Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: BarefootDanC on April 28, 2025, 07:13:PM
-
Tell me you are conspiract theorist without telling me you are a conspiracy theorist
So many of Bamber's supporters are conspiracy theorists. We are told that the latest CCRC submission if full of compelling arguments, both material which undermines the conviction and material which actually proves innocence (e.g. Sheila still being alive at 6:09 and lack of liver mortis), and at 1,000+ pages it is very detailed.
If the CCRC submission is so compelling, inevitably the CCRC will refer his case to the Court of Appeal, especially as it only needs a "real possibility" of success.
But many Bamber supporters don't believe that. They think "the establishment" are controlling the CCRC and deliberately stopping it from making a referral.
But this is impossible as the CCRC and the Court of Appeal are both independent of the government (and independent of each other) and their is no mechanism for the "establishment" to stand in the way of referral or a successful appeal!
In the Facebook group: Jeremy Bamber (and other) Discussion group, I asked the question in a poll:
"Will the CCRC refer Jeremy's case to the Court of Appeal and if not why not?" and results were:
Yes they will refer his case to the Court of Appeal: 1 vote
No, because there are no grounds: 11 votes
No, because the establishment will not allow it: 11 votes
No, because the CCRC are inept: 3 votes
I live in hope: 4 votes
-
Tell me you are conspiract theorist without telling me you are a conspiracy theorist
So many of Bamber's supportersare conspiracy theorists. We are told that the latest CCRC submission if full of compelling arguments, both material which undermines the conviction and material which actually proves innocence (e.g. Sheila still being alive at 6:09 and lack of liver mortis), and at 1,000+ pages it is very detailed.
If the CCRC submission is so compelling, inevitably the CCRC will refer his case to the Court of Appeal, especially as it only needs a "real possibility" of success.
But many Bamber supporters don't believe that. They think "the establishment" are controlling the CCRC and deliberately stopping it from making a referral.
But this is impossible as the CCRC and the Court of Appeal are both independent of the government (and independent of each other) and their is no mechanism for the "establishment" to stand in the way of referral or a successful appeal!
In the Facebook group: Jeremy Bamber (and other) Discussion group, I asked the question in a poll:
"Will the CCRC refer Jeremy's case to the Court of Appeal and if not why not?" and results were:
Yes they will refer his case to the Court of Appeal: 1 vote
No, because there are no grounds: 11 votes
No, because the establishment will not allow it: 11 votes
No, because the CCRC are inept: 3 votes
I live in hope: 4 votes
What's the definition of a supporter? And how many does JB have? In 2025 the population of planet earth is circa 8.2 billion, so 30 votes in your poll is not exactly representative of the global population!
As I see it 'supporters' are akin to all groups with a common interest where each individual sits on a spectrum. Much the same as you have moderate and extreme views with regards to religion, politics etc. A lot of extremism born out of an ignorance of the facts and dogma:
It was only through debating the case with harcore guilters such as Bridget, Hartley, John, Myster, Puglove and Scipio that I learned more about the case and became convinced of JB's innocence. I have those guys to thank for my knowledge. Had I listened to the CT and the likes of Bubo and Snow I might well have walked away unconvinced either way.
-
What's the definition of a supporter? And how many does JB have? In 2025 the population of planet earth is circa 8.2 billion, so 30 votes in your poll is not exactly representative of the global population!
As I see it 'supporters' are akin to all groups with a common interest where each individual sits on a spectrum. Much the same as you have moderate and extreme views with regards to religion, politics etc. A lot of extremism born out of an ignorance of the facts and dogma:
It was only through debating the case with harcore guilters such as Bridget, Hartley, John, Myster, Puglove and Scipio that I learned more about the case and became convinced of JB's innocence. I have those guys to thank for my knowledge. Had I listened to the CT and the likes of Bubo and Snow I might well have walked away unconvinced either way.
Ha ha! Thanks Cutie!
-
It was only through debating the case with harcore guilters such as *** John, Myster, Puglove *** that I learned more about the case and became convinced of JB's innocence. I have those guys to thank for my knowledge.
Really? Are you serious?
-
What's the definition of a supporter? And how many does JB have? In 2025 the population of planet earth is circa 8.2 billion, so 30 votes in your poll is not exactly representative of the global population!
As I see it 'supporters' are akin to all groups with a common interest where each individual sits on a spectrum. Much the same as you have moderate and extreme views with regards to religion, politics etc. A lot of extremism born out of an ignorance of the facts and dogma:
It was only through debating the case with harcore guilters such as Bridget, Hartley, John, Myster, Puglove and Scipio that I learned more about the case and became convinced of JB's innocence. I have those guys to thank for my knowledge. Had I listened to the CT and the likes of Bubo and Snow I might well have walked away unconvinced either way.
From post 14/08/21
"Like many Jeremy supporters I have spent hours pondering the Silencer evidence. When I first started my investigations I took a completely neutral stance. I started with the notion that both the police and Jeremy were telling the truth and that somehow quite by chance in a psychotic episode Sheila had framed Jeremy by her actions in creating the crime scene."
My views are based on information latterly acquired from persons who will remain anonymous and my detailed examination of the documentation provided on the forum.
It is clear, to me at least, that JB was framed by EP. The next question to be answered is why?. Many moons ago Zoso said why would EP go to all this effort to frame a 24 year old farmers adopted son.
My view to which I am entitled is that EP had something they had to hide. Something which warranted the enormous lengths they engaged in order to obtain a conviction.
-
Tell me you are conspiract theorist without telling me you are a conspiracy theorist
So many of Bamber's supporters are conspiracy theorists. We are told that the latest CCRC submission if full of compelling arguments, both material which undermines the conviction and material which actually proves innocence (e.g. Sheila still being alive at 6:09 and lack of liver mortis), and at 1,000+ pages it is very detailed.
If the CCRC submission is so compelling, inevitably the CCRC will refer his case to the Court of Appeal, especially as it only needs a "real possibility" of success.
But many Bamber supporters don't believe that. They think "the establishment" are controlling the CCRC and deliberately stopping it from making a referral.
But this is impossible as the CCRC and the Court of Appeal are both independent of the government (and independent of each other) and their is no mechanism for the "establishment" to stand in the way of referral or a successful appeal!
In the Facebook group: Jeremy Bamber (and other) Discussion group, I asked the question in a poll:
"Will the CCRC refer Jeremy's case to the Court of Appeal and if not why not?" and results were:
Yes they will refer his case to the Court of Appeal: 1 vote
No, because there are no grounds: 11 votes
No, because the establishment will not allow it: 11 votes
No, because the CCRC are inept: 3 votes
I live in hope: 4 votes
I wanted to split my vote across the bottom two choices. Apparently I am a 'conspiracy theorist' in any event (I am on board with opinion that security services are involved in various terror incidents).
-
Ha ha! Thanks Cutie!
Well this whole Aga burn thing is utter nonsense. I'm sorry but it is.
-
Really? Are you serious?
Yes! Eg Puglove would go on about the lack of fingerprints on the rifle. This caused me to go off and find out why. I then discovered that certain surfaces, especially firearms, are difficult to recover fingerprints from.
Myster and I mass debated quite happily together and spent hours going over the scene of crime evidence which then led to the soc reconstruction.
-
From post 14/08/21
"Like many Jeremy supporters I have spent hours pondering the Silencer evidence. When I first started my investigations I took a completely neutral stance. I started with the notion that both the police and Jeremy were telling the truth and that somehow quite by chance in a psychotic episode Sheila had framed Jeremy by her actions in creating the crime scene."
My views are based on information latterly acquired from persons who will remain anonymous and my detailed examination of the documentation provided on the forum.
It is clear, to me at least, that JB was framed by EP. The next question to be answered is why?. Many moons ago Zoso said why would EP go to all this effort to frame a 24 year old farmers adopted son.
My view to which I am entitled is that EP had something they had to hide. Something which warranted the enormous lengths they engaged in order to obtain a conviction.
Need I say more... ::)
-
I wanted to split my vote across the bottom two choices. Apparently I am a 'conspiracy theorist' in any event (I am on board with opinion that security services are involved in various terror incidents).
You will be like a bear with a sore head when the CCRC throw out the most recent submissions.
-
Well this whole Aga burn thing is utter nonsense. I'm sorry but it is.
What is your take on the marks Cutie?
Old war wounds, or at least made sometime before the murders?
Or, made on the night of the murders with rifle or poker? [for what reason??]
-
You will be like a bear with a sore head when the CCRC throw out the most recent submissions.
Not sure about that. I've consistently said it won't be referred. I'm with the critics of the CCRC. They do desktop reviews. I also think some stuff will be dismissed because it's not tight enough to get around alternative explanations.
-
What is your take on the marks Cutie?
Old war wounds, or at least made sometime before the murders?
Or, made on the night of the murders with rifle or poker? [for what reason??]
Surgical hardware.
-
You will be like a bear with a sore head when the CCRC throw out the most recent submissions.
Why will they throw out the most recent submissions? Because the submissions have no substance or because "the establishment won't allow it"?
-
Not sure about that. I've consistently said it won't be referred. I'm with the critics of the CCRC. They do desktop reviews. I also think some stuff will be dismissed because it's not tight enough to get around alternative explanations.
Of course they do desktop reviews. Its not the CCRC's role to carry out an investigation.
