Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: guest29835 on August 31, 2020, 11:56:PM
-
Everybody says that Jeremy was wrong (and maybe lying) when he claimed that the silenced rifle, outside its case, could not fit inside the gun cupboard. As proof, they refer to Anthony Pargeter's statement and also the photograph below.
I take the opposite view. I think this is another myth of the case. I consider Jeremy was correct on this point and the photograph proves him right.
This is a classic example of how the camera can lie.
A casual observer looking at the photo below would just assume it shows a rifle stored inside a cupboard or recess. But if you consider the matter in the context of everyday firearms usage, a moment's thought should tell you that what Jeremy has described is confirmed by the photograph.
You can see clearly that the rifle does not fit and has had to be made to fit. In reality, nobody would store the rifle in that cupboard in the manner shown, together with all the other firearms and paraphernalia that would have to fit in there.
Anthony Pargeter claims he saw the rifle in that cupboard with the silencer on, but I think it is very likely his recollection was mistaken and influenced by the shooting incident.
-
Interesting, QCC...
What can be added, is that the rifle had been fingerprinted by this time (by reference to the white arrow visible on the wooden rifle butt), and that at some point prior to the commencement of Jeremy Bambers trial, police had physically attached the all important sound moderator onto the end of the rifles barrel!
Note - the presence of a signatured exhibit label attached to rifle, but no such exhibit label attached to the sound moderator.
Is/was this because police knew that there was a .22 rifle with a silencer attached to the barrel of one of the two rifles which were found at the scene at the beginning of the police investigation?
With this knowledge (if true) then I ask myself - whether there was (ever) a sound moderator attached to the .22 semi automatic rifles barrel, when police (firearm officers) entered 'the farmhouse' from 7.30am, onwards? I am drawn to the following crime scene photograph (23) and I ask myself, at the time this particular photograph was taken (either by Headquarters, or Witham SOCO?), does it confirm this assumption as being 100% true, or not?
-
Interesting, QCC...
What can be added, is that the rifle had been fingerprinted by this time (by reference to the white arrow visible on the wooden rifle butt), and that at some point prior to the commencement of Jeremy Bambers trial, police had physically attached the all important sound moderator onto the end of the rifles barrel!
Note - the presence of a signatured exhibit label attached to rifle, but no such exhibit label attached to the sound moderator.
Is/was this because police knew that there was a .22 rifle with a silencer attached to the barrel of one of the two rifles which were found at the scene at the beginning of the police investigation?
With this knowledge (if true) then I ask myself - whether there was (ever) a sound moderator attached to the .22 semi automatic rifles barrel, when police (firearm officers) entered 'the farmhouse' from 7.30am, onwards? I am drawn to the following crime scene photograph (23) and I ask myself, at the time this particular photograph was taken (either by Headquarters, or Witham SOCO?), does it confirm this assumption as being 100% true, or not?
PC Bird (Witham SOCO) testified during trial, that he had taken the crime scene photograph (23), in between two visits to the main bedroom crime scene, albeit he added that he did not know who had removed the rifle from Sheila's body and placed it in the bedroom window!
BINGO!!!
If the rifle shown in crime scene photograph 23, has a sound moderator (silencer) fitted onto the end of the .22 (Anshuzt) semi-automatic rifles barrel, when PC Bird claims he he took this photograph ( after 10.00am), then does this not establish beyond any shadow of a doubt, that police have been in wrong-doing?
-
Relevant events before 7 August 1985 21.
Anthony Pargeter, Nevill Bamber's nephew and a competition standard shot, stayed at White House Farm between 26-28 July 1985. He saw the .22 rifle in the gun cupboard in the ground floor office. The telescopic sights and sound moderator were attached and the gun appeared in a "new" condition.
There were no scratches or marks upon it. Later the appellant, himself a good shot, took the rifle out for some target practice.
----------
-
37.
Firearms officers inspected the gun cupboard in the ground floor office to make sure that the other weapons were safe.
Unaware of the possibility that anything in that cupboard might have played a part in the killings, neither they nor any other police officer sought to examine the cupboard or search for any sound moderator or sights for the .22 rifle.
----------
-
142.
He described his father as reasonably careful with guns and agreed that had Mr Bamber seen the rifle lying around in the kitchen he would have put it away in the gun cupboard.
He agreed it would have taken him 30 seconds to have returned the gun to its cupboard and that he had been lazy.
----------
If June had seen the rifle & cartridge, she would have either put it away or told Nevill it was out.
-
Thought Bamber said the rifle with silencer would not fit into the case.
It would fit into the gun cupboard. Either standing straight or leaning sideways. Which fits with AP's WS.
-
Obviously the rifle was in working order when Bamber went out for some target practice a few days before the massacre. Otherwise he would not have taken it to go and shoot rabbits.
-
133.
He said that he had fired the rifle with the sights both on and off.
He claimed that the gun would not fit into its case with the silencer attached and so it was used mainly with the silencer off.
-
It fits only in an awkward position at the very front. You can tell from the shadow that it barely inside.
-
If the gun cupboard was not lockable, Bamber did not need to leave the rifle anywhere. He could just collect it from the gun cupboard.
Although he would have wanted to make sure it was loaded with the silencer attached. Once through the bathroom window, he would not have wanted to hang about.
-
It fits only in an awkward position at the very front. You can tell from the shadow that it barely inside.
Page 2 of Anthony Pargeter's second statement to the police, dated 12th. December 1985:
"The gun fitted easily in the cupboard with the silencer and scope fitted."
From context, this is clearly in reference to an Anschutz rifle, of which I will assume the Bambers only had one. Basically, Anthony is on a visit to the farm. This is late July 1985. He has three guns stored in the downstairs washroom. He goes to check and finds one of them, his .22 rifle, is missing.
June then tells him it may be in the gun cupboard, in the den. He goes there and this is when he notices the Anschutz rifle. He takes it out of the gun cupboard, has a look, then returns it to its place. He says the silencer and scope were fitted throughout.
To me, the way that the rifle is placed in the gun cupboard in that black and white photo suggests somebody has set out to make it fit, rather than it fitting 'easily'.
-
If the gun cupboard was not lockable, Bamber did not need to leave the rifle anywhere. He could just collect it from the gun cupboard.
Equally, if Sheila kicked off with the rifle, Nevill would be nervous about how it would look. If police officers were needed to talk Sheila down, they would want to know how she had got hold of the rifle in the first place. They might then want to inspect the gun cupboard and would see that it is not secure. Nevill may also have automatically thought of Jeremy because it was Jeremy who left the rifle out in the first place.
The cupboard was lockable. The point is that it was not secure. It was just a simple ball and catch mechanism. Yet P.C. Dryland in his report earlier that year must have recorded that the gun cupboard was padlocked. This, I suspect, was based on the officer's assumption or Nevill's assurances. Or it could be that the officer has lied, or been told to lie by his superiors who were nervous about questions being asked. Didn't the press and media ask how Sheila or Jeremy could have got hold of a gun in the first place? Neither held a firearms certificate.
Although he would have wanted to make sure it was loaded with the silencer attached. Once through the bathroom window, he would not have wanted to hang about.
Yet the rifle could not fit in the gun cupboard with the silencer. Ironically, the very photo that is produced to prove that it could actually shows that it couldn't.
-
Equally, if Sheila kicked off with the rifle, Nevill would be nervous about how it would look. If police officers were needed to talk Sheila down, they would want to know how she had got hold of the rifle in the first place. They might then want to inspect the gun cupboard and would see that it is not secure. Nevill may also have automatically thought of Jeremy because it was Jeremy who left the rifle out in the first place.
The cupboard was lockable. The point is that it was not secure. It was just a simple ball and catch mechanism. Yet P.C. Dryland in his report earlier that year must have recorded that the gun cupboard was padlocked. This, I suspect, was based on the officer's assumption or Nevill's assurances. Or it could be that the officer has lied, or been told to lie by his superiors who were nervous about questions being asked. Didn't the press and media ask how Sheila or Jeremy could have got hold of a gun in the first place? Neither held a firearms certificate.
Yet the rifle could not fit in the gun cupboard with the silencer. Ironically, the very photo that is produced to prove that it could actually shows that it couldn't.
That must be it.
-
Interesting, QCC...
What can be added, is that the rifle had been fingerprinted by this time (by reference to the white arrow visible on the wooden rifle butt), and that at some point prior to the commencement of Jeremy Bambers trial, police had physically attached the all important sound moderator onto the end of the rifles barrel!
Note - the presence of a signatured exhibit label attached to rifle, but no such exhibit label attached to the sound moderator.
Is/was this because police knew that there was a .22 rifle with a silencer attached to the barrel of one of the two rifles which were found at the scene at the beginning of the police investigation?
With this knowledge (if true) then I ask myself - whether there was (ever) a sound moderator attached to the .22 semi automatic rifles barrel, when police (firearm officers) entered 'the farmhouse' from 7.30am, onwards? I am drawn to the following crime scene photograph (23) and I ask myself, at the time this particular photograph was taken (either by Headquarters, or Witham SOCO?), does it confirm this assumption as being 100% true, or not?
I must admit, it is strange that the rifle has an exhibit label but the sound moderator doesn't. Is there a reasonable explanation? In at least one of the FSS records I have seen, the moderator is drawn with an exhibit label clearly attached to it.
When were these black and white photographs taken and who took them and how? Does anybody know?
-
That must be it.
Thanks Adam.
-
To me the gun case is different to the gun cupboard. So the gun with the silencer may not fit in the case, but it could fit into the cupboard OK.
-
So, which gun/rifle was used to shoot Sheila ? The one with a piece missing----or one without ?
-
To me the gun case is different to the gun cupboard. So the gun with the silencer may not fit in the case, but it could fit into the cupboard OK.
We know it does fit, because we have the photo (above), but Anthony Pargeter says 'easily', implying that Jeremy would do this routinely. Yet I can't see how you could fit the rifle with silencer attached in the cupboard in this way without some effort, including kneeling down, tilting the barrel at a 45-degree angle, before pushing it upwards into place. You would then have to reverse this process to remove the rifle, which I would think must have been awkward. The difficulty would be exacerbated if the small table with the radio on was nearby, as this would limit the extent to which one could open the veneer door. Bear in mind also that there would be other guns and boxes in there while this is being done.
Wouldn't it be easier, and more natural, to unscrew the silencer, then lean the rifle at the side within the cupboard and place the silencer in a box?
-
If the gun cupboard was not lockable, Bamber did not need to leave the rifle anywhere. He could just collect it from the gun cupboard.
Although he would have wanted to make sure it was loaded with the silencer attached. Once through the bathroom window, he would not have wanted to hang about.
He probably left it in the barn and collected it before entering the Farm.
-
It could be argued, with the twins visiting the farm, it would be sensible to tuck the guns away safely rather than leave them out, as seemed to be the custom. This would explain removing the silencer/moderator at this juncture.
-
It could be argued, with the twins visiting the farm, it would be sensible to tuck the guns away safely rather than leave them out, as seemed to be the custom. This would explain removing the silencer/moderator at this juncture.
Nevill could well have been doing that very thing before putting them away. Sheila could then have picked up the " Naked Gun " ?
-
Why were so few fingerprints found on the murder weapon?
-
Why were so few fingerprints found on the murder weapon?
Have you ever wondered what was in the original SC case file? I sometimes wonder whether there was a wealth of evidence regarding Sheila's culpability.
-
Have you ever wondered what was in the original SC case file? I sometimes wonder whether there was a wealth of evidence regarding Sheila's culpability.
I've often thought that myself.
-
Have you ever wondered what was in the original SC case file? I sometimes wonder whether there was a wealth of evidence regarding Sheila's culpability.
..or maybe it was true what Julie said, that after the fight with Nevill Jeremy wiped the gun down.
-
Why were so few fingerprints found on the murder weapon?
Not surprising. They were likely to be smudged. People often do not realise how difficult it can be to obtain fingerprint evidence.
-
..or maybe it was true what Julie said, that after the fight with Nevill Jeremy wiped the gun down.
It never ceases to amaze me how stupid a murderer Jeremy was. What on earth was he doing, effectively providing the police with a convenient, trial-ready explanation.
-
Not surprising. They were likely to be smudged. People often do not realise how difficult it can be to obtain fingerprint evidence.
Were we told how many were smudged? DI Cook told us there was one print lifted from Jeremy Bamber's right forefinger on the butt and one from Sheila's right-hand ring finger. (Blood Relations Chapter 27)
-
It never ceases to amaze me how stupid a murderer Jeremy was. What on earth was he doing, effectively providing the police with a convenient, trial-ready explanation.
..because his experience of intelligent women hitherto had been limited, to say the least.
-
Were we told how many were smudged? DI Cook told us there was one print lifted from Jeremy Bamber's right forefinger on the butt and one from Sheila's right-hand ring finger. (Blood Relations Chapter 27)
When fingerprints are smudged it simply means no reliable match can be found. It was not surprising here, whatever your view on the case. It does not help either prosecution or defence.
-
When fingerprints are smudged it simply means no reliable match can be found. It was not surprising here, whatever your view on the case. It does not help either prosecution or defence.
But the quantity of smudged fingerprints might be an indication of how the gun was wielded. For instance if Sheila had held the gun in a frenzied, psychotic episode one might have expected many smudged fingerprints, whereas if Jeremy wiped the gun mistakenly or intentionally as Julie recounted this might explain why only one fingerprint of his was found along with the one he expected Police to find when he placed the gun into Sheila's hand.
-
If the gun cupboard was not lockable, Bamber did not need to leave the rifle anywhere. He could just collect it from the gun cupboard.
Although he would have wanted to make sure it was loaded with the silencer attached. Once through the bathroom window, he would not have wanted to hang about.
I can see a small lock on the gun cabinet door. Why do you think it was "not lockable"?
I think Jeremy left the gun so that Sheila could use it. Therefore to make it as easy as possible it was left out basically in view of her from the table.
-
But the quantity of smudged fingerprints might be an indication of how the gun was wielded. For instance if Sheila had held the gun in a frenzied, psychotic episode one might have expected many smudged fingerprints, whereas if Jeremy wiped the gun mistakenly or intentionally as Julie recounted this might explain why only one fingerprint of his was found along with the one he expected Police to find when he placed the gun into Sheila's hand.
You may be right but I am not convinced the fingerprint evidence takes the case forward in either direction.
-
You may be right but I am not convinced the fingerprint evidence takes the case forward in either direction.
Isn't the problem that if Sheila was the killer, then when killing herself she must have got quite a tight grip of the rifle? This is especially the case when you consider her slight frame and the angles at which she supposedly shot herself, twice. That being the case, shouldn't there be more than one single fingerprint on the gun from Sheila, if she did it?
I am willing to accept that Sheila herself could have wiped/cleaned the rifle before killing herself, and this may explain the smudging. Let's allow that, and let's also remember that Ron Cook handled the rifle without gloves. Even so, wouldn't she have still left more recordable prints?
On the other hand, if Jeremy is the killer, then we may only see one single print from Sheila because Sheila has not put any manual pressure on the rifle, rather Jeremy has positioned the rifle in her hands, probably after shooting her at least once, and he has perhaps deliberately attempted to make prints from her fingers, and succeeding in establishing one. Gloves may also have caused the smudging of prints resultant from normal handling of the rifle prior to the incident.
Do we have a diagrammatic representation, or even photographs, of where the smudged prints are and the pattern formed?
-
Sheila's prints were also found on the shotgun.
-
If the rifle could easily pick up fingerprints, there would be lots of prints all over it.
Bamber checked out the rifle a few days before the massacre & said he handled the rifle a few hours beforehand. So his prints will be all over it even if he used gloves during the massacre.
-
Isn't the problem that if Sheila was the killer, then when killing herself she must have got quite a tight grip of the rifle? This is especially the case when you consider her slight frame and the angles at which she supposedly shot herself, twice. That being the case, shouldn't there be more than one single fingerprint on the gun from Sheila, if she did it?
I am willing to accept that Sheila herself could have wiped/cleaned the rifle before killing herself, and this may explain the smudging. Let's allow that, and let's also remember that Ron Cook handled the rifle without gloves. Even so, wouldn't she have still left more recordable prints?
On the other hand, if Jeremy is the killer, then we may only see one single print from Sheila because Sheila has not put any manual pressure on the rifle, rather Jeremy has positioned the rifle in her hands, probably after shooting her at least once, and he has perhaps deliberately attempted to make prints from her fingers, and succeeding in establishing one. Gloves may also have caused the smudging of prints resultant from normal handling of the rifle prior to the incident.
Do we have a diagrammatic representation, or even photographs, of where the smudged prints are and the pattern formed?
May I refer you to the American podcast you posted, where the term "doing a Bamber" was used?
-
May I refer you to the American podcast you posted, where the term "doing a Bamber" was used?
May I refer you to the case files? There are fingerprint diagrams in there and photographs, but I am wondering if the smudged prints and their extent are shown anywhere. I'd prefer an answer from somebody who knows.
-
I'd heard that podcast before anyway.
-
You may be right but I am not convinced the fingerprint evidence takes the case forward in either direction.
NGB, am I right in thinking, if you fit the silencer you have to zero the sights, so if you take the silencer off and leave the sights on you would have to zero them again to shoot without a silencer? If your used to shooting with a heavier silencer and sights attached, to go out shooting without attached takes some adjusting would it not? I am aware that both the silencer and sights were removed, but it’s the zeroing of the sights frequency.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4358;image
-
NGB, am I right in thinking, if you fit the silencer you have to zero the sights, so if you take the silencer off and leave the sights on you would have to zero them again to shoot without a silencer? If your used to shooting with a heavier silencer and sights attached, to go out shooting without attached takes some adjusting would it not? I am aware that both the silencer and sights were removed, but it’s the zeroing of the sights frequency.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4358;image
Ideally if you remove the silencer and plan to use the rifle without the silencer but with the telescopic sights fitted it is a good idea to zero the sights again. However in practice you would be unlikely to do this as it is quite a fiddle and the sights would remain reasonably accurate. The reason for removing the silencer is normally when the rifle is put away and this is common practice. It is less common to remove the scope as when it is put back on it is essential to zero it again.
-
Ideally if you remove the silencer and plan to use the rifle without the silencer but with the telescopic sights fitted it is a good idea to zero the sights again. However in practice you would be unlikely to do this as it is quite a fiddle and the sights would remain reasonably accurate. The reason for removing the silencer is normally when the rifle is put away and this is common practice. It is less common to remove the scope as when it is put back on it is essential to zero it again.
Thanks NGB, I’ve also read that the best way to store rifles is horizontally or muzzle down? Or the muzzle down might just mean for shotguns a Neil?
-
Thanks NGB, I’ve also read that the best way to store rifles is horizontally or muzzle down? Or the muzzle down might just mean for shotguns a Neil?
The normal practice is shotguns muzzle down, rifles muzzle up. Storing horizontally would work but obviously not if a gun cabinet is used (as it no has to be).
-
The normal practice is shotguns muzzle down, rifles muzzle up. Storing horizontally would work but obviously not if a gun cabinet is used (as it no has to be).
Yes got that NGB, thought it was shotguns, something to do with oil in the barrell.
-
Isn't the problem that if Sheila was the killer, then when killing herself she must have got quite a tight grip of the rifle? This is especially the case when you consider her slight frame and the angles at which she supposedly shot herself, twice. That being the case, shouldn't there be more than one single fingerprint on the gun from Sheila, if she did it?
I am willing to accept that Sheila herself could have wiped/cleaned the rifle before killing herself, and this may explain the smudging. Let's allow that, and let's also remember that Ron Cook handled the rifle without gloves. Even so, wouldn't she have still left more recordable prints?
