Justice For All - Correspondence

[curiousessex]

Yes, that is true, he didn't spell it out, but he did come to the 2002 appeal to show is support to the family.

Are you in contact with Roger Wilkes?

[ngb1066]

Ann was never a magistrate. It is therfore, for me, hard to take seriously a report with such a provable error, which is then further commented on to imply deception.

-------------------------

I would like to hear it from the horses mouth, if she was not a magistrate, not the stable boy...

Vidic, you did say it was a provable error.So.

Yes cliff, bad choice of words. All I can do, which I did, was phone her and say "were you ever a magistrate?" and she laughed and said no!

When did you call Vidvic?

Why?

rather defensive and getting yourself muddled vidvic....
looking at your claims and what you say...your looking a little shakey here.
The nature of your answers invite doubt on your claims and bring suspicion upon yourself in my view.

I do wonder as well  on how an ex RAF person involved with videos of old spitfires will make the spelling error of ROUNDAL....  and then have difficulty explaining!
From my own interest in aircraft and aircraft modelling I am not going to mess up and get the word ROUNDEL wrong.
Sometimes you appear to be well out of your comfort zone vidvic.....I do wonder how you got on as a producer when little things...well they should be little things...seem to rock you so much.

The claims you make are important...so hence the extra scrutiny it invites...its not a personal attack ..aimed at you as an individual...I would question anyone who makes the type of claims you have made quite closely to see how they hold up and how the person making them acts.


please tell us when you made this claimed call vidvic..as surely it was simple to answer?.
your response when asked of "WHY?"  ...  to which I respond  ....
WHY DID YOU SAY WHY?

I was not being defensive at all Smiffy. Just curious as to why the call time is important. (about 3pm BTW) Yes, I was a photographic specialist in the RAF, my service number was H8208474 and I was based at Wattisham (56/23/74 Sqn's / Phanthoms) and then RAF Kinloss on Nimrods. Yes, I did spell roundel wrong on a post to Jackie at god knows what time in the morning and yes, I do know the Eatons and the Boutflours very well and have done for many years. I was the family spokesman during the 2002 appeal and helped write the speech that Peter made outside the court on the final day. I was interviewed by Sky News at my home during the same appeal. I attended every day with the family and can be seen on much footage walking into court with them. I first spoke with Mike over 5 years ago through the original forum. I was also family spokesman when David's son Simon died in an accident on carbonells. This last weekend I produced the world Rowing Cup from Hamburg and the week before I produced the English swimming champs from Sheffield in my ficticious role as a TV producer. I will see the family again on Thursday.

vidvic - thank you for being open about your close connection with the Eatons and the Boutflours and I appreciate that this understandably has influenced your own view of this case.  You have acted as a spokesman for the family and gave close support to them during the 2002 appeal.  I do not want to cause offence by asking, but are you in any way related to the family?  If not are you prepared to say any more about the reason for your close connection with them?  I am genuinely interested but will not complain if you tell me to mind my own business!

   

[Jackiepreece]

Quote from: Jackiepreece on Today at 12:55 PM
Vidvic something I meant to ask you a while ago about the statement you posted a while ago




I know many journalists that have spent thousands of hours doing exactly what some of you do, asking questions, reading statements, testing theories. The vast majority that I have met agree with me and the appeal court judges, in that the more you know about this case, the more convinced you become of JB's guilt1st June



the part of your statement "the more you know about this case the more convinced you become of JB s guilt"

You do know those were the words used at JB s 2002 appeal and at one of the many failed appeals of the Birmingham Six

Vidvic with your experiance and knowledge of the media how guilty were the Birmingham Six and how long did these men spend in prison as innocent men

Sorry Jackie, I see no connection between the two cases.



Vidvic
You have posted the above words ""the more you know about this case the more convinced you become of JB s guilt"  as if they were your words and they are not you have copied something from the 2002 appeal and you are quoting this is what a vast majority of journalists believe

If you are going to quote words in this way could you say where you are quoting from.

