Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: guest29835 on November 24, 2021, 03:31:PM
-
Not that I necessarily believe there was an 'industrial frame', but if Jeremy is innocent then evidence has been concealed. People who are sceptical about the concept of an extensive and co-ordinated but hidden conspiracy should consider the Post Office Horizon scandal, which has been topical recently in the news:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal
-
An absolutely shocking state of affairs. Unforgiveable blame.
-
Not that I necessarily believe there was an 'industrial frame', but if Jeremy is innocent then evidence has been concealed. People who are sceptical about the concept of an extensive and co-ordinated but hidden conspiracy should consider the Post Office Horizon scandal, which has been topical recently in the news:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal
Despicable. Nothing less. I don't think it can be compared with the JB case, though, as it appeared that the more of these poor, wrongly accused civil servants, were prosecuted, the less human they became. Rather each became fodder to verify the rightness of the previous conviction.
-
Not that I necessarily believe there was an 'industrial frame', but if Jeremy is innocent then evidence has been concealed. People who are sceptical about the concept of an extensive and co-ordinated but hidden conspiracy should consider the Post Office Horizon scandal, which has been topical recently in the news:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal
Frightening
-
Despicable. Nothing less. I don't think it can be compared with the JB case, though, as it appeared that the more of these poor, wrongly accused civil servants, were prosecuted, the less human they became. Rather each became fodder to verify the rightness of the previous conviction.
I must admit Jane.. I do like your new forum moniker...
'Judge Jane' :))
-
I must admit Jane.. I do like your knew forum moniker...
'Judge Jane' :))
I'm so glad, Roch ;D
-
Despicable. Nothing less. I don't think it can be compared with the JB case, though, as it appeared that the more of these poor, wrongly accused civil servants, were prosecuted, the less human they became. Rather each became fodder to verify the rightness of the previous conviction.
I totally accept it is an apples and oranges comparison, but wouldn't you accept that scandals like this serve as a sobering reminder to us that organised wrong-doing on the part of trusted bodies does take place and is covered-up?
I do think that if Essex Police have been doing wrong, it will be because they thought Jeremy to be guilty and acted on that basis (an easier to trap to fall into than some may think). However, one shocking factor in the Post Office Horizon scandal is that it would appear that people within the Post Office management knew or should have known their evidence was fundamentally flawed and wrong. That doesn't necessarily mean they knew they were prosecuting innocent people, but it comes awfully close to that. Police and prosecutorial abuses and wrong-doing are on a spectrum.
-
I totally accept it is an apples and oranges comparison, but wouldn't you accept that scandals like this serve as a sobering reminder to us that organised wrong-doing on the part of trusted bodies does take place and is covered-up?
I do think that if Essex Police have been doing wrong, it will be because they thought Jeremy to be guilty and acted on that basis (an easier to trap to fall into than some may think). However, one shocking factor in the Post Office Horizon scandal is that it would appear that people within the Post Office management knew or should have known their evidence was fundamentally flawed and wrong. That doesn't necessarily mean they knew they were prosecuting innocent people, but it comes awfully close to that. Police and prosecutorial abuses and wrong-doing are on a spectrum.
I most certainly do, but I also remain aware that because despicable things happen sometimes, they don't happen every time. Having said that, I simply don't know how reparation can EVER be made to those whose lives have been ruined by this appalling scandal.
I believe, emphatically, that some of those things believed to have been wrongly done by Essex Police, lay at JB's feet. Had he not been standing beside them, giving them chapter and verse on Sheila's life history -to put it another way, leading them up the wrong path- things may have been done entirely differently.
-
Members are aware much of my narrative points to an industrial frame for some reason. I accept the principle of so called 'Noble cause corruption' but there is nothing noble in it at all. It can be used as a 'get out' for more serious misdemeanours.
The level of evidence manipulation in this case is enormous. I think they were covering up something more serious. I will not mention all the various points I have outlined but think that the burning of evidence on the day screams cover up, rather than 'Noble Cause'.
Remember that in many cases from Watergate onwards it has often been the case, that it is not the original wrong doing which brings the house down but the coverup.
In the same way that it is said that all murderers make mistakes that lead to their downfall, the same is true for those engaged in coverups.
I have concentrated on looking for flaws in the given evidence which point to a coverup. Members can decide whether I have found such evidence. I have a list of many items I have put forward to back my claims.
This case is not yet beyond the point where the Crown's case is settled.
-
I most certainly do, but I also remain aware that because despicable things happen sometimes, they don't happen every time. Having said that, I simply don't know how reparation can EVER be made to those whose lives have been ruined by this appalling scandal.
I believe, emphatically, that some of those things believed to have been wrongly done by Essex Police, lay at JB's feet. Had he not been standing beside them, giving them chapter and verse on Sheila's life history -to put it another way, leading them up the wrong path- things may have been done entirely differently.
Absolute bollocks as usual. You haven’t got a clue
-
Absolute bollocks as usual. You haven’t got a clue
Im sure QC will want this thread splitting again? Your ruining a good debate as usual.
-
Members are aware much of my narrative points to an industrial frame for some reason. I accept the principle of so called 'Noble cause corruption' but there is nothing noble in it at all. It can be used as a 'get out' for more serious misdemeanours.
The level of evidence manipulation in this case is enormous. I think they were covering up something more serious. I will not mention all the various points I have outlined but think that the burning of evidence on the day screams cover up, rather than 'Noble Cause'.