On the other hand, if Jeremy is the killer, then we may only see one single print from Sheila because Sheila has not put any manual pressure on the rifle, rather Jeremy has positioned the rifle in her hands, probably after shooting her at least once, and he has perhaps deliberately attempted to make prints from her fingers, and succeeding in establishing one. Gloves may also have caused the smudging of prints resultant from normal handling of the rifle prior to the incident.
Do we have a diagrammatic representation, or even photographs, of where the smudged prints are and the pattern formed?
Why would she do that. And then put the cloth away?
-
Why would she do that. And then put the cloth away?
To frame Bamber 🙈
-
Why would she do that. And then put the cloth away?
[Paraphrasing]: "Ordinary canons of logic do not apply to schizophrenics" - Dr. J. Bradley, defence psychiatrist at the 1986 trial
-
To frame Bamber 🙈
That's a new theory. Thanks Fake Justice.
-
That's a new theory. Thanks Fake Justice.
Yes, it’s a bit like your theory that Sheila wiped the rifle before shooting herself Professor Plum 😂😂😂
-
Yes, it’s a bit like your theory that Sheila wiped the rifle before shooting herself Professor Plum 😂😂😂
Now, let me find a cloth to clean this rifle before I shoot myself, I bet she washed the cloth after, just to destroy that evidence as well.
-
Yes, it’s a bit like your theory that Sheila wiped the rifle before shooting herself Professor Plume 😂😂😂
It's not my theory.
Let me explain...
What you and Adam have done is not understood the context of the post you're quoting from. This is especially typical of you and something you do every single time you come on the Forum.
If you look back through the relevant posts on the thread, you'll see that I'm trying to explain how Sheila didn't get more than one of her clear fingerprints on the gun. I end up with an explanation that I don't find completely satisfactory.
This means that, if anything, my posts on the thread in regard to the fingerprint issue have been in the prosecution's favour.
Instead of trying to understand where I am coming from and engaging with me constructively, you and Adam latch on to a single sentence that you take out of context in an effort to try and make me look silly (you think).
In fact, the opposite has happened: you've made yourself look silly, as you always do, with your misunderstandings and your childish emoticons.
-
It's not my theory.
Let me explain...
What you and Adam have done is not understood the context of the post you're quoting from. This is especially typical of you and something you do every single time you come on the Forum.
If you look back through the relevant posts on the thread, you'll see that I'm trying to explain how Sheila didn't get more than one of her clear fingerprints on the gun. I end up with an explanation that I don't find completely satisfactory.
This means that, if anything, my posts on the thread in regard to the fingerprint issue have been in the prosecution's favour.
Instead of trying to understand where I am coming from and engaging with me constructively, you and Adam latch on to a single sentence that you take out of context in an effort to try and make me look silly (you think).
In fact, the opposite has happened: you've made yourself look silly, as you always do, with your misunderstandings and your childish emoticons.
If you believe Sheila wipes the rifle go for it Plummy, don’t back track.
-
If you believe Sheila wipes the rifle go for it Plummy, don’t back track.
I'm not backtracking. You're just ignoring what's said in the thread - which is the usual thing for you.
Let's go through it.
Somebody mentioned fingerprints.
I said that if she was the killer, I would expect more of her fingerprints to be on the rifle (for reasons I mention in a post above).
I then tried to come up with an explanation as to why they're not, and I can't.
The bit about her wiping the rifle clean is just a way of giving the defence some extra benefit of the doubt. I've no idea if she would have done that or not. If she did, she could have left the cloth anywhere, but I'm not saying that happened.
The point is that even if we assume that did happen, I'm still not happy with the lack of prints on the rifle.
You've misrepresented this as me advancing some theory that she did wipe the rifle clean. Well she may or may not have done, but it's not my theory. And why couldn't she wipe the rifle clean anyway? It's not ridiculous. And why shouldn't people consider these possibilities?
This is something you do every time you come on here and comment on a post of mine.
You do it because basically you're arrogant and disrespectful towards me and other posters, you think you know it all, and don't take the time and trouble to read what has been discussed in the thread.
Sometimes you add a comment as if to tell me something I already know, often something I've said in the post you're responding to.
The number of eggs I've sucked reading your rubbish. You're a rival for Jane.
I recall on my thread about Geoffrey Rivlin, you added a typical sort of comment for you saying that we can't know for sure how something Jeremy said went down at trial because we weren't there, as if I can't guess that myself or you were disclosing something profound that I hadn't thought of. I'd even made the equivalent comment in the post you were replying to.
-
I'm not backtracking. You're just ignoring what's said in the thread - which is the usual thing for you.
Let's go through it.
Somebody mentioned fingerprints.
I said that if she was the killer, I would expect more of her fingerprints to be on the rifle (for reasons I mention in a post above).
I then tried to come up with an explanation as to why they're not, and I can't.
The bit about her wiping the rifle clean is just a way of giving the defence some extra benefit of the doubt. I've no idea if she would have done that or not. If she did, she could have left the cloth anywhere, but I'm not saying that happened.
The point is that even if we assume that did happen, I'm still not happy with the lack of prints on the rifle.
You've misrepresented this as me advancing some theory that she did wipe the rifle clean. Well she may or may not have done, but it's not my theory. And why couldn't she wipe the rifle clean anyway? It's not ridiculous. And why shouldn't people consider these possibilities?
This is something you do every time you come on here and comment on a post of mine.
You do it because basically you're arrogant and disrespectful towards me and other posters, you think you know it all, and don't take the time and trouble to read what has been discussed in the thread.
Sometimes you add a comment as if to tell me something I already know, often something I've said in the post you're responding to.
The number of eggs I've sucked reading your rubbish. You're a rival for Jane.
I recall on my thread about Geoffrey Rivlin, you added a typical sort of comment for you saying that we can't know for sure how something Jeremy said went down at trial because we weren't there, as if I can't guess that myself or you were disclosing something profound that I hadn't thought of. I'd even made the equivalent comment in the post you were replying to.
Why would she do that and then put the cloth away?
-
I'm not backtracking. You're just ignoring what's said in the thread - which is the usual thing for you.
Let's go through it.
Somebody mentioned fingerprints.
I said that if she was the killer, I would expect more of her fingerprints to be on the rifle (for reasons I mention in a post above).
I then tried to come up with an explanation as to why they're not, and I can't.
The bit about her wiping the rifle clean is just a way of giving the defence some extra benefit of the doubt. I've no idea if she would have done that or not. If she did, she could have left the cloth anywhere, but I'm not saying that happened.
The point is that even if we assume that did happen, I'm still not happy with the lack of prints on the rifle.
You've misrepresented this as me advancing some theory that she did wipe the rifle clean. Well she may or may not have done, but it's not my theory. And why couldn't she wipe the rifle clean anyway? It's not ridiculous. And why shouldn't people consider these possibilities?
This is something you do every time you come on here and comment on a post of mine.
You do it because basically you're arrogant and disrespectful towards me and other posters, you think you know it all, and don't take the time and trouble to read what has been discussed in the thread.
Sometimes you add a comment as if to tell me something I already know, often something I've said in the post you're responding to.
The number of eggs I've sucked reading your rubbish. You're a rival for Jane.
I recall on my thread about Geoffrey Rivlin, you added a typical sort of comment for you saying that we can't know for sure how something Jeremy said went down at trial because we weren't there, as if I can't guess that myself or you were disclosing something profound that I hadn't thought of. I'd even made the equivalent comment in the post you were replying to.
There were five prints on the rifle. One was Jeremy's One was Sheila's and the other three were too smudged to establish who they were from.
-
Why would she do that and then put the cloth away?
Why would she kill her family?
Why would she wash herself?
Why would she do her nails that day?
Why would she beat her father with the butt of the rifle?
You're asking me a question I can't know the answer to, and anyway, there needn't be a 'why'. She's a schizophrenic.
Maybe she cleaned the rifle because it had blood on it and it was part of 'cleansing' herself?
I'm just giving the defence some benefit of the doubt. To test the case, we have to consider whether there are reasonable explanations for why there aren't more of Sheila's clear prints on the rifle.
The problem, of course, is that even if she did clean it, she then handles it again to kill herself. Where are her fingerprints? I don't know. Maybe the prints were there but not lifted, or maybe she handled the rifle in a way that would not have left prints?
-
There were five prints on the rifle. One was Jeremy's One was Sheila's and the other three were too smudged to establish who they were from.
Do we have any documentation showing where the smudged prints were on the rifle, please?
-
Do we have any documentation showing where the smudged prints were on the rifle, please?
Yes its on here. Mike has uploaded it all onto this forum.
-
Yes got that NGB, thought it was shotguns, something to do with oil in the barrell.
I think you are right. I was told long ago but have forgotten the exact reasoning.
-
I think you are right. I was told long ago but have forgotten the exact reasoning.
My friend said they should be broken in two and stored with the barrel tip down so anyone can see there are no cartridges in the breech.
-
I think you are right. I was told long ago but have forgotten the exact reasoning.
Yes it says it here NGB
Always store guns muzzle down
When you put your gun back in your gun cabinet don’t put it butt down. Always store guns muzzle down.
The reason for this is that any oil or cleaning fluid left in the bores will run out onto the floor of your gun cabinet. If you put your gun butt down the oil will then trickle through the chamber, the firing pin holes, into the lock mechanism and finally onto the wood of the stock. Here it can soften the wood and damage the stock irreparably.
-
My friend said they should be broken in two and stored with the barrel tip down so anyone can see there are no cartridges in the breech.
Yes that makes sense, esp if others have access to your gun cupboard.
-
My friend said they should be broken in two and stored with the barrel tip down so anyone can see there are no cartridges in the breech.
That is a good idea but in practice it is not normally possible because there is no space in a gun cabinet for a broken shotgun. Certainly if a shotgun is taken out of the gun cabinet it should be broken if it is not immediately going into a gunslip for carrying.
-
Yes it says it here NGB
Always store guns muzzle down
When you put your gun back in your gun cabinet don’t put it butt down. Always store guns muzzle down.
The reason for this is that any oil or cleaning fluid left in the bores will run out onto the floor of your gun cabinet. If you put your gun butt down the oil will then trickle through the chamber, the firing pin holes, into the lock mechanism and finally onto the wood of the stock. Here it can soften the wood and damage the stock irreparably.
Thank you RJ, I have learned something there. I knew it was good practice but did not know the reason.
-
Thank you RJ, I have learned something there. I knew it was good practice but did not know the reason.
Thanks NGB, I think that’s the beauty of the forum, I’ve learnt vast amounts since I’ve been on here.
-
Thank you RJ, I have learned something there. I knew it was good practice but did not know the reason.
I came across it by chance some while back, I think most always assumed the rifle had to be stored upright, similar to the photo in the gun cupboard, especially with sights and silencer attached, it could have been stored Horizontal or broken like Robbitybob has suggested, hencecstorage would have been relatively easy. I do realise NGB since 1998 fire arms security changed to storage in a cabinet. I don’t understand or cannot work out the storage of shotgun cartridges, if they need to be locked up or not, it says they don’t have the same conditions applied?
I don’t think the rifle casing/bag on the farm would have been used an awful lot, only if they were going for shoots away from their own farm land. Hence the fact when Jeremy said he was going to shoot the rabbits he never mentioned a cover or bag, when he left the rifle after coming back in a cover or bag was the last thing on his mind, even though the sights and silencer were off so to me it looks like it was normal practice.
-
I came across it by chance some while back, I think most always assumed the rifle had to be stored upright, similar to the photo in the gun cupboard, especially with sights and silencer attached, it could have been stored Horizontal or broken like Robbitybob has suggested, hencecstorage would have been relatively easy. I do realise NGB since 1998 fire arms security changed to storage in a cabinet. I don’t understand or cannot work out the storage of shotgun cartridges, if they need to be locked up or not, it says they don’t have the same conditions applied?
I don’t think the rifle casing/bag on the farm would have been used an awful lot, only if they were going for shoots away from their own farm land. Hence the fact when Jeremy said he was going to shoot the rabbits he never mentioned a cover or bag, when he left the rifle after coming back in a cover or bag was the last thing on his mind, even though the sights and silencer were off so to me it looks like it was normal practice.
Shotgun cartridges are not locked up but rifle ammunition must be stored in a safe.
I agree about the rifle case.
-
To me the gun case is different to the gun cupboard. So the gun with the silencer may not fit in the case, but it could fit into the cupboard OK.
I agree, if there was a problem it could have been layed flat, I don’t think Neville would have set a gun cupboard up under the stairs if it caused a problem, he had other places he could have used. Jeremy never said it didn’t fit in his statement, he said he didn’t know. If he had not known the silencer on the rifle did not fit under the cupboard stairs he would have said “That he had to unscrew it every time he used it to put it back”. Because at the same time he remembers he has to unscrew it to fit in the gun case. It’s not something you would forget having to do regularly.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=5851
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=5852;image
-
Were we told how many were smudged? DI Cook told us there was one print lifted from Jeremy Bamber's right forefinger on the butt and one from Sheila's right-hand ring finger. (Blood Relations Chapter 27)
The weapon was also examined for fingerprints. A print from the appellant's right forefinger was found on the breech end of the barrel, above the stock and pointing across the gun and Sheila Caffell's right ring fingerprint was found on the right side of the butt, pointing downwards. There were three further finger marks on the rifle, each of insufficient detail for identification purposes.
-
I agree, if there was a problem it could have been layed flat, I don’t think Neville would have set a gun cupboard up under the stairs if it caused a problem, he had other places he could have used. Jeremy never said it didn’t fit in his statement, he said he didn’t know. If he had not known the silencer on the rifle did not fit under the cupboard stairs he would have said “That he had to unscrew it every time he used it to put it back”. Because at the same time he remembers he has to unscrew it to fit in the gun case. It’s not something you would forget having to do regularly.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=5851
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=5852;image
Unscrewing a silencer is hardly a big issue. Taking off the telescopic sights probably was as they would need resighting after that.
-
Unscrewing a silencer is hardly a big issue. Taking off the telescopic sights probably was as they would need resighting after that.
Granted, but you would remember if you needed to do it every time it went back in the cupboard if it wouldn’t fit? Taking the sights off would have needed a screw driver I would think.
-
Yes its on here. Mike has uploaded it all onto this forum.
I've already looked at the following:
(i). Ronald Cook's witness statements, in which he explains that Jeremy's print was found on the barrel of the rifle and Sheila's on the stock.
(ii). Ronald Cook's examination-in-chief at the 1986 trial [note: the cross-examination is not uploaded to the Forum, as far as I can see].
(iii). Ronald Cook's fingerprint examination records and notes, and a diagram of where the fingerprints were found on the rifle.
As far as I can tell, D.I. Cook makes no mention of smudged prints anywhere. Can you please tell me where I will find reference to these smudged prints and the location of them on the rifle?
-
I've already looked at the following:
(i). Ronald Cook's witness statements, in which he explains that Jeremy's print was found on the barrel of the rifle and Sheila's on the stock.
(ii). Ronald Cook's examination-in-chief at the 1986 trial [note: the cross-examination is not uploaded to the Forum, as far as I can see].
(iii). Ronald Cook's fingerprint examination records and notes, and a diagram of where the fingerprints were found on the rifle.
As far as I can tell, D.I. Cook makes no mention of smudged prints anywhere. Can you please tell me where I will find reference to these smudged prints and the location of them on the rifle?
Another thing is that I have found mention on the Forum of Julie Mugford saying that Matthew Macdonald's glove came off in a struggle with Nevill, but unless I am mistaken, I can't see any reference to it in Julie's statements or her diary. Where does that come from?
-
I've already looked at the following:
(i). Ronald Cook's witness statements, in which he explains that Jeremy's print was found on the barrel of the rifle and Sheila's on the stock.
(ii). Ronald Cook's examination-in-chief at the 1986 trial [note: the cross-examination is not uploaded to the Forum, as far as I can see].
(iii). Ronald Cook's fingerprint examination records and notes, and a diagram of where the fingerprints were found on the rifle.
As far as I can tell, D.I. Cook makes no mention of smudged prints anywhere. Can you please tell me where I will find reference to these smudged prints and the location of them on the rifle?
Fake Justice should be able to tell you exactly where this information is or Hartley
-
Another thing is that I have found mention on the Forum of Julie Mugford saying that Matthew Macdonald's glove came off in a struggle with Nevill, but unless I am mistaken, I can't see any reference to it in Julie's statements or her diary. Where does that come from?
Steve Uk should be able to help you out with this. He’s an expert on all things Julie
-
Fake Justice should be able to tell you exactly where this information is or Hartley
This is the typical response from Jackie, her sole intent is to disrupt the board, doesn’t matter if it had been me, Jane or Caroline or Hartley posting she cannot help herself. She cannot win with debate so she resorts to these tactics, lots of good posters are leaving or have left, not through fear I must stress, but in respect to NGB who keeps this forum going.
-
This is the typical response from Jackie, her sole intent is to disrupt the board, doesn’t matter if it had been me, Jane or Caroline or Hartley posting she cannot help herself. She cannot win with debate so she resorts to these tactics, lots of good posters are leaving or have left, not through fear I must stress, but in respect to NGB who keeps this forum going.
Once again the bullying starts with Fake Justice. Respect to Ngb1066 considering what has happened to him by supporters of the family. I doubt anyone has ever supported Jeremy in the way he has.
I am impartial here and have NO connection to the family. I have made my judgement on this case from what Ngb has posted and everything I have read. I have also made my mind up by talking to people Jeremy went to school with and worked alongside. I have also had the opportunity to speak to Jeremy myself.
QC believes Jeremy could be guilty but is completely impartial and puts up brilliant arguments for Jeremy being guilty or innocent
In case you haven’t grasped the concept yet he is searching for the truth.
You contacted me by PM remember !!!
I will continue to make my own mind up about this case
I will not put up with your bullying tactics so you can run back and tell your mate Ann
As you know this case is ongoing and far from settled
If you have prove that I have got this wrong please post it or get a life.
-
Obviously my name is causing distress to some posters, I’ve decided after an executive decision to change my name to Professor Plum, friends can either call me PP or Plummy. Thanks hope this lets the board move forward.
I thought you said I could be Professor Plum? Oh well. I suppose I'll just have to leave you, Steve, Adam and Hartley to your Cluedo game.
Steve will be Reverend Green.
Adam wants to be Colonel Mustard, but Hartley is after that role so he may have to settle for Dr. Black or cross-dress as Mrs. Peacock.
Caroline will be Miss. Scarlett. Jane will be Mrs White.
Thanks Professor.
-
I thought you said I could be Professor Plum? Oh well. I suppose I'll just have to leave you, Steve, Adam and Hartley to your Cluedo game.
Steve will be Reverend Green.
Adam wants to be Colonel Mustard, but Hartley is after that role so he may have to settle for Dr. Black or cross-dress as Mrs. Peacock.
Caroline will be Miss. Scarlett. Jane will be Mrs White.
Thanks Professor.
No problem, your the Preacher 😂😂😂😂
-
I’ve decided on this name, so me and Jackie can be in Harmony 👍
-
Once again the bullying starts with Fake Justice. Respect to Ngb1066 considering what has happened to him by supporters of the family. I doubt anyone has ever supported Jeremy in the way he has.
I am impartial here and have NO connection to the family. I have made my judgement on this case from what Ngb has posted and everything I have read. I have also made my mind up by talking to people Jeremy went to school with and worked alongside. I have also had the opportunity to speak to Jeremy myself.
QC believes Jeremy could be guilty but is completely impartial and puts up brilliant arguments for Jeremy being guilty or innocent
In case you haven’t grasped the concept yet he is searching for the truth.
You contacted me by PM remember !!!
I will continue to make my own mind up about this case
I will not put up with your bullying tactics so you can run back and tell your mate Ann
As you know this case is ongoing and far from settled
If you have prove that I have got this wrong please post it or get a life.