-
Not sure about that. I've consistently said it won't be referred. I'm with the critics of the CCRC. They do desktop reviews. I also think some stuff will be dismissed because it's not tight enough to get around alternative explanations.
But Roch, if the submissions are so compelling, why do they need to do more than "desktop reviews"? We are told that they already have evidence that sound moderator was not on the gun, that Sheila was still alive at 6:09 and so on.
-
Of course they do desktop reviews. Its not the CCRC's role to carry out an investigation.
This is correct. If you were applying directly to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal (you can do this twice following a conviction, within 28 days or longer if an extension is granted), you wouldn't expect the Court of Appeal to carry out an investigation.
-
Why will they throw out the most recent submissions? Because the submissions have no substance or because "the establishment won't allow it"?
Because they go nowhere near the CPS criteria for an appeal.
-
Of course they do desktop reviews. Its not the CCRC's role to carry out an investigation.
We are the Criminal Cases Review Commission or ‘CCRC’ for short. We investigate miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
If you think you’ve been wrongly sentenced or wrongly convicted of a criminal offence and you’ve lost your appeal, you can apply to us free of charge.
There’s no time limit on your application and we can look at old cases. If our investigation finds something new in your case, we can send it for a fresh appeal.
You can visit our website to use our online application form.
Or you can ask for an application form by contacting us via phone, email or post.
Our application forms are easy to fill in and you don’t need help from a solicitor to apply.
If you’re unable to complete the form yourself, friends and family members can act as your representative.
Asking for an investigation from the CCRC is completely free.
We’re paid for by the Ministry of Justice and we will never ask you or your representatives for money, no matter how long we work on your case.
The CCRC is independent. This means we don’t work for the police, the courts or the prosecution. But it also means we don’t work for you in the same way that a solicitor would.
Our job is to investigate your case closely, in a fair and impartial way.
We use our special powers to ask for things like police papers and secret materials from all public bodies to investigate your case.
The law says that if we ask for materials, they have to be sent to us.
The CCRC is the only body that can request information in this way. We use our powers carefully and only when we need to.
If our investigation finds something new in your case, like a change in the law, new evidence or a new witness statement we can send your case back to the appeal court.
The CCRC is the only organisation with the power to do this.
The CCRC is the very last stage of the Criminal Justice System.
Anyone who believes they’ve been wrongly convicted of a criminal offence in England, Wales or Northern Ireland can ask the CCRC to review their case.
But you usually need to appeal to the court before applying to us.
If you lose your appeal and apply to us, we can carry out a fair and independent investigation of your case free of charge.
To find out more about the CCRC and how we can help you, give us a call.
-
We are the Criminal Cases Review Commission or ‘CCRC’ for short. We investigate miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
If you think you’ve been wrongly sentenced or wrongly convicted of a criminal offence and you’ve lost your appeal, you can apply to us free of charge.
There’s no time limit on your application and we can look at old cases. If our investigation finds something new in your case, we can send it for a fresh appeal.
You can visit our website to use our online application form.
Or you can ask for an application form by contacting us via phone, email or post.
Our application forms are easy to fill in and you don’t need help from a solicitor to apply.
If you’re unable to complete the form yourself, friends and family members can act as your representative.
Asking for an investigation from the CCRC is completely free.
We’re paid for by the Ministry of Justice and we will never ask you or your representatives for money, no matter how long we work on your case.
The CCRC is independent. This means we don’t work for the police, the courts or the prosecution. But it also means we don’t work for you in the same way that a solicitor would.
Our job is to investigate your case closely, in a fair and impartial way.
We use our special powers to ask for things like police papers and secret materials from all public bodies to investigate your case.
The law says that if we ask for materials, they have to be sent to us.
The CCRC is the only body that can request information in this way. We use our powers carefully and only when we need to.
If our investigation finds something new in your case, like a change in the law, new evidence or a new witness statement we can send your case back to the appeal court.
The CCRC is the only organisation with the power to do this.
The CCRC is the very last stage of the Criminal Justice System.
Anyone who believes they’ve been wrongly convicted of a criminal offence in England, Wales or Northern Ireland can ask the CCRC to review their case.
But you usually need to appeal to the court before applying to us.
If you lose your appeal and apply to us, we can carry out a fair and independent investigation of your case free of charge.
To find out more about the CCRC and how we can help you, give us a call.
Yes it will investigate if material is submitted meets the criteria. Eg the photographic evidence from Peter Sutherst. But its not in the business of wild goose chases on the Aga burns and the like.
-
Yes! Eg Puglove would go on about the lack of fingerprints on the rifle. This caused me to go off and find out why. I then discovered that certain surfaces, especially firearms, are difficult to recover fingerprints from.
Myster and I mass debated quite happily together and spent hours going over the scene of crime evidence which then led to the soc reconstruction.
They were both dreadful. In particular Puglove was an obnoxious abusive alcoholic who should have been prosecuted for some of her online trolling and abuse which went well beyond the limits of online banter. Myster was part of forum sock puppet dual identity on that forum. For a long time that forum was a vehicle for trolling behaviour and the police were involved several times within my direct knowledge. If you want details I can tell you.
-
Yes it will investigate if material is submitted meets the criteria. Eg the photographic evidence from Peter Sutherst. But its not in the business of wild goose chases on the Aga burns and the like.
Did you know the Peter Sutherst report is back with the CCRC in the latest submission !! I am told (by Simon Kelly of the Campaign Team) that "we know have high resolution images* and these prove that Sutherst was right all along".
Incredible these people! They will never admit that any of their predecessors arguments were wrong!
* high resolution = enlargements
-
They were both dreadful. In particular Puglove was an obnoxious abusive alcoholic who should have been prosecuted for some of her online trolling and abuse which went well beyond the limits of online banter. Myster was part of forum sock puppet dual identity on that forum. For a long time that forum was a vehicle for trolling behaviour and the police were involved several times within my direct knowledge. If you want details I can tell you.
Have you seen some of the trolling which takes place in the Facebook groups?
-
Have you seen some of the trolling which takes place in the Facebook groups?
Yes, even at some point having one individual who is staunch " pro jeremy " post a derogatory remark on my business page. The guy was a weirdo.
I think you have a good idea who the person is!, and I lean to innocence!
I can't personally be doing with the FB groups, like a mothers meeting tit for tat load of bollocks if I'm honest. Although " banter " between members can exist on here. This is the best forum by a country mile.
Believe many of the FB posters are influenced by the 2020 drama. Just my opinion. It's not a serious place for discussion.
-
They were both dreadful. In particular Puglove was an obnoxious abusive alcoholic who should have been prosecuted for some of her online trolling and abuse which went well beyond the limits of online banter. Myster was part of forum sock puppet dual identity on that forum. For a long time that forum was a vehicle for trolling behaviour and the police were involved several times within my direct knowledge. If you want details I can tell you.
You are just miffed because Puglove didn't appreciate your hairstyle ;D
To the best of my knowledge Myster was someone with the initials P? (can't immediately find old emails from him). I am pretty sure he was not part of a forum sock puppet.
-
Yes it will investigate if material is submitted meets the criteria. Eg the photographic evidence from Peter Sutherst. But its not in the business of wild goose chases on the Aga burns and the like.
'and the like' is stretching it a bit, as an accurate label for the rest of the submissions other than the aga burns. You can only really pretend to ignore Henley's general findings regarding the CCRC. And his findings are in tune with the concerns writ large all over the CCRC Watch articles. Ergo CCRC Watch was and is on the right track. It pre-dates Henley..
-
Surgical hardware.
Didn't Vanezis say 'recent', strongly hinting that they were made on the night of the murders, Cutie?
Indeed, why get experts to try and work out what made the marks and discuss them at trial unless they were quite sure the marks were made to Nevills back that night?
Surely the CCRC will have to keep this in mind?
-
'and the like' is stretching it a bit, as an accurate label for the rest of the submissions other than the aga burns. You can only really pretend to ignore Henley's general findings regarding the CCRC. And his findings are in tune with the concerns writ large all over the CCRC Watch articles. Ergo CCRC Watch was and is on the right track. It pre-dates Henley..
The CCRC watch articles on Bamber are incredible cranky.
-
Did you know the Peter Sutherst report is back with the CCRC in the latest submission !! I am told (by Simon Kelly of the Campaign Team) that "we know have high resolution images* and these prove that Sutherst was right all along".
Incredible these people! They will never admit that any of their predecessors arguments were wrong!
* high resolution = enlargements
Well at least they were on the right track with PS ie attempting to discredit the silencer. I thought the CCRC employed the services of its own expert who undermined PS's work. But the upshot was that PS needed to undertake further work and for whatever reason(s) this wasn't done, perhaps due to costs.
-
They were both dreadful. In particular Puglove was an obnoxious abusive alcoholic who should have been prosecuted for some of her online trolling and abuse which went well beyond the limits of online banter. Myster was part of forum sock puppet dual identity on that forum. For a long time that forum was a vehicle for trolling behaviour and the police were involved several times within my direct knowledge. If you want details I can tell you.
But Red isn't the only forum to harbour trolls, is it? Why are theirs any worse than others?
-
The CCRC watch articles on Bamber are incredible cranky.
Is Henley cranky? His criticisms are the same as CCRC Watch's criticisms.
-
In all honesty no matter what side of the coin you believe how can an individual get kicks trolling/sock puppeting over what is a criminal case involving the deaths of five people , two of them children?