Remember that in many cases from Watergate onwards it has often been the case, that it is not the original wrong doing which brings the house down but the coverup.
In the same way that it is said that all murderers make mistakes that lead to their downfall, the same is true for those engaged in coverups.
I have concentrated on looking for flaws in the given evidence which point to a coverup. Members can decide whether I have found such evidence. I have a list of many items I have put forward to back my claims.
This case is not yet beyond the point where the Crown's case is settled.
Exactly. My point in starting the thread was to emphasise that an industrial frame cannot be dismissed in concept. Some people try to, and come on here pouring scorn on it as far-fetched, but it isn't. The Post Office scandal shows that these things happen.
-
An absolutely shocking state of affairs. Unforgiveable blame.
I agree Lookout,
Following the convictions some of these former postmasters went to prison, were shunned by their communities, and struggled to secure work. Some lost their homes and even failed to get insurance owing to their convictions. Some have since died.
-
Members are aware much of my narrative points to an industrial frame for some reason. I accept the principle of so called 'Noble cause corruption' but there is nothing noble in it at all. It can be used as a 'get out' for more serious misdemeanours.
The level of evidence manipulation in this case is enormous. I think they were covering up something more serious. I will not mention all the various points I have outlined but think that the burning of evidence on the day screams cover up, rather than 'Noble Cause'.
Remember that in many cases from Watergate onwards it has often been the case, that it is not the original wrong doing which brings the house down but the coverup.
In the same way that it is said that all murderers make mistakes that lead to their downfall, the same is true for those engaged in coverups.
I have concentrated on looking for flaws in the given evidence which point to a coverup. Members can decide whether I have found such evidence. I have a list of many items I have put forward to back my claims.
This case is not yet beyond the point where the Crown's case is settled.
Brilliant post
-
Exactly. My point in starting the thread was to emphasise that an industrial frame cannot be dismissed in concept. Some people try to, and come on here pouring scorn on it as far-fetched, but it isn't. The Post Office scandal shows that these things happen.
Totally agree
-
Totally agree
Would you like to elucidate on that, Jackie
-
Would you like to elucidate on that, Jackie
Before I reply to you I’m waiting for your reply to David
-
Before I reply to you I’m waiting for your reply to David
I have no idea what David is asking. I have him on ignore.
Just in case you need help in spelling. it, ELUCIDATE means to explain or make clear
-
Not that I necessarily believe there was an 'industrial frame', but if Jeremy is innocent then evidence has been concealed. People who are sceptical about the concept of an extensive and co-ordinated but hidden conspiracy should consider the Post Office Horizon scandal, which has been topical recently in the news:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal
You would have been better served by creating a separate thread rather than trying to link innocent sub-postmasters to a convicted mass murderer.
-
I have no idea what David is asking. I have him on ignore.
Just in case you need help in spelling. it, ELUCIDATE means to explain or make clear
Although you may find them irritating, I think David's questions to you are fair. If you 'about face' as you did (and are fully entitled to do), that switch does create some puzzling areas with regards to your original stance. I think you should be willing to explore these. Obviously, you cannot be forced to do so.
-
I have suggested the creation of 'The Industrial Frame' department in this case.
The police, experts, Julie, the relatives, people who knew Bamber, the justice system.
There is so much forensic & circumstantial evidence, the only other option is Bamber is guilty.
-
Although you may find them irritating, I think David's questions to you are fair. If you 'about face' as you did (and are fully entitled to do), that switch does create some puzzling areas with regards to your original stance. I think you should be willing to explore these. Obviously, you cannot be forced to do so.
this forum.
Thank-you Roch, but when I feel the need to speak with a counsellor, it will be a professional, NOT this forum.
As for the reasons for my change of stance -and thank-you for your approval- but having explained, ad nauseum, there really is no point in my 'exploring' it any further when there are morons and axxxxxxxs who refuse to accept it. Frankly, I don't actually care that the "switch does create some puzzling areas with regards to your original stance" because it's no one else's business. At least I didn't come onto this site pretending, like some, to hold one stance whilst believing the other.
David's questions to me, whatever they are, won't be fair -and you're VERY naive to believe them to be so- they will be calculated to goad, which is why I have him on ignore.
-
I have no idea what David is asking. I have him on ignore.
Just in case you need help in spelling. it, ELUCIDATE means to explain or make clear
That’s ok I will help you out and post David’s questions so we can get this sorted tonight
-
You would have been better served by creating a separate thread rather than trying to link innocent sub-postmasters to a convicted mass murderer.
I have done no such thing, you lying scumbag.
-
Although you may find them irritating, I think David's questions to you are fair. If you 'about face' as you did (and are fully entitled to do), that switch does create some puzzling areas with regards to your original stance. I think you should be willing to explore these. Obviously, you cannot be forced to do so.
David did also change stance from hardcore guilter. So he could goad Caroline & Jane.
He attempted a quiet stance change as well as he had no evidence reason.
He eventually came up with two minor evidence reasons which to him negates everything else!
-
David did also change stance from hardcore guilter. So he could goad Caroline & Jane.
He attempted a quiet stance change as well as he had no evidence reason.
He eventually came up with two minor evidence reasons which to him negates everything else!
I think there’s only you and Lookout without a stance change, I suspected innocence at first, Roch was Innocent, Guilty and now innocent, so he’s had the most changes out of everyone on here. QC 96% guilty
-
That’s ok I will help you out and post David’s questions so we can get this sorted tonight
Help from you? I'd sooner take poison which is what accepting 'help' from you would amount to. You seem to have found a kindred spirit in David. I guess two people goading is more fun than one, isn't it.
