Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Jackiepreece on August 17, 2011, 12:14:PM
-
I have just come off the phone from Jeremy he is furious about the lies in the Express and Mirror today
He has had no parole hearings
The only money he has ever had to fight his case is £600
Jeremy has just asked me to tweet everyone so I can put a stop to these lies straightaway
I wonder who has spread the latest lies?
-
To save people searching:
Mirror article: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/08/17/moors-murderer-ian-brady-gets-8k-legal-aid-to-fight-for-his-right-to-die-115875-23350141/
Express Article: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/265558/Ian-Brady-get-8k-legal-aid-to-fight-for-right-to-die-
Scottish Daily Record article: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2011/08/17/evil-moors-murderer-ian-brady-gets-8k-legal-aid-to-fight-for-his-right-to-die-86908-23350782/
..........................................
The articles are all identical, I have no idea whether the contents are factual, the article does offer very precise figures, whether that's an indication of anything I don't know.
-
Hartley you know very well it's not true prisoners on a full life tariff do not get parole hearings.
You were very quick with the links did you know the articles were coming out
-
Hartley you know very well it's not true prisoners on a full life tariff do not get parole hearings.
You were very quick with the links did you know the articles were coming out
It doesn't say he's had parole hearings.
It says the money was used "for 13 separate attempts to get parole and reduce his sentence"
-
As you seem to know a lot about this case Bob are you agreeing that he has all this money and do you not agree the article is misleading?
-
Response to articles, if anyone is interested and hasn't seen already:
http://jeremybamber.blogspot.com/
-
Hartley you know very well it's not true prisoners on a full life tariff do not get parole hearings.
You were very quick with the links did you know the articles were coming out
No Jackie, I do not know whether the contents of the article are true or not (as I mentioned above), he has also not been on a whole life tariff for the entirety of his captivity, but that's another matter.
No I did not know the articles were coming out. I have this thing called a computer. On this computer is a web browser, I use Firefox, some people use IE or Chrome. What you can do is use a search engine, like google to search for articles.
You mentioned the articles, I found them. I'm just very quick in general.
-
As you seem to know a lot about this case Bob are you agreeing that he has all this money and do you not agree the article is misleading?
I have no idea whether he's had this money or not - clearly the journalists think he has but they could well have it wrong, and if so will have to print a retraction presumably. On that basis I can't tell if the article is misleading or not.
I did find your comment misleading though, as it seemed to suggest the article said something that it didn't.
-
I have just come off the phone from Jeremy he is furious about the lies in the Express and Mirror today
He has had no parole hearings
The only money he has ever had to fight his case is £600
Jeremy has just asked me to tweet everyone so I can put a stop to these lies straightaway
I wonder who has spread the latest lies?
Yes I saw that in the Mirror. Theres a better piece in the Maldon and burnham standard though and apparently he has won the right to speak to journalists as the feelings of the family has been ruled as not being sufficient reason to prevent this.
-
I have just come off the phone from Jeremy he is furious about the lies in the Express and Mirror today
He has had no parole hearings
The only money he has ever had to fight his case is £600
Jeremy has just asked me to tweet everyone so I can put a stop to these lies straightaway
I wonder who has spread the latest lies?
Yes I saw that in the Mirror. Theres a better piece in the Maldon and burnham standard though and apparently he has won the right to speak to journalists as the feelings of the family has been ruled as not being sufficient reason to prevent this.
Is there any way that you can provide a link to the article please Grahame? Im rubbish at finding things.
-
This families fighting for justices founder - Jean somebody or another,appears to poking her nose in everywhere at the moment!
What about the rights of wrongly convicted prisoners fighting for justice?
There appears to be no justice for them!
-
+ 1 Exactly Tyler!
-
Hartley you know very well it's not true prisoners on a full life tariff do not get parole hearings.
You were very quick with the links did you know the articles were coming out
It doesn't say he's had parole hearings.
It says the money was used "for 13 separate attempts to get parole and reduce his sentence"
I know what Jackie means. The operative word is "parole". They say parole when it was not the right word to use as it would have been fultile for JB even to try to applyfor parole.
-
I have just come off the phone from Jeremy he is furious about the lies in the Express and Mirror today
He has had no parole hearings
The only money he has ever had to fight his case is £600
Jeremy has just asked me to tweet everyone so I can put a stop to these lies straightaway
I wonder who has spread the latest lies?
Yes I saw that in the Mirror. Theres a better piece in the Maldon and burnham standard though and apparently he has won the right to speak to journalists as the feelings of the family has been ruled as not being sufficient reason to prevent this.