The point I have made about the Birmingham Six is Appeal Courts often get things wrong and its interesting the Jeremy Bamber case is still being investigated 26 years on and could well go to appeal again and Jeremy could be proven to be not guilty which would make it one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in the last 100 years

When the words that YOU COPIED were used on the Birmingham six the Appeal Judges got it very wrong and in fact I believe one of them later apologised

I would also like to know if you are prepared to name the vast number of journalists that believe Jeremy is guilty because I speak to  journalists on a daily basis and I am hearing exactly the opposite.  In fact I would say nearly everyone on this forum pro Bamber or Anti Bamber would welcome a retrial.  I would be very interested to know the names of these people so far I have Bob W

I would also like to know as you have close connections to the family why would they not petition to get everything held under PII released so JB has no further grounds to appeal his sentance.  I would think that would be sensible if they really do want this case to be over once and for all.

[Jackiepreece]

Vidvic I have a number of other questions to ask you re facts or wild speculation but you appear to have gone off line so I will ask you later

[Roch]

Quote from: Jackiepreece on Today at 12:55 PM
Vidvic something I meant to ask you a while ago about the statement you posted a while ago




I know many journalists that have spent thousands of hours doing exactly what some of you do, asking questions, reading statements, testing theories. The vast majority that I have met agree with me and the appeal court judges, in that the more you know about this case, the more convinced you become of JB's guilt1st June



the part of your statement "the more you know about this case the more convinced you become of JB s guilt"

You do know those were the words used at JB s 2002 appeal and at one of the many failed appeals of the Birmingham Six

Vidvic with your experiance and knowledge of the media how guilty were the Birmingham Six and how long did these men spend in prison as innocent men

Sorry Jackie, I see no connection between the two cases.



Vidvic
You have posted the above words ""the more you know about this case the more convinced you become of JB s guilt"  as if they were your words and they are not you have copied something from the 2002 appeal and you are quoting this is what a vast majority of journalists believe

If you are going to quote words in this way could you say where you are quoting from.

The point I have made about the Birmingham Six is Appeal Courts often get things wrong and its interesting the Jeremy Bamber case is still being investigated 26 years on and could well go to appeal again and Jeremy could be proven to be not guilty which would make it one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in the last 100 years

When the words that YOU COPIED were used on the Birmingham six the Appeal Judges got it very wrong and in fact I believe one of them later apologised

I would also like to know if you are prepared to name the vast number of journalists that believe Jeremy is guilty because I speak to  journalists on a daily basis and I am hearing exactly the opposite.  In fact I would say nearly everyone on this forum pro Bamber or Anti Bamber would welcome a retrial.  I would be very interested to know the names of these people so far I have Bob W

I would also like to know as you have close connections to the family why would they not petition to get everything held under PII released so JB has no further grounds to appeal his sentance.  I would think that would be sensible if they really do want this case to be over once and for all.

I would be interested in Vic's opinion of this equation.  If the entire material either currently being withheld under PII or remaining unavailable despite three F.O.I. requests... was released... including where appropriate for ESDA testing... then I think we would have an even playing field. 

Now If the family want to bury this for once and all, instead of having to be distressed by Jeremy's attempts at appeal, then surely the most surefire way of achieving this closure, is to join the petition for absolute full disclosure, albeit from the opposite angle of defence linked campaigners. 

Until the family, Vic, or anyone else who bangs the drum of 'guilty' ... are in agreement with absolute full disclosure, then the guilty view continues to undermine itself by laying itself open to accusations of sleaze, perjury, police corruption, secrecy, abuse of legal powers.  These suspicions will NEVER subside.  They are not going away.  From here on in the voices can only get louder and the questions get more awkward.   There is no middle ground in this case, in my view.  You either support openness and full disclosure... or you support secrecy.

[jon]

Quote from: Jackiepreece on Today at 12:55 PM
Vidvic something I meant to ask you a while ago about the statement you posted a while ago




I know many journalists that have spent thousands of hours doing exactly what some of you do, asking questions, reading statements, testing theories. The vast majority that I have met agree with me and the appeal court judges, in that the more you know about this case, the more convinced you become of JB's guilt1st June



the part of your statement "the more you know about this case the more convinced you become of JB s guilt"

You do know those were the words used at JB s 2002 appeal and at one of the many failed appeals of the Birmingham Six

Vidvic with your experiance and knowledge of the media how guilty were the Birmingham Six and how long did these men spend in prison as innocent men

Sorry Jackie, I see no connection between the two cases.