-
I have done no such thing, you lying scumbag.
You have by the very nature of the thread title. Once again you don't think through the implications of what you write.
-
I think there’s another only you and Lookout without a stance change, I suspected innocence at first, Roch was Innocent, Guilty and now innocent, so he’s had the most changes out of everyone on here. QC 96% guilty
Went into the case with an open mind. As knew nothing about it.
All I could do was read what's online, watch Youtube videos & read the best reviewed book - Wilkes.
For me Julie, the relatives, the police & experts all lying simultaneously (for weak reasons) was very weak.
-
I think there’s another only you and Lookout without a stance change, I suspected innocence at first, Roch was Innocent, Guilty and now innocent, so he’s had the most changes out of everyone on here. QC 96% guilty
REALLY RJ??!!!! You're actually saying that Roch has changed stance :o :o :o Then WTF is he questioning me for. QC? Well he doesn't seem to be certain which way he's going to swing. I can only think he's keeping his options open so that whatever the outcome of the next whatever!!! he can claim to have been right?
-
REALLY RJ??!!!! You're actually saying that Roch has changed stance :o :o :o Then WTF is he questioning me for. QC? Well he doesn't seem to be certain which way he's going to swing. I can only think he's keeping his options open so that whatever the outcome of the next whatever!!! he can claim to have been right?
;D
-
Went into the case with an open mind. As knew nothing about it.
All I could do was read what's online, watch Youtube videos & read the best reviewed book - Wilkes.
For me Julie, the relatives, the police & experts all lying simultaneously (for weak reasons) was very weak.
For me, I started to question why such as Hartley and Bob and Vidic had such a belief in his guilt and I probably got carried away with Mike at first. I started to read about the case more and had contacts and I began to question what Mike was saying etc. Roch has made the most changes out of everyone yet!
Must say your posts have been convincing as well Adam.
-
For me, I started to question why such as Hartley and Bob and Vidic had such a belief in his guilt and I probably got carried away with Mike at first. I started to read about the case more and had contacts and I began to question what Mike was saying etc. Roch has made the most changes out of everyone yet!
Must say your posts have been convincing as well Adam.
Thanks. Always thought Roch had been a hardcore supporter. He has been since I joined.
Hopefully he can give us a summary of his stance changes.
-
REALLY RJ??!!!! You're actually saying that Roch has changed stance :o :o :o Then WTF is he questioning me for. QC? Well he doesn't seem to be certain which way he's going to swing. I can only think he's keeping his options open so that whatever the outcome of the next whatever!!! he can claim to have been right?
Oh yes, I think Bill turned him. The most courageous act is still to think for yourself some people don’t have that ability and rely on others, The things you can control in your life are your thoughts and actions, I’m not saying I’m right but I control them and not others.
-
REALLY RJ??!!!! You're actually saying that Roch has changed stance :o :o :o Then WTF is he questioning me for. QC? Well he doesn't seem to be certain which way he's going to swing. I can only think he's keeping his options open so that whatever the outcome of the next whatever!!! he can claim to have been right?
Get real. Your going to start on Roch now. They must be missing you on the red April
-
Oh yes, I think Bill turned him. The most courageous act is still to think for yourself some people don’t have that ability and rely on others, The things you can control in your life are your thoughts and actions, I’m not saying I’m right but I control them and not others.
Says the bloke who cleaned the toilets at Osea and kissed Ann Eaton’s arse. How dare you
-
Says the bloke who cleaned the toilets at Osea and kissed Ann Eaton’s arse. How dare you
Do you mean Bottom?
-
You have by the very nature of the thread title. Once again you don't think through the implications of what you write.
I have not. You are stupid and a liar.
-
Get real. Your going to start on Roch now. They must be missing you on the red April
How many more times do you have to be told, I only visit Red. My residence is here, where despite your odious -and possibly malodorous presence- I'm very comfortable, thank-you. NOW, perhaps you'd care to tell me why it is you're suggesting I'm going to "start on Roch now"?
-
REALLY RJ??!!!! You're actually saying that Roch has changed stance :o :o :o Then WTF is he questioning me for. QC? Well he doesn't seem to be certain which way he's going to swing. I can only think he's keeping his options open so that whatever the outcome of the next whatever!!! he can claim to have been right?
My position is well-stated and has been repeated countless times.
-
Do you mean Bottom?
No! She's far too vulgar!!
-
For me, I started to question why such as Hartley and Bob and Vidic had such a belief in his guilt and I probably got carried away with Mike at first. I started to read about the case more and had contacts and I began to question what Mike was saying etc. Roch has made the most changes out of everyone yet!
Must say your posts have been convincing as well Adam.
Wonder what happened to Bob, I thought he was such a cool character and concise.
-
I have not. You are stupid and a liar.
If you'd titled your thread "Similarities between court procedure of two cases" I might have accepted it. But once again you take every opportunity to legitimize Jeremy Bamber's crimes through the back door and curry favour with the Bamberettes as well as seeking admiration from the more gullible member or passing traffic generally.
-
REALLY RJ??!!!! You're actually saying that Roch has changed stance :o :o :o Then WTF is he questioning me for. QC? Well he doesn't seem to be certain which way he's going to swing. I can only think he's keeping his options open so that whatever the outcome of the next whatever!!! he can claim to have been right?