Is there any way that you can provide a link to the article please Grahame? Im rubbish at finding things.
I tried to get it from the Maldon & Burnham Standard online. But can't find it. So I scanned it. Hope M&B don't mind?
-
With regard to the published articles about Legal Aid it should be noted that the prisoners concerned do not physically get the money.
The Legal Aid system, depending on the application, is a means tested system which will take people's financial situation into consideration. It is a support facility for people who are involved in a legal situation. As such, it is not the prisoners who are featured in the articles getting the cash in their pocket. It is however, the state agreeing to pay their legal fees associated with the legal situation they are involved. It is the lawyers who will get the money. Given Jeremy has had 2 Appeal hearings already and has a third in application their is no doubt his legal aid bills will be quite substantial. The associate legal costs will be paid, in part, by the state i.e. Contributions from Tax paying members of society.
If the amounts are deemed too much maybe it is the lawyers who should be looking at their legal charge rates per hour etc..
The articles are reporting some of the facts of life of our society whilst the specific words used re 'parole' hearings may be inaccurate.
I am sure the majority of posters on the forum will not have had such support from the state in terms of legal aid. However, if any of us were in Jeremy's position we would have been entitled to submit a claim for Legal Aid. I believe in the majority of criminal cases it is the Legal Aid system that pays the legal bills on behalf of the accused. It is a fact of our society that enveryone is entitled to a defence.
It is also a fact of our society that the victims of crime are not looked after with the same crude financial levels / sums of support from the state.
I am sure NGB will be able to confirm the above.
-
With regard to the published articles about Legal Aid it should be noted that the prisoners concerned do not physically get the money.
The Legal Aid system, depending on the application, is a means tested system which will take people's financial situation into consideration. It is a support facility for people who are involved in a legal situation. As such, it is not the prisoners who are featured in the articles getting the cash in their pocket. It is however, the state agreeing to pay their legal fees associated with the legal situation they are involved. It is the lawyers who will get the money. Given Jeremy has had 2 Appeal hearings already and has a third in application their is no doubt his legal aid bills will be quite substantial. The associate legal costs will be paid, in part, by the state i.e. Contributions from Tax paying members of society.
If the amounts are deemed too much maybe it is the lawyers who should be looking at their legal charge rates per hour etc..
The articles are reporting some of the facts of life of our society whilst the specific words used re 'parole' hearings may be inaccurate.
I am sure the majority of posters on the forum will not have had such support from the state in terms of legal aid. However, if any of us were in Jeremy's position we would have been entitled to submit a claim for Legal Aid. I believe in the majority of criminal cases it is the Legal Aid system that pays the legal bills on behalf of the accused. It is a fact of our society that enveryone is entitled to a defence.
It is also a fact of our society that the victims of crime are not looked after with the same crude financial levels / sums of support from the state.
I am sure NGB will be able to confirm the above.
It might be worth mentioning here that Jeremy is very much reliant upon the kindness of people who have offered their services for free because he cannot get legal aid for much of what he is trying to appeal against.
-
With regard to the published articles about Legal Aid it should be noted that the prisoners concerned do not physically get the money.
The Legal Aid system, depending on the application, is a means tested system which will take people's financial situation into consideration. It is a support facility for people who are involved in a legal situation. As such, it is not the prisoners who are featured in the articles getting the cash in their pocket. It is however, the state agreeing to pay their legal fees associated with the legal situation they are involved. It is the lawyers who will get the money. Given Jeremy has had 2 Appeal hearings already and has a third in application their is no doubt his legal aid bills will be quite substantial. The associate legal costs will be paid, in part, by the state i.e. Contributions from Tax paying members of society.
If the amounts are deemed too much maybe it is the lawyers who should be looking at their legal charge rates per hour etc..
The articles are reporting some of the facts of life of our society whilst the specific words used re 'parole' hearings may be inaccurate.
I am sure the majority of posters on the forum will not have had such support from the state in terms of legal aid. However, if any of us were in Jeremy's position we would have been entitled to submit a claim for Legal Aid. I believe in the majority of criminal cases it is the Legal Aid system that pays the legal bills on behalf of the accused. It is a fact of our society that enveryone is entitled to a defence.
It is also a fact of our society that the victims of crime are not looked after with the same crude financial levels / sums of support from the state.
I am sure NGB will be able to confirm the above.
It might be worth mentioning here that Jeremy is very much reliant upon the kindness of people who have offered their services for free because he cannot get legal aid for much of what he is trying to appeal against.
Pro-bono work, so to speak.
-
With regard to the published articles about Legal Aid it should be noted that the prisoners concerned do not physically get the money.