If you believe him guilty then fair enough, I can't see what agenda someone would have in trolling or trying to damage the cause of an individual unless directly related to the case. What is the personal gain?
-
But Roch, if the submissions are so compelling, why do they need to do more than "desktop reviews"? We are told that they already have evidence that sound moderator was not on the gun, that Sheila was still alive at 6:09 and so on.
I see where you're coming from. I'm guessing the submissions tell the CCRC where they need to look. Malkinson said they wanted everything handed to them on a plate. It should say that in their 'about us' section I posted up..
-
Didn't Vanezis say 'recent', strongly hinting that they were made on the night of the murders, Cutie?
Indeed, why get experts to try and work out what made the marks and discuss them at trial unless they were quite sure the marks were made to Nevills back that night?
Surely the CCRC will have to keep this in mind?
I've explained my thoughts about this before snow66! Yes the marks were caused on the night. When someone dies blood pools in the lowest parts of the body. If you consider NB's found position the location of the marks was the highest part of his body. His spine was stretched and his head pointing towards the floor. As a result of all of this the surgical hardware started to protrude through the skin from the inside and caused the 3 marks.
It doesn't really matter anyway because the marks could not and will not ever assist JB with the CCRC/CoA. They didn't form part of the prosecution case against JB. The expert evidence at trial was inconclusive. And more importantly it doesn't strike at the heart of the prosecution case against JB ie the blood in the silencer.
-
In all honesty no matter what side of the coin you believe how can an individual get kicks trolling/sock puppeting over what is a criminal case involving the deaths of five people , two of them children?
If you believe him guilty then fair enough, I can't see what agenda someone would have in trolling or trying to damage the cause of an individual unless directly related to the case. What is the personal gain?
Well I think they are so convinced JB is guilty they find the likes of those who they regard as 'supporters' as quite unpalatable.
-
I've explained my thoughts about this before snow66! Yes the marks were caused on the night. When someone dies blood pools in the lowest parts of the body. If you consider NB's found position the location of the marks was the highest part of his body. His spine was stretched and his head pointing towards the floor. As a result of all of this the surgical hardware started to protrude through the skin from the inside and caused the 3 marks.
It doesn't really matter anyway because the marks could not and will not ever assist JB with the CCRC/CoA. They didn't form part of the prosecution case against JB. The expert evidence at trial was inconclusive. And more importantly it doesn't strike at the heart of the prosecution case against JB ie the blood in the silencer.
Silencer and JM
-
Have you seen some of the trolling which takes place in the Facebook groups?
I have seen some of it. it is disgusting. It is why I do not participate.
-
Silencer and JM
Blood.
-
I see where you're coming from. I'm guessing the submissions tell the CCRC where they need to look. Malkinson said they wanted everything handed to them on a plate. It should say that in their 'about us' section I posted up..
Again, we are told that the submissions contain "irrefutable" proof of the Campaign Teams claim. In other words, they say the CCRC should made a referral on several grounds even without any further investigation. Supposedly, the CCRC already have the evidence "on a plate".
-
Well I think they are so convinced JB is guilty they find the likes of those who they regard as 'supporters' as quite unpalatable.
My grandmother once said " Tony Martin should have swung, he looks a swine, granted though he did shoot someone dead. Albeit breaking into his farmhouse.
Will never forget that tea and biscuit conversation.
You get the insinuation though.
-
Have you seen some of the trolling which takes place in the Facebook groups?
Can you provide a link please?
-
Blood.
Who's?
-
You are just miffed because Puglove didn't appreciate your hairstyle ;D
To the best of my knowledge Myster was someone with the initials P? (can't immediately find old emails from him). I am pretty sure he was not part of a forum sock puppet.
I objected to "Puglove" (I could name her but I will not at this point even though I am tempted) because she is pure scum. She has no idea about my hairstyle - only David has had the privilege of meeting me! I have a full head of hair! I think he will confirm that Puglove's drunken rantings on this were completely wide of the mark. Myster was certainly part of a sock puppet duo. I am afraid I know a lot more about the characters associated with that forum than you do.
-
I have seen some of it. it is disgusting. It is why I do not participate.
To be clear, some of the so called Bamber supporters are abusive idiots. They harm his cause. Unfortunately there is an almost tribal approach sometimes which results in some good people failing to take a stand against the idiots. I could say a lot more but will not at this stage.
-
I've explained my thoughts about this before snow66! Yes the marks were caused on the night. When someone dies blood pools in the lowest parts of the body. If you consider NB's found position the location of the marks was the highest part of his body. His spine was stretched and his head pointing towards the floor. As a result of all of this the surgical hardware started to protrude through the skin from the inside and caused the 3 marks.
It doesn't really matter anyway because the marks could not and will not ever assist JB with the CCRC/CoA. They didn't form part of the prosecution case against JB. The expert evidence at trial was inconclusive. And more importantly it doesn't strike at the heart of the prosecution case against JB ie the blood in the silencer.
Why didn't Vanezis find details of the surgical hardware in Nevills medical records, Cutie?
In fact if you are correct, all the CCRC has to do is access Nevs records to rule out the Aga evidence.
-
Why didn't Vanezis find details of the surgical hardware in Nevills medical records, Cutie?
In fact if you are correct, all the CCRC has to do is access Nevs records and rule out the Aga evidence.
Probably because he didn't bother requesting them. Why would he when his main objective was to establish the cause of death which was caused by gunshot wounds not 3 marks on his back.
The CCRC do not need to rule out the 'Aga evidence' because it doesn't meet the criteria. I don't understand why you're unable/unwilling to understand it?
-
Who's?
Its the blood evidence that needs undermining.
-
I objected to "Puglove" (I could name her but I will not at this point even though I am tempted) because she is pure scum. She has no idea about my hairstyle - only David has had the privilege of meeting me! I have a full head of hair! I think he will confirm that Puglove's drunken rantings on this were completely wide of the mark. Myster was certainly part of a sock puppet duo. I am afraid I know a lot more about the characters associated with that forum than you do.
I know there was a lot of animosity between this forum and the so-called Red forum but I think much of it was before my time.
Are you sure about Myster?
-
I know there was a lot of animosity between this forum and the so-called Red forum but I think much of it was before my time.
Are you sure about Myster?
Actually it was not before your time. It started when you were a member here under your first username Egap1. You were aware of it I know. It was not simply animosity. It was disgusting trolling and abuse which crossed over into criminal behaviour and it was all from one side. The first iteration of the so called "Red forum" was closed down and the police were involved at least twice in relation to the current iteration (the Columbia based one). You know what went on because you had joined the "Red forum" and were appointed a moderator during the time this was going on.
-
I objected to "Puglove" (I could name her but I will not at this point even though I am tempted) because she is pure scum. She has no idea about my hairstyle - only David has had the privilege of meeting me! I have a full head of hair! I think he will confirm that Puglove's drunken rantings on this were completely wide of the mark. Myster was certainly part of a sock puppet duo. I am afraid I know a lot more about the characters associated with that forum than you do.
When I first joined the forums, Puglove told me you wore a wig. Hence you were bald in my forum comic.
Can confirm its not true.
-
Why will they throw out the most recent submissions? Because the submissions have no substance or because "the establishment won't allow it"?
Both depending on the substance.
-
Can you provide a link please?
Sure, in this Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/585553595576667/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/585553595576667/)
A good example is this post by Andy Rigsby on the 14th February 2024. As Andy Rigsby has written articles about Jeremy Bamber and written to him, you will note how two Bamber supporters felt the need to discredit him personally and accuse him of lying etc.
If you scroll down, Mary claims to have spoken to Jeremy who "used up his allowance" to check confirming to her that he had never corresponded with Andy Rigsby, then Andy Risby posted an excerpt from a letter as proof!
Notice him accuse many other guilters of "gaslighting"
-
Sure, in this Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/585553595576667/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/585553595576667/)
A good example is this post by Andy Rigsby on the 14th February 2024. As Andy Rigsby has written articles about Jeremy Bamber and written to him, you will note how two Bamber supporters felt the need to discredit him personally and accuse him of lying etc.
If you scroll down, Mary claims to have spoken to Jeremy who "used up his allowance" to check confirming to her that he had never corresponded with Andy Rigsby, then Andy Risby posted an excerpt from a letter as proof!
Notice him accuse many other guilters of "gaslighting"
Note, for example, she suggested Andy Rigsby was "invited" into the group which was false!
-
Sure, in this Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/585553595576667/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/585553595576667/)
A good example is this post by Andy Rigsby on the 14th February 2024. As Andy Rigsby has written articles about Jeremy Bamber and written to him, you will note how two Bamber supporters felt the need to discredit him personally and accuse him of lying etc.
If you scroll down, Mary claims to have spoken to Jeremy who "used up his allowance" to check confirming to her that he had never corresponded with Andy Rigsby, then Andy Risby posted an excerpt from a letter as proof!
Notice him accuse many other guilters of "gaslighting"
I wouldn't say meeting up with Chris Bews and visiting Tolleshunt D'Arcy is exactly in depth research.
I've met Michael Turner KC and I once walked passed Chelmsford crown court. By this guys benchmark i'm an authority on the subject. ::)
-
Sure, in this Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/585553595576667/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/585553595576667/)
A good example is this post by Andy Rigsby on the 14th February 2024. As Andy Rigsby has written articles about Jeremy Bamber and written to him, you will note how two Bamber supporters felt the need to discredit him personally and accuse him of lying etc.
