all this began because, from the way a post was worded, it sounded as if the poster was upset, and I offered my support.

April, as far as I remember, you accused me of something that wasn´t there as if you had a preconception of what I was thinking.
I had to counter that, because I did feel offended by it. You said I had made it FAR from clear what I thought about a certain matter.
I put forward evidence of what I thought and had expressed, which was in fact very clear, but there was no response from you. It is still all there to see.
Mat chimed in and asked me something along the lines: As a supporter isn´t it natural that you want to believe what Mike says? (!)
How about reading what I write instead of going by your own preconceptions?

[Jane]

April, as far as I remember, you accused me of something that wasn´t there as if you had a preconception of what I was thinking.
I had to counter that, because I did feel offended by it. You said I had made it FAR from clear what I thought about a certain matter.
I put forward evidence of what I thought and had expressed, which was in fact very clear, but there was no response from you. It is still all there to see.
Mat chimed in and asked me something along the lines: As a supporter isn´t it natural that you want to believe what Mike says? (!)
How about reading what I write instead of going by your own preconceptions?

And to prove your point you presented me with a post which HAD I responded to I would NEVER have reached conclusion I arrived at. I said this at the time. I don't recall accusing you of ANYTHING and I'd be the last person to presume to read peoples' minds. If I could, I'd hardly have said something to you in the full knowledge that it would cause offence. Personally, I think it was a very little thing to take SUCH offence at -although it was your entitlement- and as I said then, it's probably best if we don't converse. As neither of us knows which of my entirely unwitting words will cause offence next, it will save us both much stress.

[scipio_usmc]

So we have to conclude that you yourself have been more emotional than reasoned for a very long time prior to your Eureka moment!
I wonder if anyone, in the kindest possible way, took it upon themselves to tell you that like you now are telling Lookout.

To be fair April admitted that and admitted she realized she was making a lot of excuses and the realization she was simply making up excuses was when she started to have a change of heart and decided to look at things more objectively.

[Alias]

To be fair April admitted that and admitted she realized she was making a lot of excuses and the realization she was simply making up excuses was when she started to have a change of heart and decided to look at things more objectively.

Sure, but why punk Lookout unnecessarily - just out of the blue because she felt like it?

[Jane]

To be fair April admitted that and admitted she realized she was making a lot of excuses and the realization she was simply making up excuses was when she started to have a change of heart and decided to look at things more objectively.

Thank-you, Scipio I'd invested a lot of emotion into my belief that Jeremy was innocent -our upbringings and adoptions would have been the probable reason for it- and whilst I could forgive Sheila because she was ill, forgiving Jeremy would have come much harder. Not that it was my place to forgive. Detaching myself emotionally has helped me to clarify my thoughts.............................but I still think Sheila was badly let down :D

[Caroline]

You mean of course the "alleged" phone call. If such a phone call actually took place then he could not have been the murderer. But it cannot of course the fact that he cannot prove that such a phone call took place does not mean that lack of proof makes it evidence of his guilt. But I would have thought that logic should tell you that any murderer would be able to place himself at home at the time of the killings? This is one of those dodgy pieces of so called "evidence" on which Bamber's guilt and the verdict stand and by default is one of those things that we debate in this forum today.

I do INDEED mean the 'alleged' phone call because I don't believe it ever happened. Any murderer can 'say' they were at home but that wasn't good enough for Jeremy, he used the notion of the phone call to steer police in a certain direction and it almost worked. ALMOST!

[scipio_usmc]

You have brought all this up before why go round in circles?

It is not going round in circles to point out the prosecution's case so that people can see that case laid out fully.  Having it laid out is necessary in order to know what claims to examine and try to refute.

Objective people will see if there is any evidence available to refute the prosecution's case and if so will say the evidence failed to establish Jeremy's guilt but if it can't be refuted will admit the evidence proves Jeremy is guilty.

So far I have not seen anyone produce evidence that refutes the prosecution's case.  I certainly have not found any way to do so.  Thus I face that the evidence establishes his guilt.

Other people say they choose to believe Jeremy is innocent but to date have not articulated evidence to prove their opinions.  It means their opinions are not fact based but emotionally charged.  Invariably the claims come up well Julie could have lied, police could have lied and fabricated evidence the family could have lied...

The issue is whether there is evidence that proves Julie lied, that evidence was planted etc.  Saying different police were proven to have lied in other cases is not evidence they did so here or that evidence was planted.  People who say he could be innocent because of the theoretical possibility of him being framed are running on emotion and bias not following the evidence in the case at hand.

The raid team questioned the scene right away and though Sheila was too clean to have taken part in the struggle in the kitchen or to have fired a gun.  Had the police conducting the investigation agreed with them and suspected right away that Jeremy was involved and found the moderator evidence then Jeremy supporters would be using this to say they framed Jeremy because they decided he was guilty right away. 

Instead the investigators believed Jeremy's claims and did a less than thorough examination of the scene and didn't examine Jeremy or his house till too much time passed for them to be able to find anything.  This less than stellar job is used to attack them saying their investigation should not be trusted because they failed to do a thorough search right away and thus didn't find all the relevant evidence right away. 

The bottom line is that people operating on bias are always going to critique the police, no matter what the police did they were damned and biased people will make excuses but those excuses have no legal significance at all.