Vidvic
You have posted the above words ""the more you know about this case the more convinced you become of JB s guilt"  as if they were your words and they are not you have copied something from the 2002 appeal and you are quoting this is what a vast majority of journalists believe

If you are going to quote words in this way could you say where you are quoting from.

The point I have made about the Birmingham Six is Appeal Courts often get things wrong and its interesting the Jeremy Bamber case is still being investigated 26 years on and could well go to appeal again and Jeremy could be proven to be not guilty which would make it one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in the last 100 years

When the words that YOU COPIED were used on the Birmingham six the Appeal Judges got it very wrong and in fact I believe one of them later apologised

I would also like to know if you are prepared to name the vast number of journalists that believe Jeremy is guilty because I speak to  journalists on a daily basis and I am hearing exactly the opposite.  In fact I would say nearly everyone on this forum pro Bamber or Anti Bamber would welcome a retrial.  I would be very interested to know the names of these people so far I have Bob W

I would also like to know as you have close connections to the family why would they not petition to get everything held under PII released so JB has no further grounds to appeal his sentance.  I would think that would be sensible if they really do want this case to be over once and for all.

I would be interested in Vic's opinion of this equation.  If the entire material either currently being withheld under PII or remaining unavailable despite three F.O.I. requests... was released... including where appropriate for ESDA testing... then I think we would have an even playing field. 

Now If the family want to bury this for once and all, instead of having to be distressed by Jeremy's attempts at appeal, then surely the most surefire way of achieving this closure, is to join the petition for absolute full disclosure, albeit from the opposite angle of defence linked campaigners. 

Until the family, Vic, or anyone else who bangs the drum of 'guilty' ... are in agreement with absolute full disclosure, then the guilty view continues to undermine itself by laying itself open to accusations of sleaze, perjury, police corruption, secrecy, abuse of legal powers.  These suspicions will NEVER subside.  They are not going away.  From here on in the voices can only get louder and the questions get more awkward.   There is no middle ground in this case, in my view.  You either support openness and full disclosure... or you support secrecy.

Great post , could not agree more !!

[clifford]

Vidvic I have a number of other questions to ask you re facts or wild speculation but you appear to have gone off line so I will ask you later

I agree with you Jackie. Vidic seems to ask a lot of questions to AE. He knows the family well apparently.
Do the family agree to him posting on this site. Apparently Ann laughed at the suggestion of her being a magistrate., Good old jovial Ann.
If what you are saying is correct she MUST follow the forum.
I have no doubt of your credentials being the RAF, but find your assertions as knowing the family unbelievable. [ I phoned Ann ect]
Ann could come to this forum and shoot us down in flames, but chooses not to.
In fact any of the family could do this, but reserve thier council.
I am sorry Vidic I do not believe you.
For a start I was beside Jeremy when he came out of court.[ No I was,nt but easy to say].
The trouble with being blinkered is you cannot see what is in front of you.
Pinning your hopes on a telephone call does not do it for me. I do respect your wrong stance.

[vidvic]

Jackie, When I wrote the line about "the more you look into the case........" I presumed that you (or anyone) with a good knowledge of the case would realise I was using the words of the 2002 high court, hence why I referenced it in the same sentence. I did not mean to give the impression those were my words. I should have put quotes around it.

I am not going to give you all the names of journalists that believe Bamber to be guilty. You say you know lots who believe him innocent and I know lots who believe him Guilty.

There are still senior journalists who remember JB attempting to sell soft porn pics of Sheila after she'd died. It wasn't just one paper that were approached. As a JB is innocent PR move, that didn't help. I believe the newspaper returned the pictures to Colin who destroyed them.

On the point of PII disclosure. Even the family do not know how many or how much is hidden behind PII and I don't even think it is their decision whether or not it is released. Also, sometimes, documents that are claimed to have been hidden were never hidden in the first place and were simply not used by the defence at the original trial. So, sometimes I feel this argument of witheld documents, photographs etc etc, is overplayed to give the impression of conspiracy, where as in reality it was just not used. A good example of this is the phone logs which are now claimed to show a call from Nevill to the police. These were at trial, and agreed by both sides to be the same call from JB to the Police at 2.26. 26 years later they are brought back as new evidence but are the same logs referred to at trial and at the 2002 appeal.

The family have nothing to hide.

Even they are kept in the dark as to why Essex Police make some of the decisions they do.