I've never changed stance but I have considered guilt in varying degrees. I don't think I have ever stated that I was 100% certain JB had no involvement. I once described my position as 90/10 and this was mocked by some hardcore reds. Even 80/20 isn't a bad call and I can definitely remember being 70/30. RJ is referring to a brief period where I was close to 50/50 or maybe even tipping over to the dark side 🤮. I probably did contact Bill after that. I wanted to know whether his views had changed at all since he first started posting (but had subsequently stopped posting, about a year previously). He confirmed his views had altered slightly on detail but not in the main. I think RJ is right on that score. I have never 100% agreed with Bill on everything. He can confirm that I have expressed my own opinions behind the scenes. I have my own mind on the case. I think I have a good grasp of the case in some respects but not others. I have described my position in more detail on many occasions and happy to do it again. There are many ways to approach this case. I see it as a globe or sphere, with other members approaching it from all different angles and different locations around the sphere.
-
If you'd titled your thread "Similarities between court procedure of two cases" I might have accepted it. But once again you take every opportunity to legitimize Jeremy Bamber's crimes through the back door and curry favour with the Bamberettes as well as seeking admiration from the more gullible member or passing traffic generally.
Please stop telling lies.
-
I have done no such thing, you lying scumbag.
I was expecting fireworks when I first saw Steve's post.
-
I was expecting fireworks when I first saw Steve's post.
He is a liar, a troublemaker and a scumbag.
If the moderator would care to ban me for calling it as it is, I will treat that as a badge of honour.
-
I've never changed stance but I have considered guilt in varying degrees. I don't think I have ever stated that I was 100% certain JB had no involvement. I once described my position as 90/10 and this was mocked by some hardcore reds. Even 80/20 isn't a bad call and I can definitely remember being 70/30. RJ is referring to a brief period where I was close to 50/50 or maybe even tipping over to the dark side 🤮. I probably did contact Bill after that. I wanted to know whether his views had changed at all since he first started posting (but had subsequently stopped posting, about a year previously). He confirmed his views had altered slightly on detail but not in the main. I think RJ is right on that score. I have never 100% agreed with Bill on everything. He can confirm that I have expressed my own opinions behind the scenes. I have my own mind on the case. I think I have a good grasp of the case in some respects but not others. I have described my position in more detail on many occasions and happy to do it again. There are many ways to approach this case. I see it as a globe or sphere, with other members approaching it from all different angles and different locations around the sphere.
Thanks Roch for your honest post. I think with me, I started just looking on here for a long while reading everything Mike said, it all made sense to me at the time. When I eventually joined, it still was a while before access to statements and court testimonies and Appeals was available, when I started reading them I think that was the turning point. As you know Hartley and Vidic were formidable and made a lot of sense.
-
Thanks Roch for your honest post. I think with me, I started just looking on here for a long while reading everything Mike said, it all made sense to me at the time. When I eventually joined, it still was a while before access to statements and court testimonies and Appeals was available, when I started reading them I think that was the turning point. As you know Hartley and Vidic were formidable and made a lot of sense.
I too was enthralled by Mike's posts. I have to say, if Mike had forced himself to avoid adopting similar tactics to the prosecution, I think he would have went from strength to strength. Some of his posts were superb. However, Mike tried to show us that he too could bend the truth, just like the prosecution had, but for the opposite purposes. The problem with that is that two wrongs don't make a right. I believe it backfired on Mike. Nevertheless, nobody can take away from him, the good stuff he has done and the sublime posts he has posted, despite the other stuff.
Hartley was formidable as a guilter. He could play dirty also - but Mike left himself vulnerable by trying to bend the truth or exaggarate - and this allowed Hartley to start picking him off.
Vic was a nice person and was case knowledgeable from his own research but was very biased. Vic struggled to understand how Mike could post five different views on the same topic - but I could see that Mike was more open to solving something by reconsidering different explanations for it.
-
I too was enthralled by Mike's posts. I have to say, if Mike had forced himself to avoid adopting similar tactics to the prosecution, I think he would have went from strength to strength. Some of his posts were superb. However, Mike tried to show us that he too could bend the truth, just like the prosecution had, but for the opposite purposes. The problem with that is that two wrongs don't make a right. I believe it backfired on Mike. Nevertheless, nobody can take away from him, the good stuff he has done and the sublime posts he has posted, despite the other stuff.
Hartley was formidable as a guilter. He could play dirty also - but Mike left himself vulnerable by trying to bend the truth or exaggarate - and this allowed Hartley to start picking him off.
Vic was a nice person and was case knowledgeable from his own research but was very biased. Vic struggled to understand how Mike could post five different views on the same topic - but I could see that Mike was more open to solving something by reconsidering different explanations for it.
I agree with most of your post Roch and it’s very well presented, I disagree about Hartley, I don’t think it was Dirty, I think he liked to tease that’s all a bit like you and me, maybe he’s rubbed off on us, your a tease anyway Roch 😂👍
-
this forum.
Thank-you Roch, but when I feel the need to speak with a counsellor, it will be a professional, NOT this forum.
As for the reasons for my change of stance -and thank-you for your approval- but having explained, ad nauseum, there really is no point in my 'exploring' it any further when there are morons and axxxxxxxs who refuse to accept it. Frankly, I don't actually care that the "switch does create some puzzling areas with regards to your original stance" because it's no one else's business. At least I didn't come onto this site pretending, like some, to hold one stance whilst believing the other.