The Legal Aid system, depending on the application, is a means tested system which will take people's financial situation into consideration. It is a support facility for people who are involved in a legal situation. As such, it is not the prisoners who are featured in the articles getting the cash in their pocket. It is however, the state agreeing to pay their legal fees associated with the legal situation they are involved. It is the lawyers who will get the money. Given Jeremy has had 2 Appeal hearings already and has a third in application their is no doubt his legal aid bills will be quite substantial. The associate legal costs will be paid, in part, by the state i.e. Contributions from Tax paying members of society.
If the amounts are deemed too much maybe it is the lawyers who should be looking at their legal charge rates per hour etc..
The articles are reporting some of the facts of life of our society whilst the specific words used re 'parole' hearings may be inaccurate.
I am sure the majority of posters on the forum will not have had such support from the state in terms of legal aid. However, if any of us were in Jeremy's position we would have been entitled to submit a claim for Legal Aid. I believe in the majority of criminal cases it is the Legal Aid system that pays the legal bills on behalf of the accused. It is a fact of our society that enveryone is entitled to a defence.
It is also a fact of our society that the victims of crime are not looked after with the same crude financial levels / sums of support from the state.
I am sure NGB will be able to confirm the above.
It might be worth mentioning here that Jeremy is very much reliant upon the kindness of people who have offered their services for free because he cannot get legal aid for much of what he is trying to appeal against.
Pro-bono work, so to speak.
I dunno about dogs and things. ;D
-
With regard to the published articles about Legal Aid it should be noted that the prisoners concerned do not physically get the money.
The Legal Aid system, depending on the application, is a means tested system which will take people's financial situation into consideration. It is a support facility for people who are involved in a legal situation. As such, it is not the prisoners who are featured in the articles getting the cash in their pocket. It is however, the state agreeing to pay their legal fees associated with the legal situation they are involved. It is the lawyers who will get the money. Given Jeremy has had 2 Appeal hearings already and has a third in application their is no doubt his legal aid bills will be quite substantial. The associate legal costs will be paid, in part, by the state i.e. Contributions from Tax paying members of society.
If the amounts are deemed too much maybe it is the lawyers who should be looking at their legal charge rates per hour etc..
The articles are reporting some of the facts of life of our society whilst the specific words used re 'parole' hearings may be inaccurate.
I am sure the majority of posters on the forum will not have had such support from the state in terms of legal aid. However, if any of us were in Jeremy's position we would have been entitled to submit a claim for Legal Aid. I believe in the majority of criminal cases it is the Legal Aid system that pays the legal bills on behalf of the accused. It is a fact of our society that enveryone is entitled to a defence.
It is also a fact of our society that the victims of crime are not looked after with the same crude financial levels / sums of support from the state.
I am sure NGB will be able to confirm the above.
It might be worth mentioning here that Jeremy is very much reliant upon the kindness of people who have offered their services for free because he cannot get legal aid for much of what he is trying to appeal against.
Jeremy in his blog, with a link posted in a previous post on this thread, says 'As a campaign we would like to make it clear that there is no leagl aid available to fund anyone fighting a miscarriage of justice until there is a referral to the court of appeal'
As such Jeremy will have been supported by the Legal Aid system in the two previousappeals.
Within the last paragraph the blog states -
'It is ultimately public money which will pay Jeremy compensation for wasting half his life, but the Mirror and Express didn't consider the fact: No amount of money will bring back the 26 years of Jeremy Bamber's life which has been taken from him unlawfully. POSTED BY JEREMY BAMBER AT WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17, 2011'
It appears money will still play an important part in everything.......... important enough to be specifically mentioned by all parties.
-
With regard to the published articles about Legal Aid it should be noted that the prisoners concerned do not physically get the money.
The Legal Aid system, depending on the application, is a means tested system which will take people's financial situation into consideration. It is a support facility for people who are involved in a legal situation. As such, it is not the prisoners who are featured in the articles getting the cash in their pocket. It is however, the state agreeing to pay their legal fees associated with the legal situation they are involved. It is the lawyers who will get the money. Given Jeremy has had 2 Appeal hearings already and has a third in application their is no doubt his legal aid bills will be quite substantial. The associate legal costs will be paid, in part, by the state i.e. Contributions from Tax paying members of society.
If the amounts are deemed too much maybe it is the lawyers who should be looking at their legal charge rates per hour etc..
The articles are reporting some of the facts of life of our society whilst the specific words used re 'parole' hearings may be inaccurate.