If you scroll down, Mary claims to have spoken to Jeremy who "used up his allowance" to check confirming to her that he had never corresponded with Andy Rigsby, then Andy Risby posted an excerpt from a letter as proof!
Notice him accuse many other guilters of "gaslighting"
Jeremy must get very frustrated if he receives bollocks like this in correspondance while trying to clear his name. In more ways than one.
-
Actually it was not before your time. It started when you were a member here under your first username Egap1. You were aware of it I know. It was not simply animosity. It was disgusting trolling and abuse which crossed over into criminal behaviour and it was all from one side. The first iteration of the so called "Red forum" was closed down and the police were involved at least twice in relation to the current iteration (the Columbia based one). You know what went on because you had joined the "Red forum" and were appointed a moderator during the time this was going on.
But I didn't join here until Feb 2012. I thought a lot of it went on before then? I know Jackie claimed she had an Indian takeaway delivered to her home address courtesy of the Red forum.
I had no knowledge of police involvement. If I remember correctly I was appointed a mod during 2014. I removed about 2/3 posts which involved your personal life but other than this all I saw was what I regarded as banter which was certainly no worse than what I sustain here from the likes of David.
Not convinced about Myster. We exchanged a number of pm's and emails on the basis he was 'Myster' with an authentic first name that begins with P. He seemed like the perfect gent to me.
-
When I first joined the forums, Puglove told me you wore a wig. Hence you were bald in my forum comic.
Can confirm its not true.
How would you know its not true unless you had a little tug at his 'hair' to determine its not in fact a wig ;)
-
I wouldn't say meeting up with Chris Bews and visiting Tolleshunt D'Arcy is exactly in depth research.
I've metMichael Turner KC and I once walked passed Chelmsford crown court. By this guys benchmark i'm an authority on the subject. ::)
You are starting to sound like Paul Harrison. You claimed you went to his office to drop off your 'forensic evidence breakthrough' and bumped into MT outside his chambers on a fag break.
-
Sure, in this Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/585553595576667/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/585553595576667/)
A good example is this post by Andy Rigsby on the 14th February 2024. As Andy Rigsby has written articles about Jeremy Bamber and written to him, you will note how two Bamber supporters felt the need to discredit him personally and accuse him of lying etc.
If you scroll down, Mary claims to have spoken to Jeremy who "used up his allowance" to check confirming to her that he had never corresponded with Andy Rigsby, then Andy Risby posted an excerpt from a letter as proof!
Notice him accuse many other guilters of "gaslighting"
Thanks. Sounds like a lot of nonsense. I don't expect you learn much about the facts of the case in that place.
-
Thanks. Sounds like a lot of nonsense. I don't expect you learn much about the facts of the case in that place.
Correct. In that group, many of the prominent Bamber supporters are convinced that Bamber is innocent due to photos supposedly showing Sheila still bleeding and lacking liver mortis. These two arguments are about 20 years old and stem from the De Stephano era.
-
I objected to "Puglove" (I could name her but I will not at this point even though I am tempted) because she is pure scum. She has no idea about my hairstyle - only David has had the privilege of meeting me! I have a full head of hair! I think he will confirm that Puglove's drunken rantings on this were completely wide of the mark. Myster was certainly part of a sock puppet duo. I am afraid I know a lot more about the characters associated with that forum than you do.
Very clearly, you experienced a very different "Puglove" to the one I experienced, NGB. She was nothing but pleasant and courteous in my exchanges with her, both on line and by PM. As for "Myster"? I was in contact with him, by phone, for quite some time. I have no idea what is meant by "a sock puppet duo" so I can't comment. However, there was once a poster on here who not only threatened to have my qualifications revoked, but also with the police, and visits from her 'friends' who knew where I lived! Back then, I was too much of a novice to know such wasn't possible. I'm inclined to take, with a pinch -a ton!- of salt, claims made about receiving takeaways courtesy of another forum. How would any of them, unless she'd made a point of telling them her address or invited those local to her round for drinks, know where she lived?
-
I wouldn't say meeting up with Chris Bews and visiting Tolleshunt D'Arcy is exactly in depth research.
I've met Michael Turner KC and I once walked passed Chelmsford crown court. By this guys benchmark i'm an authority on the subject. ::)
The point is, Andy Rigsby was being accused of lying and was ganged up against.
-
The latest CCRC headline is the latest in a long line of bad press that are continually ignored by many interested parties in this case.
-
The latest CCRC headline is the latest in a long line of bad press that are continually ignored by many interested parties in this case.
No one is saying the organisation is a beacon for efficiency but its irrelevant in terms of JB's case because nothing has been submitted that meets the CPS criteria for a successful acquittal let alone a referral to CoA.
In 2001 material was submitted that potentially met the CPS criteria for a successful acquittal hence it was referred to CoA.
-
The point is, Andy Rigsby was being accused of lying and was ganged up against.
I'm guess that the reason he was "ganged up against" was due to those who were lying through their teeth, possibly lead by a firearms 'expert' and a 'mental nurse'? being fully aware AR was telling the truth and needing to discredit him, to which end they set about inciting their sychophants.
-
No one is saying the organisation is a beacon for efficiency but its irrelevant in terms of JB's case because nothing has been submitted that meets the CPS criteria for a successful acquittal let alone a referral to CoA.
In 2001 material was submitted that potentially met the CPS criteria for a successful acquittal hence it was referred to CoA.
Many, including yourself, use it as a bench marker for the veracity and/relevance of JB's submissions. It's either fit for purpose or the criticisms are correct. I repeat, the criticisms in CCRC Watch pre-date the criticisms of Henley. But both match up.
-
Many, including yourself, use it as a bench marker for the veracity and/relevance of JB's submissions. It's either fit for purpose or the criticisms are correct. I repeat, the criticisms in CCRC Watch pre-date the criticisms of Henley. But both match up.
Its irrelevant in terms of JB's case.
-
The point is, Andy Rigsby was being accused of lying and was ganged up against.
Well its Facebook. Happens all the time.
-
Its irrelevant in terms of JB's case.
So you claim. But the criticisms match. Yesterday you claimed it's not the CCRC's job to investigate. Which is in direct contradiction to their own explanation of what they do.
-
Very clearly, you experienced a very different "Puglove" to the one I experienced, NGB. She was nothing but pleasant and courteous in my exchanges with her, both on line and by PM. As for "Myster"? I was in contact with him, by phone, for quite some time. I have no idea what is meant by "a sock puppet duo" so I can't comment. However, there was once a poster on here who not only threatened to have my qualifications revoked, but also with the police, and visits from her 'friends' who knew where I lived! Back then, I was too much of a novice to know such wasn't possible. I'm inclined to take, with a pinch -a ton!- of salt, claims made about receiving takeaways courtesy of another forum. How would any of them, unless she'd made a point of telling them her address or invited those local to her round for drinks, know where she lived?
You are completely whitewashing what happened. You were aware of the filth and you chose to look the other way. I called you out on it at the time. I can assure you that the reports to the police were real and some action was taken. You can scoff all you like but I have inside knowledge of this. I am obviously pleased for you that you found congenial the vile Puglove (or Pugugly as I recall you calling her privately before you joined that forum). However, she was at serious risk of prosecution.
I have no sense of humour on this and only call it out now because there are members here who did not experience the horror of what went on and I do not want them to be lulled into believing there was only a bit of harmless banter Around six members here were subjected to the most vile abuse. Some here rallied to defend them, risking attacks themselves. Others chose to look the other way, preferring to keep in the good books of the abusers. You remember the filthy attacks on Grahame's daughter don't you Jane? Did you call them out on it?
-
Sure, in this Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/585553595576667/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/585553595576667/)
A good example is this post by Andy Rigsby on the 14th February 2024. As Andy Rigsby has written articles about Jeremy Bamber and written to him, you will note how two Bamber supporters felt the need to discredit him personally and accuse him of lying etc.
If you scroll down, Mary claims to have spoken to Jeremy who "used up his allowance" to check confirming to her that he had never corresponded with Andy Rigsby, then Andy Risby posted an excerpt from a letter as proof!
Notice him accuse many other guilters of "gaslighting"
I have see some of that material. It is really dreadful and supporters like this do nothing but harm to JB's case in my view. I have raised it but nothing is done to curb it. Good people have been driven away.
-
Jeremy must get very frustrated if he receives bollocks like this in correspondance while trying to clear his name. In more ways than one.
I totally agree. This has happened over a long period, with disastrous results.
-
But I didn't join here until Feb 2012. I thought a lot of it went on before then? I know Jackie claimed she had an Indian takeaway delivered to her home address courtesy of the Red forum.
I had no knowledge of police involvement. If I remember correctly I was appointed a mod during 2014. I removed about 2/3 posts which involved your personal life but other than this all I saw was what I regarded as banter which was certainly no worse than what I sustain here from the likes of David.
Not convinced about Myster. We exchanged a number of pm's and emails on the basis he was 'Myster' with an authentic first name that begins with P. He seemed like the perfect gent to me.
You were here and then on the red forum when the worst of this happened. You know very well that much of it was way beyond banter and some of it was criminal. You have mentioned Bridget - she was an active guilter on the red forum and was utterly disgusted by posts. She called them out on it and left. What you have received from David is nothing compared to the material I know you saw repeatedly. In any event, David's posts were dealt with by the mods.
