Author Topic: outlandish Theory's  (Read 71934 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13789
Re: outlandish Theory's
« Reply #600 on: December 06, 2015, 11:39:PM »
Why would they know? Don't you think if guilty, someone who could kill his family in such a manner simply to inherit and feel no remorse - HAS to be a psychopath?

Not necessarily, Psychopaths can be innocent and non Psychopaths can commit horrendous crimes.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: outlandish Theory's
« Reply #601 on: December 06, 2015, 11:44:PM »
Not necessarily, Psychopaths can be innocent and non Psychopaths can commit horrendous crimes.

I know, but to kill your own family and feel no remorse or guilt and to be using them now to try and gain public support - you have t be a psychopath!!
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13789
Re: outlandish Theory's
« Reply #602 on: December 07, 2015, 12:19:AM »
I know, but to kill your own family and feel no remorse or guilt and to be using them now to try and gain public support - you have t be a psychopath!!

One person once noted that for Jeremy to have murdered five members of his family then wait outside for hours with the police acting worried is a level of deviancy so high it cannot have gone unnoticed earlier in his life.

Apparently Jeremy has had three PCL-R tests and all said he was not a psychopath. But who knows  :-\

Offline petey

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1309
Re: outlandish Theory's
« Reply #603 on: December 07, 2015, 01:52:AM »
He studied to get that qualification in Italy. His son, Michael is doing a similar law degree in the UK. Let's get the facts right, if he has got a law degree as stated why shouldn't he be allowed to represent defendants in any of the European state criminal justice systems?

You need more than a law degree to be qualified to represent clients.

Law degree - 3 years
Legal Practice course - 1year
Training contract - 2 years
= qualified solicitor

Or

Law degree - 3 years
BPTC - 1 year
Pupillage - minimum 1 year
= barrister

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: outlandish Theory's
« Reply #604 on: December 07, 2015, 02:41:PM »
You need more than a law degree to be qualified to represent clients.

Law degree - 3 years
Legal Practice course - 1year
Training contract - 2 years
= qualified solicitor

Or

Law degree - 3 years
BPTC - 1 year
Pupillage - minimum 1 year
= barrister
[/quotHang on a minute, legal aid entitlement rulres changes everything, since if you don't qualify for whatever reason, the defendant is left undefended, or as the case may be,vsuch a defendant may be represented by someone so elequent, or favourable, as opposed to someone capable of arguing on the defendants behailf. So, here we are...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: outlandish Theory's
« Reply #605 on: December 07, 2015, 02:49:PM »
You need more than a law degree to be qualified to represent clients.

Law degree - 3 years
Legal Practice course - 1year
Training contract - 2 years
= qualified solicitor

Or

Law degree - 3 years
BPTC - 1 year
Pupillage - minimum 1 year
= barrister
[/quotHang on a minute, legal aid entitlement rulres changes everything, since if you don't qualify for whatever reason, the defendant is left undefended, or as the case may be,vsuch a defendant may be represented by someone so elequent, or favourable, as opposed to someone capable of arguing on the defendants behailf. So, here we are...

Currently, legal aid is harder to obtain, making it more likely that defendants either represent themselves, or get someone to speak on their behalf...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline petey

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1309
Re: outlandish Theory's
« Reply #606 on: December 07, 2015, 06:50:PM »
You need more than a law degree to be qualified to represent clients.

Law degree - 3 years
Legal Practice course - 1year
Training contract - 2 years
= qualified solicitor

Or

Law degree - 3 years
BPTC - 1 year
Pupillage - minimum 1 year
= barrister
[/quotHang on a minute, legal aid entitlement rulres changes everything, since if you don't qualify for whatever reason, the defendant is left undefended, or as the case may be,vsuch a defendant may be represented by someone so elequent, or favourable, as opposed to someone capable of arguing on the defendants behailf. So, here we are...

The point is simply having a law degree does not give anyone the right to legally represent a client as either a solicitor or barrister. A minimum further 2 or 3 years training is required. Di stefano clearly had not completed this hence he was not qualified to legally represent jb.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: outlandish Theory's
« Reply #607 on: December 07, 2015, 06:52:PM »
The point is simply having a law degree does not give anyone the right to legally represent a client as either a solicitor or barrister. A minimum further 2 or 3 years training is required. Di stefano clearly had not completed this hence he was not qualified to legally represent jb.
Interesting, that answers the questions, thanks petey

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33783
Re: outlandish Theory's
« Reply #608 on: December 07, 2015, 06:54:PM »
The point is simply having a law degree does not give anyone the right to legally represent a client as either a solicitor or barrister. A minimum further 2 or 3 years training is required. Di stefano clearly had not completed this hence he was not qualified to legally represent jb.


Thanks Petey. With that kind of unflinching self assurance, might we have found ourselves a psychopathic personality?

Oh dear! Just re read the above. Don't like the way it reads. I was referring to Di Stefano.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2015, 07:16:PM by Jane J »

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: outlandish Theory's
« Reply #609 on: December 07, 2015, 06:55:PM »
The point is simply having a law degree does not give anyone the right to legally represent a client as either a solicitor or barrister. A minimum further 2 or 3 years training is required. Di stefano clearly had not completed this hence he was not qualified to legally represent jb.