David's questions to me, whatever they are, won't be fair -and you're VERY naive to believe them to be so- they will be calculated to goad, which is why I have him on ignore.
I'm not so certain that 'Judge Jane' should get off the hook so lightly. I think you should do the opposite of what you have done and consider his questions. However, I agree, David can at times appear goading :))
-
I'm not so certain that 'Judge Jane' should get off the hook so lightly. I think you should do the opposite of what you have done and consider his questions. However, I agree, David can at times appear goading :))
Roch, nothing which is said here is new. It's all regurgitated stuff. We are presently going over 'stuff' that we were discussing when I first joined. I've already given my reasons for changing stance but it seems that David has chosen to dismiss that. In truth, I don't believe him to be interested, but goading me -and others- seems to give him sport and may go some way to drawing the flack away from him, his REAL stance when he joined, his own alleged change of stance, and his scientific breakthrough.
I've said quite enough about why I changed. Perhaps you'd like to give us chapter and verse on your own reasons for so doing. I'm told you've had several such? At least I've only changed once.
-
Roch, nothing which is said here is new. It's all regurgitated stuff. We are presently going over 'stuff' that we were discussing when I first joined. I've already given my reasons for changing stance but it seems that David has chosen to dismiss that. In truth, I don't believe him to be interested, but goading me -and others- seems to give him sport and may go some way to drawing the flack away from him, his REAL stance when he joined, his own alleged change of stance, and his scientific breakthrough.
I've said quite enough about why I changed. Perhaps you'd like to give us chapter and verse on your own reasons for so doing. I'm told you've had several such? At least I've only changed once.
I think Roch has been honest Jane and he gives me credit, I knew all along he had his head turned by Bill.
-
I too was enthralled by Mike's posts. I have to say, if Mike had forced himself to avoid adopting similar tactics to the prosecution, I think he would have went from strength to strength. Some of his posts were superb. However, Mike tried to show us that he too could bend the truth, just like the prosecution had, but for the opposite purposes. The problem with that is that two wrongs don't make a right. I believe it backfired on Mike. Nevertheless, nobody can take away from him, the good stuff he has done and the sublime posts he has posted, despite the other stuff.
Hartley was formidable as a guilter. He could play dirty also - but Mike left himself vulnerable by trying to bend the truth or exaggarate - and this allowed Hartley to start picking him off.
Vic was a nice person and was case knowledgeable from his own research but was very biased. Vic struggled to understand how Mike could post five different views on the same topic - but I could see that Mike was more open to solving something by reconsidering different explanations for it.
As was I. However, when I extricated what was true, from what he wanted us to believe to be true, there was huge discrepancy. It was then reasonable to wonder why it was so necessary for a supporter to stray so far from the path of truth, and from there just a very small step to seeds, creeping in, about whether or not JB was innocent.
-
I think Roch has been honest Jane and he gives me credit, I knew all along he had his head turned by Bill.
I didn't so much have my 'head turned' by Bill. The chances of me ever really becoming a guilter were very slim. I posted on and off for a few years as pro innocence before Bill's first post. Bill took a break from the forum for about a year. During a time of relative disinterest with the forum, I contacted Bill and struck up a dialogue with him. It was learning of Sheila's non gunshot wounds that reignited my interest in the case and got me posting again. My only foray in to suspecting guilt was in relation to Jeremy having been an assistant, accomplice or having foreknowledge of Sheila's intentions to some extent. I still retain a small space in my stance for that. For example, did Jeremy leave the rifle out deliberately for Sheila to enable her to end her own life?
-
I think Roch has been honest Jane and he gives me credit, I knew all along he had his head turned by Bill.
I didn't need a 'Bill', RJ. I had a friend who was there. I disagreed with him for many years. Sadly, he died before I could tell him that I'd come to the conclusion he was right.
-
I didn't so much have my 'head turned' by Bill. The chances of me ever really becoming a guilter were very slim. I posted on and off for a few years as pro innocence before Bill's first post. Bill took a break from the forum for about a year. During a time of relative disinterest with the forum, I contacted Bill and struck up a dialogue with him. It was learning of Sheila's non gunshot wounds that reignited my interest in the case and got me posting again. My only foray in to suspecting guilt was in relation to Jeremy having been an assistant, accomplice or having foreknowledge of Sheila's intentions to some extent. I still retain a small space in my stance for that. For example, did Jeremy leave the rifle out deliberately for Sheila to enable her to end her own life?
What non gunshot wounds? The only other wound observed by the HO pathologist was some sort of scratch on her abdomen covered by a dressing. The idea that a heavyweight like Prof Knight for the defence overlooked anything is completely out of the question.
Even if Bamber left the rifle out there's no way of knowing whether or not Mr Bamber (or any of the other occupants) moved it to the den/gun cupboard especially with two young children running about.
Like most 'supporters' you can't see the wood for the trees.
-
I didn't need a 'Bill', RJ. I had a friend who was there. I disagreed with him for many years. Sadly, he died before I could tell him that I'd come to the conclusion he was right.
Maybe it will turn out you were originally right. I didn't need a Bill to confirm Bamber was probably innocent - as I have said, there was a very slim chance of me ever turning to the dark side. I just found that the wounds issue reignited my interest in the case and in the forum.
-
Maybe it will turn out you were originally right. I didn't need a Bill to confirm Bamber was probably innocent - as I have said, there was a very slim chance of me ever turning to the dark side. I just found that the wounds issue reignited my interest in the case and in the forum.