Myster had two identities on the red forum. At one time there were a host of duplicate identities. As a mod there I suspect you have some knowledge of this.
-
How would you know its not true unless you had a little tug at his 'hair' to determine its not in fact a wig ;)
Of course at one time I did wear a wig every day for work. However it was a very distinctive horsehair one and I was not wearing it when I met David!
-
Well its Facebook. Happens all the time.
It does, which is why I generally avoid Facebook.
-
So you claim. But the criticisms match. Yesterday you claimed it's not the CCRC's job to investigate. Which is in direct contradiction to their own explanation of what they do.
Stop taking everything literally! The CCRC will investigate if material is submitted that reaches the CPS criteria for an appeal but its not going to investigate the Aga burns, a 999 call etc, etc.
-
You were here and then on the red forum when the worst of this happened. You know very well that much of it was way beyond banter and some of it was criminal. You have mentioned Bridget - she was an active guilter on the red forum and was utterly disgusted by posts. She called them out on it and left. What you have received from David is nothing compared to the material I know you saw repeatedly. In any event, David's posts were dealt with by the mods.
Myster had two identities on the red forum. At one time there were a host of duplicate identities. As a mod there I suspect you have some knowledge of this.
Bridget was a member on the Red forum before I joined this forum. Afaik I wasn't posting anywhere when the worst happened. I read this forum for some months before I actually joined. As I said, when I was a mod, 2014+, I only recall reading and removing about 3 posts from puglove about your current location and a family member. She was pm'd accordingly and afaik it did not happen again. If I read anything that breached forum rules it was dealt with at the time. I don't know anything about any criminal activity. I rarely pm'd or communicated with anyone including Admin/mods other than Myster and that was fairly limited.
Many members here have at one time posted there: Bridget, Hartley, Anglolawyer, David, Zoso, Adam, Jane, Scipio, Hardy Boy, Mat, Alias/Abs, Shona/Puglove, John, Jackie. Probably easier to say who hasn't posted there that has posted here!
-
Stop taking everything literally! The CCRC will investigate if material is submitted that reaches the CPS criteria for an appeal but its not going to investigate the Aga burns, a 999 call etc, etc.
Why can't you just admit when you are wrong? Carrying out desk top reviews is not sufficient investigation in an alleged MOJ. When I see you have fully taken on board criticisms of the CCRC and that you are able to post accordingly, I will be more inclined to take your opinions in this sphere more seriously. I've never been a strong advocate for the alleged 999 call or the alleged Aga marks. Sometimes you forgot who you are responding to.
-
Why can't you just admit when you are wrong? Carrying out desk top reviews is not sufficient investigation in an alleged MOJ. When I see you have fully taken on board criticisms of the CCRC and that you are able to post accordingly, I will be more inclined to take your opinions in this sphere more seriously. I've never been a strong advocate for the alleged 999 call or the alleged Aga marks. Sometimes you forgot who you are responding to.
To what lengths exactly should the CCRC go in investigating this case?
For example, should they fly a private detective out to Canada to ask Julie Mugford whether or not she signed the newspaper deal prior to the end of the trial?
Should the CCRC investigate whether or not local calls were itemised in 1985? (Some Bamber supporters claim the police asked BT to destroy records of call logs)
What should the CCRC do about the submission that there was a training exercise, which led to Sheila being shot a second time?
-
Why can't you just admit when you are wrong? Carrying out desk top reviews is not sufficient investigation in an alleged MOJ. When I see you have fully taken on board criticisms of the CCRC and that you are able to post accordingly, I will be more inclined to take your opinions in this sphere more seriously. I've never been a strong advocate for the alleged 999 call or the alleged Aga marks. Sometimes you forgot who you are responding to.
The CCRC do not just carry out desk top reviews if they're presented with material that meets the criteria as evidenced by the work it undertook in connection with the DNA (2001) and scratch marks (2011/2/?).
-
To what lengths exactly should the CCRC go in investigating this case?
For example, should they fly a private detective out to Canada to ask Julie Mugford whether or not she signed the newspaper deal prior to the end of the trial?
Should the CCRC investigate whether or not local calls were itemised in 1985? (Some Bamber supporters claim the police asked BT to destroy records of call logs)
What should the CCRC do about the submission that there was a training exercise, which led to Sheila being shot a second time?
A root and branch investigation from 1985 to 2025 based on Roch's hunch ;D
-
Why can't you just admit when you are wrong? Carrying out desk top reviews is not sufficient investigation in an alleged MOJ. When I see you have fully taken on board criticisms of the CCRC and that you are able to post accordingly, I will be more inclined to take your opinions in this sphere more seriously. I've never been a strong advocate for the alleged 999 call or the alleged Aga marks. Sometimes you forgot who you are responding to.
What material do you believe has been submitted that merits a referral to CoA?
-
You are completely whitewashing what happened. You were aware of the filth and you chose to look the other way. I called you out on it at the time. I can assure you that the reports to the police were real and some action was taken. You can scoff all you like but I have inside knowledge of this. I am obviously pleased for you that you found congenial the vile Puglove (or Pugugly as I recall you calling her privately before you joined that forum). However, she was at serious risk of prosecution.
I have no sense of humour on this and only call it out now because there are members here who did not experience the horror of what went on and I do not want them to be lulled into believing there was only a bit of harmless banter Around six members here were subjected to the most vile abuse. Some here rallied to defend them, risking attacks themselves. Others chose to look the other way, preferring to keep in the good books of the abusers. You remember the filthy attacks on Grahame's daughter don't you Jane? Did you call them out on it?
You're correct, Neil. I did, indeed, refer to her as "Pug ugly"! I suspect, as I'd have had no other frame of reference, such to have been guided by what was claimed about her here. I can't recall when it was that I made my first, somewhat hesitant, journey over to red, but I'd been a member here for years before I dared! it was nowhere near to being as bad as I'd been led to believe. I most certainly didn't experience, from anyone there, the sort of threats and abuse, I've received, on occasion, from one or two, here. I'm sure "reports to police" occurred. However, whether, as a result, they found a situation which could warrant prosecution, may be questionable, as it may have been the case had I reported, to them, the threats made to me? I could not have been unaware of the acrimony between the two forums. For a time, it was constant.
I do recall the attacks against Grahame's daughter, who, if I recall, was very poorly at the time. You ask "Did you call them out on it?" Well, NO, I didn't because I don't recall that it was ever mentioned on Red, at least, not in my time there. Nor do I recall them being "called out" by anyone here, although Grahame was supported. I do recall, though, that Grahame wasn't very popular, something that he, himself, may have been responsible for? I also recall the obnoxious slurs he made against Dr Craig, as I expect, do you? For the last year of his life, I was in contact with Vic who was, if you recall, a close friend of Grahame. I have no way of knowing how much truth was behind some of what Vic told me. I had no sense of him 'telling tales', but he described someone with a very short fuse who had an unhappy knack of ruffling feathers. I guess, like the rest of us, he called it as he experienced it.
-
You were here and then on the red forum when the worst of this happened. You know very well that much of it was way beyond banter and some of it was criminal. You have mentioned Bridget - she was an active guilter on the red forum and was utterly disgusted by posts. She called them out on it and left. What you have received from David is nothing compared to the material I know you saw repeatedly. In any event, David's posts were dealt with by the mods.
Myster had two identities on the red forum. At one time there were a host of duplicate identities. As a mod there I suspect you have some knowledge of this.
I don't see anything wrong with calling someone out for engaging in debates that require cognitive effort and examination of information, all while being intoxicated (by their own admissions).
It wastes other peoples time and conveys a complete lack of respect for other members and the subject.
There's a time and a place for drinks. A true crime discussion forum is not one of them.
-
To what lengths exactly should the CCRC go in investigating this case?
For example, should they fly a private detective out to Canada to ask Julie Mugford whether or not she signed the newspaper deal prior to the end of the trial?
Should the CCRC investigate whether or not local calls were itemised in 1985? (Some Bamber supporters claim the police asked BT to destroy records of call logs)
What should the CCRC do about the submission that there was a training exercise, which led to Sheila being shot a second time?
This newspaper deal keeps coming up. She went to a solicitor to get the press off her back. I doubt that, at 20, she'd have gone in, actively seeking a deal with the scudiest publication in England. Any deal would have been arranged by the solicitor. Are we supposed to believe that said solicitor allowed her to sign a binding document before the trial's conclusion? Are we supposed to believe that, without counselling her about the potential pitfalls of doing such which could lead to prosecution -wasn't she trying to get herself out of trouble, not jumping, headlong, into more?- he just let her go ahead and jump? I find such very difficult to believe.
-
I don't see anything wrong with calling someone out for engaging in debates that require cognitive effort and examination of information, all while being intoxicated (by their own admissions).
It wastes other peoples time and conveys a complete lack of respect for other members and the subject.
There's a time and a place for drinks. A true crime discussion forum is not one of them.
Sanctimony at its best ::)
I haven't been intoxicated when posting here to the point that I've lost the plot because I haven't been that intoxicated for decades. It is what young people did then David. What's your excuse? You need an excuse for your so-called 'forensic evidence breakthrough' and your theory that blood in the silencer originated from SC's menstrual stained knickers.