Anne sends her love Jack x
-
No problem, your the Preacher 😂😂😂😂
Thanks, but I've gone into a sulk now because you wouldn't let me join in your Cluedo game.
It's like Adam not putting me forward for the CT after my Crispy theory.
-
Thanks, but I've gone into a sulk now because you wouldn't let me join in your Cluedo game.
It's like Adam not putting me forward for the CT after my Crispy theory.
Ha Ha, you can if you like 👍
-
Thanks, but I've gone into a sulk now because you wouldn't let me join in your Cluedo game.
It's like Adam not putting me forward for the CT after my Crispy theory.
If you fancy a game of Cluedo you can always ask the Mythster on the red forum. :))
-
Unscrewing a silencer is hardly a big issue. Taking off the telescopic sights probably was as they would need resighting after that.
Wonder why he removes the silencer two or three times between the weekend before the shootings and the evening of the shootings, yet he never fires a shot? It couldn’t be to put the rifle back in the cupboard because he didn’t know if it fit with the silencer attached. So HE’S taking it off, someone must be putting it on?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=5852;image
-
Prior to using that rifle, AP and JB had been shooting while AP was there on a flying visit so you wouldn't know if AP had been fiddling about seeing which silencer fitted which ? Probably the " unknown " fingerprints spotted on the said rifle. I think AP left on the 30th of July.
-
I’ve decided on this name, so me and Jackie can be in Harmony 👍
Now you are just trolling.
-
Now you are just trolling.
Yep, I might as well join you 👍
-
Prior to using that rifle, AP and JB had been shooting while AP was there on a flying visit so you wouldn't know if AP had been fiddling about seeing which silencer fitted which ? Probably the " unknown " fingerprints spotted on the said rifle. I think AP left on the 30th of July.
Could be Lookout, it’s rather strange, he keeps taking it off and someone keeps putting it on 😂😂😂. Yet he never fires a shot. He seems to have gone on the defensive to me, justifying why he went out that evening to shoot rabbits without a silencer?
-
Could be Lookout, it’s rather strange, he keeps taking it off and someone keeps putting it on 😂😂😂. Yet he never fires a shot. He seems to have gone on the defensive to me, justifying why he went out that evening to shoot rabbits without a silencer?
I think that there was a row as big as a fight that night before JB left for home and not wanting to miss anything he made the excuse that he'd heard rabbits so took the rifle with him. Also, it's quite embarrassing if there's a row going on between people that you're not part of so he probably used the rabbits as an excuse----because in my estimation you don't " hear " rabbits.
He'd then wait until the worst was over at the table, then as it quietened down, made his exit.
-
Because fostering had been mentioned gives you an idea how things would have gone. Sheila probably went apeshit with the mood continuing. Any mother would be frantic at the thought of her children being taken, it stands to reason.
-
I think that there was a row as big as a fight that night before JB left for home and not wanting to miss anything he made the excuse that he'd heard rabbits so took the rifle with him. Also, it's quite embarrassing if there's a row going on between people that you're not part of so he probably used the rabbits as an excuse----because in my estimation you don't " hear " rabbits.
He'd then wait until the worst was over at the table, then as it quietened down, made his exit.
Yes, it could be his head is all over the place and he’s trying to make excuses for his actions.
-
Yes, it could be his head is all over the place and he’s trying to make excuses for his actions.
Not enough was made about Sheila's behaviour through her short life. It should have been looked into, as from the start, her mental health would have been fragile after having to abort at the age of 17. Even Colin had stated that he hadn't been happy about June's suggestion of abortion. Then there were the miscarriages, 3 in all before a difficult time having the twins. Did the court know about all this ? I doubt it because she wasn't there was she ? JB had little or nothing to say on the subject because he probably didn't know the half of it until her death.
It's only latterly that we've come to realise that mothers do kill their children, out of love and 9 times out of 10 after a marriage break-up !
-
Jeremy's been bashing his head against a brick wall because of all the useless idiots that are known as our justice system !
-
It comes to something when public support has to come in to dictate sentencing when it can't be given out properly in a court of law. I speak of the scum who murdered the police officer when courts parroted what THEY thought as the norm. They haven't got a clue ! The same when it comes to MOJ's.
-
Can anybody here please answer these two questions:
1. Where exactly on the rifle were the smudged prints? I can't see anything in the documents about it.
2. Where is Julie Mugford's claim that a glove came off during the struggle between Nevill and Matthew Macdonald (as she claims Jeremy told her)? Again, I can't see mention of it in Julie's statements or her diary, but may have missed it.
-
Wonder why he removes the silencer two or three times between the weekend before the shootings and the evening of the shootings, yet he never fires a shot? It couldn’t be to put the rifle back in the cupboard because he didn’t know if it fit with the silencer attached. So HE’S taking it off, someone must be putting it on?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=5852;image
Because it is routine to screw/unscrew the silencer on/off the rifle.
What do you mean he didn't know if the rifle would fit with the silencer attached? Surely he must have known, and if he said it didn't, then that must be because he would have had difficulty fitting it in, not because it was impossible to fit it in. The black and white photograph at the start of this thread shows it was possible, but also shows that Jeremy was telling the truth in this respect.
Turning to what you say in the thread about storing the rifle muzzle down, do you accept that if this was standard practice, then the police photograph at the beginning of this thread is further misleading? Do you also accept that if the police stored the rifle this way with the silencer attached prior to examination of the silencer itself, then this could have contaminated the silencer?
Can you also explain why, if the silencer was used in the killings, there was no blood in the box in which the silencer was found and no blood in the rifle barrel? Wouldn't blood in the silencer drip down into both under force of gravity? If you disagree with either assertion and you have an explanation to the contrary, please go ahead and explain.
-
Because it is routine to screw/unscrew the silencer on/off the rifle.
What do you mean he didn't know if the rifle would fit with the silencer attached? Surely he must have known, and if he said it didn't, then that must be because he would have had difficulty fitting it in, not because it was impossible to fit it in. The black and white photograph at the start of this thread shows it was possible, but also shows that Jeremy was telling the truth in this respect.
Turning to what you say in the thread about storing the rifle muzzle down, do you accept that if this was standard practice, then the police photograph at the beginning of this thread is further misleading? Do you also accept that if the police stored the rifle this way with the silencer attached prior to examination of the silencer itself, then this could have contaminated the silencer?
Can you also explain why, if the silencer was used in the killings, there was no blood in the box in which the silencer was found and no blood in the rifle barrel? Wouldn't blood in the silencer drip down into both under force of gravity? If you disagree with either assertion and you have an explanation to the contrary, please go ahead and explain.
Because he said in his statement that he didn’t know if it did fit with the silencer attached, I put that up yesterday. The blood on the silencer was off minimal size would it have run? I honestly don’t know, I doubt any would run out the baffles and the piece on the thread was very small so that wouldn’t run? I brought the idea up about storing the muzzle down with NGB purely because I didn’t know this or ever heard about this, then realised it was mainly used with shotguns because of the oil in the barrels.
I would say, with him not knowing if the rifle fit in the cupboard with the silencer attached, he’d either never tried it, it wasn’t always left in there or he wasn’t telling the truth. I don’t think Bamber was careful with the rifle, he left that part to Neville.
-
Because it is routine to screw/unscrew the silencer on/off the rifle.
What do you mean he didn't know if the rifle would fit with the silencer attached? Surely he must have known, and if he said it didn't, then that must be because he would have had difficulty fitting it in, not because it was impossible to fit it in. The black and white photograph at the start of this thread shows it was possible, but also shows that Jeremy was telling the truth in this respect.
Turning to what you say in the thread about storing the rifle muzzle down, do you accept that if this was standard practice, then the police photograph at the beginning of this thread is further misleading? Do you also accept that if the police stored the rifle this way with the silencer attached prior to examination of the silencer itself, then this could have contaminated the silencer?
Can you also explain why, if the silencer was used in the killings, there was no blood in the box in which the silencer was found and no blood in the rifle barrel? Wouldn't blood in the silencer drip down into both under force of gravity? If you disagree with either assertion and you have an explanation to the contrary, please go ahead and explain.
Yes I seen the photo of the shotgun and rifle stored, I think it applies to shotguns not rifles? My guess, I would think the photo of the rifle in the cupboard was taken at a much later date, probably to prove that it would fit in the cupboard after this line of questioning, because if they had known at this point they would have corrected him? Especially after he had told them it didn’t fit in the case?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=5851
-
Because he said in his statement that he didn’t know if it did fit with the silencer attached, I put that up yesterday. The blood on the silencer was off minimal size would it have run? I honestly don’t know, I doubt any would run out the baffles and the piece on the thread was very small so that wouldn’t run? I brought the idea up about storing the muzzle down with NGB purely because I didn’t know this or ever heard about this, then realised it was mainly used with shotguns because of the oil in the barrels.
I would say, with him not knowing if the rifle fit in the cupboard with the silencer attached, he’d either never tried it, it wasn’t always left in there or he wasn’t telling the truth. I don’t think Bamber was careful with the rifle, he left that part to Neville.
Personally I would say Jeremy just didn't know. This is on the basis that it is common for silencers to be unscrewed from rifles after use and prior to stowage. He probably never tried to store it with the silencer on, and he may have even just assumed it wouldn't fit and so didn't bother. However, we are still left with the statement from Anthony Pargeter in which he claims he found the rifle with the silencer on in the gun cupboard. Maybe, as you say, it was laid flat?
David Boutflour describes the cupboard as about four-and-a-half feet in length. The rifle is 42.5" in length overall, plus maybe allow 7" for the silencer. It's close. It would just fit lengthways in theory, but this assumes the dimensions given are correct, and we have to remember there were other things stored in there.
I think Jeremy was telling the truth in this regard, at least the truth as he saw it, and it's likely Anthony Pargeter is just mistaken in his recollection. I would not place so much stall in the literality of what Jeremy says in police interviews. We must remember that the interviews were never recorded audially or visually and we are reliant on a write-up by the police. I'm not saying that to favour Jeremy. I would say it as a necessary caveat whatever point we were discussing and whether the point favours him or not.
-
Personally I would say Jeremy just didn't know. This is on the basis that it is common for silencers to be unscrewed from rifles after use and prior to stowage. He probably never tried to store it with the silencer on, and he may have even just assumed it wouldn't fit and so didn't bother. However, we are still left with the statement from Anthony Pargeter in which he claims he found the rifle with the silencer on in the gun cupboard. Maybe, as you say, it was laid flat?
David Boutflour describes the cupboard is about four-and-a-half feet in length. The rifle is 42.5" in length overall, plus maybe allow 7" for the silencer. It's close. It would just fit lengthways in theory, but this assumes the dimensions given are correct, and we have to remember there were other things stored in there.
I think Jeremy was telling the truth in this regard, at least the truth as he saw it, and it's likely Anthony Pargeter is just mistaken in his recollection. I would not place so much stall in the literality of what Jeremy says in police interviews. We must remember that the interviews were never recorded audially or visually and we are reliant on a write-up by the police. I'm not saying that to favour Jeremy. I would say it as a necessary caveat whatever point we were discussing and whether the point favours him or not.
According to APs trial testimony. AP would shoot rabbits both with or without the silencer on his rifle, so whats the big deal anyway?
-
According to APs trial testimony. AP would shoot rabbits both with or without the silencer on his rifle, so whats the big deal anyway?
If that is what he said, then I agree. Moreover, for that calibre of rifle, I doubt the silencer made a lot of difference, to be frank.
Also, in Jeremy's case, we needn't assume he was intending to shoot rabbits when he went out on the evening of the 6th. around supper time. It may be that he just wanted to shoot at them, i.e. to scare them away. If that was his purpose, then he would need a full-ish magazine and he would use the rifle without the silencer.
I've seen that before on farms. You go out and fire at the rabbits (or whatever vermin) as a way of shoo'ing them off, but without the intention of hitting them. Not everybody wants to shoot them, but may still need to shoot at them - for which a rifle is ideal, and you would not have the silencer attached under those circumstances.
-
If that is what he said, then I agree. Moreover, for that calibre of rifle, I doubt the silencer made a lot of difference, to be frank.
Also, in Jeremy's case, we needn't assume he was intending to shoot rabbits when he went out on the evening of the 6th. around supper time. It may be that he just wanted to shoot at them, i.e. to scare them away. If that was his purpose, then he would need a full-ish magazine and he would use the rifle without the silencer.
I've seen that before on farms. You go out and fire at the rabbits (or whatever vermin) as a way of shoo'ing them off, but without the intention of hitting them. Not everybody wants to shoot them, but may still need to shoot at them - for which a rifle is ideal, and you would not have the silencer attached under those circumstances.
His intention was to kill the rabbits, he told his parents he was going to get them rabbits. He also told the police he wanted to get the rabbits. There wasn’t one rabbit but two, so after a hard days work on the farm and being in a hurry to fetch a trailer to the combine, he takes the trouble to fetch the rifle, load a full magazine to kill two rabbits without a silencer or sights, probably halving his chance of success. Of course this story isn’t traceable it’s if you find it believable, the only time it would have been traceable was if he had actually fired at the rabbits ( shell casings, bullet fragments ect) which he told others he had.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=347.0;attach=836
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4226.0;attach=31214
-
If that is what he said, then I agree. Moreover, for that calibre of rifle, I doubt the silencer made a lot of difference, to be frank.
Also, in Jeremy's case, we needn't assume he was intending to shoot rabbits when he went out on the evening of the 6th. around supper time. It may be that he just wanted to shoot at them, i.e. to scare them away. If that was his purpose, then he would need a full-ish magazine and he would use the rifle without the silencer.
I've seen that before on farms. You go out and fire at the rabbits (or whatever vermin) as a way of shoo'ing them off, but without the intention of hitting them. Not everybody wants to shoot them, but may still need to shoot at them - for which a rifle is ideal, and you would not have the silencer attached under those circumstances.
So your saying farmers go out and fire at rabbits not wanting to hit them? So a farmer goes out of his way to buy shotguns, rifles, bullets just to scare vermin away and with no intention of hitting them. Yeah right pull the other one.
-
So your saying farmers go out and fire at rabbits not wanting to hit them? So a farmer goes out of his way to buy shotguns, rifles, bullets just to scare vermin away and with no intention of hitting them. Yeah right pull the other one.
I didn't say that, did I. I didn't say that a farmer "goes out of his way to buy shotguns, rifles, bullets [sic] just to scare vermin away and with no intention of hitting them".
But they might shoot at vermin to scare them away, especially if they have difficulty hitting them.
You do become so emotional, rude and dismissive when people come up with new ideas that don't suit your biases about the case. Like a little child who's just lost at Cluedo and has gone into a sulk as a result.
-
So your saying farmers go out and fire at rabbits not wanting to hit them? So a farmer goes out of his way to buy shotguns, rifles, bullets just to scare vermin away and with no intention of hitting them. Yeah right pull the other one.
Fake Justice always acts in desperation by sending pm messages to try and persuade people to join Anne’s camp.
It was hilarious
-
???
I didn't say that, did I. I didn't say that a farmer "goes out of his way to buy shotguns, rifles, bullets [sic] just to scare vermin away and with no intention of hitting them".
But they might shoot at vermin to scare them away, especially if they have difficulty hitting them.
You do become so emotional, rude and dismissive when people come up with new ideas that don't suit your biases about the case. Like a little child who's just lost at Cluedo and has gone into a sulk as a result.
Ha Ha well stop making such ridiculous statements then 😂😂😂
-
Fake Justice always acts in desperation by sending pm messages to try and persuade people to join Anne’s camp.
It was hilarious
Ann sends her love PREECIE 😂😂😂
-
Ann sends her love PREECIE 😂😂😂
For Ann and Fake Justice
As I had to remind both of you yesterday but both of you fail to grasp. Things are not over (you have failed to provide proof the case is closed)
From J F Kennedy
Life is never easy. There is work to be done and obligations to be met – obligations to truth, to justice, and to liberty.”
So true
-
???Ha Ha well stop making such ridiculous statements then 😂😂😂
I am not making ridiculous statements.
I have seen it.
People going out and shooting at rabbits several times to scare them off.
It's also done with rats.
I am not sure how effective this is as a method of vermin control - I suspect not very in the long run - but they are intelligent animals and learn and adapt and eventually don't return to the same place. I'm not saying I know that's what Jeremy did, but it is possible. In my experience, rabbits are easily scared.
If you set out to actually shoot rabbits, then you need to go for a clean kill, which can be hard, whereas if you shoot into the ground near them, they may be scared off and 'learn' not to return to that spot.
-
Can anybody here please answer these two questions:
1. Where exactly on the rifle were the smudged prints? I can't see anything in the documents about it.
2. Where is Julie Mugford's claim that a glove came off during the struggle between Nevill and Matthew Macdonald (as she claims Jeremy told her)? Again, I can't see mention of it in Julie's statements or her diary, but may have missed it.
It's on Sheet 24 here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1932.msg59875.html#msg59875
-
It's on Sheet 24 here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1932.msg59875.html#msg59875
It could be that I am missing the point, but what she says makes no sense to me. I agree that wearing gloves may obscure fingerprints, but there's an easy solution to that: A dead person still has fingerprints. When 'Matthew' - i.e. Jeremy - was carrying out this killing, at the least all he needed to do was put Sheila's prints on the rifle when placing the rifle on her body. Why should it make any difference what happens in the struggle with Nevill? And why would Sheila's prints be of relevance at that point, if this whole thing was staged?
For me, the real issue is the absence of more of Jeremy's prints. I find that suspicious because Jeremy was a manual worker on a farm during all weathers, including hot weather, and used the rifle regularly. If Jeremy is innocent, his prints should be there, along with Sheila's, with perhaps lots of smudged prints. On the other hand, if Jeremy is guilty, then his prints would not be there, because he wiped the rifle, either intentionally before placing the rifle on Sheila's body, or inadvertently by using gloves (as, I think, Julie is describing). The problem there, though, is that if Jeremy wipes the rifle intentionally, he must then leave Sheila's prints on the mechanism, action and barrel, yet we find only one clear print, which is on the stock. Equally, if Jeremy simply relies on gloves and there are no blood prints, then Jeremy's thinking as described by Julie still make no sense, as explained above. In either scenario, surely he goes to some effort to place Sheila's prints on the rifle?
Incidentally, going back to Julie, I am assuming that no glove was found? I recall no mention of one. If so, then 'Matthew' (Jeremy) must be assumed to have recovered it and replaced it on his hand, which means that this detail is only Julie's assertion.
-
The wearing of gloves can still be detected by a fingerprint expert. If there were any experts around ::)
-
It could be that I am missing the point, but what she says makes no sense to me. I agree that wearing gloves may obscure fingerprints, but there's an easy solution to that: A dead person still has fingerprints. When 'Matthew' - i.e. Jeremy - was carrying out this killing, at the least all he needed to do was put Sheila's prints on the rifle when placing the rifle on her body. Why should it make any difference what happens in the struggle with Nevill? And why would Sheila's prints be of relevance at that point, if this whole thing was staged?
For me, the real issue is the absence of more of Jeremy's prints. I find that suspicious because Jeremy was a manual worker on a farm during all weathers, including hot weather, and used the rifle regularly. If Jeremy is innocent, his prints should be there, along with Sheila's, with perhaps lots of smudged prints. On the other hand, if Jeremy is guilty, then his prints would not be there, because he wiped the rifle, either intentionally before placing the rifle on Sheila's body, or inadvertently by using gloves (as, I think, Julie is describing). The problem there, though, is that if Jeremy wipes the rifle intentionally, he must then leave Sheila's prints on the mechanism, action and barrel, yet we find only one clear print, which is on the stock. Equally, if Jeremy simply relies on gloves and there are no blood prints, then Jeremy's thinking as described by Julie still make no sense, as explained above. In either scenario, surely he goes to some effort to place Sheila's prints on the rifle?