I am sure the majority of posters on the forum will not have had such support from the state in terms of legal aid. However, if any of us were in Jeremy's position we would have been entitled to submit a claim for Legal Aid. I believe in the majority of criminal cases it is the Legal Aid system that pays the legal bills on behalf of the accused. It is a fact of our society that everyone is entitled to a defence.
It is also a fact of our society that the victims of crime are not looked after with the same crude financial levels / sums of support from the state.
I am sure NGB will be able to confirm the above.
It might be worth mentioning here that Jeremy is very much reliant upon the kindness of people who have offered their services for free because he cannot get legal aid for much of what he is trying to appeal against.
Jeremy in his blog, with a link posted in a previous post on this thread, says 'As a campaign we would like to make it clear that there is no leagl aid available to fund anyone fighting a miscarriage of justice until there is a referral to the court of appeal'
As such Jeremy will have been supported by the Legal Aid system in the two previousappeals.
Within the last paragraph the blog states -
'It is ultimately public money which will pay Jeremy compensation for wasting half his life, but the Mirror and Express didn't consider the fact: No amount of money will bring back the 26 years of Jeremy Bamber's life which has been taken from him unlawfully. POSTED BY JEREMY BAMBER AT WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17, 2011'
It appears money will still play an important part in everything.......... important enough to be specifically mentioned by all parties.
Of course it is. I'll tell you another thing. If half my life was wasted behind bars for half my like and I won an appeal to get my freedom I would not rest til all those responsible for such a gross miscarriage of justice paid heavily for their part in it all. In one way or another those responsible will be brought down. I don't know if Jeremy feels like that though? I shouldn't think so? He doesn't strike me as a bitter person. Unlike all those who seek continually to blacken his name, although they have him where they want him.
-
With regard to the published articles about Legal Aid it should be noted that the prisoners concerned do not physically get the money.
The Legal Aid system, depending on the application, is a means tested system which will take people's financial situation into consideration. It is a support facility for people who are involved in a legal situation. As such, it is not the prisoners who are featured in the articles getting the cash in their pocket. It is however, the state agreeing to pay their legal fees associated with the legal situation they are involved. It is the lawyers who will get the money. Given Jeremy has had 2 Appeal hearings already and has a third in application their is no doubt his legal aid bills will be quite substantial. The associate legal costs will be paid, in part, by the state i.e. Contributions from Tax paying members of society.
If the amounts are deemed too much maybe it is the lawyers who should be looking at their legal charge rates per hour etc..
The articles are reporting some of the facts of life of our society whilst the specific words used re 'parole' hearings may be inaccurate.
I am sure the majority of posters on the forum will not have had such support from the state in terms of legal aid. However, if any of us were in Jeremy's position we would have been entitled to submit a claim for Legal Aid. I believe in the majority of criminal cases it is the Legal Aid system that pays the legal bills on behalf of the accused. It is a fact of our society that everyone is entitled to a defence.
It is also a fact of our society that the victims of crime are not looked after with the same crude financial levels / sums of support from the state.
I am sure NGB will be able to confirm the above.
It might be worth mentioning here that Jeremy is very much reliant upon the kindness of people who have offered their services for free because he cannot get legal aid for much of what he is trying to appeal against.
Jeremy in his blog, with a link posted in a previous post on this thread, says 'As a campaign we would like to make it clear that there is no leagl aid available to fund anyone fighting a miscarriage of justice until there is a referral to the court of appeal'
As such Jeremy will have been supported by the Legal Aid system in the two previousappeals.
Within the last paragraph the blog states -
'It is ultimately public money which will pay Jeremy compensation for wasting half his life, but the Mirror and Express didn't consider the fact: No amount of money will bring back the 26 years of Jeremy Bamber's life which has been taken from him unlawfully. POSTED BY JEREMY BAMBER AT WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17, 2011'
It appears money will still play an important part in everything.......... important enough to be specifically mentioned by all parties.
Of course it is. I'll tell you another thing. If half my life was wasted behind bars for half my like and I won an appeal to get my freedom I would not rest til all those responsible for such a gross miscarriage of justice paid heavily for their part in it all. In one way or another those responsible will be brought down. I don't know if Jeremy feels like that though? I shouldn't think so? He doesn't strike me as a bitter person. Unlike all those who seek continually to blacken his name, although they have him where they want him.
For me, I just find it very strange to specifically mention it given if there is a miscarriage of justice then it is obvious a compensation package would be made available / required.
Addition - If you were guilty of something and knew the method of your conviction was flawed would you not be willing pursue the matter endlessly. Some may say, ultimately if guilty, you would have nothing to lose but a substantial amount to gain in terms of a large sum of money in compensation.