-
You're correct, Neil. I did, indeed, refer to her as "Pug ugly"! I suspect, as I'd have had no other frame of reference, such to have been guided by what was claimed about her here. I can't recall when it was that I made my first, somewhat hesitant, journey over to red, but I'd been a member here for years before I dared! it was nowhere near to being as bad as I'd been led to believe. I most certainly didn't experience, from anyone there, the sort of threats and abuse, I've received, on occasion, from one or two, here. I'm sure "reports to police" occurred. However, whether, as a result, they found a situation which could warrant prosecution, may be questionable, as it may have been the case had I reported, to them, the threats made to me? I could not have been unaware of the acrimony between the two forums. For a time, it was constant.
I do recall the attacks against Grahame's daughter, who, if I recall, was very poorly at the time. You ask "Did you call them out on it?" Well, NO, I didn't because I don't recall that it was ever mentioned on Red, at least, not in my time there. Nor do I recall them being "called out" by anyone here, although Grahame was supported. I do recall, though, that Grahame wasn't very popular, something that he, himself, may have been responsible for? I also recall the obnoxious slurs he made against Dr Craig, as I expect, do you? For the last year of his life, I was in contact with Vic who was, if you recall, a close friend of Grahame. I have no way of knowing how much truth was behind some of what Vic told me. I had no sense of him 'telling tales', but he described someone with a very short fuse who had an unhappy knack of ruffling feathers. I guess, like the rest of us, he called it as he experienced it.
This is absolutely unbelievable. You have a very selective memory. You were posting on red at the time of the worst behaviour. You were engaging in banter with those responsible for it. Just one example was the sick attack on Grahame's seriously ill daughter, mocking him by saying she was not really ill but was in fact a crack head prostitute. It was absolutely outrageous and devastating for Grahame. She has sadly since died. It was vile, you saw it but said nothing. It was like the playground with the school bully who attracts others who are basically decent but join in to be accepted and to avoid being picked on themselves. A minority of two there called it out (Bridget and Joanne). Blaming Grahame for bringing it upon himself is outrageous and you ought to be ashamed of yourself by suggesting it. You saw the worst of the abuse from the core gang there. I can assure you that the police were involved and certain people got very worried. Trying to suggest it was equivalent on both sides is rubbish.
I rather hope some long standing members here might back me up on this.
-
This newspaper deal keeps coming up. She went to a solicitor to get the press off her back. I doubt that, at 20, she'd have gone in, actively seeking a deal with the scudiest publication in England. Any deal would have been arranged by the solicitor. Are we supposed to believe that said solicitor allowed her to sign a binding document before the trial's conclusion? Are we supposed to believe that, without counselling her about the potential pitfalls of doing such which could lead to prosecution -wasn't she trying to get herself out of trouble, not jumping, headlong, into more?- he just let her go ahead and jump? I find such very difficult to believe.
Well it happens to be true, save for one detail. There was a concluded contract (in advance of the trial) but it was not signed by Mugford. It was negotiated by her solicitor. I have posted about it in detail in the past so will not repeat it here. If anyone is interested they can use the search facility and find the relevant threads.
-
This is absolutely unbelievable. You have a very selective memory. You were posting on red at the time of the worst behaviour. You were engaging in banter with those responsible for it. Just one example was the sick attack on Grahame's seriously ill daughter, mocking by saying she was not really ill but was in fact a crack head prostitute. It was absolutely outrageous and devastating for Grahame. She has sadly since died. It was vile, you saw it but said nothing. It was like the playground with the school bully who attracts others who are basically decent but join in to be accepted and to avoid being picked on themselves. A minority of two there called it out (Bridget and Joanne). Blaming Grahame from bringing it upon himself is outrageous and you ought to be ashamed of yourself by suggesting it. You saw the worst of the abuse from the core gang there. I can assure you that the police were involved and certain people got very worried. Trying to suggest it was equivalent on both sides is rubbish.
I rather hope some long standing members here might back me up on this.
With respect ngb1066 I think your timings are a little out. The posts re Grahame's daughter and the worst of it took place long before Jane or I joined Red.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2509.msg77636.html#msg77636
I made a few posts on Red around April 2013 and then started posting there regularly around Oct 2013. Jane joined some months after this. By which time a truce had been made by both forums and a lot of material removed.
-
This is absolutely unbelievable. You have a very selective memory. You were posting on red at the time of the worst behaviour. You were engaging in banter with those responsible for it. Just one example was the sick attack on Grahame's seriously ill daughter, mocking him by saying she was not really ill but was in fact a crack head prostitute. It was absolutely outrageous and devastating for Grahame. She has sadly since died. It was vile, you saw it but said nothing. It was like the playground with the school bully who attracts others who are basically decent but join in to be accepted and to avoid being picked on themselves. A minority of two there called it out (Bridget and Joanne). Blaming Grahame for bringing it upon himself is outrageous and you ought to be ashamed of yourself by suggesting it. You saw the worst of the abuse from the core gang there. I can assure you that the police were involved and certain people got very worried. Trying to suggest it was equivalent on both sides is rubbish.
I rather hope some long standing members here might back me up on this.
There seems to be a shift of emphasis here. If memory serves me correctly -and you appear to have doubts on that point- Grahame's frequent name changes once gave rise to comment here. I don't know if he left of his own volition, or if he was banned, but there were times when what he said warranted such. It was disgraceful what was said about his daughter, also an entirely different issue, and of course it would have been devastating for him, but I have no recall of either condoning, or being part of the conversation, although you claim I was aware of it and "did nothing" -actually, despite you're assertion that I was, I don't even recall that I was posting on Red at the time- thankfully, you go on to acknowledge that only two did. I've been a poster here for around 15 years. I very much doubt that more than 3 were spent on Red, during which time I composed a Christmas poem, so it surprises me that my movement between forums has been so closely monitored and scrutinized.
-
With respect ngb1066 I think your timings are a little out. The posts re Grahame's daughter and the worst of it took place long before Jane or I joined Red.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2509.msg77636.html#msg77636
I made a few posts on Red around April 2013 and then started posting there regularly around Oct 2013. Jane joined some months after this. By which time a truce had been made by both forums and a lot of material removed.
Thanks for that, Cc. I was beginning to feel as if a load of 'stuff', which didn't belong there, was being dumped on me.
-
This is absolutely unbelievable. You have a very selective memory. You were posting on red at the time of the worst behaviour. You were engaging in banter with those responsible for it. Just one example was the sick attack on Grahame's seriously ill daughter, mocking him by saying she was not really ill but was in fact a crack head prostitute. It was absolutely outrageous and devastating for Grahame. She has sadly since died. It was vile, you saw it but said nothing. It was like the playground with the school bully who attracts others who are basically decent but join in to be accepted and to avoid being picked on themselves. A minority of two there called it out (Bridget and Joanne). Blaming Grahame for bringing it upon himself is outrageous and you ought to be ashamed of yourself by suggesting it. You saw the worst of the abuse from the core gang there. I can assure you that the police were involved and certain people got very worried. Trying to suggest it was equivalent on both sides is rubbish.
I rather hope some long standing members here might back me up on this.
I hardly posted when Grahame was here, but I used to read the forum, I agree what Red used to say about Grahame was awful, I used to think why does he stay here, I wouldn’t have put up with it. I joined Red when Mike outed my email address, I posted on the Murder of Joanna Yeates on Red, I only posted a few times on the Bamber thread, once to Holy about Ladies football and Man Utd, I was really upset by what Mike did and thankfully NGB responded really quickly to remove what Mike posted about me.
What I can remember there was a guy called Tim and he used to have a go at Jackie and Grahame, I must say, I hardly posted on Blue at the time for fear of being targeted. What I couldn’t understand, after all the trouble Jackie had with them, didn’t she rejoin red again or have I got this wrong, Apologies if I have?
-
I hardly posted when Grahame was here, but I used to read the forum, I agree what Red used to say about Grahame was awful, I used to think why does he stay here, I wouldn’t have put up with it. I joined Red when Mike outed my email address, I posted on the Murder of Joanna Yeates on Red, I only posted a few times on the Bamber thread, once to Holy about Ladies football and Man Utd, I was really upset by what Mike did and thankfully NGB responded really quickly to remove what Mike posted about me.
What I can remember there was a guy called Tim and he used to have a go at Jackie and Grahame, I must say, I hardly posted on Blue at the time for fear of being targeted. What I couldn’t understand, after all the trouble Jackie had with them, didn’t she rejoin red again or have I got this wrong, Apologies if I have?
Thank-you HB! It seems as if all controversy on Blue is being airbrushed out. It's like we're above such behaviours. We're not. It's happened to you and me, and no doubt, it's happened to others. If you go way back to the early posts, many of those on Red now, were once on here and regularly 'partied' on line with JP. I think there must have been some sort of falling out because suddenly, the partying stopped. So, it seems, did the friendship.
-
Thank-you HB! It seems as if all controversy on Blue is being airbrushed out. It's like we're above such behaviours. We're not. It's happened to you and me, and no doubt, it's happened to others. If you go way back to the early posts, many of those on Red now, were once on here and regularly 'partied' on line with JP. I think there must have been some sort of falling out because suddenly, the partying stopped. So, it seems, did the friendship.
Puglove never used to leave him alone, anything Grahame posted it was just met with nasty goading, mainly I think because Grahame stood up to them? It wasn’t very nice at the time Red was set up to Goad Blue, mainly with posters who had been banned from here? It did get better as time went on though?