[curiousessex]

Vidvic I have a number of other questions to ask you re facts or wild speculation but you appear to have gone off line so I will ask you later

I agree with you Jackie. Vidic seems to ask a lot of questions to AE. He knows the family well apparently.
Do the family agree to him posting on this site. Apparently Ann laughed at the suggestion of her being a magistrate., Good old jovial Ann.
If what you are saying is correct she MUST follow the forum.
I have no doubt of your credentials being the RAF, but find your assertions as knowing the family unbelievable. [ I phoned Ann ect]
Ann could come to this forum and shoot us down in flames, but chooses not to.
In fact any of the family could do this, but reserve thier council.
I am sorry Vidic I do not believe you.
For a start I was beside Jeremy when he came out of court.[ No I was,nt but easy to say].
The trouble with being blinkered is you cannot see what is in front of you.
Pinning your hopes on a telephone call does not do it for me. I do respect your wrong stance.

I guess it all depends on how literal you choose to be in your beliefs.

By example, if I were to quote your third to last sentence.... The trouble with being blinkered is you cannot see what is in front of you.

I know exactly what you are meaning to say however, literally, the trouble with being blinkered is that you can only see what is in front of you. - Blinkers prevent distraction from the sides of vision.

[vidvic]

Vidvic I have a number of other questions to ask you re facts or wild speculation but you appear to have gone off line so I will ask you later

I agree with you Jackie. Vidic seems to ask a lot of questions to AE. He knows the family well apparently.
Do the family agree to him posting on this site. Apparently Ann laughed at the suggestion of her being a magistrate., Good old jovial Ann.
If what you are saying is correct she MUST follow the forum.
I have no doubt of your credentials being the RAF, but find your assertions as knowing the family unbelievable. [ I phoned Ann ect]
Ann could come to this forum and shoot us down in flames, but chooses not to.
In fact any of the family could do this, but reserve thier council.
I am sorry Vidic I do not believe you.
For a start I was beside Jeremy when he came out of court.[ No I was,nt but easy to say].
The trouble with being blinkered is you cannot see what is in front of you.
Pinning your hopes on a telephone call does not do it for me. I do respect your wrong stance.

That's a shame Cliff because I hoped by giving more detail of my relationship it would move the forum forward.
Various members of the family do view this forum at times, even Ann. I don't think all would view my participation in a good light.

[Jackiepreece]

Rochy I love you because you know what I am trying to say but I can't put it into words the way you can I think I must come across as the Eliza Doolittle of the forum. I just know what's right and what's wrong and when we get right down to the facts we have about this case up against hearsay from a main prosecution witness we quite probably have an innocent man being kept in prison for the rest of his life

Thankyou Cliff and Jon

[clifford]

Vidvic I have a number of other questions to ask you re facts or wild speculation but you appear to have gone off line so I will ask you later

I agree with you Jackie. Vidic seems to ask a lot of questions to AE. He knows the family well apparently.
Do the family agree to him posting on this site. Apparently Ann laughed at the suggestion of her being a magistrate., Good old jovial Ann.
If what you are saying is correct she MUST follow the forum.
I have no doubt of your credentials being the RAF, but find your assertions as knowing the family unbelievable. [ I phoned Ann ect]
Ann could come to this forum and shoot us down in flames, but chooses not to.
In fact any of the family could do this, but reserve thier council.
I am sorry Vidic I do not believe you.
For a start I was beside Jeremy when he came out of court.[ No I was,nt but easy to say].
The trouble with being blinkered is you cannot see what is in front of you.
Pinning your hopes on a telephone call does not do it for me. I do respect your wrong stance.

I guess it all depends on how literal you choose to be in your beliefs.

By example, if I were to quote your third to last sentence.... The trouble with being blinkered is you cannot see what is in front of you.

I know exactly what you are meaning to say however, literally, the trouble with being blinkered is that you can only see what is in front of you. - Blinkers prevent distraction from the sides of vision.

I repect you views CE, and understand where you are coming from, but the fact remains that pro Bambers will listen to anti,s, but it seems this is a one way street
You refuse to consider any alternative. because your mind is made up. I on the other hand am open to any sensible suggestion. meaning I am not blinkered.
I consider that JB is innocent, but I am happy to be proved wrong. I do not think this will happen.