Incidentally, going back to Julie, I am assuming that no glove was found? I recall no mention of one. If so, then 'Matthew' (Jeremy) must be assumed to have recovered it and replaced it on his hand, which means that this detail is only Julie's assertion.
The point was that Jeremy had become agitated or overexcited at that point, and had lost control of his actions, given that in my opinion he was high on a cocktail of drugs, after the comedown being able to dissociate from the crime. The unexpected was the tussle with Nevill, along with having to shoot Sheila twice, and he would be glad to return to Goldhanger to compose himself, hence the missing twenty minutes in his story. I don't see much can be gleaned from the prints: NGB has already said smudged prints are commonplace, Jeremy was in a dilemma anyway because were his rabbit-shooting story to be true for a moment his prints would be found on the rifle along with Sheila's, and in any case far more of hers would be expected had she slaughtered four.
As far as the gloves were concerned he was asked about them and admitted to owning a pair of mitts and some work gloves. Were these ever examined? I don't know.
-
The point was that Jeremy had become agitated or overexcited at that point, and had lost control of his actions, given that in my opinion he was high on a cocktail of drugs, after the comedown being able to dissociate from the crime. The unexpected was the tussle with Nevill, along with having to shoot Sheila twice, and he would be glad to return to Goldhanger to compose himself, hence the missing twenty minutes in his story. I don't see much can be gleaned from the prints: NGB has already said smudged prints are commonplace, Jeremy was in a dilemma anyway because were his rabbit-shooting story to be true for a moment his prints would be found on the rifle along with Sheila's, and in any case far more of hers would be expected had she slaughtered four.
As far as the gloves were concerned he was asked about them and admitted to owning a pair of mitts and some work gloves. Were these ever examined? I don't know.
I appreciate the explanation, but I'm afraid I will have to disagree. What Julie says doesn't make any sense, and I think the absence of Jeremy's prints is highly significant. You yourself hint at the problem: where are Jeremy's prints? Did Ron Cook obliterate them due to his clumsy handling of the rifle, or even deliberately wipe the rifle? Come to mention it, where are Ron Cook's prints? The more I consider it, the less happy I am.
-
I appreciate the explanation, but I'm afraid I will have to disagree. What Julie says doesn't make any sense, and I think the absence of Jeremy's prints is highly significant. You yourself hint at the problem: where are Jeremy's prints? Did Ron Cook obliterate them due to his clumsy handling of the rifle, or even deliberately wipe the rifle? Come to mention it, where are Ron Cook's prints? The more I consider it, the less happy I am.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. If Jeremy wiped the gun as Julie stated then that's the explanation for the lack of prints. Why would Ron Cook wipe the rifle? He lifted the Anschütz using "the sling fittings on the butt and under the barrel." (CAL Chapter 22)
-
I'm not sure what you're getting at. If Jeremy wiped the gun as Julie stated then that's the explanation for the lack of prints. Why would Ron Cook wipe the rifle? He lifted the Anschütz using "the sling fittings on the butt and under the barrel." (CAL Chapter 22)
It doesn't say at Sheet 24 that Jeremy wiped the rifle. Maybe you mean the gloves had that effect or it says it somewhere else. Assuming he did, why would he wipe it and then not simply leave Sheila's prints on it? The whole thing I am not understanding is how wearing the gloves hinders him from leaving Sheila's prints on the rifle, when he would have done that last. Why is it that there is only one of Sheila's prints on the rifle, and it's on the stock? That just strikes me as odd.
-
I appreciate the explanation, but I'm afraid I will have to disagree. What Julie says doesn't make any sense, and I think the absence of Jeremy's prints is highly significant. You yourself hint at the problem: where are Jeremy's prints? Did Ron Cook obliterate them due to his clumsy handling of the rifle, or even deliberately wipe the rifle? Come to mention it, where are Ron Cook's prints? The more I consider it, the less happy I am.
One of Jeremy's prints was found on the rifle.
-
One of Jeremy's prints was found on the rifle.
I know, but that's partly the point: why only one print of his?
-
If he'd wiped the rifle down there wouldn't have been any of his prints, let alone one.?
-
If he'd wiped the rifle down there wouldn't have been any of his prints, let alone one.?
I think there could (and probably would) still be some of his prints. For me, the issue is more that, once he has wiped the rifle down, why do we not find more of Sheila's prints there? After all, if he is the killer, he is supposed to be staging this to make it look like Sheila has handled the rifle.
In other words, imagining Jeremy as the killer:
1. He wears gloves but notices his blooded gloved prints on the rifle.
2. A glove also comes off, which means he may have touched the rifle.
3. Notwithstanding he has been using the rifle lawfully anyway, due to 1 and 2 above he decides to wipe the rifle.
4. He then attempts to put Sheila's prints on the rifle after killing her.
In these circumstances, how come he only manages to leave one print of Sheila's, on the stock? If you follow the chronology above, it doesn't make sense to me, even allowing for possible difficulties with leaving prints.
On the other hand, if we say Sheila is the killer, then she may have wiped the rifle as part of her ritual washing, and with her hands and fingers are clean and dry, she may not leave any further discernible prints, even if handling the rifle in order to kill herself.
-
I think there could (and probably would) still be some of his prints. For me, the issue is more that, once he has wiped the rifle down, why do we not find more of Sheila's prints there? After all, if he is the killer, he is supposed to be staging this to make it look like Sheila has handled the rifle.
In other words, imagining Jeremy as the killer:
1. He wears gloves but notices his blooded gloved prints on the rifle.
2. A glove also comes off, which means he may have touched the rifle.
3. Notwithstanding he has been using the rifle lawfully anyway, due to 1 and 2 above he decides to wipe the rifle.
4. He then attempts to put Sheila's prints on the rifle after killing her.
In these circumstances, how come he only manages to leave one print of Sheila's, on the stock? If you follow the chronology above, it doesn't make sense to me, even allowing for possible difficulties with leaving prints.
On the other hand, if we say Sheila is the killer, then she may have wiped the rifle as part of her ritual washing, and with her hands and fingers are clean and dry, she may not leave any further discernible prints, even if handling the rifle in order to kill herself.
. Here we go again the old ritual washing Chestnut, I wonder if the magician did a pull through on the barrel just in case any muck/ blood got on the bullets before killing herself or after? Does washing your hands stop fingerprints? I would say having clean hands stops the prints from being more visible to the naked eye rather than having dirty hands it doesn’t eliminate them.
-
If he'd wiped the rifle down there wouldn't have been any of his prints, let alone one.?
Maybe the killer thought he didn’t need to wipe the weapon down?
-
. Here we go again the old ritual washing Chestnut, I wonder if the magician did a pull through on the barrel just in case any muck/ blood got on the bullets before killing herself or after?
Funny that you should mention 'the pull-through trick', since did you know that the ballistic expert (Malcom Fletcher), is suspected of being such 'a magician', involving (just/precisely) that?
Well, 'the cloth pull through' ('NOW' exhibit reference 'MDF/1'), introduced by him during the 1986 trial, could not have had 'that particular exhibit reference' originally associated with/to it, because of the existence (these items are still held in storage at Huntingdon Lab') of 'a total of 14 spent bullet cartridge cases' belonging to and connected with, 'another weapon' and 'not' the '.22 semi-automatic 'Anshuzt' rifle', but which now bears the exhibit reference of 'MDF/100'...
Exhibit 'MDF/100' (14 spent .22 bullet cartridge casings) was 'originally' associated with 'the/that'
unique exhibit reference 'MDF/1', but this was altered to enable 'Fletcher', and 'rogue cops', to introduce the 'powerful evidence' of magical, out of nowhere 'cloth pull-through', which supposedly had been dragged through the barrel of the 'Anshuzt' rifle at an early stage and found to have 'no blood' or 'human tissue' upon it, suggesting that 'a silencer must have been fitted onto the end of the guns/rifles barrel end' at 'the time shots totalling 25/27 ('?') or as many as, 27/28 or 29 shots ('?') had been fired through its 'mechanism' and 'specification', such as the 'rifles barrel'..
Those (secret) '14 spent .22 bullet cartridge cases', were '14' of the 'original crime scene batch of ammunition', which 'had been fired from a second weapon that used in the shootings/murders'...
-
Funny that you should mention 'the pull-through trick', since did you know that the ballistic expert (Malcom Fletcher), is suspected of being such a magician, involving just that?
Well, 'the cloth pull through' (exhibit reference 'MDF/1') evidence introduced by him during the 1986 trial, could not have had that particular exhibit reference associated with/to it, because of the existence (these items are still held in storage at Huntingdon Lab') of a total of 14 spent bullet cartridge cases belonging to and connected with, the .22 semi-automatic 'Anshuzt' rifle, now bearing the exhibit reference of 'MDF/100'...
Exhibit 'MDF/100' (14 spent .22 bullet cartridge casings) was originally associated with the exhibit reference 'MDF/1', but this was altered to enable 'Fletcher', and rogue cops, to introduce the powerful evidence of 'a cloth pull-through', which supposedly had been dragged through the barrel of the 'Anshuzt' rifle at an early stage..
Those 14 spent .22 bullet cartridge cases, were 14 of the original crime scene batch of ammunition, which 'had been fired from a second weapon used in the shootings/murders...
Oh Sheila just carried out the ritual cleansing of her hands then and it was Fletcher who cleaned the rifle barrel. Ok got you
-
Maybe the killer thought he didn’t need to wipe the weapon down?
Slightly unusual for a killer to leave prints/ presence ? None on the sills ? Why would you commit mass murder knowing that you'd be found out ? Did JB want / wish to spend the rest of his life in prison ?
-
Slightly unusual for a killer to leave prints/ presence ? None on the sills ? Why would you commit mass murder knowing that you'd be found out ? Did JB want / wish to spend the rest of his life in prison ?
He gave the Bunny story just in case he left any. Would wearing gloves have the same effect as wiping the rifle down, would it smudge and make other prints unreadable, of course he didn’t need to wipe all his off, he only had to show Sheila had handle the rifle.
-
He gave the Bunny story just in case he left any. Would wearing gloves have the same effect as wiping the rifle down, would it smudge and make other prints unreadable, of course he didn’t need to wipe all his off, he only had to show Sheila had handle the rifle.
Fibres/particles from gloves are always detectable. Apparently there were other fingerprints which were from an " unknown male ?"
-
So why wasn't it made a big deal of finding a print belonging to JB ?
-
So why wasn't it made a big deal of finding a print belonging to JB ?
Because I’ve already explained, the Bunny story covered this.
-
Fibres/particles from gloves are always detectable. Apparently there were other fingerprints which were from an " unknown male ?"
I would say fibres from a cloth are more detectable than fibres from leather gloves? So why wasn’t fibres from a cloth found then?
-
Because I’ve already explained, the Bunny story covered this.
JB isn't that backward----gormless he may have been, not exactly a man of the world for all his education, but stupid ? No.
-
I would say fibres from a cloth are more detectable than fibres from leather gloves? So why wasn’t fibres from a cloth found then?
Because nobody wore gloves.
-
JB isn't that backward----gormless he may have been, not exactly a man of the world for all his education, but stupid ? No.
I agree, that’s why he invented this story as a back up. The story serves two purposes.
-
I agree, that’s why he invented this story as a back up. The story serves two purposes.
Like a lot of things in this case JB's " actions " have been purposely misconstrued to fit the guilty agenda.
-
Did JB need to say anything about rabbits ? No, not at all. There was so little he could have said to defend himself because he hadn't carried out the wicked act that the few words he said weren't believed anyway.
It's damn difficult defending yourself when you know in your own mind it's true but you're up against a bunch of " Dad's Army " cops whose motto is guilty before innocent and their tendency to twist everything just to seal a conviction. With the help of their mouth-pieces of course !
-
. Here we go again the old ritual washing Chestnut, I wonder if the magician did a pull through on the barrel just in case any muck/ blood got on the bullets before killing herself or after? Does washing your hands stop fingerprints? I would say having clean hands stops the prints from being more visible to the naked eye rather than having dirty hands it doesn’t eliminate them.
No, just washing your hands and having clean hands would not necessary prevent fingerprints, but that is not what I said. As usual, you have twisted what I say into something slightly different. I'm not sure if you do this out of stupidity, because you're thick, or you do it because you are just biased and dishonest. Anyway, what I also referred to is Sheila drying her hands, which could prevent fingerprints.
You ridicule the washing theory, even though it is supported by psychiatry and, I would say, it is also supported by common experience. A woman who has just killed five people, including her children, and has blood on her, might well then want to wash herself before killing herself. The phenomenon is well-known among murder-suiciders and suiciders in general, so why do you keep ridiculing it?
It's not hard to imagine that somebody who is about to commit suicide would want to be clean and maybe well-dressed. Why is that ridiculous? I agree it isn't rational, but we're not dealing with a rational frame of mind, so we have to use our imagination a bit.
Yet you maintain it is ridiculous. I can only assume you have credentials in this field? Perhaps you could confirm what these are? Are you a forensic psychiatrist, or just in general psychiatry? Do you have many patients? Where did you complete your medical degree? Where did you undertake your training as a registrar? Once we have a sense of your expertise, then we can afford your arrogance more credence.
-
The rifle was classed as an " estate firearm/rifle " so it would have been normal to have found family prints on it ?
-
Because JB's print was on it didn't mean that he carried out the killing. The " unidentified " male could well have been Nevill---we don't know.
-
No, just washing your hands and having clean hands would not necessary prevent fingerprints, but that is not what I said. As usual, you have twisted what I say into something slightly different. I'm not sure if you do this out of stupidity, because you're thick, or you do it because you are just biased and dishonest. Anyway, what I also referred to is Sheila drying her hands, which could prevent fingerprints.
You ridicule the washing theory, even though it is supported by psychiatry and, I would say, it is also supported by common experience. A woman who has just killed five people, including her children, and has blood on her, might well then want to wash herself before killing herself. The phenomenon is well-known among murder-suiciders and suiciders in general, so why do you keep ridiculing it?
It's not hard to imagine that somebody who is about to commit suicide would want to be clean and maybe well-dressed. Why is that ridiculous? I agree it isn't rational, but we're not dealing with a rational frame of mind, so we have to use our imagination a bit.
Yet you maintain it is ridiculous. I can only assume you have credentials in this field? Perhaps you could confirm what these are? Are you a forensic psychiatrist, or just in general psychiatry? Do you have many patients? Where did you complete your medical degree? Where did you undertake your training as a registrar? Once we have a sense of your expertise, then we can afford your arrogance more credence.
The same could be said of you with all the shite you write, you say it with so much conviction hoping with your arrogance no one dare question.
-
No, just washing your hands and having clean hands would not necessary prevent fingerprints, but that is not what I said. As usual, you have twisted what I say into something slightly different. I'm not sure if you do this out of stupidity, because you're thick, or you do it because you are just biased and dishonest. Anyway, what I also referred to is Sheila drying her hands, which could prevent fingerprints.
You ridicule the washing theory, even though it is supported by psychiatry and, I would say, it is also supported by common experience. A woman who has just killed five people, including her children, and has blood on her, might well then want to wash herself before killing herself. The phenomenon is well-known among murder-suiciders and suiciders in general, so why do you keep ridiculing it?
It's not hard to imagine that somebody who is about to commit suicide would want to be clean and maybe well-dressed. Why is that ridiculous? I agree it isn't rational, but we're not dealing with a rational frame of mind, so we have to use our imagination a bit.
Yet you maintain it is ridiculous. I can only assume you have credentials in this field? Perhaps you could confirm what these are? Are you a forensic psychiatrist, or just in general psychiatry? Do you have many patients? Where did you complete your medical degree? Where did you undertake your training as a registrar? Once we have a sense of your expertise, then we can afford your arrogance more credence.
You've insulted so many members in this way, including myself. Yesterday you told one member to get a vasectomy. I really think the Moderators should step in to send you a private message and remove these public posts.
-
You've insulted so many members in this way, including myself. Yesterday you told one member to get a vasectomy. I really think the Moderators should step in to send you a private message and remove these public posts.
I quite like it Steve, it shows how insecure he is for any neutral reading 😂😂😂😂
-
You've insulted so many members in this way, including myself. Yesterday you told one member to get a vasectomy. I really think the Moderators should step in to send you a private message and remove these public posts.
Well I’m a big fan :) he’s never insulted me and we are on different sides of the fence.
He’s a truth seeker
-
The rifle was classed as an " estate firearm/rifle " so it would have been normal to have found family prints on it ?
Inventing the Bunny story and leaving the rifle lying about or in view, this then made it all the more convenient that Sheila didn’t have to go look for it, better still leaving a box of ammunition/bullets tipped out as well, makes it all the more fitting. The whole story then makes it look like Sheila didn’t have to search or go look for anything, he’s making it easier for her.
-
Inventing the Bunny story and leaving the rifle lying about or in view, this then made it all the more convenient that Sheila didn’t have to go look for it, better still leaving a box of ammunition/bullets tipped out as well, makes it all the more fitting. The whole story then makes it look like Sheila didn’t have to search or go look for anything, he’s making it easier for her.
The spilt bullets wouldn't have looked like that after JB had left for home as his father would have seen to that. That would have been done by Sheila as she loaded the rifle, piece-meal. An empty box of them was found in the bedroom as Colin had said in his book. Sheila didn't have pockets, evidently.
-
The spilt bullets wouldn't have looked like that after JB had left for home as his father would have seen to that. That would have been done by Sheila as she loaded the rifle, piece-meal. An empty box of them was found in the bedroom as Colin had said in his book. Sheila didn't have pockets, evidently.
I think your right and I think Jeremy realised this, he changes his stories along the way when he’s had time to think. He tells officers in the morning that he left the rifle loaded on the Kitchen table with a box of ammunition, he doesn’t deny saying this and admits he could have told officers this. He changes this story on interviews, because his mother or father wouldn’t have allowed him to leave it there, because they were sat at the kitchen table according to him, the table was set for breakfast so no rifle would be left on the table, so he hides it a little in his next story, enough for Sheila to find it and enough for Neville to miss it.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3132.0;attach=38127
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1144.0;attach=5843
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1629.0;attach=7684
-
The rifle was classed as an " estate firearm/rifle " so it would have been normal to have found family prints on it ?
Exactly...
-
You've insulted so many members in this way, including myself. Yesterday you told one member to get a vasectomy. I really think the Moderators should step in to send you a private message and remove these public posts.
Could you point to the post where I made that statement please? I know that is not what I said and that was not the context of the post, so shortly I will again start calling you a liar.
You are a terrible hypocrite and bare-faced liar, Steve.
On the other hand, every time you come on here you dig a bigger hole for Julie Smerchanski or Colin Caffell. I couldn't think of a poor advocate for their cause.
-
I quite like it Steve, it shows how insecure he is for any neutral reading 😂😂😂😂
I love how you suggest I am insecure. In the context of your posts, that does seem a bit contradictory, and frankly, a bit rich.
I love also how Steve suggests I should be reported to the moderators when considered against your and Steve's posts, which started the trouble in the first place and are intended to bully people and cause disruption.
It's classic gaslighting - the hallmark of bullies and abusers everywhere.
With your arrogant posts and babyish emoticons, you seem to imagine yourself as some sort of authority on the case, when in reality you aren't particularly knowledgeable or insightful, and it's clear you're not very sharp or clever. The emoticons just make you look arrogant and childish and are perhaps a comforting substitute for you, giving you a sense of affirmation and importance.
I notice, as well, you have no response to the idea that Sheila could have wiped the rifle, other than the usual arrogance and baby-talk. If it's so ridiculous, then perhaps Geoffrey Rivlin Q.C. and Professor Bernard Knight are ridiculous too? They advanced the theory that Sheila washed herself.
I think what it boils down to is that deep inside you there is a fear of acknowledging any sort of doubt. You've make the mistake of investing your ego in this.