-
With respect ngb1066 I think your timings are a little out. The posts re Grahame's daughter and the worst of it took place long before Jane or I joined Red.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2509.msg77636.html#msg77636
I made a few posts on Red around April 2013 and then started posting there regularly around Oct 2013. Jane joined some months after this. By which time a truce had been made by both forums and a lot of material removed.
I have checked some of the threads which were removed from here years ago. They provide a contemporary record of all the abuse. Whilst some of this started in 2012 it continued well into 2014 and in fact some some of the worst was at a late stage. I have considered reposting the relevant parts as I am quite sure this would shock our newer members, as well as jogging the memories of some of our longer standing members suffering from selective amnesia. However I will not do that because it will only cause more conflict and would undoubtedly embarrass some members. Nevertheless I do feel strongly about this and I stand by the strong comments I have made.
-
Thank-you HB! It seems as if all controversy on Blue is being airbrushed out. It's like we're above such behaviours. We're not. It's happened to you and me, and no doubt, it's happened to others. If you go way back to the early posts, many of those on Red now, were once on here and regularly 'partied' on line with JP. I think there must have been some sort of falling out because suddenly, the partying stopped. So, it seems, did the friendship.
I wasn’t too much in fear on blue, at the time I had strong feelings JB was innocent and I wouldn’t post much for his innocence in case the Red forum took upon attacking me?
-
Thank-you HB! It seems as if all controversy on Blue is being airbrushed out. It's like we're above such behaviours. We're not. It's happened to you and me, and no doubt, it's happened to others. If you go way back to the early posts, many of those on Red now, were once on here and regularly 'partied' on line with JP. I think there must have been some sort of falling out because suddenly, the partying stopped. So, it seems, did the friendship.
That is rubbish. Are you suggesting that I am airbrushing out controversy here? Are you seriously suggesting that you have suffered abuse here as serious as that originating from the red forum? I accept that HB was abused by Mike Tesko and I immediately removed it. I dealt with other posts by him swiftly. There is really no valid comparison here. I will be charitable now and suggest you must have forgotten. You were certainly aware at the time and were actively posting on the red forum then and never challenged.
-
I have checked some of the threads which were removed from here years ago. They provide a contemporary record of all the abuse. Whilst some of this started in 2012 it continued well into 2014 and in fact some some of the worst was at a late stage. I have considered reposting the relevant parts as I am quite sure this would shock our newer members, as well as jogging the memories of some of our longer standing members suffering from selective amnesia. However I will not do that because it will only cause more conflict and would undoubtedly embarrass some members. Nevertheless I do feel strongly about this and I stand by the strong comments I have made.
Yes NGB it would be about that period, I can’t remember ever posting with Grahame in that period, I hardly posted until I became RJ, I felt out of my depth, I didn’t know how the forum worked, I never could fathom out how everyone was producing documents, not knowing they were in the Archives, as RJ I studied these statements and documents and became confident to post.
-
That is rubbish. Are you suggesting that I am airbrushing out controversy here? Are you seriously suggesting that you have suffered abuse here as serious as that originating from the red forum? I accept that HB was abused by Mike Tesko and I immediately removed it. I dealt with other posts by him swiftly. There is really no valid comparison here. I will be charitable now and suggest you must have forgotten. You were certainly aware at the time and were actively posting on the red forum then and never challenged.
I agree NGB and I’m forever in your debt and not just for doing what you did, but also your assistance with me over the last ten years at least, I owe you a million times NGB and I really mean that, the forum would have been a sad place without your presence and input.
-
I agree NGB and I’m forever in your debt and not just for doing what you did, but also your assistance with me over the last ten years at least, I owe you a million times NGB and I really mean that, the forum would have been a sad place without your presence and input.
Thank you for your kind words and support HB.
-
I have checked some of the threads which were removed from here years ago. They provide a contemporary record of all the abuse. Whilst some of this started in 2012 it continued well into 2014 and in fact some some of the worst was at a late stage. I have considered reposting the relevant parts as I am quite sure this would shock our newer members, as well as jogging the memories of some of our longer standing members suffering from selective amnesia. However I will not do that because it will only cause more conflict and would undoubtedly embarrass some members. Nevertheless I do feel strongly about this and I stand by the strong comments I have made.
That is rubbish. Are you suggesting that I am airbrushing out controversy here? Are you seriously suggesting that you have suffered abuse here as serious as that originating from the red forum? I accept that HB was abused by Mike Tesko and I immediately removed it. I dealt with other posts by him swiftly. There is really no valid comparison here. I will be charitable now and suggest you must have forgotten. You were certainly aware at the time and were actively posting on the red forum then and never challenged.
To the best of my knowledge, Neil, all that happened re Grahame's daughter would have been pre 2012. JP talks about it in April 2012 as already having happened. I didn't join Blue until 2011, so how could I possibly have been a part of those who were talking about it on Red when I didn't join until 2015? No matter, it seems as if much of the responsibility for it is being laid at my door?
Incidentally, I wouldn't want any 'newbies' to believe Grahame was 'sainted'. He had numerous hissy fits, after which he left. I think I'm correct in recalling that, on one occasion, he levied "F****** *****" at a poster. However, I support his right to defend his very poorly daughter.
It's certainly true that I don't know what you know, but under the circumstances, as much of the flak appears to be aimed in my direction, I think it only fair that I know what you know if it includes me. At the very least, I believe I should be given the opportunity to apologize for my alleged memory lapses -perfectly possible- and that I didn't challenge what was done prior to my joining. Such, until I know what I'm alleged to be guilty of, can't be achieved.
-
To the best of my knowledge, Neil, all that happened re Grahame's daughter would have been pre 2012. JP talks about it in April 2012 as already having happened. I didn't join Blue until 2011, so how could I possibly have been a part of those who were talking about it on Red when I didn't join until 2015? No matter, it seems as if much of the responsibility for it is being laid at my door?
Incidentally, I wouldn't want any 'newbies' to believe Grahame was 'sainted'. He had numerous hissy fits, after which he left. I think I'm correct in recalling that, on one occasion, he levied "F****** *****" at a poster. However, I support his right to defend his very poorly daughter.
It's certainly true that I don't know what you know, but under the circumstances, as much of the flak appears to be aimed in my direction, I think it only fair that I know what you know if it includes me. At the very least, I believe I should be given the opportunity to apologize for my alleged memory lapses -perfectly possible- and that I didn't challenge what was done prior to my joining. Such, until I know what I'm alleged to be guilty of, can't be achieved.
I joined this forum in Feb 2012 and I thought you joined afterwards as 'April'? Maybe around April time?
I think a lot of the conflict went on before the likes of us joined ie 2011 when the case was getting press coverage due to the CCRC submission.
-
To the best of my knowledge, Neil, all that happened re Grahame's daughter would have been pre 2012. JP talks about it in April 2012 as already having happened. I didn't join Blue until 2011, so how could I possibly have been a part of those who were talking about it on Red when I didn't join until 2015? No matter, it seems as if much of the responsibility for it is being laid at my door?
Incidentally, I wouldn't want any 'newbies' to believe Grahame was 'sainted'. He had numerous hissy fits, after which he left. I think I'm correct in recalling that, on one occasion, he levied "F****** *****" at a poster. However, I support his right to defend his very poorly daughter.
It's certainly true that I don't know what you know, but under the circumstances, as much of the flak appears to be aimed in my direction, I think it only fair that I know what you know if it includes me. At the very least, I believe I should be given the opportunity to apologize for my alleged memory lapses -perfectly possible- and that I didn't challenge what was done prior to my joining. Such, until I know what I'm alleged to be guilty of, can't be achieved.
You joined Red 29th September 2014. I joined 20th March 2013.
-
This is absolutely unbelievable. You have a very selective memory. You were posting on red at the time of the worst behaviour. You were engaging in banter with those responsible for it. Just one example was the sick attack on Grahame's seriously ill daughter, mocking him by saying she was not really ill but was in fact a crack head prostitute. It was absolutely outrageous and devastating for Grahame. She has sadly since died. It was vile, you saw it but said nothing. It was like the playground with the school bully who attracts others who are basically decent but join in to be accepted and to avoid being picked on themselves. A minority of two there called it out (Bridget and Joanne). Blaming Grahame for bringing it upon himself is outrageous and you ought to be ashamed of yourself by suggesting it. You saw the worst of the abuse from the core gang there. I can assure you that the police were involved and certain people got very worried. Trying to suggest it was equivalent on both sides is rubbish.
I rather hope some long standing members here might back me up on this.
Why did Puglove do that exactly? :-\
-
Its the blood evidence that needs undermining.
Sheila's nightdress is very damaging -
No GSR.
No damage.
No oil.
No dirt.
No powder.
Only her blood on it.
No vertical blood trails showing she did not walk around after the first shot.
Legs pulled after the second shot.
It is her sleeping attire suggesting she went to bed.
It is her sleeping attire suggesting she was woken from sleeping.
It is her sleeping attire. Suggesting she did not do ritualistic washing & change into better clothes prior to being found. As suggested suicides do.
----------
But appreciate he has focused on the silencer since the 90's as the relatives found it.
-
Sheila's nightdress is very damaging -
No GSR.
No damage.
No oil.
No dirt.
No powder.
Only her blood on it.