[curiousessex]

Vidvic I have a number of other questions to ask you re facts or wild speculation but you appear to have gone off line so I will ask you later

I agree with you Jackie. Vidic seems to ask a lot of questions to AE. He knows the family well apparently.
Do the family agree to him posting on this site. Apparently Ann laughed at the suggestion of her being a magistrate., Good old jovial Ann.
If what you are saying is correct she MUST follow the forum.
I have no doubt of your credentials being the RAF, but find your assertions as knowing the family unbelievable. [ I phoned Ann ect]
Ann could come to this forum and shoot us down in flames, but chooses not to.
In fact any of the family could do this, but reserve thier council.
I am sorry Vidic I do not believe you.
For a start I was beside Jeremy when he came out of court.[ No I was,nt but easy to say].
The trouble with being blinkered is you cannot see what is in front of you.
Pinning your hopes on a telephone call does not do it for me. I do respect your wrong stance.

I guess it all depends on how literal you choose to be in your beliefs.

By example, if I were to quote your third to last sentence.... The trouble with being blinkered is you cannot see what is in front of you.

I know exactly what you are meaning to say however, literally, the trouble with being blinkered is that you can only see what is in front of you. - Blinkers prevent distraction from the sides of vision.

I repect you views CE, and understand where you are coming from, but the fact remains that pro Bambers will listen to anti,s, but it seems this is a one way street
You refuse to consider any alternative. because your mind is made up. I on the other hand am open to any sensible suggestion. meaning I am not blinkered.
I consider that JB is innocent, but I am happy to be proved wrong. I do not think this will happen.

Thank you for saying your respect my views. I respect all views.

Just for the record I am open to all suggestions and will listen to all arguments / presentations. But, for me, they need to stand up to robust challenge. Unfortunately, the fact remains Jeremy was convicted in 1986 by a jury who heard both sides of the prosecution and defence arguments.

My mind is not made up one way or the other. I have detailed elsewhere on here that I would not like to be a member of a jury who would have to listen and then decide on the cases being presented. My personal belief is that if Jeremy were to be tried today on the same basis as he was tried in 1986 then the case would be thrown out / collapse.

However, it must not be forgotten that a part of the reasons for throwing out such a case now are because of what happened in Jeremy's case in 1986. The direct result being that Police methods were changed drastically in terms of murder investigations and how they are all now conducteded. Unfortunately the law and its prosecution are continuously evolving and Jeremy's case has played an active part in that evolution.

[Roch]

Vidvic I have a number of other questions to ask you re facts or wild speculation but you appear to have gone off line so I will ask you later

I agree with you Jackie. Vidic seems to ask a lot of questions to AE. He knows the family well apparently.
Do the family agree to him posting on this site. Apparently Ann laughed at the suggestion of her being a magistrate., Good old jovial Ann.
If what you are saying is correct she MUST follow the forum.
I have no doubt of your credentials being the RAF, but find your assertions as knowing the family unbelievable. [ I phoned Ann ect]
Ann could come to this forum and shoot us down in flames, but chooses not to.
In fact any of the family could do this, but reserve thier council.
I am sorry Vidic I do not believe you.
For a start I was beside Jeremy when he came out of court.[ No I was,nt but easy to say].
The trouble with being blinkered is you cannot see what is in front of you.
Pinning your hopes on a telephone call does not do it for me. I do respect your wrong stance.

I guess it all depends on how literal you choose to be in your beliefs.

By example, if I were to quote your third to last sentence.... The trouble with being blinkered is you cannot see what is in front of you.

I know exactly what you are meaning to say however, literally, the trouble with being blinkered is that you can only see what is in front of you. - Blinkers prevent distraction from the sides of vision.

Very sharp Curious.  I thought you were sharp on the call timings as well the other day.  It is something I will look in to closer.  Since Vic and Jerry are pushing this line also, it is going to have to be looked at again.  Kaldin and TBM have been there already, so i will dig out that thread.

[Roch]

Rochy I love you because you know what I am trying to say but I can't put it into words the way you can I think I must come across as the Eliza Doolittle of the forum. I just know what's right and what's wrong and when we get right down to the facts we have about this case up against hearsay from a main prosecution witness we quite probably have an innocent man being kept in prison for the rest of his life

Thankyou Cliff and Jon

   Thanks... I'm almost blushing