-
Could you point to the post where I made that statement please? I know that is not what I said and that was not the context of the post, so shortly I will again start calling you a liar.
You are a terrible hypocrite and bare-faced liar, Steve.
On the other hand, every time you come on here you dig a bigger hole for Julie Smerchanski or Colin Caffell. I couldn't think of a poor advocate for their cause.
Possibly referring to this post?
That's reassuring, thanks David. In fact, now you mention it, I think Adam is due a vasectomy.
It's good that we have this diverse expertise on the Forum.
-
The spilt bullets wouldn't have looked like that after JB had left for home as his father would have seen to that. That would have been done by Sheila as she loaded the rifle, piece-meal. An empty box of them was found in the bedroom as Colin had said in his book. Sheila didn't have pockets, evidently.
Actually Lookout, he says that is where and how he left them.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5816.0;attach=37833
-
Actually Lookout, he says that’s is where and how he left them.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5816.0;attach=37833
I sensed that JB appeared quite nervous as he'd asked not to be shown any photo's of the deceased while being shown where the cartridges were. Shouldn't that particular area have been fingerprinted ? Box and cartridges ?
-
I sensed that JB appeared quite nervous as he'd asked not to be shown any photo's of the deceased while being shown where the cartridges were. Shouldn't that particular area have been fingerprinted ? Box and cartridges ?
Didn’t matter if Jeremy’s was on them because he’d put them there, at the time they thought Sheila had done it, I agree they should have printed for Sheila, but we all know they read the crime scene wrong.
-
Didn’t matter if Jeremy’s was on them because he’d put them there, at the time they thought Sheila had done it, I agree they should have printed for Sheila, but we all know they read the crime scene wrong.
As well as others who worked on the farm.
-
As well as others who worked on the farm.
Who do you mean Lookout? Other workers that needed fingerprinting?
-
Who do you mean Lookout? Other workers that needed fingerprinting?
I think I read where it would have took about two to three days to do a fingerprint test of the whole house? Again this was down to Taff Surely?
-
I think I read where it would have took about two to three days to do a fingerprint test of the whole house? Again this was down to Taff Surely?
Why would fingerprinting have been considered? It was four murders and a suicide -the suicide being dead in the house- certainly until the day of the funerals, when the local television news, nine days after the murders, named Sheila as the culprit. Whatever the thoughts of individual police, lowly pc's couldn't override their superior -and it's very certain that Taff wouldn't have considered anyone else's opinion- and order fingerprinting.
-
Why would fingerprinting have been considered? It was four murders and a suicide -the suicide being dead in the house- certainly until the day of the funerals, when the local television news, nine days after the murders, named Sheila as the culprit. Whatever the thoughts of individual police, lowly pc's couldn't override their superior -and it's very certain that Taff wouldn't have considered anyone else's opinion- and order fingerprinting.
I have to agree Jane, Jeremy wasn’t a suspect or anyone else for that matter.
-
Having just been re-reading some of the case files relating to the question regarding whether or not, the the. 22 semi-automatic Anshuzt rifle would fit in the gun cupboard with its telescopic sites fitted, along with its Parker hale silencer attached to the end of the guns barrel, and its clear Jeremy meant that, the rifle with its telescopic site, the and silencer both fitted to the weapon that 'THE RIFLE, SO CONFIGURED WOULD NOT FIT INSIDE ITS GUN COVER INSIDE THE GUN CUPBOARD'. Hence, why there is no photograph of of the fully equipped rifle (telescopic site, and silencer) zipped inside its gun cover, and inside the gun cupboard...
The photograph taken by the police, (below) is rather misleading!
If you look closely at the position of the rifle, you can police had to lean it in an unnatural position. Based on my close observation of how the police placed that rifle in there, the I would say to those who have been claiming that Jeremy lied regarding whether or not, the rifle fully equipped with its accessories would fit into the gun cupboard, and this police photograph shows that it doesn't fit properly in there. The Police had to manipulate the rifle, and effectively forcing the weapon into that part of the gun cupboard...
And, then of course, there is the matter of 'the gun case' which belonged to that rifle. 22 What happened to it? This 'gun case' was purchased along with the gun, and silencer, telescopic site, and 500 rounds of. 22 Eley subsonic hollow point rounds, and at the back end of November 1984. Why didn't the police wonder what had happened to it? Why was 'the gun case' missing from the scene on the morning of the shootings? Did somebody remove the 'gun case' belonging to the Anshuzt rifle, and that morning, and or let's say on the penultimate of week-end beforehand? We already know that Anthony Pargeters 'Brno' . 22 bolt action rifle was either 'not present' at the crime scene by the time police first entered the farmhouse, between 9.00pm at around 7.30am, that morning, and or 'it was' present. 'If present' then why is there disagreement, amongst, Anthony Pargeter, Essex police, CPS and Jeremy Bamber as to its whereabouts at the material time? Irrespective, and of whether Anthony Pargeter taking home his 'Brno' rifle on the penultimate week-end, and or for that Matter, if 'the police had found it' or 'recovered it' at the crime scene, 2007 what are the chances of it having been carried off and taken away in 'THE Anshuzt rifles gun case..
Or, if did somebody take away a second rifle used at the time of the shootings, or before, or at around the time police first arrived (03.48am) at the incident...
It suggests to me, and that there is a common link, which is in the fact that Anthony Pargeters 'Brno' rifle has 'problematic connotations', as does, the absent 'gun case' belonging to 'the Anshuzt rifle', and the inconsistencies surrounding exactly how many shots were fired at the time of the shootings? How come, the the ballistics expert, the Macolm Fletcher, and could only link 15 crime scene bullets ( from 25),or that some of them were described as 'a. 22 bullet', whilst others, is a were described as '. 22 LR bullets'? Is it really just a coincidence that only '25 spent cartridge cases' were found or recovered from the scene, and yet we now know with certainty, that at least 27 shots were fired during the shootings, and with a fair chance that as many as 28 shots had been fired? Where are the missing 2/3 spent cartridge cases belong to items 'DRH/35' (two loose bullets recovered from a lower pillow on the parents bed), and or, the single bullet that was not recovered from the skull of Nicholas Caffell but had apparently 'exited his body', after 'entering it'. How come the loose bullet which e iged the head of Nicolas Caffell was never found or recovered from anywhere in the children's bedroom, but a matching spent cartridge case 'was'? By the time the case came to trial cops had got 25 bullets and 25 sent cartridge casings, so which accorded in number with a total of 25 bullet entry wounds to the five victims - but how are the two loose bullets 'DRH/35', and the missing bullet not recovered from anywhere in the children's bedroom, and or from the child's body during autopsy? Suddenly, there are 26, 27, or as many as 28 bullets that were fired during the shootings, and yet only 25 (x2). 22 type spent cartridge cases. 22, that's three bullet cases that are 'missing' or 'unaccounted' for, and more importantly, one bullet absent, and never found or recovered from either the crime scene or the victims body...
None of the 25 in rime scene bullets, and were matched to any of the batch of what turned out to be 25 spent cartridge cases, which by reference to crimping marks made at the time of manufacture, or traces of gun powder residue...
Only...
The fact that item 'MDF/100' which contains 14 of the original batch of crime scene ammunition (spent bullet casings) is still being retained at Huntingdon Forensic Lab', 2007 previously undisclosed evidence which were fired by a second weapon that was used during the shootings. The firing pin mark, and extractor of the claw markings on each of these 14 bullet casings, do not match similar markings that were made (10 shots) which had been fired and ejected via use of the. 22 semi-automatic Anshuzt rifle (plus, the all important 'missing', and the 'unrecovered' exit wound bullet applicable to the child victim, 'Nicholas Caffell' , and the 'whereabouts', of 'its spent cartridge case'..
-
Who do you mean Lookout? Other workers that needed fingerprinting?
Others who'd leave their prints if/ when using the rifle. There was an unconfirmed male print on the rifle.
-
Others who'd leave their prints if/ when using the rifle. There was an unconfirmed male print on the rifle.
At the start, convinced as Taff was, that Sheila was responsible, there wasn't the need to take prints. By the time it became necessary -and the press were still saying,9 days later, that Sheila was responsible- God alone knows how many people had handled it. Anyone outside of the family, ie farmworkers, handling it, is speculative.
-
At the start, convinced as Taff was, that Sheila was responsible, there wasn't the need to take prints. By the time it became necessary -and the press were still saying,9 days later, that Sheila was responsible- God alone knows how many people had handled it. Anyone outside of the family, ie farmworkers, handling it, is speculative.
Everything seemed to have been a complete waste of time a month on from the first decision by " Taff ".
-
Everything seemed to have been a complete waste of time a month on from the first decision by " Taff ".
It certainly became required that things were looked at from a different angle. Can't have been easy for those who'd been convinced, as was Taff, that Sheila was responsible.
-
It certainly became required that things were looked at from a different angle. Can't have been easy for those who'd been convinced, as was Taff, that Sheila was responsible.
I don't know about not being an easy decision , he'd seemed Hell-bent on his " domestic " verdict and stuck to it before making his way to the golf-course ?
-
I don't know about not being an easy decision , he'd seemed Hell-bent on his " domestic " verdict and stuck to it before making his way to the golf-course ?
From memory, and the information may be erroneous, it was his day off and he wasn't happy to be called in. I'm guessing that it sounded like four murders and a suicide, it looked like four murders and a suicide, ergo it WAS four murders and a suicide. Perhaps, had he spent a bit longer at the soc/asked more questions, OR, if he'd listened to those who had, his conclusion might have been different. I suspect he MAY have found himself having those thoughts. He put himself in a position it was very hard to back down from.
-
From memory, and the information may be erroneous, it was his day off and he wasn't happy to be called in. I'm guessing that it sounded like four murders and a suicide, it looked like four murders and a suicide, ergo it WAS four murders and a suicide. Perhaps, had he spent a bit longer at the soc/asked more questions, OR, if he'd listened to those who had, his conclusion might have been different. I suspect he MAY have found himself having those thoughts. He put himself in a position it was very hard to back down from.
Whether he'd have ever had a change of heart remains to be seen. He must have made notes, he'd have had to do so it's dependent on what he wrote and where they are. As I've always said, there must have been some indication within the murder scene itself that prompted his reaction. This was a mass murder and not something that you just glanced over which was the impression everyone got which is why I've been saying there was an indicator or something that " Taff " had been familiar with in his line of work.
In any profession that someone has followed for many years there are situations that become second nature in deciding causes etc.
-
Whether he'd have ever had a change of heart remains to be seen. He must have made notes, he'd have had to do so it's dependent on what he wrote and where they are. As I've always said, there must have been some indication within the murder scene itself that prompted his reaction. This was a mass murder and not something that you just glanced over which was the impression everyone got which is why I've been saying there was an indicator or something that " Taff " had been familiar with in his line of work.
In any profession that someone has followed for many years there are situations that become second nature in deciding causes etc.
It would be very interesting to know exactly when those original notes were written up, wouldn't it? It's possible that he wrote them immediately whilst it was still fresh in his mind, but convinced as he was that it was four murders and a suicide, he may not have done it until he'd finished playing golf.
I have to wonder just what he'd have felt when the decision was made to take another look at the case. My initial thought is that he'd have been furious followed by feeling helpless, not least because he hadn't spent long enough at the scene to give any counter argument. He'd accepted, having presumably asking what they'd got -I believe that's usual, or maybe I've watched too much television!!- what he was told, without spending enough time to check it out. Sounding like and looking like it don't necessarily make it so.
-
It would be very interesting to know exactly when those original notes were written up, wouldn't it? It's possible that he wrote them immediately whilst it was still fresh in his mind, but convinced as he was that it was four murders and a suicide, he may not have done it until he'd finished playing golf.
I have to wonder just what he'd have felt when the decision was made to take another look at the case. My initial thought is that he'd have been furious followed by feeling helpless, not least because he hadn't spent long enough at the scene to give any counter argument. He'd accepted, having presumably asking what they'd got -I believe that's usual, or maybe I've watched too much television!!- what he was told, without spending enough time to check it out. Sounding like and looking like it don't necessarily make it so.
Presumably he spent time in his office soon after so would have been writing, among other things, his findings of that morning and as has been mentioned, the interruptions from the extended family trying to tell him his job. He certainly hadn't been happy about the interfering within a short time of the murders, which he quite possibly wondered what their interest was at that point, because I certainly would have questioned it.
-
Presumably he spent time in his office soon after so would have been writing, among other things, his findings of that morning and as has been mentioned, the interruptions from the extended family trying to tell him his job. He certainly hadn't been happy about the interfering within a short time of the murders, which he quite possibly wondered what their interest was at that point, because I certainly would have questioned it.
It was his day off. He allegedly told them to wind it up quickly as he left to play golf. It's doubtful that any of the extended family besieged him with claims that Jeremy did it that morning -it may have been the only time they were prepared to accept Sherila being responsible. I agree that he wouldn't have been happy with what he saw as interference, I doubt he was the type to accept anyone else's opinion at the best of time, but in this case, he probably hadn't done enough groundwork of his own to be able to counter their argument. He was tied up in knots and all he had was the authority of his rank.
-
I don't know about not being an easy decision , he'd seemed Hell-bent on his " domestic " verdict and stuck to it before making his way to the golf-course ?
He didn’t go off to play Golf, it was 2 and a half days later he went to play Golf.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=728.0;attach=3154
-
He didn’t go off to play Golf, it was 2 and a half days later he went to play Golf.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=728.0;attach=3154
My error also, RJ. However, irrelevant of what his plans were, was it not his day off?
-
I'd like to see his original logs though just to see what he did write.
-
I'd like to see his original logs though just to see what he did write.
It's on my wish list.
-
My error also, RJ. However, irrelevant of what his plans were, was it not his day off?
Hi Jane, I’m not quite sure about it being his day off.
-
Hi Jane, I’m not quite sure about it being his day off.
RJ, I'd understood that he had was arsy about being called in because it was a rest day and he'd made other arrangements. Perfectly feasible, of course. Golf, it seems, was erroneous.
-
RJ, I'd understood that he had was arsy about being called in because it was a rest day and he'd made other arrangements. Perfectly feasible, of course. Golf, it seems, was erroneous.
I think I’ve heard that before Jane as well.
-
Possibly referring to this post?
Yes, and Steve alleges something different to what I said.
-
The same could be said of you with all the shite you write, you say it with so much conviction hoping with your arrogance no one dare question.
Could you provide an example of my supposed 'arrogance', please?
Please quote from a post and also provide the link, so we can see the context of the post, including whether I was provoked by you or somebody else.
Thank you.
I think you calling me arrogant is very rich, quite frankly.
In the post of yours that I quote above, you are arrogant.
In virtually everything you post on here, you are arrogant and dismissive.
I do not come on here ridiculing people with emoticons and dismissing people's views. You are breaching the Forum Rules by doing so, and sowing discord. But that is a matter for you. If you want to do that, and if the moderators think you should be allowed to do so, then I will do the same back to you.
The same applies to Steve and Adam.
Steve is an abuser and a liar, and he will be abused back.
Adam is sarcastic and contemptuous towards other posters, and I give him the same back.
I mention that important caveat just in case your examples of my 'arrogance' involve me dishing out to you and your friends what you dish out to others.
-
Could you provide an example of my supposed 'arrogance', please?
Please quote from a post and also provide the link, so we can see the context of the post, including whether I was provoked by you or somebody else.
Thank you.
I think you calling me arrogant is very rich, quite frankly.
In the post of yours that I quote above, you are arrogant.
In virtually everything you post on here, you are arrogant and dismissive.
I do not come on here ridiculing people with emoticons and dismissing people's views. You are breaching the Forum Rules by doing so, and sowing discord. But that is a matter for you. If you want to do that, and if the moderators think you should be allowed to do so, then I will do the same back to you.
The same applies to Steve and Adam.
Steve is an abuser and a liar, and he will be abused back.
Adam is sarcastic and contemptuous towards other posters, and I give him the same back.
I mention that important caveat just in case your examples of my 'arrogance' involve me dishing out to you and your friends what you dish out to others.
You are the worst poster on here. Always putting down me, Steve, Real Justice, Caroline, Jane & Hartley in long posts. The guilters.
But NGB & Mike are now the only moderators left. NGB saying he believes in 'intervening aa little as possible'. So this won't change.
Only thing that bothered me was when you said I posted something. Then refused to quote the post. It's forum practice to quote people's posts if disagreeing.
-
Could you provide an example of my supposed 'arrogance', please?
Please quote from a post and also provide the link, so we can see the context of the post, including whether I was provoked by you or somebody else.
Thank you.
I think you calling me arrogant is very rich, quite frankly.
In the post of yours that I quote above, you are arrogant.
In virtually everything you post on here, you are arrogant and dismissive.
I do not come on here ridiculing people with emoticons and dismissing people's views. You are breaching the Forum Rules by doing so, and sowing discord. But that is a matter for you. If you want to do that, and if the moderators think you should be allowed to do so, then I will do the same back to you.
The same applies to Steve and Adam.
Steve is an abuser and a liar, and he will be abused back.
Adam is sarcastic and contemptuous towards other posters, and I give him the same back.
I mention that important caveat just in case your examples of my 'arrogance' involve me dishing out to you and your friends what you dish out to others.
Forum Rules
No poster is to allege of another poster that they are personally a liar.
Sarcasm should be overlooked, as long as it doesn't fall in to any of the above categories. We can't police everything.
-
ARROGANCE -Dictionary definition of. A sense of superiority, self importance, or entitlement ie,to call others liars. Making claims or pretentions to superior importance or rights, eg "I am right -as usual".
-
Forum Rules
No poster is to allege of another poster that they are personally a liar.
Sarcasm should be overlooked, as long as it doesn't fall in to any of the above categories. We can't police everything.
The liar rule has long gone.
-
The liar rule has long gone.
Gone, or ignored?
-
Gone, or ignored?
I don't believe QC knew there was such a rule. When he started calling people liars he wasn't pulled up.
-
I don't believe QC knew there was such a rule. When he started calling people liars he wasn't pulled up.
QC is an absolutely brilliant poster and I fully understand why he is here.
He wipes the floor with all the guilty/friends/relatives on the forum
He shows in great detail the obligations of our justice system and the failures in this case. He is right up there with Gringo cutting through all the bullshit
He will be very famous and rich one day
-
I don't believe QC knew there was such a rule. When he started calling people liars he wasn't pulled up.
Isn't the rule, or the spirit of the rule, that you can't use an accusation of lying, and similar, in lieu of an argument? You'll see that if I call somebody a liar or say they're lying, it's because I think they have lied, it's not because I am in wont of an argument.
The distinction is important, I believe. It's the difference between, on the one hand, abusing somebody, and on the other hand, simply making an observation about somebody's behaviour.
If you lie, then it's no good protesting when somebody calls you a liar. What you should do is stop lying!
-
Forum Rules
No poster is to allege of another poster that they are personally a liar.
Sarcasm should be overlooked, as long as it doesn't fall in to any of the above categories. We can't police everything.
Is there a Forum Rule that covers childish idiots who use emoticons to goad, dismiss and ridicule other people?
Are you familiar with the Parable that mentions motes and beams in eyes? You're lecturing me about the Forum Rules in relation to your own behaviour. You started the provocation. You came on here dismissing and ridiculing me and showing disrespect and goading with your emoticons.
Please ask yourself, honestly: What sort of reaction do you expect from me?
Apart from the Forum Rules, there's a Rule of Life that says: If you dish it out, be ready to take it! And if you can't take it, don't dish it out!
If you want to continue with this hypocrisy, Real Justice, then that's fine with me. I'll just give you back what you dish out.
-
ARROGANCE -Dictionary definition of. A sense of superiority, self importance, or entitlement ie,to call others liars. Making claims or pretentions to superior importance or rights, eg "I am right -as usual".