No vertical blood trails showing she did not walk around after the first shot.
Legs pulled after the second shot.
It is her sleeping attire suggesting she went to bed.
It is her sleeping attire suggesting she was woken from sleeping.
It is her sleeping attire. Suggesting she did not do ritualistic washing & change into better clothes prior to being found. As suggested suicides do.
----------
But appreciate he has focused on the silencer since the 90's as the relatives found it.
The focus needs to be on the blood/silencer as this underpins the conviction.
SC's found state can easily be debunked.
-
Why did Puglove do that exactly? :-\
I really have no idea. There was a small group of extremely nasty individuals involved and the abuse was relentless.
-
Having read through a lot of the posts about the differences in the types of abuse on blue vs red forums, I would like to give my take on it.
On blue there have been members who have been abusive or excessively dismissive towards those supporting guilt, over the time frame of the forum. However, the worst offenders where kind of recognised by both sides of case. There was an understanding that excesses took place - but the 'sensible' posters on both sides of the case recognised it as such. Moderators didn't always intervene as much as those on the receiving end would like. And this has led to accusations of bias. But - most people supporting guilt on here have been able to give as good as they got.
When I look at the Red forum - it's on another level. It's as if there was small hardcore of posters who seemed to revel in mocking. I feel it had more viciousness to it in comparison to over here. Regardless who was a mod over there, that small hardcore where the ones running the show. Because of this, I sense there was less willingness among other posters over there to recognise what was happening was wrong.
-
Having read through a lot of the posts about the differences in the types of abuse on blue vs red forums, I would like to give my take on it.
On blue there have been members who have been abusive or excessively dismissive towards those supporting guilt, over the time frame of the forum. However, the worst offenders where kind of recognised by both sides of case. There was an understanding that excesses took place - but the 'sensible' posters on both sides of the case recognised it as such. Moderators didn't always intervene as much as those on the receiving end would like. And this has led to accusations of bias. But - most people supporting guilt on here have been able to give as good as they got.
When I look at the Red forum - it's on another level. It's as if there was small hardcore of posters who seemed to revel in mocking. I feel it had more viciousness to it in comparison to over here. Regardless who was a mod over there, that small hardcore where the ones running the show. Because of this, I sense there was less willingness among other posters over there to recognise what was happening was wrong.
I agree entirely with that Roch. I think the Red had a lot of posters with Sour Grapes towards the blue Forum.
-
I agree entirely with that Roch. I think the Red had a lot of posters with Sour Grapes towards the blue Forum.
I'm glad I got it right 😏
-
I can't think people would even act this way when it's a case of five people dead ( including two children) and a man whovclaims he has been wrongly imprisoned. How people can can act like what's been described in this thread boggles the mind, I admit I call Adam a tit and he gives me some back but for me it's just banter because we often dispute from the polar opposites. It's madness.
-
I can't think people would even act this way when it's a case of five people dead ( including two children) and a man whovclaims he has been wrongly imprisoned. How people can can act like what's been described in this thread boggles the mind, I admit I call Adam a tit and he gives me some back but for me it's just banter because we often dispute from the polar opposites. It's madness.
I agree ILB. What we have here is generally banter and is very limited. If it goes too far it is dealt with. Overall I think we avoid excesses and the views of everyone are respected. We need to keep it that way.
-
I'm glad I got it right 😏
Ha Ha, your getting more things right lately Roch, is it because you post less 😂😂. Only joking mate.
You will find on the red Forum, they have a section dedicated to the Jeremy Bamber forum, certain topics are attributed to Grahame, it doesn’t take much working out who was saying what, and coming from moderators as well!
-
Having read through a lot of the posts about the differences in the types of abuse on blue vs red forums, I would like to give my take on it.
On blue there have been members who have been abusive or excessively dismissive towards those supporting guilt, over the time frame of the forum. However, the worst offenders where kind of recognised by both sides of case. There was an understanding that excesses took place - but the 'sensible' posters on both sides of the case recognised it as such. Moderators didn't always intervene as much as those on the receiving end would like. And this has led to accusations of bias. But - most people supporting guilt on here have been able to give as good as they got.
When I look at the Red forum- it's on another level. It's as if there was small hardcore of posters who seemed to revel in mocking. I feel it had more viciousness to it in comparison to over here. Regardless who was a mod over there, that small hardcore where the ones running the show. Because of this, I sense there was less willingness among other posters over there to recognise what was happening was wrong.
When? No one has posted regularly on the Red forum/Bamber board for years. Oh you mean about a decade ago?
I will remind you of some of the comments made here about the victims of WHF:
NB fathered the twins - MT - removed
SC was promiscious - Lookout - remained
Not a shred of evidence for either.
I ended up on that forum because I was banned here due to coining a phrase from Red which was used to describe a bunch of regular female members here: 'knitting circle' :) I found it amusing and still do. It might have even included me. That is banter by most people's standards not abuse.
Anyway when I found myself on Red, posting as a 'supporter', I didn't experience any issues you have described above.
You are sounding like a massive girls blouse.
-
When? No one has posted regularly on the Red forum/Bamber board for years. Oh you mean about a decade ago?
I will remind you of some of the comments made here about the victims of WHF:
NB fathered the twins - MT - removed
SC was promiscious - Lookout - remained
Not a shred of evidence for either.
I ended up on that forum because I was banned here due to coining a phrase from Red which was used to describe a bunch of regular female members here: 'knitting circle' :) I found it amusing and still do. It might have even included me. That is banter by most people's standards not abuse.
Anyway when I found myself on Red, posting as a 'supporter', I didn't experience any issues you have described above.
You are sounding like a massive girls blouse.
I think you are being very disrespectful of our Moderators, first they let you back on after being banned, they found out you had multiple accounts, they still let you post on here, show some respect for once..
-
I think you are being very disrespectful of our Moderators, first they let you back on after being banned, they found out you had multiple accounts, they still let you post on here, show some respect for once..
Oh pleeze...stop being a creep. You are sounding like a massive girls blouse Softy Boy. Who are you today? Softy Boy or Real Justice? It is not a rule breach to use different user names. It is a breach to to use more than one profile at any given time which I have never done.
-
Oh pleeze...stop being a creep. You are sounding like a massive girls blouse Softy Boy. Who are you today? Softy Boy or Real Justice? It is not a rule breach to use different user names. It is a breach to to use more than one profile at any given time which I have never done.
;D ;D ;D 8)
-
I think you are being very disrespectful of our Moderators, first they let you back on after being banned, they found out you had multiple accounts, they still let you post on here, show some respect for once..
There are always two side to a story. Different people have different perceptions.
I agree mocking someone with a serious illness is totally unacceptable and amounts to disgusting and vile behaviour. Remember this:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/17/football-fan-gets-suspended-sentence-after-mocking-mascot-bradley-lowery
How did those doing the mocking on Red find out about the unwell person?
-
What about the sustained targeting of Lookout? That was over the top.
-
What about the sustained targeting of Lookout? That was over the top.
It wasn't over the top. Lookout out made what many regarded, myself included, as offensive posts. You're just a northern numpty and don't see it.
-
When? No one has posted regularly on the Red forum/Bamber board for years. Oh you mean about a decade ago?
I will remind you of some of the comments made here about the victims of WHF:
NB fathered the twins - MT - removed
SC was promiscious - Lookout - remained
Not a shred of evidence for either.
I ended up on that forum because I was banned here due to coining a phrase from Red which was used to describe a bunch of regular female members here: 'knitting circle' :) I found it amusing and still do. It might have even included me. That is banter by most people's standards not abuse.
Anyway when I found myself on Red, posting as a 'supporter', I didn't experience any issues you have described above.
You are sounding like a massive girls blouse.
The reason you didn't experience any issues is because you were a prize for them. You lent them some credibility. How many members on your side of the case were able to post over there? I think you'll find that if any did, they would not have been handled with kid gloves like you were.
-
The reason you didn't experience any issues is because you were a prize for them. You lent them some credibility. How many members on your side of the case were able to post over there? I think you'll find that if any did, they would not have been handled with kid gloves like you were.
Ballcocks. I didn't experience any issues because I stuck to the facts of the case, worked hard, carried out decent analysis and research and they could not undermine my posts 8)
-
The reason you didn't experience any issues is because you were a prize for them. You lent them some credibility. How many members on your side of the case were able to post over there? I think you'll find that if any did, they would not have been handled with kid gloves like you were.
I would like to have seen the CT on there with the likes of John, Tim, Puglove and Scipio.
-
Ballcocks. I didn't experience any issues because I stuck to the facts of the case, worked hard, carried out decent analysis and research and they could not undermine my posts 8)
What like, Stan climbed through the window and planted his own blood on the silencer, or Stan wanted to play God, or Stan took a Bung, or Stan stole money out the wallet, you talk out of your backside!
-
Perhaps CC has red tinted glasses on?
-
What like, Stan climbed through the window and planted his own blood on the silencer, or Stan wanted to play God, or Stan took a Bung, or Stan stole money out the wallet, you talk out of your backside!
Prove me wrong Softy Smelly Boy.
-
Perhaps CC has red tinted glasses on?
No, unlike you, I am capable of seeing both sides and being objective.
-
Perhaps CC has red tinted glasses on?
We call it Rose tinted glasses Roch, no one can take her serious anymore, she used two accounts where she could give views Poles apart.