I have now contributed to threads on both the 'red' forum and this forum. Although I am strictly neutral on the question of Bamber's culpability, I think this forum is superior, partly because people are generally more polite and constructive here and the bias towards Bamber that exists here creates a better atmosphere and greater open-mindedness about the evidence. The individuals associated with the 'red' forum come across as rather smug and insufferable.
However, I would argue that a rational discussion of this case is next-to-impossible on the web, and when it does occur, it can't be sustained for long before the My Side Is Right dogma creeps in - be it pro- or anti-Bamber - or somebody gets upset. The reason for this is that human beings are not, on the whole, rational in the first place. Most of us are hormonal, and very ego-driven and tribal, and we tend to want to 'take sides', and I suppose the criminal justice system in England reflects this structurally in that it is adversarial and not, per se, concerned with the truth and proofs but with who can 'win' an argument and 'persuade' the jury of their case.
The way that that manifests on forums like this is that people make undisciplined arguments, assert things factually that aren't true facts and take sides in a discussion that ought to be concerned with establishing, variously, the truthfulness, legality or forensic integrity of a point. For example, a dogmatic anti-Bamber poster on this Forum asserts that the blood evidence is absolutely Sheila's or, if not hers, then definitely Nevill's and June's, but that isn't necessarily the case. That's not what the evidence says and confuses fact with expert opinion. All opinions are assailable.
Nigel, who posts on here, is fanatically pro-Bamber, but I can forgive him. I don't blame people like Nigel and Mike who want to stand by Jeremy, and given the disadvantages that a defendant/appellant has under this system, I think it's admirable what you are doing.
It occurs to me that Jeremy Bamber's case is one of those that might have benefited more from the inquisitorial trial system that exists on the Continent, where an examining judge determines both law and fact, supervises the criminal investigation and sets out to determine the truth - analogous to the typical work of an English coroner. I don't have any statistics to back this up, but my general impression is that adversarial justice systems seem to produce a greater number, and worse, miscarriages of justice than systems that concern themselves purely with establishing the truth.
I have been quite impressed with the workings of the Portuguese criminal justice system during the McCann investigation and the way that police investigations are judicially-supervised. That's not to take a view either way on the case itself - I don't - and I wouldn't say I was impressed with the competence of the actual investigation, but the Portuguese system seems to operate more fairly and carefully overall and seems less susceptible to intellectual tribalism, media influence and manufactured hysteria. Just my opinion.
Where do we go from here? My (layman's) view is that the pro-Bamber side of this needs to be ruthlessly focused on the points that are relevant to an appeal and not allow itself to be sidetracked by non-probative issues. For this Forum, it would probably help if one of us could draw up a list of the points that are thought to bring the conviction into doubt, and we can then whittle that down to the most promising two or three.
