Who has more rights thirty years on: Jeremy or Colin?

[Steve_uk]

Hi Steve don't be a doubting Thomas keep an open mind and wait and see what happens that is what I am doing I know Roch too well not to believe him and Jackie has been so involved in the case she will be in the know and we all know David found I think a document which has gone to Jeremy's Legal Team.

I think after 32 years someone in authority should set out a timeline. Otherwise we are just going round in circles as Lookout hinted at yesterday.

[Adam]

Yes let's face it you can't blame some of us for being a doubting Thomas.

Doubting ?

Hopefully Jackie's 6 part documentary will include Roch's, Bill's & her own information which shows Bamber is innocent.

Together with Mike's picture of Sheila on the bed & an interview with the policeman who knows Bamber is innocent.

[Roch]

Doubting ?

Hopefully Jackie's 6 part documentary will include Roch's, Bill's & her own information which shows Bamber is innocent. Together with Mike's picture of Sheila on the bed & an interview with the policeman who knows Bamber is innocent.

I know this thread is primarily a discussion on who has more rights between two men - but I dont have any information to pass on to any documentary makers.  I'd be grateful if you stopped posting to the contrary. I'm not a researcher on the case. 

[Adam]

I know this thread is primarily a discussion on who has more rights between two men - but I dont have any information to pass on to any documentary makers.  I'd be grateful if you stopped posting to the contrary. I'm not a researcher on the case.

I would appreciate it if you stopped going on about this mysterious evidence you have that shows 'Sheila definately committted the massacre'.

Or you can always post it.

JackieD may have to use her charm to persuade you while making her 6 part documentary.

[Steve_uk]

Adam does have a point..

[Roch]

I would appreciate it if you stopped going on about this mysterious evidence you have that shows 'Sheila definately committted the massacre'.

Or you can always post it.

Adam does have a point..

Yes, I agree that he does.  I havent mentioned it as much recently (in comparison with before).  He is wrong regarding that I can just post it - as this is not in my remit.

I can try to not mention it whatsoever in my posting - but it's difficult to hold-back when reading other members' posts on here.

[Steve_uk]

I know this thread is primarily a discussion on who has more rights between two men - but I dont have any information to pass on to any documentary makers.  I'd be grateful if you stopped posting to the contrary. I'm not a researcher on the case.

I am reminded of one of George Bernard Shaw's maxims: "He who slays a king and he who dies for him are alike idolators."

One man today had survivor guilt: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3670725/survivor-of-77-london-terror-attack-tony-walters-52-found-dead-hours-after-manchester-bombing-as-friends-claim-he-didnt-want-to-live-in-a-world-where-%c2%adattacks-continue/

Jeremy has no such guilt. He feels aggrieved at the way he was given away by his birth mother, the lackadaisical care and affection he was given by June, the double detachment of the Gresham's banishment, the overwork on the Farm and lack of gratitude shown for his endeavours and the unwarranted preferential treatment he considered Sheila to receive.

Yet Colin's children had an unblemished record vis-a-vis Jeremy. They were collateral damage in his drive for material possessions, gained through inheritance and no inherent talent of his own.

Yes: nobody would deny him access to the best legal representation, but he was and remains a nonentity, whilst some pick up the shards of their shattered lives.

[buddy]

It can be frustrating on here at times if you are not a guilter. I do not proclaim innocence, but I am unconvinced of guilt. Some but not all of the guilters love to give snide responses like "well he is in jail ect.
Some will not debate at all and make excuses for any anomalies, but fail to address them. for example,
JM, and SB said they went to the bank on there own volition, but in fact the meeting was arranged by the police, who escorted them to the bank. On it's own it may mean nothing, but to me it shows collusion. It is one of the things among loads of others that make me unconvinced.
The unconvinced are then asked to provide a detailed scenario which even the guilters cannot provide.
Fact is none of us know, hence the debate. I do not strut around saying I know all, because I don't.
Another example "oh no uncle Bobby I could easily kill my parents". It just doesn't ring true to me.