Perhaps you should also look up the word, 'usual'?
-
You are the worst poster on here. Always putting down me, Steve, Real Justice, Caroline, Jane & Hartley in long posts. The guilters.
But NGB & Mike are now the only moderators left. NGB saying he believes in 'intervening aa little as possible'. So this won't change.
Only thing that bothered me was when you said I posted something. Then refused to quote the post. It's forum practice to quote people's posts if disagreeing.
If I am the worst poster on here, then I suggest you block or ignore me.
Actually, you and Steve have ruined this Forum in a planned and concerted effort over many years.
I see you now pretend to be civil, but that's a pretence. You are nasty, sarcastic and poisonous.
I have been looking through the Red Forum too and I see that over the years you have made a stock-in-trade out of libelling, insulting and ridiculing people on this Forum from over there.
So now you are going to get the same in return from me.
You are a nasty, sarcastic bully, as well as being an obsessive weirdo who, like Steve, gets upset when Julie Smerchanski comes under criticism - an interesting thing I've noticed about you.
Since you abuse others, you will continue to receive the same from me in return.
That is the way to deal with bullies like you - highlight your hypocrisy and dish out to you what you dish out to others.
Don't like it, do you?
-
If I am the worst poster on here, then I suggest you block or ignore me.
Actually, you and Steve have ruined this Forum in a planned and concerted effort over many years.
I see you now pretend to be civil, but that's a pretence. You are nasty, sarcastic and poisonous.
I have been looking through the Red Forum too and I see that over the years you have made a stock-in-trade out of libelling, insulting and ridiculing people on this Forum from over there.
So now you are going to get the same in return from me.
You are a nasty, sarcastic bully, as well as being an obsessive weirdo who, like Steve, gets upset when Julie Smerchanski comes under criticism - an interesting thing I've noticed about you.
Since you abuse others, you will continue to receive the same from me in return.
That is the way to deal with bullies like you - highlight your hypocrisy and dish out to you what you dish out to others.
Don't like it, do you?
There's no conspiracy QC Chevalier. If you wish to play the victim that's up to you.
I wrote this on June 27 2014:
Julie: how could you possibly know enough about the family in October 1984 to differentiate between any of the family members who were subsequently slain, how could you possibly argue for Sheila and the boys on this occasion and in the same breath condemn the parents to die, letting the whole matter slip from your train of thought on any following occasion, especially the night of Tuesday 5th August 1985 when your boyfriend telephoned you with the message: "It's tonight or never.." knowing that the power of life and death was in your hands? How could you see Jeremy kitted out in Williams and Griffin and buy yourself a black dress from Miss Selfridge and go through the charade of the funerals with a mass murderer on your arm and be content a few days later to have Jeremy move a settee into your new address, whilst outwardly maintaining your composure? You say in your statement that you wanted to make Jeremy happy: is this just a complete communications breakdown, or is there something more sinister behind it all?
No I don't particularly like being called a weirdo or a creep. I get over it though.
-
If I am the worst poster on here, then I suggest you block or ignore me.
Actually, you and Steve have ruined this Forum in a planned and concerted effort over many years.
I see you now pretend to be civil, but that's a pretence. You are nasty, sarcastic and poisonous.
I have been looking through the Red Forum too and I see that over the years you have made a stock-in-trade out of libelling, insulting and ridiculing people on this Forum from over there.
So now you are going to get the same in return from me.
You are a nasty, sarcastic bully, as well as being an obsessive weirdo who, like Steve, gets upset when Julie Smerchanski comes under criticism - an interesting thing I've noticed about you.
Since you abuse others, you will continue to receive the same from me in return.
That is the way to deal with bullies like you - highlight your hypocrisy and dish out to you what you dish out to others.
Don't like it, do you?
The Red Forum. I don't post much on there. It is often very quiet.
The moderators are very strict so no possibility of anything untoward happening.
-
There's no conspiracy QC Chevalier. If you wish to play the victim that's up to you.
I wrote this on June 27 2014:
Julie: how could you possibly know enough about the family in October 1984 to differentiate between any of the family members who were subsequently slain, how could you possibly argue for Sheila and the boys on this occasion and in the same breath condemn the parents to die, letting the whole matter slip from your train of thought on any following occasion, especially the night of Tuesday 5th August 1985 when your boyfriend telephoned you with the message: "It's tonight or never.." knowing that the power of life and death was in your hands? How could you see Jeremy kitted out in Williams and Griffin and buy yourself a black dress from Miss Selfridge and go through the charade of the funerals with a mass murderer on your arm and be content a few days later to have Jeremy move a settee into your new address, whilst outwardly maintaining your composure? You say in your statement that you wanted to make Jeremy happy: is this just a complete communications breakdown, or is there something more sinister behind it all?
No I don't particularly like being called a weirdo or a creep. I get over it though.
That post was directed at Adam, not you. But taking it at face value, as usual with you, I don't see what point you are trying to make in relation to the point I am making about you, Adam and others. You do seem fond of shifting the goalposts to avoid the point.
The point is simple:
You came on the Forum affecting to the neutral, or something similar, then in fairly short order you became a dogmatic pro-guilt person.
I know this, because I've read the relevant posts.
You are of course perfectly entitled to your views and it could be that you genuinely made up your mind. That's your business.
I just find it interesting, especially when others noticed it at the time and it was commented on, and others have made the same observations about you that I have.
I don't like these unpleasant confrontations between us, but ultimately I didn't start the trouble between us. You did.
-
The Red Forum. I don't post much on there. It is often very quiet.
The moderators are very strict so no possibility of anything untoward happening.
I'm not sure I agree. It seems to me that there have been lots of problems on the Red Forum.
The point in regard to yourself, which I see you don't deny, is that you are not in a position to criticise the posting habits of anybody. You yourself are an abusive poster. You know that full well. The same applies to Steve, Hartley and Real Justice.
Instead of indulging in sermons about other people's behaviour, perhaps mend your own ways? Good people are people who do good things, not people who boast about doing good or spend their time preaching to other people about it.
-
I'm not sure I agree. It seems to me that there have been lots of problems on the Red Forum.
The point in regard to yourself, which I see you don't deny, is that you are not in a position to criticise the posting habits of anybody. You yourself are an abusive poster. You know that full well. The same applies to Steve, Hartley and Real Justice.
Instead of indulging in sermons about other people's behaviour, perhaps mend your own ways? Good people are people who do good things, not people who boast about doing good or spend their time preaching to other people about it.
Abusive?
Do you not believe Jackie is also an abusive poster?
-
That post was directed at Adam, not you. But taking it at face value, as usual with you, I don't see what point you are trying to make in relation to the point I am making about you, Adam and others. You do seem fond of shifting the goalposts to avoid the point.
The point is simple:
You came on the Forum affecting to the neutral, or something similar, then in fairly short order you became a dogmatic pro-guilt person.
I know this, because I've read the relevant posts.
You are of course perfectly entitled to your views and it could be that you genuinely made up your mind. That's your business.
I just find it interesting, especially when others noticed it at the time and it was commented on, and others have made the same observations about you that I have.
I don't like these unpleasant confrontations between us, but ultimately I didn't start the trouble between us. You did.
Posters are entitled to change from neutral to guilt or innocent.
I only suggested to be neutral in my foyer introduction. The forum was very pro innocent then. So wanted to make a friendly intro.
After that no one will say I have ever been anything but a guilter.
-
I'm not sure I agree. It seems to me that there have been lots of problems on the Red Forum.
The point in regard to yourself, which I see you don't deny, is that you are not in a position to criticise the posting habits of anybody. You yourself are an abusive poster. You know that full well. The same applies to Steve, Hartley and Real Justice.
Instead of indulging in sermons about other people's behaviour, perhaps mend your own ways? Good people are people who do good things, not people who boast about doing good or spend their time preaching to other people about it.
Erm, thanks but leave me out of your petty squabbles please.
-
Erm, thanks but leave me out of your petty squabbles please.
Then don't start squabbles, Hartley.
I am not fooled by your pompous sermonising, NewHighlyStrungHartley.
I see through you.
-
Posters are entitled to change from neutral to guilt or innocent.
I only suggested to be neutral in my foyer introduction. The forum was very pro innocent then. So wanted to make a friendly intro.
After that no one will say I have ever been anything but a guilter.
I don't believe you.
-
I don't believe you.
My foyer introduction is here to read.
-
My foyer introduction is here to read.
I mean, I don't believe what you say is genuine.
-
Just to add, in the late Margaret Thatcher's words----" This lady's not for moving ".
-
Just to add, in the late Margaret Thatcher's words----" This lady's not for moving ".
I'd never have known. You kept it very quiet :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
-
I'd never have known. You kept it very quiet :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
I'm not one for making things known ;D ;D ;D
-
Just to add, in the late Margaret Thatcher's words----" This lady's not for moving ".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ-M0KEFm9I
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ-M0KEFm9I
Moving/ turning, what's the difference ?
-
Moving/ turning, what's the difference ?
I'm all for having principles, but I think Thatcher's approach to things - very ideological and based on rigid practical convictions about how things should be - was sometimes questionable. Note I refer to her approach to things, I am not trying to make a political point or making any comment here on the merits or otherwise of her policies, an entirely different matter.
The principled position here is that justice should be done. I think that if you go beyond that and start taking an immoveable approach to questions of factual guilt or innocence, then you end up with miscarriages of justice. The whole basis of the criminal justice system, as I see it, is that it is supposed to embrace scepticism. There is no place for Thatcher's attitude in a criminal trial.
-
I'm all for having principles, but I think Thatcher's approach to things - very ideological and based on rigid practical convictions about how things should be - was sometimes questionable. Note I refer to her approach to things, I am not trying to make a political point or making any comment here on the merits or otherwise of her policies, an entirely different matter.
The principled position here is that justice should be done. I think that if you go beyond that and start taking an immoveable approach to questions of factual guilt or innocence, then you end up with miscarriages of justice. The whole basis of the criminal justice system, as I see it, is that it is supposed to embrace scepticism. There is no place for Thatcher's attitude in a criminal trial.
Maybe you should move on orthography once again..https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immovable
-
Maybe you should move on orthography once again..https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immovable
Immoveable is a perfectly good alternative spelling of the same word.
Haha! This is very funny, especially in view of your background in teaching. You're such an idiot, but please keep it up. It's really entertaining and, not for the first time, you've given me a good laugh.
This is why I call you Badly Taught Steve. You didn't know that a dictionary is for checking the meaning of words as well as the spelling, and every time you try to correct my spelling, you get it wrong.
You seem to drop clangers every time you come on to the Forum.
-
Immoveable is a perfectly good alternative spelling of the same word.
Haha! This is very funny, especially in view of your background in teaching. You're such an idiot, but please keep it up. It's really entertaining and, not for the first time, you've given me a good laugh.
This is why I call you Badly Taught Steve. You didn't know that a dictionary is for checking the meaning of words as well as the spelling, and every time you try to correct my spelling, you get it wrong.
You seem to drop clangers every time you come on to the Forum.
I'll accept this if you can show me the link or a screenshot to this exact word being spelled your way.
-
I'll accept this if you can show me the link or a screenshot to this exact word being spelled your way.
All you have to do is google it and look at the first entry that comes up.
Stupid moron.
-
All you have to do is google it and look at the first entry that comes up.
Stupid moron.
No all you have to do is post the link.
-
Stupid moron.
Is this tautological?
-
No all you have to do is post the link.
I need do no such thing. I have told you to google it. It takes literally 5 seconds and countless links appear with the same spelling of the word, confirming the two spellings are in common use and are interchangeable. Anybody here can do this, right now, to verify my claim.
I will not enter into further discussion about it. It is utterly inconsequential and irrelevant, as are most discussions with you.
If you continue to waste my time, disrupt this Forum and spam this thread with irrelevant and goading posts, I will PM the moderators and request that they act.
-
Is this tautological?
Not necessarily. Moron can mean stupid, but strictly, it can also mean somebody who is lacking in judgement.
Steve is both stupid and a moron, hence he is a stupid moron.
-
I'm not a vindictive man QC Chevalier, but I will let members be the judge of this.
-
I'm not a vindictive man QC Chevalier, but I will let members be the judge of this.
That's because you know you are wrong. And I'm sorry, Steve, but you are nasty, malicious and vindictive. You started this - as usual - and I can't now let this drop without having my final say.
There are two issues here:
(i). First, am I correct that 'immoveable' is good English? It is completely lunatic and barmy that you make an issue of this, not to mention a total waste of time; and, it is also deeply hypocritical given that you - falsely- accused me of taking issue with other people's spelling, when I have never done so. In fact, it has been you all along.
You are a lying hypocrite, Steve, but quite apart from that, I am also correct in what I say: immoveable is good English.
In addition to what’s online, my hard copy dictionaries confirm I am correct.
My copy of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary confirms that immoveable is a perfectly good spelling and interchangeable with immovable.
My copy of the Chambers Dictionary also confirms that immoveable is good English, but only in the context of law. I’m not sure why that is, and I disagree and side with the OED, as there seems to be no basis for limiting usage of the alternative spelling. While law was the context of the relevant remark in my post anyway, I suspect Chambers think (though they don't say so) that 'immoveable' should only be used in the context of property law - i.e. in reference to chattels - but, if so, that would be an archaism.
If you don’t believe me about any of the above, please feel free to use google, consult your own dictionaries, or make enquiries at your local library.
This is not the first time you have wrongly tried to correct my spelling and made a fool of yourself. I regard it as goading and I think your intention is to waste my time, provoke me, and disrupt discussions. You have been goading me since almost the day I started posting on the Forum.
(ii). That brings me to the second issue, which is your behaviour on the Forum. You are obviously here to 'do a job', as previous members have observed, or if that's wrong, then you clearly have mental health issues. Lots of members have come into conflict with you in the past, in one or two cases suffering bans, in most cases they have fallen by the wayside and stopped posting as they came to the disturbing realisation that the moderators would not act against you - which raises its own interesting questions.
To be clear, the issue here isn't your views. As far as I'm concerned, you can think what you like and post what you like, as long as you are not attacking or goading other people. The problem with you is that you can't adhere to this basis precept of cultural civility. Instead, you want to abuse people while hiding behind free speech.
In my case, the honest truth is that I have more important things to do anyway, and as we now enter the autumn (my favourite time of year), I am going to be busy with all sorts of things; and, since the moderators can't or won't control you, that means that any continued involvement here on my part is going to draw me into time-wasting Pythonesque exchanges like this, where we argue over the spelling of words like a couple of dorks.
Steve, we have just spent an hour and several messages arguing over the spelling of immovable/immoveable, not because of any genuine etymological or orthographical controversy, but because you just want to cause trouble. And the worst thing about it is that you are clearly wrong and you do not have the decency to admit it. There is a word for people like you that begins with 'c' and that I will not utter here.
I've got better things to do Steve.
So, I'm off. Bye!
-
I'll accept this if you can show me the link or a screenshot to this exact word being spelled your way.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/immoveable
-
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/immoveable
Thank you. All the links I tried didn't have that spelling, neither did my own dictionary. However there is one caveat:
Wiktionary is not an arbiter of what is good English; correct English, acceptable English, suitable English, or even grammatical. Wiktionary describes usage, it does not prescribe nor proscribe it, and adheres only to its criteria for inclusion, which state that any term or meaning that can be shown to be in sufficiently widespread use may be included. By including or not including a certain term, it by no means accepts or attempts to promote a certain point of view, but is simply documenting, explaining what is or was in use in English or any other language.
-
Thank you. All the links I tried didn't have that spelling, neither did my own dictionary. However there is one caveat:
Wiktionary is not an arbiter of what is good English; correct English, acceptable English, suitable English, or even grammatical. Wiktionary describes usage, it does not prescribe nor proscribe it, and adheres only to its criteria for inclusion, which state that any term or meaning that can be shown to be in sufficiently widespread use may be included. By including or not including a certain term, it by no means accepts or attempts to promote a certain point of view, but is simply documenting, explaining what is or was in use in English or any other language.
You didn't ask for correct. "I'll accept this if you can show me the link or a screenshot to this exact word being spelled your way."
-
You didn't ask for correct. "I'll accept this if you can show me the link or a screenshot to this exact word being spelled your way."
But that's what he meant. He is saying he thinks the spelling is incorrect.
He is wrong. First, he doesn't know how to correctly use google. If he did, he would find numerous references to 'immoveable' as an alternative spelling.
Second, I have literally just posted a lengthy piece in which I refer to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary and the Chambers Dictionary, and both recognise 'immoveable' as an alternative spelling (albeit, Chambers is context-specific).
Steve is just intentionally wasting people's time and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Enough.
-
You didn't ask for correct. "I'll accept this if you can show me the link or a screenshot to this exact word being spelled your way."
You are nitpicking.
-
But that's what he meant. He is saying he thinks the spelling is incorrect.
He is wrong. First, he doesn't know how to correctly use google. If he did, he would find numerous references to 'immoveable' as an alternative spelling.
Second, I have literally just posted a lengthy piece in which I refer to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary and the Chambers Dictionary, and both recognise 'immoveable' as an alternative spelling (albeit, Chambers is context-specific).
Steve is just intentionally wasting people's time and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Enough.
I thought you had gone. You're irrelevant anyway: sometimes entertaining, but more often than not a reed shaken in the wind.
-
I thought you had gone. You're irrelevant anyway: sometimes entertaining, but more often than not a reed in the wind.
I have 'gone'. Don't worry about that. But, I want to say that, as usual, you are wrong. My spelling was correct. I have proved it.
Instead of having the integrity to admit it, you are now going to to do what you always do, which is spam the thread with distracting posts so people won't see you got something wrong.
Your ego is too important to admit that, once again, you tried to criticise me for something and it turns out you're wrong.
You can't get away from it. A decent person would have the grace to admit it. You can't and won't because you're a malignant narcissist and you are NOT decent.
Coming back on here every once in a while will be worth it, just to remind you if and when you try to provoke me again. I know that you will. You are disgusting and vile, and you are a hypocrite and a liar.
-
I have 'gone'. Don't worry about that. But, I want to say that, as usual, you are wrong. My spelling was correct. I have proved it.
Instead of having the integrity to admit it, you are now going to to do what you always do, which is spam the thread with distracting posts so people won't see you got something wrong.
Your ego is too important to admit that, once again, you tried to criticise me for something and it turns out you're wrong.
You can't get away from it. A decent person would have the grace to admit it. You can't and won't because you're a malignant narcissist and you are NOT decent.
Coming back on here every once in a while will be worth it, just to remind you if and when you try to provoke me again. I know that you will. You are disgusting and vile, and you are a hypocrite and a liar.
You didn't. You had a proxy acolyte who posted a link to a dodgy website.
-
You are nitpicking.
Frustrated more likely. I find spelling correctly an endless problem. Not all words ending in e with the suffix "able" drop the "e" ending.
Change plus able = changeable
-
You didn't. You had a proxy acolyte who posted a link to a dodgy website.
I've quoted from two respected dictionaries. You're just ignoring what I have told you and deliberately wasting my time because you're an idiot.
-
Below is a scan of the relevant entry from the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, which clearly shows the alternative spelling.
(Note: if the image is unclear, just open it in your browser, then swivel it clockwise and it will show clearly).
-
Okay I'll accept the alternative spelling. What a song and dance you performed to get to this stage.
-
Okay I'll accept the alternative spelling. What a song and dance you performed to get to this stage.
LOL. A song and dance indeed! You brought it up in the first place, and I repeatedly told you. I referred to two dictionaries, twice, and I also told you to google it, but you can't use google correctly because you're too dense.
-
You're two peas in a pod really and I hold neither of you in high esteem: one of you thinks Warwick Hislop has something to contribute, whilst the other stated that Jeremy Bamber wasn't a predator and mooted the idea that Colin was responsible for Sheila developing schizophrenia.