-
For me, I just find it very strange to specifically mention it given if there is a miscarriage of justice then it is obvious a compensation package would be made available / required.
Addition - If you were guilty of something and knew the method of your conviction was flawed would you not be willing pursue the matter endlessly. Some may say, ultimately if guilty, you would have nothing to lose but a substantial amount to gain in terms of a large sum of money in compensation.
It is difficult to say what people will do. I suppose the scope of speculation is endless. But it is a fact that it is not only Jeremy who says he's innocent. It is many others as well, including MP's and very well respected lawyers, who I suspect we shall hear about publicly very soon?
-
For me, I just find it very strange to specifically mention it given if there is a miscarriage of justice then it is obvious a compensation package would be made available / required.
Addition - If you were guilty of something and knew the method of your conviction was flawed would you not be willing pursue the matter endlessly. Some may say, ultimately if guilty, you would have nothing to lose but a substantial amount to gain in terms of a large sum of money in compensation.
It is difficult to say what people will do. I suppose the scope of speculation is endless. But it is a fact that it is not only Jeremy who says he's innocent. It is many others as well, including MP's and very well respected lawyers, who I suspect we shall hear about publicly very soon?
However, it is only Jeremy who knows if he is innocence. Saying and knowing are two completely different things.
-
I think it is vital that the general public are made aware that we are paying £75,000 to keep someone in prison who could well be innocent because someone is playing god and deciding what evidence can or cannot be released.
With regard to the latest batch of photos released as far as I can see there was absolutely no reason why these were not available before.
Wait till the general public find out how many £75,000 might have been wasted that money might have been used to keep an old age pensioner warm in the winter
-
I think it is vital that the general public are made aware that we are paying £75,000 to keep someone in prison who could well be innocent because someone is playing god and deciding what evidence can or cannot be released.
With regard to the latest batch of photos released as far as I can see there was absolutely no reason why these were not available before.
Wait till the general public find out how many £75,000 might have been wasted that money might have been used to keep an old age pensioner warm in the winter
Will JB be suing the papers for libel? Or at least demanding that they publish a retraction?
-
I think it is vital that the general public are made aware that we are paying £75,000 to keep someone in prison who could well be innocent because someone is playing god and deciding what evidence can or cannot be released.
With regard to the latest batch of photos released as far as I can see there was absolutely no reason why these were not available before.
Wait till the general public find out how many £75,000 might have been wasted that money might have been used to keep an old age pensioner warm in the winter
Jackie
In your last post above you state - 'I think it is vital that the general public are made aware that we are paying £75,000 to keep someone in prison who could well be innocent.....'
Given the above do you think it is possible Jeremy could also be guilty?
-
Taking the individual out of the equation in order that I don't offend.
If somebody (let's change the sex as well and call her Penelope Pitstop), if Penelope was guilty of murdering five members of her family including two children, would it be correct that Miss Pitstop was detained at her Majesties pleasure even though it was costing £75k (or whatever that figure may be)?
-
Taking the individual out of the equation in order that I don't offend.
If somebody (let's change the sex as well and call her Penelope Pitstop), if Penelope was guilty of murdering five members of her family including two children, would it be correct that Miss Pitstop was detained at her Majesties pleasure even though it was costing £75k (or whatever that figure may be)?
If guilty then yes I would agree. But the governing factor here is there is grave doubt as to his guilt and this is not just what he says. It is also acknowledged by expert lawyers. Any case where the convicted protests his/her innocence must in all conscience be investigated honestly by the authorities where no legal obstables are purposely put in the way to obstruch such an investigation. Jeremy's case has certainly been obstructed by the legal system and this has clearly been commented upon by many legal experts.
-
For me, I just find it very strange to specifically mention it given if there is a miscarriage of justice then it is obvious a compensation package would be made available / required.
Addition - If you were guilty of something and knew the method of your conviction was flawed would you not be willing pursue the matter endlessly. Some may say, ultimately if guilty, you would have nothing to lose but a substantial amount to gain in terms of a large sum of money in compensation.
It is difficult to say what people will do. I suppose the scope of speculation is endless. But it is a fact that it is not only Jeremy who says he's innocent. It is many others as well, including MP's and very well respected lawyers, who I suspect we shall hear about publicly very soon?
However, it is only Jeremy who knows if he is innocence. Saying and knowing are two completely different things.
JB obviously does know...
but lets be clear here...if he is innocent (which I am satisfied he is) then others also know for a fact he is innocent for someone arranged the bodies and was responsible for their part/s in Sheila's death.
-
Taking the individual out of the equation in order that I don't offend.
