Why Julie or the police would not bring up MM: If Bamber was innocent:

[Adam]

Adam, please stop goading, you have been OK lately but you still have two warnings against you and if you continue to stir and goad, I will ban you again.

You have goaded Jan since she began posting and she has been amazingly tolerant of you. If you goad someone until you get the answer you hope for which you then feel justified to complain about, it really won't work because by your own behaviour you have caused your victim to retaliate which is understandable and acceptable imo.
Do you understand?

Why didn't you PM me ?

Jan goaded me on this thread. And often goads me.

If I send a superior but non abusive goad, to anyone, you just remove my post and announce it on the forum. Although I had previously asked you not to.  If I ask for Jan's original goad to also be removed, you don't respond. If I try to find out why my post has been removed, you threaten to ban me. But I appreciate the dear ladies on here are all buddies, either former moderators, current or former supporters.

Anyway I've just answered her questions, which Mat criticised as having a 'negative slant'. 

Nope, can't think of any examples of when I've goaded Jan, or anyone else. Unprovoked. If my posts or threads clinically highlight Bamber's guilt, people have to accept that. Or fight back, which some do. Ferociously.

However I can think of lots of examples where I've been called a 'creatin', 'racist' ! 'sexist'!", a 'liar', 'prat', 'talking bullshit', 'arsehole', 'drug user', 'pervert'. By most posters. But appreciate the dear ladies won't be banned for this. But I would,  so don't.

[guest154]

Why didn't you PM me ?

Jan goaded me on this thread. And often goads me.

If I send a superior but non abusive goad, you just remove my post and announce it on the forum. If I ask for Jan's original goad to also be removed, you don't respond. If I try to find out why my post has been removed, you threaten to ban me. But I appreciate the dear ladies on here are all buddies, either former moderators, current or former supporters.

Anyway I've just answered her questions, which Mat criticised as having a 'negative slant'. 

Nope, can't think of any examples of when I've goaded Jan. Unprovoked. If my posts or threads clinically highlight Bamber's guilt, people have to accept that. Or fight back, which some do.

However I can think of lots of examples where I've been called a 'creatin', 'racist' ! 'sexist'!", a 'liar', 'prat', 'talking bullshit', 'arsehole', 'drug user', 'pervert'. By most posters. But appreciate the dear ladies won't be banned for this. But I would,  so don't.

Adam - if you don't think that Maggie likes you or isn't being fair - just PM NGB about the issue you have. Copy and paste whatever post you have a problem with, will save you a lot of time and energy and you will always get a reply - that's what I do.

As for people on the board that annoy you, put them on ignore. I've been ignoring Jan for a few days since one of her posts to me I found to be an attack rather than a comment. Doesn't have to be a big deal, easy to put someone on ignore and a lot better for your health!

[maggie]

Adam - if you don't think that Maggie likes you or isn't being fair - just PM NGB about the issue you have. Copy and paste whatever post you have a problem with, will save you a lot of time and energy and you will always get a reply - that's what I do.

As for people on the board that annoy you, put them on ignore. I've been ignoring Jan for a few days since one of her posts to me I found to be an attack rather than a comment. Doesn't have to be a big deal, easy to put someone on ignore and a lot better for your health!

Adam knows very well he can pm NGB whenever he feels he has been treated unfairly, I have told him that on several occasions, thanks mat.

[Adam]

Well the last time I contacted NGB was when I had been threatened with a month long ban. Because I was creating 'excellent' forensic threads on the individual crime scenes of each of the five individuals. NGB said these thread posts are probably goading. However the threads were copying and pasting from the 2002 appeal. So impossible.

Prior to that was when a poster came onto my excellent poll, said it was 'f--king rubbish', called me a 'cretin' and suggested I took drugs. I got no reply from the moderator. Eventually I was told that his/her connection had been down.  Then I was informed that I was the abusive one. Although no examples were given.  When I suggested I call posters the same names they call me, rather than continue to post non abusively, I was instantly given a two week ban and threatened with a permanent ban. NGB said he was not going to override this decision.

[Caroline]

Well the last time I contacted NGB was when I had been threatened with a month long ban. Because I was creating forensic threads on the individual crime scenes of each of the five individuals. NGB said these thread posts are probably goading. However the threads were copying and pasting from the 2002 appeal. So impossible.

Prior to that was when a poster came onto my excellent poll, said it was 'f--king rubbish', called me a 'cretin' and suggested I took drugs. I got no reply from the moderator. Eventually I was told that his/her connection had been down.  Then I was informed that I was the abusive one. Although no examples were given.  When I suggested I call posters the same names they call me, I was instantly given a two week ban and threatened with a permanent ban. NGB said he was not going to override this decision.

That wasn't me was it? 

[maggie]

Well the last time I contacted NGB was when I had been threatened with a month long ban. Because I was creating forensic threads on the individual crime scenes of each of the five individuals. NGB said these thread posts are probably goading. However the threads were copying and pasting from the 2002 appeal. So impossible.

Prior to that was when a poster came onto my excellent poll, said it was 'f--king rubbish', called me a 'cretin' and suggested I took drugs. I got no reply from the moderator. Eventually I was told that his/her connection had been down.  Then I was informed that I was the abusive one. Although no examples were given.  When I suggested I call posters the same names they call me, I was instantly given a two week ban and threatened with a permanent ban. NGB said he was not going to override this decision.