What wounds issue?
-
Maybe it will turn out you were originally right. I didn't need a Bill to confirm Bamber was probably innocent - as I have said, there was a very slim chance of me ever turning to the dark side. I just found that the wounds issue reignited my interest in the case and in the forum.
I object to this comment Roch, we’re getting all sorts of accusations thrown our way, I’m being described as a toilet cleaner and someone who kisses Bottoms and sucks dangly things, now this. Surely their has to be some sort of respect. Enough is enough, I’ve never asked for anyone to be banned but I’m beginning to loose my patience.
-
What wounds issue?
I'm pretty sure you're already aware of it. You scoffed at the time ( in the other forum) that PV would have noticed and recorded any such wounds. I don't recall you mentioning Bernie Knight but I take your point about him. The thing is, nobody knows exactly what Knight examined - it's not like somebody can say, 'here is the bundle that Bernie had, as you can see he has colour enlargements of the following.. '.
-
I object to this comment Roch, we’re getting all sorts of accusations thrown our way, I’m being described as a toilet cleaner and someone who kisses Bottoms and sucks dangly things, now this. Surely their has to be some sort of respect. Enough is enough, I’ve never asked for anyone to be banned but I’m beginning to loose my patience.
I didn't realise you had been described in that way - all I saw was the word 'bottom'. I didn't actually read the post. Although dark side could mean the murky world of dodgy cops and withheld evidence etc., all I actually meant was similar to in football terms - for example maybe a Spurs fan would see Arsenal as the 'dark side'.
-
This case has been made to be a complex one by ALL the mistakes, which has been so unnecessary.
The amount of spin which has been created just beggars belief, when, from the beginning, it was a straightforward murder/suicide.
I'm confident that I remain 100% certain of JB's innocence.
Who, in their RIGHT mind would even contemplate murder knowing that their own lives too will come to an end ?
I have no confidence in the justice system as it stands, especially when reading about different sentences being handed out to the most heinous of crimes instead of a " one size fits all " sentence in certain crimes where you know that the criminal will reoffend ( well I know ,and I'm usually right ! )
I am the type of person who could attend a hanging, or even pull the lever on a person or persons who murder children. I'd have no qualms about that whatsoever. Or even shooting a child murderer, because these people don't belong in a civilised world and are evil cowards. I feel very strongly about this as sentencing does nothing in a cushy environment. Cages for these monsters !!
-
What non gunshot wounds? The only other wound observed by the HO pathologist was some sort of scratch on her abdomen covered by a dressing. The idea that a heavyweight like Prof Knight for the defence overlooked anything is completely out of the question.
Even if Bamber left the rifle out there's no way of knowing whether or not Mr Bamber (or any of the other occupants) moved it to the den/gun cupboard especially with two young children running about.
Like most 'supporters' you can't see the wood for the trees.
He believes that drops of blood on Sheila's arm (from her neck wound) are actually some 28 injuries that June somehow manged to inflict despite being shot 5 times in bed. :))
-
He believes that drops of blood on Sheila's arm (from her neck wound) are actually some 28 injuries that June somehow manged to inflict despite being shot 5 times in bed. :))
You've never said the drops were from Sheila's neck.
-
I object to this comment Roch, we’re getting all sorts of accusations thrown our way, I’m being described as a toilet cleaner and someone who kisses Bottoms and sucks dangly things, now this. Surely their has to be some sort of respect. Enough is enough, I’ve never asked for anyone to be banned but I’m beginning to loose my patience.
You can dish it out but you can’t take it can you fake justice
Let me explain what the dark side is
Julie Mugford making a deal with a newspaper before trial
The relatives trying to mislead the jury
All the missing and witheld evidence
The tampered with silencer
If you can’t grasp there are serious issues with this then you have problems
So stop insult members that are just looking for the truth
-
This case has been made to be a complex one by ALL the mistakes, which has been so unnecessary.
The amount of spin which has been created just beggars belief, when, from the beginning, it was a straightforward murder/suicide.
I'm confident that I remain 100% certain of JB's innocence.
Who, in their RIGHT mind would even contemplate murder knowing that their own lives too will come to an end ?
I have no confidence in the justice system as it stands, especially when reading about different sentences being handed out to the most heinous of crimes instead of a " one size fits all " sentence in certain crimes where you know that the criminal will reoffend ( well I know ,and I'm usually right ! )
I am the type of person who could attend a hanging, or even pull the lever on a person or persons who murder children. I'd have no qualms about that whatsoever. Or even shooting a child murderer, because these people don't belong in a civilised world and are evil cowards. I feel very strongly about this as sentencing does nothing in a cushy environment. Cages for these monsters !!
If you had your way the likes of Stefan Kiszko, a completely innocent man, would have hanged.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
And if Bamber is innocent, as you believe him to be, he would have hanged some 35 years ago.
You never think anything through because you're so convinced you're right all the time.
-
If you had your way the likes of Stefan Kiszko, a completely innocent man, would have hanged.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
And if Bamber is innocent, as you believe him to be, he would have hanged some 35 years ago.
You never think anything through because you're so convinced you're right all the time.
This is exactly the answer that I was expecting from the likes of you. If police/ courts/ judges et al did their work properly, there'd be no need for mistakes.
I am right for the majority of the time !!