If somebody (let's change the sex as well and call her Penelope Pitstop), if Penelope was guilty of murdering five members of her family including two children, would it be correct that Miss Pitstop was detained at her Majesties pleasure even though it was costing £75k (or whatever that figure may be)?
If guilty then yes I would agree. But the governing factor here is there is grave doubt as to his guilt and this is not just what he says. It is also acknowledged by expert lawyers. Any case where the convicted protests his/her innocence must in all conscience be investigated honestly by the authorities where no legal obstables are purposely put in the way to obstruch such an investigation. Jeremy's case has certainly been obstructed by the legal system and this has clearly been commented upon by many legal experts.
And if that is the case then it doesn't matter about the money does it? If he's had legal aid then he deserves it right?
I think this whole episode is more to do with the newspapers not having anything else to make a story out of, any article which mentions Brady, Neilson, Nilson and Bamber in the same breath is simply looking to shock it's readers. There is no doubt that JB's captivity and legal fees or court costs or whatever have cost tax payers money.
Other than the fact that some folk consider him to be innocent, I don't understand what the argument is.
-
Taking the individual out of the equation in order that I don't offend.
If somebody (let's change the sex as well and call her Penelope Pitstop), if Penelope was guilty of murdering five members of her family including two children, would it be correct that Miss Pitstop was detained at her Majesties pleasure even though it was costing £75k (or whatever that figure may be)?
If guilty then yes I would agree. But the governing factor here is there is grave doubt as to his guilt and this is not just what he says. It is also acknowledged by expert lawyers. Any case where the convicted protests his/her innocence must in all conscience be investigated honestly by the authorities where no legal obstables are purposely put in the way to obstruch such an investigation. Jeremy's case has certainly been obstructed by the legal system and this has clearly been commented upon by many legal experts.
And if that is the case then it doesn't matter about the money does it? If he's had legal aid then he deserves it right?
I think this whole episode is more to do with the newspapers not having anything else to make a story out of, any article which mentions Brady, Neilson, Nilson and Bamber in the same breath is simply looking to shock it's readers. There is no doubt that JB's captivity and legal fees or court costs or whatever have cost tax payers money.
Other than the fact that some folk consider him to be innocent, I don't understand what the argument is.
I suppose it is to do with printing the truth. For it is this that will ultimately form public opinion concerning Jeremy.
-
I suppose it is to do with printing the truth. For it is this that will ultimately form public opinion concerning Jeremy.
Maybe, I'm not sure it's as big a deal as what has been made out in this thread. Perhaps I'm missing the point, it has been known. :-\
-
I suppose it is to do with printing the truth. For it is this that will ultimately form public opinion concerning Jeremy.
Maybe, I'm not sure it's as big a deal as what has been made out in this thread. Perhaps I'm missing the point, it has been known. :-\
Ok, let me put it this way by way of illustration. Someone has just loaned me a book by Claire Powell called Murder at WHF. Of course many have read it and I suspect it has gone a long way of forming the opinions of many in the guilty camp concerning JB? As soon as I started reading it I was put off by her writing style. She writes as if it is a novel and a lot of what she says are her opinions put over as fact. Because of this novel style of writing. It reads like a crime thriller many things that are glossed over by her are picked up on by her readers. Just one example she describes Jeremy beginning his onslaught of the family with Ralph opening the door to him and him beating him to the ground and then creeping upstairs only to be met by a cowering whimpering dog (crispy) which he then shuts in the wardrobe before continuing his murderous rampage..
Well just how much of that is speculation do you think? Well pretty much all of it, including a definite mistake as well.
But the simple minded pick up on such things and thus a series of lies have been born.
That is what I'm talking about. What these newspapers have flippantly published has just ended up as ammunition by the guilty camp and especially by the one celled morons on the facebook guilty page, which they will no doubt enthusiastically lob at Jeremy and his supporters. That is why it is important for the newspapers to publish accuracy and truth instead of aiming at sensationalism.
-
I suppose it is to do with printing the truth. For it is this that will ultimately form public opinion concerning Jeremy.
Maybe, I'm not sure it's as big a deal as what has been made out in this thread. Perhaps I'm missing the point, it has been known. :-\
The only issue I can see, having read the articles, is the possibility that a reader could interpret from the articles that the public purse has paid large sums of money for a number of parole hearings which is not the case. Jeremy, over time, has clearly had substantial legal expenses paid for by the Legal Aid system given the two previous appeals etc. The Legal Aid system being funded by the Tax payer.
-
I suppose it is to do with printing the truth. For it is this that will ultimately form public opinion concerning Jeremy.