I am not getting into an argument with you Adam but the information in the above post is far from accurate. I have been very lenient with you in the past but you just took more and more advantage of that until you left me no option but to use the threat and or implementation of a ban in order to be able to stop what is at times your very difficult behaviour i.e.. continually reposting posts I have removed, goading towards other posters and abusive posting toward me.
You complain that I reply to you on the forum but I am usually replying to your posts and accusations aimed at me on the open forum.
When I speak to you or others via pm I am accused of being sneaky therefore I have come to the conclusion that it's best to post anything I have to say on the open forum, then there can be no mistaking my position.
I would like to add that any modding decisions I make have nothing to do with my personal feelings towards individual posters or which 'side' they may be on.  These decisions are simply to protect and support the. smooth running of the forum and are nothing to do with my personal opinions.
Thanks maggie

[Jane]

Well the last time I contacted NGB was when I had been threatened with a month long ban. Because I was creating 'excellent' forensic threads on the individual crime scenes of each of the five individuals. NGB said these thread posts are probably goading. However the threads were copying and pasting from the 2002 appeal. So impossible.

Prior to that was when a poster came onto my excellent poll, said it was 'f--king rubbish', called me a 'cretin' and suggested I took drugs. I got no reply from the moderator. Eventually I was told that his/her connection had been down.  Then I was informed that I was the abusive one. Although no examples were given.  When I suggested I call posters the same names they call me, rather than continue to post non abusively, I was instantly given a two week ban and threatened with a permanent ban. NGB said he was not going to override this decision.

Whining again, are we, Adam, and once again, practising the art of inaccuracy? Seems you can't go for long without this particular fix. I wonder what you read into all these alleged attacks. What information do you take from them? You seem to be of the opinion that you're the most valued member on this forum. Does the evidence not say something entirely different?

If you want an example of your own abuse -which it what all those you mention, from admin and mods to members, react to, and they can't all be wrong- you need look no further than the post I'm responding to. In a classroom situation, pupils and teachers alike would probably label you as the class sneak. You appear to think you have a perfect right to belittle every post and poster you respond to and gleefully tell tales like a victim when they retaliate.

SHOULD the time arrive when you push the mod team to the point where they impose a life time ban on you, I imagine that a poll for those in favour COULD be the same ratio as the guilty vote Jeremy received. An ironic claim to fame for you, eh?

[notsure]

 ;

That wasn't me was it? 

 

[John]

MM was innocent.

MM may have an alibi.

MM may sue the police.

MM may take revenge on Julie.

Julie said she was scared of what MM would do to her.

There were no advantages in bringing up MM.

A lot of Julies WS had things which Julie would almost certainly have only got from Bamber. Showing he was the killer.  Recent TAC. So why introduce MM ?

It was not believable that MM would carry out the massacre for £2,000.

It would be Julie's word against both Bamber's and MM's.

Julie and/or the police were already trying to put one innocent man behind bars. Why try to do two ?

Introducing MM is still trying to frame Bamber. It would be easier to just say Bamber said he did it.

A lot of Julies alleged false WS was factually correct. Such as times or places her and Bamber went to. Both pre and post massacre. The rest was her word against Bamber's. Introducing such an outrageous lie about MM in the middle of this makes no sense.

Bamber had no alibi for the 11pm - 3pm period. So no reason to bring in MM.

If MM had no alibi, he may have been found guilty.

MM being found to not be involved undermined the whole prosecution case.

There are 17 reasons why Bamber would bring up MM to Julie. Recent TAC. Therefore it is only credible that he is on her WS because that is what Bamber told her.

If the police investigated MM a bit. They would find out he was a plumber !

If it was just Julie attempting to frame an innocent Bamber, this was an almost impossible undertaking. Recent TAC. Why make things harder for herself by bringing up a man who had nothing to do with the family ?

If the police decided to attempt to frame Bamber after one month, they would have to ask Julie to lie. When her lie about MM was exposed, Julie may panic and come clean about everything.

The police's framing attempt was delicately relying on a 20 year old woman as a main witness. Surely all the alleged lies they put on her WS, should be watertight. Rather than including a ridiculous lie.

The police attempting to frame Bamber would not even know who MM was.

Julie agreeing with the police to create a false WS, would let them dictate the WS contents. So would not bring up MM. The police would not know MM so would also not bring him up.

The prosecution case at court was that Bamber committed the massacre. So why leave their main witness exposed when testifying ?

MM testified in court, highlighting his innocence. Which meant several minutes spent by a witness in court undermining  the prosecution case. The police would have expected this to happen. So a bad idea to put him on Julie's WS.

Either MM had an alibi and was innocent. Or had no alibi and may have been wrongly convicted. Either way, there are no advantages for Julie or the police.

Very simple really. Julie's statement related everything Jeremy Bamber fed her about Malcolm McDonald, this was Julie's statement in her own words and not some concocted invention by Essex Police.  And the reason Jeremy invented the McDonald story is again very simple.  Jeremy knew very well that if he came out and admitted he was a cold blooded killer who murdered not only his adoptive parents and sister but her two young sons then there was a very good chance that she would be so disgusted by his deeds that she would give him up.  Using McDonald as a scapegoat meant that Bamber could keep Julie on side on the basis that his hands didn't have blood on them.  Jeremy badly underestimated his control over Julie however and the rest as they say is history.

[Adam]

Very simple really. Julie's statement related everything Jeremy Bamber fed her about Malcolm McDonald, this was Julie's statement in her own words and not some concocted invention by Essex Police.  And the reason Jeremy invented the McDonald story is again very simple.  Jeremy knew very well that if he came out and admitted he was a cold blooded killer who murdered not only his adoptive parents and sister but her two young sons then there was a very good chance that she would be so disgusted by his deeds that she would give him up.  Using McDonald as a scapegoat meant that Bamber could keep Julie on side on the basis that his hands didn't have blood on them.  Jeremy badly underestimated his control over Julie however and the rest as they say is history.

This thread goes hand in hand with my recent thread on why Bamber would introduce MM.

I'm sure all supporters agree there is no mileage left in claiming JM lied because MM was not involved. A time for another closure.