-
I'm pretty sure you're already aware of it. You scoffed at the time ( in the other forum) that PV would have noticed and recorded any such wounds. I don't recall you mentioning Bernie Knight but I take your point about him. The thing is, nobody knows exactly what Knight examined - it's not like somebody can say, 'here is the bundle that Bernie had, as you can see he has colour enlargements of the following.. '.
Prof Knight was a pathologist of long experience at the time of Bamber's trial and was party to the HO pathologist's trial testimony.
The idea that the pathological evidence is wrong to any degree it would have altered the outcome of the trial is a total non-starter.
-
This case has been made to be a complex one by ALL the mistakes, which has been so unnecessary.
The amount of spin which has been created just beggars belief, when, from the beginning, it was a straightforward murder/suicide.
I'm confident that I remain 100% certain of JB's innocence.
Who, in their RIGHT mind would even contemplate murder knowing that their own lives too will come to an end ?
I have no confidence in the justice system as it stands, especially when reading about different sentences being handed out to the most heinous of crimes instead of a " one size fits all " sentence in certain crimes where you know that the criminal will reoffend ( well I know ,and I'm usually right ! )
I am the type of person who could attend a hanging, or even pull the lever on a person or persons who murder children. I'd have no qualms about that whatsoever. Or even shooting a child murderer, because these people don't belong in a civilised world and are evil cowards. I feel very strongly about this as sentencing does nothing in a cushy environment. Cages for these monsters !!
Its a hard one that Lookout, think of Jerry and how would you feel now?
-
This is exactly the answer that I was expecting from the likes of you. If police/ courts/ judges et al did their work properly, there'd be no need for mistakes.
I am right for the majority of the time !!
Then given you know the police/courts/judges get it wrong, after all they're human, then why are you advocating the death penalty?
As I said you simply don't think things through and no you're not right the majority of the time, far from it!!!
-
Prof Knight was a pathologist of long experience at the time of Bamber's trial and was party to the HO pathologist's trial testimony.
The idea that the pathological evidence is wrong to any degree it would have altered the outcome of the trial is a total non-starter.
I'm not saying Knight was crooked. I'm querying the size and quality of what he looked at. We don't really know how much time Knight spent on it. Knight may have thought 'well he's guilty anyway, so why bother going in to it too deeply?' You never know.
Re your second paragraph, I don't understand the way you have phrased it.
-
Its a hard one that Lookout, think of Jerry and how would you feel now?
Which is why I said that if things had been done properly and thoroughly the WHF murders would have been solved and there'd have been no need for the case to have reached the courtroom.
In my own profession there was no room for mistakes and a lot was based on common sense and not a manual as each person is an individual whether you're nursing them or arresting them.
Why is it that those on the outside can spot the mistakes that were made in this case ?
-
Which is why I said that if things had been done properly and thoroughly the WHF murders would have been solved and there'd have been no need for the case to have reached the courtroom.
In my own profession there was no room for mistakes and a lot was based on common sense and not a manual as each person is an individual whether you're nursing them or arresting them.
Why is it that those on the outside can spot the mistakes that were made in this case ?
Insulate Bamber, hopefully we will see one or two gluing themselves to the Police Station. Come on Down Roch, either put up or shut up now’s your chance for you supporters 👍
https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/19739019.white-house-farm-murders-jeremy-bambers-supporters-hold-protest/
Essex Police have continued to comply will all legal requirements in this case, and will continue to assist the CCRC as required.”
-
I object to this comment Roch, we’re getting all sorts of accusations thrown our way, I’m being described as a toilet cleaner and someone who kisses Bottoms and sucks dangly things, now this. Surely their has to be some sort of respect. Enough is enough, I’ve never asked for anyone to be banned but I’m beginning to loose my patience.
I think that [in bold] refers to something I posted on here, but you're missing out some crucial context.
I was being goaded by several Forum members, including you (not for the first time- you have always goaded me on here). Your actions were unprovoked, and when I complained, you started with the 'cry baby' stuff. I got angry and lashed out and posted a single off-colour joke about you and NGB1066.
In response, NGB1066 banned me - I assume because he was also the subject of my joke and the joke hit close to home - but to my knowledge no action was taken against you or anybody else. In effect, I was victimised and then scapegoated.
I don't want to start an argument with you about it and I do appreciate that you have had to put up with a lot, but I must set the record straight on that incident. You are now quoting it as your Waterloo, when in fact you were one of the bullies - which is in keeping with your character. You are personally vested in the case and you come across to me as a bit of bootlicker.
-
I think that [in bold] refers to something I posted on here, but you're missing out some crucial context.
I was being goaded by several Forum members, including you (not for the first time- you have always goaded me on here). Your actions were unprovoked, and when I complained, you started with the 'cry baby' stuff. I got angry and lashed out and posted a single off-colour joke about you and NGB1066.
In response, NGB1066 banned me - I assume because he was also the subject of my joke and the joke hit close to home - but to my knowledge no action was taken against you or anybody else. In effect, I was victimised and then scapegoated.
I don't want to start an argument with you about it and I do appreciate that you have had to put up with a lot, but I must set the record straight on that incident. You are now quoting it as your Waterloo, when in fact you were one of the bullies - which is in keeping with your character. You are personally vested in the case and you come across to me as a bit of bootlicker.
Oh dear what’s upset Confused.com and we were getting on so well.
-
I'm not saying Knight was crooked. I'm querying the size and quality of what he looked at. We don't really know how much time Knight spent on it. Knight may have thought 'well he's guilty anyway, so why bother going in to it too deeply?' You never know.