Maybe, I'm not sure it's as big a deal as what has been made out in this thread. Perhaps I'm missing the point, it has been known. :-\
Ok, let me put it this way by way of illustration. Someone has just loaned me a book by Claire Powell called Murder at WHF. Of course many have read it and I suspect it has gone a long way of forming the opinions of many in the guilty camp concerning JB? As soon as I started reading it I was put off by her writing style. She writes as if it is a novel and a lot of what she says are her opinions put over as fact. Because of this novel style of writing. It reads like a crime thriller many things that are glossed over by her are picked up on by her readers. Just one example she describes Jeremy beginning his onslaught of the family with Ralph opening the door to him and him beating him to the ground and then creeping upstairs only to be met by a cowering whimpering dog (crispy) which he then shuts in the wardrobe before continuing his murderous rampage..
Well just how much of that is speculation do you think? Well pretty much all of it, including a definite mistake as well.
But the simple minded pick up on such things and thus a series of lies have been born.
That is what I'm talking about. What these newspapers have flippantly published has just ended up as ammunition by the guilty camp and especially by the one celled morons on the facebook guilty page, which they will no doubt enthusiastically lob at Jeremy and his supporters. That is why it is important for the newspapers to publish accuracy and truth instead of aiming at sensationalism.
Yes I agree, and understand your point, but I would also add that JB has used the media to post similar misleading or inaccurate information. One example being the phone logs between West and Bonnett, the layman would see it exactly as it was suggested by JB, it's only when you learn that '1990' written in the sender box is the collar number of West, that it takes on it's true identity.
That's just how it it is and the nature of such media, it's used and abused (in my opinion) as much by the defence as it is by newspapers trying to sell their rag.
^^^^
That's all, only in my opinion - I'm just emphasising that point.
-
I suppose it is to do with printing the truth. For it is this that will ultimately form public opinion concerning Jeremy.
Maybe, I'm not sure it's as big a deal as what has been made out in this thread. Perhaps I'm missing the point, it has been known. :-\
Ok, let me put it this way by way of illustration. Someone has just loaned me a book by Claire Powell called Murder at WHF. Of course many have read it and I suspect it has gone a long way of forming the opinions of many in the guilty camp concerning JB? As soon as I started reading it I was put off by her writing style. She writes as if it is a novel and a lot of what she says are her opinions put over as fact. Because of this novel style of writing. It reads like a crime thriller many things that are glossed over by her are picked up on by her readers. Just one example she describes Jeremy beginning his onslaught of the family with Ralph opening the door to him and him beating him to the ground and then creeping upstairs only to be met by a cowering whimpering dog (crispy) which he then shuts in the wardrobe before continuing his murderous rampage..
Well just how much of that is speculation do you think? Well pretty much all of it, including a definite mistake as well.
But the simple minded pick up on such things and thus a series of lies have been born.
That is what I'm talking about. What these newspapers have flippantly published has just ended up as ammunition by the guilty camp and especially by the one celled morons on the facebook guilty page, which they will no doubt enthusiastically lob at Jeremy and his supporters. That is why it is important for the newspapers to publish accuracy and truth instead of aiming at sensationalism.
Yes I agree, and understand your point, but I would also add that JB has used the media to post similar misleading or inaccurate information. One example being the phone logs between West and Bonnett, the layman would see it exactly as it was suggested by JB, it's only when you learn that '1990' written in the sender box is the collar number of West, that it takes on it's true identity.
That's just how it it is and the nature of such media, it's used and abused (in my opinion) as much by the defence as it is by newspapers trying to sell their rag.
^^^^
That's all, only in my opinion - I'm just emphasising that point.
So, can you inform us of similar misleading information publushed by Jeremy Hartley?
-
Well I just did, regarding the logs. :-\
-
Well I just did, regarding the logs. :-\
No I mean any more. Or is that the only one you can think of? Remember of course that Jeremy thought that it was 2 different logs as well, because he used them as part of his appeal to the CCRC this time round in spite of his legal team advising him not to. So it can't really be counted as something where he was intending to be misleading. But I'm trying myself to recall any misinformation that he is supposed to put out in order to mislead people?
-
Jackie
In your last post above you state - 'I think it is vital that the general public are made aware that we are paying £75,000 to keep someone in prison who could well be innocent.....'
Given the above do you think it is possible Jeremy could also be guilty?
Curious Essex
No I don't curious Essex the jury were misled at trial re other people having a motive over the heritance. The jury did not have the facts before them regarding Julie Mugfords bonus on Jeremys conviction. Numerous documents and photos were witheld at trial. Before appeals Essex Police destroyed importance evidence that they has been told to keep. The desperation by relatives shown by dripfeeding missinformation and missconceptions about Jeremy. Why would you bother if you know someone is guilty. A continuing withholding of evidence for 26 years. Nothing to hide then be open and transparent.
