Viva Les Differences

[Jane]

As it's differences of opinion that are at the heart of debates, it has caused me to wonder what factor(s) is (are) at the heart of the differences. I've arrived at the following.

Supporters -bearing in mind I believe there to be differences of belief between males and females- ALL appear to have agendas, although females are more inclined to come from a place of a mix of sentimentality and blind faith, akin to religious fervour, possibly(?) more altruistic than are males from whom it's difficult to get totally away from the suspicion of an element of "What might be in it for me", albeit, such would require them to put more intellectual effort into planning a course of action which they hope will pay off/fit. ALL -male and female- put the responsibility for the crime at the feet of any, OTHER than Jeremy.

Detractors, for the most part, appear to have put effort and reason into arriving at their decision, some having changed their minds to reach it. They're not constrained by agenda. It's unnecessary for them to have one. There is nothing for them to prove. There is nothing for them to gain. They ALL -male and female- put the responsibility for the crime squarely at the feet of only ONE person, Jeremy Bamber.
 

[lookout]

Usted va en--

[Jane]

Usted va en--

Apres vous

[lookout]

>>>>>>>>>>>>Siempre un partidario ! No hay otra razon que no sea inocente.

[lookout]

Apres vous

Descarado.

[Jane]

>>>>>>>>>>>>Siempre un partidario ! No hay otra razon que no sea inocente.

No mas inocente en espanol que englais...................however much you wish it

[lookout]

No mas inocente en espanol que englais...................however much you wish it

Bragas.

[Jane]

Bragas.

Los abandono

[lookout]

Los abandono

Never.

[Jane]

Never.

 

[lookout]

Back to your opening post--------I don't have an agenda other than to see fair play by rooting out all the documents that weren't displayed to the defence during the trial. Not only for this case in particular but for all cases which arrive in court, to give a balanced and unbiased view for the benefit of the jury as it's their final decision on the outcome of any case.
We've all seen wrong decisions made purely by the withholding of certain evidence which in the end creates many too many, miscarriages of justice which has the knock-on effect of an unnecessary financial catastrophe in trying to right the wrongs.

I certainly wouldn't be happy paying for someone else's mistake.   

[Steve_uk]

As it's differences of opinion that are at the heart of debates, it has caused me to wonder what factor(s) is (are) at the heart of the differences. I've arrived at the following.

Supporters -bearing in mind I believe there to be differences of belief between males and females- ALL appear to have agendas, although females are more inclined to come from a place of a mix of sentimentality and blind faith, akin to religious fervour, possibly(?) more altruistic than are males from whom it's difficult to get totally away from the suspicion of an element of "What might be in it for me", albeit, such would require them to put more intellectual effort into planning a course of action which they hope will pay off/fit. ALL -male and female- put the responsibility for the crime at the feet of any, OTHER than Jeremy.

Detractors, for the most part, appear to have put effort and reason into arriving at their decision, some having changed their minds to reach it. They're not constrained by agenda. It's unnecessary for them to have one. There is nothing for them to prove. There is nothing for them to gain. They ALL -male and female- put the responsibility for the crime squarely at the feet of only ONE person, Jeremy Bamber.

I think there could be subliminal influences at work here. For example during the recent story on the carbon dioxide shortage I found myself having bought a different brand of mineral water than usual, though it only happened once and I didn't buy it again. Life experiences do count: former prison inmates are more likely to side with Jeremy Bamber initially as they have either had personal or heard anecdotal experiences of miscarriages of justice, healthcare workers who have had particularly difficult customers to deal with at A&E of a weekend or who have had to restrain patients personally may have a bias against Sheila, even if it is unconscious, as might a woman who has had to scrimp and save all her life and who is not particularly prepossessing. An adoptee who has had familial difficulties may side with either Sheila or Jeremy, whereas the parent may sympathize more with Nevill and June's situation, and again a former public school pupil may have memories which tally with those wretched experiences suffered by both Sheila and Jeremy.

[Jane]

Back to your opening post--------I don't have an agenda other than to see fair play by rooting out all the documents that weren't displayed to the defence during the trial. Not only for this case in particular but for all cases which arrive in court, to give a balanced and unbiased view for the benefit of the jury as it's their final decision on the outcome of any case.
We've all seen wrong decisions made purely by the withholding of certain evidence which in the end creates many too many, miscarriages of justice which has the knock-on effect of an unnecessary financial catastrophe in trying to right the wrongs.

I certainly wouldn't be happy paying for someone else's mistake.

Mmm. I hear you, Lookout, but when that famous and oft mentioned "gut feeling" of yours kicked in, none of that was known. We've all, well, MOST of us, supporters and detractors alike, learned as we've gone along. Surely, even you won't deny that? What concerns me dreadfully, is that it seems to have become necessary to falsify/manipulate by playing on people's emotions, making it easy for them believe that this is another miscarriage of justice. I'm fully convinced they happen. I'm not convinced that this is one of them.

[Jane]

I think there could be subliminal influences at work here. For example during the recent story on the carbon dioxide shortage I found myself having bought a different brand of mineral water than usual, though it only happened once and I didn't buy it again. Life experiences do count: former prison inmates are more likely to side with Jeremy Bamber initially as they have either had personal or heard anecdotal experiences of miscarriages of justice, healthcare workers who have had particularly difficult customers to deal with at A&E of a weekend or who have had to restrain patients personally may have a bias against Sheila, even if it is unconscious, as might a woman who has had to scrimp and save all her life and who is not particularly prepossessing. An adoptee who has had familial difficulties may side with either Sheila or Jeremy, whereas the parent may sympathize more with Nevill and June's situation, and again a former public school pupil may have memories which tally with those wretched experiences suffered by both Sheila and Jeremy.

Oh! Absolutely, Steve. It's certainly not our recent experiences that colour our deeper feelings, even though our recent ones are likely to have their foundations there.

[lookout]

Mmm. I hear you, Lookout, but when that famous and oft mentioned "gut feeling" of yours kicked in, none of that was known. We've all, well, MOST of us, supporters and detractors alike, learned as we've gone along. Surely, even you won't deny that? What concerns me dreadfully, is that it seems to have become necessary to falsify/manipulate by playing on people's emotions, making it easy for them believe that this is another miscarriage of justice. I'm fully convinced they happen. I'm not convinced that this is one of them.

Indeed I've learned a lot as I've gone along particularly of the implications and problems that non-disclosure of evidence brings as to me personally the case is never finalised or ever will be without the full details.
While we all know how to " prosecute " often done when there's a clash of personalities to throw in the mix but when it comes to defence there's a complete barrier because deep down nobody likes a winner so to deter from this happening certain testimonies as well as statements are withheld so as not to show that person in a true light because it wouldn't look good.

This is not the way to operate by any means but in this case people went all out to convict even barring that which should have lent itself to a fair trial namely unedited/unaltered draft statements which should have been typed up as was. Instead there were series of crossed-out and over-written papers in which to copy as wasn't originally written showing that all wasn't as it seemed.


Why after all these years has it been decided to further look into this case if everyone didn't think there'd been anything untoward in October 1986 ?