-
You're two peas in a pod really and I hold neither of you in high esteem: one of you thinks Warwick Hislop has something to contribute, whilst the other stated that Jeremy Bamber wasn't a predator and mooted the idea that Colin was responsible for Sheila developing schizophrenia.
Another dictionary lesson Steve
Dictionary
Search for a word
predator
/?pr?d?t?/
Learn to pronounce
Filter definitions by topic
See definitions in:
All
Zoology
Commerce
noun
1.
an animal that naturally preys on others.
"wolves are major predators of small mammals"
2.
a person who ruthlessly exploits others.
"a sexual predator"
Warwick Hislop is an entirely impartial witness that worked alongside Jeremy and Neville so he is an important character witness
Get over it
You hold neither me or QC in high esteem but idolise Mugford
That says everything about you
Don’t like impartial witnesses do you
-
Another dictionary lesson Steve
Dictionary
Search for a word
predator
/?pr?d?t?/
Learn to pronounce
Filter definitions by topic
See definitions in:
All
Zoology
Commerce
noun
1.
an animal that naturally preys on others.
"wolves are major predators of small mammals"
2.
a person who ruthlessly exploits others.
"a sexual predator"
Warwick Hislop is an entirely impartial witness that worked alongside Jeremy and Neville so he is an important character witness
Get over it
You hold neither me or QC in high esteem but idolise Mugford
That says everything about you
Don’t like impartial witnesses do you
I know full well what your friend QC Chevalier meant when he said Jeremy Bamber wasn't a predator. He was distancing the latter from spattering two six-year-old boys' brains on the bedhead behind. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7852251/Pain-murdered-twins-father-milk-teeth-collected-DNA-evidence.html
-
I know full well what your friend QC Chevalier meant when he said Jeremy Bamber wasn't a predator. He was distancing the latter from spattering two six-year-old boys' brains on the bedhead behind. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7852251/Pain-murdered-twins-father-milk-teeth-collected-DNA-evidence.html
YOU ARE A LIAR. I am not distancing myself from two dead boys. I have mentioned them repeatedly and even started a memorial thread about them, that you then ruined with your narcissistic, fake, psychopathic, mawkish moralising.
You are a moron and a liar, and you are thick and stupid.
I said that I do not believe Jeremy is a 'predator' because, if guilty, I do not believe he matches that definition in criminological terms, as I do not accept the inheritance motive or that he is a psychopath. I think the psychological drive behind his actions was different. But I think this goes over your head. You can't even use a dictionary competently and struggle with google.
-
Below is what I posted before Steve took the thread off course.
Thatcher's policies may have had some merit, but even if that is the case, I think she did harm to the country by adopting this "Lady's not for turning" approach to one or two areas of government policy where she perhaps should have been a bit more careful, though I accept that in other areas of policy it may have been warranted.
The point is that, in my view, there is no room for the 'Thatcher' attitude in evidence-based discussions, and especially not in criminal trials. We should be concerned for the truth. I dislike arrogant people who decide on a conclusion and then stick to it obstinately and dogmatically.
I'm all for having principles, but I think Thatcher's approach to things - very ideological and based on rigid practical convictions about how things should be - was sometimes questionable. Note I refer to her approach to things, I am not trying to make a political point or making any comment here on the merits or otherwise of her policies, an entirely different matter.
The principled position here is that justice should be done. I think that if you go beyond that and start taking an immoveable approach to questions of factual guilt or innocence, then you end up with miscarriages of justice. The whole basis of the criminal justice system, as I see it, is that it is supposed to embrace scepticism. There is no place for Thatcher's attitude in a criminal trial.
-
So be it QC. That's the way I am----take it or leave it.
-
So be it QC. That's the way I am----take it or leave it.
I wasn't necessarily directing it at you, it was a general remark. I suppose, in your case, you make no pretence of objectivity anyway, and Jeremy does need his defenders; but, there are others who like to claim that they base their views only on evidence when they are clearly giving a tendentious account of things.
Imagine if you are accused of a crime but at trial evidence surfaces that casts fundamental doubt on the prosecution's case. You may expect an ethical prosecutor to withdraw the charges, or if her instructions do not allow this, then at least urgently inform the court of this new evidence so that a view can be taken. Imagine if, instead of taking this ethical action, the prosecutor were to say: "You turn if you want to. The lady's not for turning!" and just carries on as if this new evidence doesn't exist.
Miscarriages of justice have happened because of prosecutors and police officers manipulating evidence in such a way as to maximise the chance of conviction. They did this not because they were bad people or corrupt as such, but because they were genuinely convinced of the accused's guilt and wanted to get the right 'result'.
Another example of how rigid adherence to beliefs or principles can harm society is this Covid-19 scare. The government's radical public health measures have no scientific basis whatever and are an affront to civil liberties, but the people who are making these decisions may well believe what they are doing is right, and the more right they think they are, the more they keep getting it wrong and digging themselves a deeper hole.
-
I wasn't necessarily directing it at you, it was a general remark. I suppose, in your case, you make no pretence of objectivity anyway, and Jeremy does need his defenders; but, there are others who like to claim that they base their views only on evidence when they are clearly giving a tendentious account of things.
Imagine if you are accused of a crime but at trial evidence surfaces that casts fundamental doubt on the prosecution's case. You may expect an ethical prosecutor to withdraw the charges, or if her instructions do not allow this, then at least urgently inform the court of this new evidence so that a view can be taken. Imagine if, instead of taking this ethical action, the prosecutor were to say: "You turn if you want to. The lady's not for turning!" and just carries on as if this new evidence doesn't exist.
Miscarriages of justice have happened because of prosecutors and police officers manipulating evidence in such a way as to maximise the chance of conviction. They did this not because they were bad people or corrupt as such, but because they were genuinely convinced of the accused's guilt and wanted to get the right 'result'.
Another example of how rigid adherence to beliefs or principles can harm society is this Covid-19 scare. The government's radical public health measures have no scientific basis whatever and are an affront to civil liberties, but the people who are making these decisions may well believe what they are doing is right, and the more right they think they are, the more they keep getting it wrong and digging themselves a deeper hole.
Hidden evidence----that the crime was committed by someone else.
Hidden evidence -------that Covid 19 escaped from a laboratory.
-
I'll let members ponder on this: who is the most duplicitous..a man who starts a condolence thread on Nicholas and Daniel, yet who is 96% certain even on a bad day that Jeremy Bamber is guilty, but oh he's not a predator, or lookout, who has all along steadfastly believed in Bamber's innocence?
-
I'll let members ponder on this: who is the most duplicitous..a man who starts a condolence thread on Nicholas and Daniel, yet who is 96% certain even on a bad day that Jeremy Bamber is guilty, but oh he's not a predator, or lookout, who has all along steadfastly believed in Bamber's innocence?
YOU ARE A LIAR. You are a troublemaker, a troll, and utterly vile and dishonest.
Sorry, I don't saying it, but it is a cold stone fact: you are a liar.
You have lied in the post I quote now. You have lied on this thread. You have lied about me on other threads. The way you lie, normally, is that you twist things. You think, or hope, that people won't check up on what was actually said.
The reality is as follows:
(i). The criminal justice system requires that a criminal case is proved. That means it is not enough to believe that a certain person committed the crime. We must sure.
(ii). Irrespective of that, one can have sympathy for the victims of crimes.
(iii). It is, furthermore, erroneous to assume that somebody who commits a crime like this is a predator without a proper basis for believing this. There should be evidence. It is at least debatable what Jeremy's motives were and you are no more informed in the matter than anybody else here.
Whatever one's views, these are three different issues and three different points, and to put it charitably, the fact that you seem unable to see this should lead us to question your intellectual capacity. It is already clear that, despite being a teacher, you can't spell and don't know how to use google and you can't even competently use a dictionary.
Turning to Julie Mugford, if Jeremy is guilty, then it is highly probable on the evidence that Julie was his accomplice. I know that this point has also been touched on by both Jackie and NG1066. I can understand the position of Essex Police, who entered into a pact with her to secure the conviction of the primary offender. This is common practice. But I am less sympathetic to people, like you, who come on here to zealously defend her, as if she is whiter than white.
Moderator - I will return to this Forum and reply to this vile, dishonest, lying idiot each and every time he mentions me or tells lies about me.
-
I'd calm down if I were you QC ! You're behaving like a spoiled brat !
-
I'd calm down if I were you QC ! You're behaving kike a spoiled brat !
Stockholm Syndrome.
I'm rather concerned that you were once a mental health nurse, the way you abuse people. Perhaps that explained why you're as thick as thieves with him.
The fact is that Steve is the one provoking me, and he lies.
-
Stockholm Syndrome.
I'm rather concerned that you were once a mental health nurse, the way you abuse people. Perhaps that explained why you're as thick as thieves with him.
The fact is that Steve is the one provoking me, and he lies.
I've known Steve a lot longer than I've known yourself so naturally I'm going to support him. Your " thick as thieves " is quite an exaggeration, I'd have called it friendly banter over these past 8 years or so. I can't say that I've been as " thick as thieves " with anyone here whether it be in the guilty or innocent camp.
You don't need to be concerned that I was once a mental health nurse, though I can invariably spot a crackpot when I see one ! Me abuse people ? When ? You're going to have to back that one up !
On the contrary, it's you who's had a go at nearly everyone here since you arrived on the forum, strewth !
It's you who has the problem, sort yourself out !
-
I've known Steve a lot longer than I've known yourself so naturally I'm going to support him. Your " thick as thieves " is quite an exaggeration, I'd have called it friendly banter over these past 8 years or so. I can't say that I've been as " thick as thieves " with anyone here whether it be in the guilty or innocent camp.
You don't need to be concerned that I was once a mental health nurse, though I can invariably spot a crackpot when I see one ! Me abuse people ? When ? You're going to have to back that one up !
On the contrary, it's you who's had a go at nearly everyone here since you arrived on the forum, strewth !
It's you who has the problem, sort yourself out !
1. If somebody lies about me, I won't stand for it. You may put up with it, because you lack self-respect, but I won't stand for it for one moment. That does not mean there is anything wrong with me. Quite the opposite.
2. Pointing out lies is necessary. I would rather be banned from here and preserve my integrity. Steve is a liar and he is vile - and I am not the only one to make similar observations about him. Perhaps you think JackieD and NG1066 have something wrong with them too? Why don't you send one of your condescending posts to them?
3. As a mental health nurse, you are not qualified to diagnose people, still less offer such opinions on the internet. You are not an expert on mental health in any sense. You are a nurse, therefore not qualified to offer such opinions You should know that, and you should know that it is abusive and wrong to do so. I, again, point out that the fact you were a mental health nurse is rather concerning, in view of your own attitude and behaviour.
4. I have read your posting history, and judging by it, if either of us is a crackpot, it's surely more likely to be yourself.
5. Don't tell me what to do.
-
1. If somebody lies about me, I won't stand for it. You may put up with it, because you lack self-respect, but I won't stand for it for one moment. That does not mean there is anything wrong with me. Quite the opposite.
2. Pointing out lies is necessary. I would rather be banned from here and preserve my integrity. Steve is a liar and he is vile - and I am not the only one to make similar observations about him. Perhaps you think JackieD and NG1066 have something wrong with them too? Why don't you send one of your condescending posts to them?
3. As a mental health nurse, you are not qualified to diagnose people, still less offer such opinions on the internet. You are not an expert on mental health in any sense. You are a nurse, therefore not qualified to offer such opinions You should know that, and you should know that it is abusive and wrong to do so. I, again, point out that the fact you were a mental health nurse is rather concerning, in view of your own attitude and behaviour.
4. I have read your posting history, and judging by it, if either of us is a crackpot, it's surely more likely to be yourself.
5. Don't tell me what to do.
I don't have to prove myself to anyone, least of all Jackie or NGB as both know me over the years and have never given cause for any doubts about who I am and what I stand for.
You obviously jump to too many conclusions about people in general so I'd question your own " history " before picking holes in everyone else's.
You're touchy for no reason. Why ? Has it all got to be about you ??
-
I don't have to prove myself to anyone, least of all Jackie or NGB as both know me over the years and have never given cause for any doubts about who I am and what I stand for.
You obviously jump to too many conclusions about people in general so I'd question your own " history " before picking holes in everyone else's.
You're touchy for no reason. Why ? Has it all got to be about you ??
I'm not asking you to prove yourself. You've already proved it by telling us you're a mental health nurse.
I simply observe that by offering opinions about other people's mental health (which you've tried before with other people on here when they cross you), you are talking outside your own qualifications and expertise. I think it's high time somebody pulled you up about it.
I'm also reminding you that before you go round lecturing to other people about how they post, you should perhaps remember your own posting record on here and your past behaviour.
The part in bold from your post is not true. I clearly have a reason for my dispute with Steve. I don't understand why you've stuck your nose in, other than perhaps that you're suffering from Stockholm Syndrome and have developed a soft spot for Steve as a result of the way he has abused and insulted you in the past (a psychiatric opinion of my own). In any event, since your comment is based on an untrue premise, I need not reply further. You're just talking rubbish.
-
I'm not asking you to prove yourself. You've already proved it by telling us you're a mental health nurse.
I simply observe that by offering opinions about other people's mental health (which you've tried before with other people on here when they cross you), you are talking outside your own qualifications and expertise. I think it's high time somebody pulled you up about it.
I'm also reminding you that before you go round lecturing to other people about how they post, you should perhaps remember your own posting record on here and your past behaviour.
The part in bold from your post is not true. I clearly have a reason for my dispute with Steve. I don't understand why you've stuck your nose in, other than perhaps that you're suffering from Stockholm Syndrome and have developed a soft spot for Steve as a result of the way he has abused and insulted you in the past (a psychiatric opinion of my own). In any event, since your comment is based on an untrue premise, I need not reply further. You're just talking rubbish.
You had a go at Real Justice. Was he telling lies as well ? You're incorrigible !
-
You had a go at Real Justice. Was he telling lies as well ? You're incorrigible !
I'm disappointed with this anti-climactic response. I was expecting you to offer another diagnosis.
You have become quite the Miss Freud on this Forum, offering your unsolicited views on the state of other people’s mental health. I’m the first person to challenge your bone fides in the field and I appreciate you’re not going to like it.
I have accused two people of lying on this Forum, and in both cases, they were lying. That's why I called them liars, because they were lying. It's not that hard. Oh, and both of them attacked me first.
I 'had a go' at Real Justice because he was goading me. Why do you only recognise half the story?
I see you apply that same biased approach to legal cases too. Jeremy must be innocent, because you say so. You shut your eyes and close your ears when the prosecution speak, so no wonder.
-
I'd calm down if I were you QC ! You're behaving like a spoiled brat !
He’s not Lookout
Jeremy is not a predator and he is continually rude even to Ngb
-
I'm not going to be the one blamed if he decides to leave the Forum, as he threatened previously. You enjoy his posts Jackie: praise indeed.
-
You had a go at Real Justice. Was he telling lies as well ? You're incorrigible !
Lookout you need to realise Steve and Real Justice are here for personal reasons
Ages ago Real Justice sent me a pm trying to get me on the guilty side and telling me his personal connections to the family
I make my own mind up
I am here for a reason and I am not here to be friends with anyone although I do have a high regard for some people here
I have seen the continued attacks on QC because he is questioning Jeremys guilt
It’s absolutely disgusting. He has spent hours researching this case and his input has been brilliant and good for him getting back at all the bullies. He wipe the floor with them
-
I'm not going to be the one blamed if he decides to leave the Forum, as he threatened previously. You enjoy his posts Jackie: praise indeed.
You have no idea who he is though do you
And I will continue with 100% support
-
I'm not going to be the one blamed if he decides to leave the Forum, as he threatened previously. You enjoy his posts Jackie: praise indeed.
Steve if he leaves the forum it'll be under his own steam though he's the type to blame someone-----that's the way he operates. It's always got to be someone else. Doubtless he'll blame me, but it's water off a duck's back.
-
Steve if he leaves the forum it'll be under his own steam though he's the type to blame someone-----that's the way he operates. It's always got to be someone else. Doubtless he'll blame me, but it's water off a duck's back.
I think you may have to take up that position in a whole line of us, Lookout. I can think of at least six he's offended/harangued/bullied/abused/threatened, blaming them for attacking him first. I believe, as you say, such may be his wont.
-
I think you may have to take up that position in a whole line of us, Lookout. I can think of at least six he's offended/harangued/bullied/abused/threatened, blaming them for attacking him first. I believe, as you say, such may be his wont.
Indeed Jane, it doesn't make for a pleasant forum.
-
Re this QC conv. Although I think he's apt to be bristly towards guilt based posters, in my opinion, by studying many previous threads he has been able call out the posting deficiencies among you. Also, on most counts, he has comprehensively dismantled such regulars' guilt based arguments and approach to the case, repeatedly. I would go so far to say that he's been the biggest shot in the arm for this forum that I can remember. There have been a few over the years, from both sides. But his stands out.
-
Thank you Roch totally agree however unpopular it makes me
Long may this continue
-
Ngb why do you keep removing posts that relate to my bullying from Mat when there are a number of people still on this forum that supported this behaviour
-
All bullies should be exposed
-
He was a guilter himself, make no mistake about that which is why I could never understand his purpose in having a go at the guilters.
-
He was a guilter himself, make no mistake about that which is why I could never understand his purpose in having a go at the guilters.
Who
-
All bullies should be exposed
Jackie, do you think that some of your posts might come across as bullying?
-
Jackie, do you think that some of your posts might come across as bullying?
I take that is a joke??????
Since I took an interest in this case I have done my very best to expose the corruption and true facts about this case. I amassed a huge following on Twitter of barristers, Solicitors and media people and I was the person who introduced Simon McKay and Ngb. Mark Williams Thomas contacted me regarding the making of his documentary.
Everything I have done has been to expose this massive miscarriage of justice and not once have I ever asked to meet Jeremy even though I am constantly referred to as a bamberette.
I have suffered the most terrible abuse from the red forum, people related or friends of the family and even abusive things have been written about me by the Official JB Team. I have recorded everything.
But the cherry on the case was when a fake account was set up in my name revealing someone personal details. The action was taken to get rid of me off the forum probably because of the interest I was getting for the case.
Mat also by pm and as normal I screenshot the post threatened to personally attack me. Most of you on the forum knew how Mat was behaving yet continued to be friendly with him even when he was popping over to the red forum to abuse me.
I will stand up to people when they right ridiculous stuff about Jeremy and sticking up for someone is not bullying.
-
Ngb why do you keep removing posts that relate to my bullying from Mat when there are a number of people still on this forum that supported this behaviour
I remove or edit a lot of posts from different people. I have to exercise my judgement on this. I do not want to enter into a debate on the open forum about an individual post.
-
There has been a lot of abuse on this form lately aimed at QCC because although he leans towards guilt he is still open to being wrong and have been systematically been challenging guilty posts.
Now I have Roch questioning whether I am a bully when I have been the victim of the worst kind of bullying than anyone here.
Every step has been taken to get me to leave this forum.
Never had an apology ever.
-
Ages ago Real Justice sent me a pm trying to get me on the guilty side and telling me his personal connections to the family
How exactly is Fake Justice connected to JBs relatives?
-
How exactly is Fake Justice connected to JBs relatives?
He worked for them
-
He worked for them
That says it all really.
-
That says it all really.
I know
-
He worked for them
How do you know? Has he ever said that?
-
How do you know? Has he ever said that?
Are you accusing me of lying. He told me in a pm, ask him, he act like he is your mate
-
Are you accusing me of lying. He told me in a pm, ask him, he act like he is your mate
I have not accused you of lying, I simply asked you a polite question. I did not recall ever seeing a post from him saying he had worked for the family so I wondered how you had the information. There is no need to be rude.