[Steve_uk]

It can be frustrating on here at times if you are not a guilter. I do not proclaim innocence, but I am unconvinced of guilt. Some but not all of the guilters love to give snide responses like "well he is in jail ect.
Some will not debate at all and make excuses for any anomalies, but fail to address them. for example,
JM, and SB said they went to the bank on there own volition, but in fact the meeting was arranged by the police, who escorted them to the bank. On it's own it may mean nothing, but to me it shows collusion. It is one of the things among loads of others that make me unconvinced.
The unconvinced are then asked to provide a detailed scenario which even the guilters cannot provide.
Fact is none of us know, hence the debate. I do not strut around saying I know all, because I don't.
Another example "oh no uncle Bobby I could easily kill my parents". It just doesn't ring true to me.

Julie and Susan Battersby both confessed to the cheque fraud. There was a conversation in which Jeremy accused them of being a "goody two shoes", which may or may not have goaded them into theft. Obviously no crime is victim-free, but nobody was physically hurt, nobody died and there were no lasting repercussions.

It's now the Jeremy-Is-Innocent-Brigade who are holding things up, if they are privy to information which is not disclosed to this Forum and which is not being acted upon. If such information is in the domain of Jeremy's legal counsel is it too much to ask within what timeline this information will be released?

The guilters have given a scenario of the horrific crimes many times, unlike the innocents, who ascribe Herculean qualities to a young woman who was barely functioning, and who expect their truth to be accepted without question.

[buddy]

Julie and Susan Battersby both confessed to the cheque fraud. There was a conversation in which Jeremy accused them of being a "goody two shoes", which may or may not have goaded them into theft. Obviously no crime is victim-free, but nobody was physically hurt, nobody died and there were no lasting repercussions.

It's now the Jeremy-Is-Innocent-Brigade who are holding things up, if they are privy to information which is not disclosed to this Forum and which is not being acted upon. If such information is in the domain of Jeremy's legal counsel is it too much to ask within what timeline this information will be released?

The guilters have given a scenario of the horrific times many times, unlike the innocents, who ascribe Herculean qualities to a young woman who was barely functioning, and who expect their truth to be accepted without question.

See, I rest my case.

[JackieD]

See, I rest my case.

I know Buddy

[Steve_uk]

See, I rest my case.

You and others are stalling, you are running out of time, you have nothing new to put in the public domain, symbolic of the Julie Mugford and Alan Dovey story, which cannot be proved either way. We guilters don't argue that Jeremy Bamber is a murderer because he robbed Osea Road, but the innocents must equate a thieving Julie Mugford with her lying in the witness box, because that's all they have to go on.

[buddy]

You and others are stalling, you are running out of time, you have nothing new to put in the public domain, symbolic of the Julie Mugford and Alan Dovey story, which cannot be proved either way. We guilters don't argue that Jeremy Bamber is a murderer because he robbed Osea Road, but the innocents must equate a thieving Julie Mugford with her lying in the witness box, because that's all they have to go on.

Alan Dovey story CAN be proved, it's in his WS. You guilters have no more than fabricated evidence.
The trouble is Steve is you have become so entrenched now that you can't see the wood for the trees.
How would the family had survived had JB been cleared?

[Steve_uk]

Alan Dovey story CAN be proved, it's in his WS. You guilters have no more than fabricated evidence.
The trouble is Steve is you have become so entrenched now that you can't see the wood for the trees.
How would the family had survived had JB been cleared?

They would have carried on, as they had the Speakman money to fall back on. Yes it's an emotional case, and you're right we should all stand back a little from time to time.

[susan]

Yes, I agree that he does.  I havent mentioned it as much recently (in comparison with before).  He is wrong regarding that I can just post it - as this is not in my remit.

I can try to not mention it whatsoever in my posting - but it's difficult to hold-back when reading other members' posts on here.

Roch I know you have said your information indicating Sheila murdered her family is not yours to share and I respect you for that and as far as I am concerned you can talk about it in every post you make as it has given some of us on the forum hope that an innocent man could be released