Curiousessex I could go on and on but at this point no I do not think it's possible JB is guilty
-
Well I just did, regarding the logs. :-\
No I mean any more. Or is that the only one you can think of? Remember of course that Jeremy thought that it was 2 different logs as well, because he used them as part of his appeal to the CCRC this time round in spite of his legal team advising him not to. So it can't really be counted as something where he was intending to be misleading. But I'm trying myself to recall any misinformation that he is supposed to put out in order to mislead people?
Yes I could point you to several instances on his own website, when I have time I ca offer further examples if that is really what you want. It's called propahanda and JB uses it well.
-
Well I just did, regarding the logs. :-\
No I mean any more. Or is that the only one you can think of? Remember of course that Jeremy thought that it was 2 different logs as well, because he used them as part of his appeal to the CCRC this time round in spite of his legal team advising him not to. So it can't really be counted as something where he was intending to be misleading. But I'm trying myself to recall any misinformation that he is supposed to put out in order to mislead people?
Yes I could point you to several instances on his own website, when I have time I ca offer further examples if that is really what you want. It's called propahanda and JB uses it well.
Yes if you could Hartley. We must look at all sides. I'll tell you how the facebook guilty page think. They post things like, "why are some women attracted to mass murderers?" This implying that every woman who supports Jeremy Bamber is attracted to him because he is a murderer and they speak about all supporters as either deranged or foolish because to them he is so obviously guilty.
Now I don't know about you, but to me it is firstly a slur upon all women, for it is sexist and secondly that the men and every other supporter is brainless and unthinking. You have in fact seen examples of this on this forum as specimens from that page have been here as well.
That is what I call propaganda. Perhaps the Jeremy Bamber website is just adjusting the balance? So just what is wrong with propaganda if it is calculated to put inaccuracies right and to set people's thinking straight? Better that than a sustained campaign to continually blacken Jeremy's name when you have him where you want him already.
Personally I think that everyone who continually kicks someone else when he's down already are people who have something to lose if he gets the justice that he didn't get in the first instant. Why all this effort to continually beat him down. What other reason could their possibly be? ;)
-
oh please dont get me started on the slurring of female supporters >:(
-
Without the freedom of information act Jeremy would be denied important information required to enable justice to be done, Jeremy is fighting for justice not freedom, and i for one think he will win this battle, lets have it all Harley everything they are hiding, we are supposed to be a free democratic western country, not some island ruled by dictators,Jeremy is getting close now, and the fight goes on as to the press i will be nice to the forum and step down from what i could say, to me they are not representitive .
-
I suppose it is to do with printing the truth. For it is this that will ultimately form public opinion concerning Jeremy.
Maybe, I'm not sure it's as big a deal as what has been made out in this thread. Perhaps I'm missing the point, it has been known. :-\
Ok, let me put it this way by way of illustration. Someone has just loaned me a book by Claire Powell called Murder at WHF. Of course many have read it and I suspect it has gone a long way of forming the opinions of many in the guilty camp concerning JB? As soon as I started reading it I was put off by her writing style. She writes as if it is a novel and a lot of what she says are her opinions put over as fact. Because of this novel style of writing. It reads like a crime thriller many things that are glossed over by her are picked up on by her readers. Just one example she describes Jeremy beginning his onslaught of the family with Ralph opening the door to him and him beating him to the ground and then creeping upstairs only to be met by a cowering whimpering dog (crispy) which he then shuts in the wardrobe before continuing his murderous rampage..
Well just how much of that is speculation do you think? Well pretty much all of it, including a definite mistake as well.
But the simple minded pick up on such things and thus a series of lies have been born.
That is what I'm talking about. What these newspapers have flippantly published has just ended up as ammunition by the guilty camp and especially by the one celled morons on the facebook guilty page, which they will no doubt enthusiastically lob at Jeremy and his supporters. That is why it is important for the newspapers to publish accuracy and truth instead of aiming at sensationalism.
Well said! Good post, Grahame +1
-
Without the freedom of information act Jeremy would be denied important information required to enable justice to be done, Jeremy is fighting for justice not freedom, and i for one think he will win this battle, lets have it all Harley everything they are hiding, we are supposed to be a free democratic western country, not some island ruled by dictators,Jeremy is getting close now, and the fight goes on as to the press i will be nice to the forum and step down from what i could say, to me they are not representitive .
Good post, Mertol, +1