As it happens I do get on well with Justice. I do not have to agree with him on the case to get on with him. Just because someone has connections with the family does not mean I have to dislike or condemn him.
-
I have not accused you of lying, I simply asked you a polite question. I did not recall ever seeing a post from him saying he had worked for the family so I wondered how you had the information. There is no need to be rude.
As it happens I do get on well with Justice. I do not have to agree with him on the case to get on with him. Just because someone has connections with the family does not mean I have to dislike or condemn him.
It’s not very nice being accused of something you haven’t done is it?
In fact it’s rude isn’t it and now Roch is asking me about bullying when I have suffered more than anyone on here
What attitude would you expect with what’s happened to me over the years
You get on with Real Justice because you don’t challenge him when he makes suppositions about Jeremy all the time
The fact are he just does not know but he’s happy to make things up just as the police were making stuff up in Bill Robertson’s post
-
I have not accused you of lying, I simply asked you a polite question. I did not recall ever seeing a post from him saying he had worked for the family so I wondered how you had the information. There is no need to be rude.
As it happens I do get on well with Justice. I do not have to agree with him on the case to get on with him. Just because someone has connections with the family does not mean I have to dislike or condemn him.
a
NGB, thanks for your kind words, I have never worked for the family, I have been accused of lots of things, I met the family through BHHP meetings, not to talk to about the case but about holiday parks, I have made this clear before, ever since I’ve been accused of being one of the family or friends, so I just go along with it now. I have never PM Jackie and told her I worked for them, I might have said I met them through work, in the one PM I sent her, I told how sorry I was for her in all the work she had done for Bamber and I thought he treat her bad and not to try and get her to change stance at all, because at the time I was more pro Guilt. So everyone is now clear, I met the family at BHHP meetings. Check in these posts NGB
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10072.msg465597.html#msg465597
-
NGB, thanks for your kind words, I have never worked for the family, I have been accused of lots of things, I met the family through BHHP meetings, not to talk to about the case but about holiday parks, I have made this clear before, ever since I’ve been accused of being one of the family or friends, so I just go along with it now. I have never PM Jackie and told her I worked for them, I might have said I met them through work, in the one PM I sent her, I told how sorry I was for her in all the work she had done for Bamber and I thought he treat her bad and not to try and get her to change stance at all, because at the time I was more pro Guilt. So everyone is now clear, I met the family at BHHP meetings. Check in these posts NGB
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10072.msg465597.html#msg465597
Please what does BHHP stand for?
-
Please what does BHHP stand for?
British Holiday parks ect meetings, I used to work in East Anglia section where all holiday park owners attended.
-
I have not accused you of lying, I simply asked you a polite question. I did not recall ever seeing a post from him saying he had worked for the family so I wondered how you had the information. There is no need to be rude.
As it happens I do get on well with Justice. I do not have to agree with him on the case to get on with him. Just because someone has connections with the family does not mean I have to dislike or condemn him.
a
I left the forum out of respect for you NGB, I knew it would deteriorate into just an argument and there would be no end to it. You have done so much for this site and me NGB I owe you the uttermost respect, so me not being here might help.
Regards
Justice
-
I left the forum out of respect for you NGB, I knew it would deteriorate into just an argument and there would be no end to it. You have done so much for this site and me NGB I owe you the uttermost respect, so me not being here might help.
Regards
Justice
I think you probably have respect from those on both sides of the divide, RJ. If there's anyone who doesn't, it's their problem, not yours.
-
I think you probably have respect from those on both sides of the divide, RJ. If there's anyone who doesn't, it's their problem, not yours.
Thanks Jane, here’s another post way back in 2012 where I make it plain, I met them at BHHP meetings.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3685.msg146060.html#msg146060
-
Thanks Jane, here’s another post way back in 2012 where I make it plain, I met them at BHHP meetings.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3685.msg146060.html#msg146060
Do you mean the BHHPA meetings https://www.bhhpa.org.uk/
"The British Holiday & Home Parks Association is the only organisation established exclusively to serve and represent the interests of the parks industry in the UK. Membership is made up of the owners and managers of park home estates, touring, tenting and glamping parks, holiday caravan parks, chalet parks and all types of self-catering accommodation."
-
Do you mean the BHHPA meetings https://www.bhhpa.org.uk/
"The British Holiday & Home Parks Association is the only organisation established exclusively to serve and represent the interests of the parks industry in the UK. Membership is made up of the owners and managers of park home estates, touring, tenting and glamping parks, holiday caravan parks, chalet parks and all types of self-catering accommodation."
👍👍. I missed the A off 🙈. They must have put it on when I wasn’t looking 😂😂😂
-
Thanks Jane, here’s another post way back in 2012 where I make it plain, I met them at BHHP meetings.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3685.msg146060.html#msg146060
Just to make it clear so I don’t have to dig out the pm you made it clear you knew the family personally and may have said you knew them through work which I took to mean you worked for them. I can 100% state you never mentioned any association you belonged to.
The tone of your Pm was ‘poor you’ Jeremys treated you badly and I know the family
I knew exactly what you were doing and since then you have completely one sided backing the guilty verdict
Hence your arguments with QCC who challenges all the points that prove Jeremy to be guilty
-
Just to make it clear so I don’t have to dig out the pm you made it clear you knew the family personally and may have said you knew them through work which I took to mean you worked for them. I can 100% state you never mentioned any association you belonged to.
The tone of your Pm was ‘poor you’ Jeremys treated you badly and I know the family
I knew exactly what you were doing and since then you have completely one sided backing the guilty verdict
Hence your arguments with QCC who challenges all the points that prove Jeremy to be guilty
If I wanted you to change your mind I would have kept contacting you, I talk to Lookout, Roch, NGB ask them if I try to change their minds, I pm’d you ONCE, because I genuinely felt sorry for you because of all the hard work you put in. I did meet the family on several occasions, through work and not to talk about the case.
-
If I wanted you to change your mind I would have kept contacting you, I talk to Lookout, Roch, NGB ask them if I try to change their minds, I pm’d you ONCE, because I genuinely felt sorry for you because of all the hard work you put in. I did meet the family on several occasions, through work and not to talk about the case.
You can also ask NGB, I’ve never asked for you or QC to be banned or anything, I told NGB I was leaving some while back, but I was enjoying posting again, till it kicked off again and I thought it would be better if I left.
-
You can also ask NGB, I’ve never asked for you or QC to be banned or anything, I told NGB I was leaving some while back, but I was enjoying posting again, till it kicked off again and I thought it would be better if I left.
I'm sorry you felt the need to leave, RJ. I've always found your posts -and I'm perfectly certain I speak for 99% of posters on both sides, here- reasonable, balanced and fair. You write with an even temperament however much you might be accused or attacked.
-
NGB, thanks for your kind words, I have never worked for the family, I have been accused of lots of things, I met the family through BHHP meetings, not to talk to about the case but about holiday parks, I have made this clear before, ever since I’ve been accused of being one of the family or friends, so I just go along with it now. I have never PM Jackie and told her I worked for them, I might have said I met them through work, in the one PM I sent her, I told how sorry I was for her in all the work she had done for Bamber and I thought he treat her bad and not to try and get her to change stance at all, because at the time I was more pro Guilt. So everyone is now clear, I met the family at BHHP meetings. Check in these posts NGB
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10072.msg465597.html#msg465597
Thank you for clarifying this RJ, and for the link to earlier posts.
-
Did you thank xxx when he set up a fake profile with name?
-
It’s not very nice being accused of something you haven’t done is it?
In fact it’s rude isn’t it and now Roch is asking me about bullying when I have suffered more than anyone on here
What attitude would you expect with what’s happened to me over the years
You get on with Real Justice because you don’t challenge him when he makes suppositions about Jeremy all the time
The fact are he just does not know but he’s happy to make things up just as the police were making stuff up in Bill Robertson’s post
I accept that in the past that you have been the victim of horrific internet abuse, along with some others. It was totally unacceptable. However, RJ was not one of the ones responsible for that abuse and it is clear that he reached out to you by PM expressing sympathy for the way you had been treated. That in my view was a kind gesture. I get on with RJ because he seems a decent person to me. We have discussed various topics unconnected with the case where we share a common interest. We do not agree on the Bamber case, but he respects my opinions as I do his. Just because someone has the opposite view to me does not mean that I have to hate the person or regard him as an enemy.
The purpose of the forum is intelligent debate. This should be conducted respectfully even where arguments are robustly advanced. I accept that we have had thoroughly nasty trolls here, and they are in a completely different category from the genuine member with whom we may disagree.
Of late there has been far too much personal vitriol and I hope it stops.
-
Did you thank xxx when he set up a fake profile with name?
What do you think? What has that to do with my thanks to RJ for clarifying the position, and in fact showing that your post which I had questioned was in fact incorrect? I did not and do not suggest you were lying, but you were clearly mistaken as I suspected.
-
I left the forum out of respect for you NGB, I knew it would deteriorate into just an argument and there would be no end to it. You have done so much for this site and me NGB I owe you the uttermost respect, so me not being here might help.
Regards
Justice
There is certainly no need for you to leave the forum RJ. All viewpoints are welcomed here. It is only the trolls who should go elsewhere.
-
There is certainly no need for you to leave the forum RJ. All viewpoints are welcomed here. It is only the trolls who should go elsewhere.
You have described Mat as a troll but he was allowed to stay and infact weren’t him and RJ friendly although RJ was aware I was being bullied
-
What do you think? What has that to do with my thanks to RJ for clarifying the position, and in fact showing that your post which I had questioned was in fact incorrect? I did not and do not suggest you were lying, but you were clearly mistaken as I suspected.
Well I was led to believe he worked with the family hence his loyalty and not interested in discussing the corruption in the JB case
-
I accept that in the past that you have been the victim of horrific internet abuse, along with some others. It was totally unacceptable. However, RJ was not one of the ones responsible for that abuse and it is clear that he reached out to you by PM expressing sympathy for the way you had been treated. That in my view was a kind gesture. I get on with RJ because he seems a decent person to me. We have discussed various topics unconnected with the case where we share a common interest. We do not agree on the Bamber case, but he respects my opinions as I do his. Just because someone has the opposite view to me does not mean that I have to hate the person or regard him as an enemy.
The purpose of the forum is intelligent debate. This should be conducted respectfully even where arguments are robustly advanced. I accept that we have had thoroughly nasty trolls here, and they are in a completely different category from the genuine member with whom we may disagree.
Of late there has been far too much personal vitriol and I hope it stops.
Personal vitriol from who exactly
-
You have described Mat as a troll but he was allowed to stay and infact weren’t him and RJ friendly although RJ was aware I was being bullied
Ive never sent Matt a personal pm I don’t think, I’ve hardly ever posted with Matt maybe a few times, I don’t know where you got that one from? I’ve not always been on the forum, i tend to leave on and off quite often for various reasons. I can’t remember your Squabbles with everyone and I certainly didn’t know until late last year, about your problem with Tim and I still don’t know really what went off? I’ve hardly ever posted on Red about Bamber, I did join and post in another topic for a while a couple of months and then I left.
-
Well I was led to believe he worked with the family hence his loyalty and not interested in discussing the corruption in the JB case
I have no loyalty with the Family and I have commented about the greed of Holiday park/ Landowners ect. This was a post to you before,
I don’t know how they treat their people Jackie I never worked there, if you read my posts I knew of them from BHHP that’s an association of Holiday park owners, I used to go to meetings and the general feel and it’s my personal view, I would treat customers better, it wasn’t just that holiday park, it’s every Caravan park throughout England, they all sing from the same hymn sheet. My advice to anyone Don’t bloody buy a static unless your prepared to lose a lot of money when you leave. They have every angled covered (not just them) that’s why I’m not a millionaire, I wouldn’t make as much money.
This was your reply
Yes I know exactly what you mean I know a couple of people who had static caravans there
-
There is certainly no need for you to leave the forum RJ. All viewpoints are welcomed here. It is only the trolls who should go elsewhere.
Thanks NGB
-
Ive never sent Matt a personal pm I don’t think, I’ve hardly ever posted with Matt maybe a few times, I don’t know where you got that one from? I’ve not always been on the forum, i tend to leave on and off quite often for various reasons. I can’t remember your Squabbles with everyone and I certainly didn’t know until late last year, about your problem with Tim and I still don’t know really what went off? I’ve hardly ever posted on Red about Bamber, I did join and post in another topic for a while a couple of months and then I left.
Here you go again. Where have I said you exchanged pm messages with Mat ?????
I have posted numerous times about Mats threats of violence to me and the fake account he set up in my name so I think it’s rich when comments are made about vitriol and probably aimed at QC
It’s one rule here for one and another for someone else
-
Here you go again. Where have I said you exchanged pm messages with Mat ?????
I have posted numerous times about Mats threats of violence to me and the fake account he set up in my name so I think it’s rich when comments are made about vitriol and probably aimed at QC
It’s one rule here for one and another for someone else
What happens to Matt? he seems to have disappeared :-\
-
What happens to Matt? he seems to have disappeared :-\
Not sure but he was a thorough guilter from the off. Couldn't work him out.
-
I take that is a joke??????
No it's not. I can empathise with your position on JB. I get your annoyance with certain posters. But you seriously need to reign it in.
-
Here you go again. Where have I said you exchanged pm messages with Mat ?????
I have posted numerous times about Mats threats of violence to me and the fake account he set up in my name so I think it’s rich when comments are made about vitriol and probably aimed at QC
It’s one rule here for one and another for someone else
I never said you did, I’m pointing out that I didn’t have any correspondence with Matt, especially to call a friend.
-
Not sure but he was a thorough guilter from the off. Couldn't work him out.
I suggest you PM Ngb to ask him about Matt and who he is and what he did and come back to me with a response and then you might finally learn a lesson why I don’t reign it in when I see QC being attacked for no good reason
-
I never said you did, I’m pointing out that I didn’t have any correspondence with Matt, especially to call a friend.
You had friendly banter with Matt on here though didn’t you even though I had posted a pm on here where he threatened to hurt me and you saw all the abuse he was posting on the red
-
You had friendly banter with Matt on here though didn’t you even though I had posted a pm on here where he threatened to hurt me and you saw all the abuse he was posting on the red
I never followed Matt, I cannot recall many posts I had with him, although I accept their might be some exchanges? I didn’t or can’t recall any Fake account he set up of you, I hardly ever posted on the Bamber site on Red, it wasn’t worth it because everyone thought him guilty other than Holly.
-
I never followed Matt, I cannot recall many posts I had with him, although I accept their might be some exchanges? I didn’t or can’t recall any Fake account he set up of you, I hardly ever posted on the Bamber site on Red, it wasn’t worth it because everyone thought him guilty other than Holly.
I suggest you send one of your pm messages to Ngb and ask him about Mat and what I was accused of
There needs to be some truth on this forum and protection from threats and online bullying
-
I suggest you send one of your pm messages to Ngb and ask him about Mat and what I was accused of
There needs to be some truth on this forum and protection from threats and online bullying
I suggest you look into the abuse I received and threat.
-
I suggest you look into the abuse I received and threat.
I haven’t seen you physically threatened on here? and maybe the abuse your talking about is in response to something you posted
-
Personal vitriol from who exactly
Several members at different times, as you well know. Read posts over the past couple of weeks. Sometimes the abuse is in response to provocation or abuse from another member. That makes it hard to moderate. The only easy solution is to delete a series of posts but that would usually destroy the entire thread. The problem has been that some personally abusive posts have also contained detailed and reasoned argument, which presents a problem for the moderators. Sometimes it is possible to edit a post, at other times to delete an entire post, but it is not easy.
-
Several members at different times, as you well know. Read posts over the past couple of weeks. Sometimes the abuse is in response to provocation or abuse from another member. That makes it hard to moderate. The only easy solution is to delete a series of posts but that would usually destroy the entire thread. The problem has been that some personally abusive posts have also contained detailed and reasoned argument, which presents a problem for the moderators. Sometimes it is possible to edit a post, at other times to delete an entire post, but it is not easy.
Would it work if the personal abuse was deleted, allowing the "detailed and reasoned argument" to remain? If such isn't possible, then I feel it's only fair that whole post, however detailed and reasoned, should be sacrificed. Those who will have picked up on the information, will run with it, ignoring the abuse. It's not perfect, but what is? It might just work.
Regarding abuse, I've not contributed very much, of late, nonetheless, during this time, my name has come up in an abusive and derogatory manner. I've chosen not to respond but I can't fail to recognize it as abuse deliberately used to incite abuse, giving the original abuser the chance to claim personal attack as being the reason. Over the past few weeks this has occurred frequently, on a very different level from the usual 'spats'. As active membership always fluctuates, it's not possible to say that it's the reason for the general decline in posting.
-
What happens to Matt? he seems to have disappeared :-\
He has disappeared. His profile was deleted.
-
Would it work if the personal abuse was deleted, allowing the "detailed and reasoned argument" to remain? If such isn't possible, then I feel it's only fair that whole post, however detailed and reasoned, should be sacrificed. Those who will have picked up on the information, will run with it, ignoring the abuse. It's not perfect, but what is? It might just work.
Regarding abuse, I've not contributed very much, of late, nonetheless, during this time, my name has come up in an abusive and derogatory manner. I've chosen not to respond but I can't fail to recognize it as abuse deliberately used to incite abuse, giving the original abuser the chance to claim personal attack as being the reason. Over the past few weeks this has occurred frequently, on a very different level from the usual 'spats'. As active membership always fluctuates, it's not possible to say that it's the reason for the general decline in posting.
I have edited and removed many posts. Many of these you will not be aware of because I have acted quickly. The problem is that I cannot be online all the time and often when I look I see a string of posts on a thread, containing escalating levels of personal abuse. If I edit or remove one I have to deal with others in the same way. Sometimes the abuse has been interlocked with argument and explanation and it is frankly too difficult and time consuming to try to edit lengthy posts. The other problem is that feelings can run very high. Whenever I edit or remove posts I get strong objections, sometimes in aggressive terms. There is often the implied threat that the member will leave. "So be it" you may say. However we do not have that many active members and fewer still who post in detail on aspects of the case. If we lose these people we will have a moribund forum. I am sometimes berated from all sides by demands to ban members. If I acceded to every request we would have virtually noone left!
-
I have edited and removed many posts. Many of these you will not be aware of because I have acted quickly. The problem is that I cannot be online all the time and often when I look I see a string of posts on a threat, containing escalating levels of personal abuse. If I edit or remove one I have to deal with others in the same way. Sometimes the abuse has been interlocked with argument and explanation and it is frankly too difficult and time consuming to try to edit lengthy posts. The other problem is that feelings can run very high. Whenever I edit or remove posts I get strong objections, sometimes in aggressive terms. There is often the implied threat that the member will leave. "So be it" you may say. However we do not have that many active members and fewer still who post in detail on aspects of the case. If we lose these people we will have a moribund forum. I am sometimes berated from all sides by demands to ban members. If I acceded to every request we would have virtually noone left!
Neil, I here that you get berated but doing such wasn't my intention. I'm inclined to take the view that if we refuse to take responsibility for our own actions -in this instance, abuse, threats, aggression generally- we shouldn't be surprised if the responsibility is taken on our behalf and find ourselves being banned, if only temporarily. The reverse of not doing so may result in the forum's only posters being the abusers, with the victims either sitting on the sidelines, or leaving to find a safer place to post. I appreciate it not an easy balance.
-
He has disappeared. His profile was deleted.
How comes?
-
How comes?
It is a long story and probably best not aired again on the open forum. The subject provokes strong reactions from several quarters.
-
It is a long story and probably best not aired again on the open forum. The subject provokes strong reactions from several quarters.
It’s never been aired that’s the point
-
It’s never been aired that’s the point
Unfortunately it has been but in a completely inappropriate and stupid way. I am saying no more on the open forum and will delete any attempt to repeat what was done before.