Good post petey did not realise that they had to train for a further 2/3years  Thanks for the information.

guest7363

  • Guest
Re: outlandish Theory's
« Reply #610 on: December 07, 2015, 07:06:PM »
Currently, legal aid is harder to obtain, making it more likely that defendants either represent themselves, or get someone to speak on their behalf...
Again your missing the point, He was no more a qualified lawyer than he was a “surgeon qualified to perform surgery or pilot qualified to fly an aeroplane",  he has no legal qualifications and is not registered to work as an advocate in the UK or Italy. Where is your proof he is not a fake like you said in earlier posts.  If you read about him he took hard earned cash of clients,  not legal aid their life savings and they never got it back.  He was well known for taking un winnable cases on.
                                     NO QUALIFICATIONS



               
                         

guest7363

  • Guest
Re: outlandish Theory's
« Reply #611 on: December 07, 2015, 07:09:PM »
The point is simply having a law degree does not give anyone the right to legally represent a client as either a solicitor or barrister. A minimum further 2 or 3 years training is required. Di stefano clearly had not completed this hence he was not qualified to legally represent jb.
Good post Petey

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13789
Re: outlandish Theory's
« Reply #612 on: December 07, 2015, 07:24:PM »
The point is simply having a law degree does not give anyone the right to legally represent a client as either a solicitor or barrister. A minimum further 2 or 3 years training is required. Di stefano clearly had not completed this hence he was not qualified to legally represent jb.

Di Stefano admitted in court he has no qualifications. and just said he was "self taught"

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: outlandish Theory's
« Reply #613 on: December 07, 2015, 08:25:PM »
One person once noted that for Jeremy to have murdered five members of his family then wait outside for hours with the police acting worried is a level of deviancy so high it cannot have gone unnoticed earlier in his life.

Apparently Jeremy has had three PCL-R tests and all said he was not a psychopath. But who knows  :-\

It hadn't gone unnoticed - Jeremy was no angle (edited - ha, ha!! He was no ANGEL either  ;D ;D ;D ;D) and his misdemeanour's are well documented and those are only the ones we know about.

The PCL-R is only as good as the tester.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2015, 08:09:AM by Caroline »
Few people have the imagination for reality

John

  • Guest
Re: outlandish Theory's
« Reply #614 on: December 08, 2015, 02:20:AM »
Jeremy Bamber did not kill anybody, and you have already admitted police brought the rifle from the window and placed it on Sheila's body, and then took photographs which they used to fool the jury into believing that the photographs were a true record of how Sheila's body was found unmoved or untouched by any person, which we now know to have been a complete fabrication, as proven and established by the sequence with which key photographs were taken by SOCO. How anybody can suggest that Jeremy staged his sisters body to fool police into accepting she had shot herself beggars belief, in view of the fact that it can now be shown that police moved the body and the rifle so they could photograph her supposed death scene. The reason why miscarriages of justice happen is because of people like you. You are ignorant to the truth. Of course the police had a reason to cover what they had done up - they shot an unarmed deranged young woman downstairs in the kitchen which they called it 'a suicide', and later on, after the police surgeon, Dr Craig, had already pronounced her dead, they placed a loaded rifle which they brought to her body from the bedroom window, which discharged a live round depositing bullet PV/19 into her brain. There was nothing remotely legal about what happened in the main bedroom when they shot Sheila whilst carrying out a 'gauging exercise' using a loaded gun. The police shot and killed Sheila Caffell in the main bedroom, and the circumstances of how they killed her, were swept under the carpet, helped by them staging her death scene and then photographing her body with the gun upon it to give an impression that she had shot herself. The photographs they took after they had arranged the rifle back on her body were misused during the trial to support the contention that these particular photographs showed views of her death scene unmoved and untouched until Cook stepped forward and took the gun from her body. The police had every reason to cover up what they had done, and they did. How anybody can justify the police shooting and killing Sheila Caffell in these circumstances by claiming they would have been entitled to shoot her has got to be nuts. You cannot place a loaded weapon on the body of a victim whether or not you thought she was dead, or as it turned out deeply unconscious, and then start arranging her fingers upon and around the trigger mechanism, which causes the gun to go off, and then say, "oh, it's alright, we were entitled to kill her anyway". No, they weren't entitled to kill her anyway, she was unarmed, mistakenly thought to be dead, but only deeply unconscious. They had her under control, there was not justification for any police officer to claim after the gun went off, that "oh well, we were entitled to kill her anyway". There was no reason thereafter to stage her actual death scene to make it look like she had shot herself (when she hadn't). Even worse, for the police to then go on and take photographs which a year later they misused in a defiant act of deception. People like you who support this kind of dishonesty are a disgrace. The only time people like you will ever appreciate this type of injustice is if it happens and you are the victim on the receiving end of it...

Abdolute unmitigated hogwash.  The police never discharged any weapons on the morning of the White House Farm murders.  The rifle leaning against the windowsill has no significance other than the police set it there while they examined the crime scene, a very normal procedure in any investigation.  As Jane has already pointed out, your attempts at making 3 plus 3 equal 8 are actually making your arguments look silly.

The police officers who attended the scene had nothing to hide, no ulterior motive, no devious plan to blame the entire thing on Jeremy Bamber because we know that when they left the scene they initially wrongly decided it was four murders and a suicide.  Jeremy came out of it smelling of roses, at least until it all came crashing down upon him as a consequence of his own arrogance.

Next?
« Last Edit: December 08, 2015, 02:25:AM by John »