Re your second paragraph, I don't understand the way you have phrased it.
He looked at everything relevant eg HO pathologist notes, PM report, crime scene images, post mortem images, trial testimony. What else exists that was relevant?
You can't see the wood for the trees and doubt everyone from Bews to telephone operators to the pathologists.
Well if Bamber's conviction is ever overturned, very unlikely imo, then do doubt the whole case would be the subject of a public inquiry as without one it might well cause the public to lose faith in the criminal justice system which wouldn't be good for democracy. If such an inquiry ever took place then the whole case would go under the mircoscope and be examined by a judge (possibly not from this country) so he/she might then find some minor failing on the part of the pathologists but as I said nothing that would alter the outcome of the trial and certainly nothing done with intent.
Out of all the appeals and submissions to the review commission Bamber has never challenged the pathological evidence because there's nothing to challenge.
-
I think that [in bold] refers to something I posted on here, but you're missing out some crucial context.
I was being goaded by several Forum members, including you (not for the first time- you have always goaded me on here). Your actions were unprovoked, and when I complained, you started with the 'cry baby' stuff. I got angry and lashed out and posted a single off-colour joke about you and NGB1066.
In response, NGB1066 banned me - I assume because he was also the subject of my joke and the joke hit close to home - but to my knowledge no action was taken against you or anybody else. In effect, I was victimised and then scapegoated.
I don't want to start an argument with you about it and I do appreciate that you have had to put up with a lot, but I must set the record straight on that incident. You are now quoting it as your Waterloo, when in fact you were one of the bullies - which is in keeping with your character. You are personally vested in the case and you come across to me as a bit of bootlicker.
If you get angry posting on internet forums then maybe they're not the place for you.
-
Anyway lets get back to debating the case or I will make a case to ban the lot of you!!!
-
Anyway lets get back to debating the case or I will make a case to ban the lot of you!!!
😂😂😂😂😂
-
He looked at everything relevant eg HO pathologist notes, PM report, crime scene images, post mortem images, trial testimony. What else exists that was relevant?
You can't see the wood for the trees and doubt everyone from Bews to telephone operators to the pathologists.
Well if Bamber's conviction is ever overturned, very unlikely imo, then do doubt the whole case would be the subject of a public inquiry as without one it might well cause the public to lose faith in the criminal justice system which wouldn't be good for democracy. If such an inquiry ever took place then the whole case would go under the mircoscope and be examined by a judge (possibly not from this country) so he/she might then find some minor failing on the part of the pathologists but as I said nothing that would alter the outcome of the trial and certainly nothing done with intent.
Out of all the appeals and submissions to the review commission Bamber has never challenged the pathological evidence because there's nothing to challenge.
I've never doubted any telephone operators. I may re-read Knight's testimony to try and ascertain if he has done what you say. We will agree to disagree regarding what you term as 'pathological evidence'.
-
Anyway lets get back to debating the case or I will make a case to ban the lot of you!!!
I agree perhaps QC and QT would post their views on the recently 'bumped' thread pertaining to the McKenzie report as a starter. Maybe we can add it to QC's compilation album 'QC's best arguments for doubt'. QT was reviewing this when last asked about it.
-
I've never doubted any telephone operators. I may re-read Knight's testimony to try and ascertain if he has done what you say. We will agree to disagree regarding what you term as 'pathological evidence'.
Where in your opinion have they fallen short then? ::)
There was nothing adverse to Bamber in the pathological testimony.
-
Which is why I said that if things had been done properly and thoroughly the WHF murders would have been solved and there'd have been no need for the case to have reached the courtroom.
In my own profession there was no room for mistakes and a lot was based on common sense and not a manual as each person is an individual whether you're nursing them or arresting them.
Why is it that those on the outside can spot the mistakes that were made in this case ?
I always think of Timothy Evans Lookout.
-
I agree perhaps QC and QT would post their views on the recently 'bumped' thread pertaining to the McKenzie report as a starter. Maybe we can add it to QC's compilation album 'QC's best arguments for doubt'. QT was reviewing this when last asked about it.
I've done it haven't I?
I'm still looking at the blue socks.
-
I've done it haven't I?
I'm still looking at the blue socks.
I do not believe you have expressed an opinion regarding the content. What do you think they are alleging and if you disagree what are its shortcomings? If I missed this sorry in advance and where can I find it?
-
I do not believe you have expressed an opinion regarding the content. What do you think they are alleging and if you disagree what are its shortcomings? If I missed this sorry in advance and where can I find it?
Post 17 on the 'Case for reasonable doubt thread'. I've responded in red!
Can't find a thread about the McKenzie report?
-
Post 17 on the 'Case for reasonable doubt thread'. I've responded in red!
Can't find a thread about the McKenzie report?
You said you were reading through the McKenzie report. I didn't understand your last post to me.
-
Post 17 on the 'Case for reasonable doubt thread'. I've responded in red!
Can't find a thread about the McKenzie report?
We must be at cross purposes. You seem to be saying you have responded to something you do not know. Post 17 is your response to QC's list of posts not the Mckenzie report. The report is here. I Bumped the report not a thread sorry.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10740.450.html
-
Anyway lets get back to debating the case or I will make a case to ban the lot of you!!!
You tell 'em Cambridgecutie. Some good old-fashioned discipline is what we need here! Roch, Real Justice and Rob think they've got away with it, but it'll be six of the best if they're not careful!