I laid out the legal case against him and that case can only be taken apart by using competent evidence to refute the case. If people say they choose not to believe it that is their business but choosing not to believe the evidence doesn't undermine the case. You have to produce evidence to challenge the case in order to undermine it.

You have to understand what to try to challenge and the only way to do that is to actually know what case was made.  This thread summarizes such.

[Alias]

April, this is what you said to Mr. Gee and me:

 

Re: Photographic still image taken from crime scene video - The shocking truth...
« Reply #39 on: January 29, 2015, 06:45:PM »

    Quote

Quote from: Alias on January 29, 2015, 06:23:PM

    So we won´t see it, end of.

Quote from: Mr. Gee on January 29, 2015, 06:26:PM


    Told you so. Me? I'm one who is pissed. I think if Jeremy is to be represented it must me honestly. This kind of thing only damages his case.
    I'm really in two minds whether to shun this forum now. I'm very disappointed with you Mike.



 I KNOW how much you both wanted it to, but did either of you REALLY believe this was going to happen?

After I had said:

Re: Photographic still image taken from crime scene video - The shocking truth...
« Reply #41 on: January 29, 2015, 06:47:PM »

    Quote
    Modify
    Remove

Quote from: Mr. Gee on January 29, 2015, 06:26:PM

    Told you so. Me? I'm one who is pissed. I think if Jeremy is to be represented it must me honestly. This kind of thing only damages his case.
    I'm really in two minds whether to shun this forum now. I'm very disappointed with you Mike.


It is worst for Mike´s own credibility.
You can pull something like this once, and people will perhaps believe it. Second time, you are apprehensive, not holding your breath. Third time, you don´t believe it at all. Fourth time, you don´t believe anything Mike says.

Don´t know what it is good for. People aren´t so stupid that they will believe this stunt once they´ve seen something similar come to nothing. I didn´t believe this one from get go and was waiting for the excuse for not posting. Sky News it is then.

I am not angry as you are, Gee (but I don´t blame you), just indifferent. If I get banned for this, then I´ll get banned, I don´t care.

Was I "FAR from clear", as you later claimed? I can´t see how much clearer I could have been, but you still KNEW how much I wanted it to be true - and Mat too!
One of the reasons I feel like leaving this place. People think you believe everything Mike says and that you think along the same lines. People think you are an idiot for posting here.

You bet I was mad, April! Again, read what I write actually, before you form your opinion!

[scipio_usmc]

Sure, but why punk Lookout unnecessarily - just out of the blue because she felt like it?

I think April is trying to help lookout to see that she is running on emotion in an effort to help lookout.

Anytime the evidence is pointed out lookout either denies well established facts or comes up with some argument that fails to address let alone refute the evidence that convicted Jeremy and in the process demonstrates her position is based on a combination of ignorance of the facts, intentionally ignoring evidence and running on emotion.   

I think that when April posts about her change of heart and emotional investment such hits close to home with you because you recognize you are likewise emotionally vested.

I have no emotional investment in this case at all. I believe what I believe solely based on the evidence and I debate such evidence because I love to argue and will argue about just about anything where opportunity exists.  That is why when credible evidence turns up I have no problem accepting it even when it is pro-Jeremy. 

There is a sizable difference between watching the Baseball World Series when the New York Yankees are playing and 2 teams I don't care about.  When the Yankees are playing I want them to win and it is emotional when good or bad things happen.  I will cheer I will jeer I will scream I will curse... When 2 teams I don't care about play there is no emotional investment I just watch the game for the love of the game and that is it.  It is much more relaxed and whatever happens happens.  Some people on both sides have too much emotional investment.

[Alias]

I think April is trying to help lookout to see that she is running on emotion in an effort to help lookout.

Anytime the evidence is pointed out lookout either denies well established facts or comes up with some argument that fails to address let alone refute the evidence that convicted Jeremy and in the process demonstrates her position is based on a combination of ignorance of the facts, intentionally ignoring evidence and running on emotion.   

I think that when April posts about her change of heart and emotional investment such hits close to home with you because you recognize you are likewise emotionally vested.

I have no emotional investment in this case at all. I believe what I believe solely based on the evidence and I debate such evidence because I love to argue and will argue about just about anything where opportunity exists.  That is why when credible evidence turns up I have no problem accepting it even when it is pro-Jeremy. 

There is a sizable difference between watching the Baseball World Series when the New York Yankees are playing and 2 teams I don't care about.  When the Yankees are playing I want them to win and it is emotional when good or bad things happen.  I will cheer I will jeer I will scream I will curse... When 2 teams I don't care about play there is no emotional investment I just watch the game for the love of the game and that is it.  It is much more relaxed and whatever happens happens.  Some people on both sides have too much emotional investment.

Total and utter bullshit!

[scipio_usmc]

Total and utter bullshit!

The way you take some things personally and make some things personal suggest otherwise in my opinion.   

[Alias]

The way you take some things personally and make some things personal suggest otherwise in my opinion.

Well, that is your opinion. I am not a particularly emotional person. I have an interest in different criminal cases, that´s all. This one is not the only one.

I don´t like being accused of buying into everything and anything Mike says, because I don´t. Being accused of such doesn´t make me emotional, it makes me mad.