Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Blueyonder on August 17, 2011, 12:16:PM
-
I have been wading through the threads on here (as my time permits). I think you regulars will probably accept that, unless you have been here a while and participating, this is no easy task! Even though each thread starts with a title, they understandably get sidetracked and cover all sorts of things (including willys and what not!) and it's easy to get lost - and go crosseyed in the process. I am not trying to be lazy here but could I just state how I look at things. I will firstly admit that my knowledge of the case is not quite as extensive as some on here. However, the fact is, we don't have court time to examine every trial to this level of detail, even if it was all there from the outset. Some things I find (being honest here, not disrespectful) fantasy, some things minutiae and some things worth finding out more about.
By way of ab observation, I think people get bogged down by the innocent/guilty debate, which starts a lot of the arguments you see here and on other internet exchanges elsewhere. I look at it like this:
JB has been found guilty by a court - fact. It is quite pointless for anyone now to try to prove otherwise, either his supporters to prove his innocence or the non supporters to prove his guilt. What has to be established is whether anything has subsequently come to light since the original decision that, had it been available to the court, the jury might have come to a different conclusion. I cannot buy an assertion that anyone and everyone that was involved in this case, was party to some great stitch up. That's not to say that there weren't mistakes made and I accept that, but any appeal that proposed this with a great barrage of examples of mistakes, procedural failures and inconsistencies would likely fail - as well as pissing the judges off.
If I can be so bold as to ask the supporters to list their top ten (or more but keep to a sensible number), of things that they think, had the original jury been aware of, they might have come to a different decision. Obviously in many successful appeals, things are more straightforward - discredited expert testimony, unreliable confession evidence (fabricated, obtained by oppression etc), new technology such as DNA etc. but this case is accepted as much more complex. I can of course guess what the list includes but would like to ask views nevertheless. Just because mistakes are made, they don't automatically negate either the strength or actual validity of the evidence originally presented.
I have to finally add that I am undecided about the issue of PII. Obviously we only see one side of the story here and I am no specialist in this area, so I want to read more on this aspect. However, PII claims are always assessed by a court, so the police cannot just decide what they do or don't disclose.
Hmmm, a bit of rambling there whilst waiting for some downloads. Don't crucify me on my first post!
-
My advice before you get bogged down with this case is to look at the whole justice system.
There are many miscarriages of justice cases at the moment where it is so obvious the person is innocent but if someone is found guilty on circumstantial evidence it's so difficult to overturn a guilty verdict.
The twitter account I have has nearly 1700 people following and probably 80% of those have some knowledge and they nearly all agree our judicial system needs looking at so it is fairer.
I have personally talked to a lot of these people and they all agree on one thing if all the evidence (including the inheritance issue and the Mugford NOTW) had been available and given to the jury Jeremy Bamber would never have been convicted
Luckily Jeremy has a lot of loyal supporters and legal experts willing to help him pro bono and will soon be free
-
My advice is, read, read and read again, come to your own conclusions and then enter discussions with people to try and get a better understanding in the areas you don't fully understand.
Don't get caught up in believing anything anyone tells you at face value, whether it's from those who believe in his innocence or from those who believe in his guilt.
-
And definitely don't believe hearsay about Jeremys character because anything nasty that is written is usually written by the relatives or friends of the relatives desperate to keep Jeremy in prison
Just look at the FACTS
Not hearsay
-
And definitely don't believe hearsay about Jeremys character because anything nasty that is written is usually written by the relatives or friends of the relatives desperate to keep Jeremy in prison
Just look at the FACTS
Not hearsay
I think it's likely his relatives and friends knew him better than you do Jackie - certainly they knew more about what he was like at the time of the murders. So why is their opinion any more "hearsay" than yours?
Not having a go - just trying to add a bit of balance.
-
Bob I asked that question yesterday to Hartley but he declined to answer
This is where I am with the fiasco that is going on to blacken Jeremys name and in reply to a pm I had yesterday
Jeremy Bamber was convicted on basically three things
(1) The word of
ex girlfriend who admitted she
had said to him if she couldn't have him nobody could.
The jury accepted (and they were not told about her NOTW bonus on Jeremys conviction) that Mugford had eventually done the right thing and admitted she had known all along Jeremy planned to murder all his family, she had known the night he planned to carry out the murders and she said he admitted he was in fact responsible for all the murders a few hours after they had happened. Julie Mugford was a skilled and manipulative liar as shown when she carried out a face to face fraud with a stolen cheque book on numerous occasions. The deception by Julie Mugford was so good she went from shop to shop without a hint of anyone realising she was using stolen cheques.
Quite something considering she was 21 years old. When in the witness box Julie Mugford kept breaking down when giving evidence making it very difficult for the defence to question her. Quite relevant it appears when she offered to view and identify the bodies (although there were actual relatives who could do this) it seems she wasn't distressed and she hadn't broken down like she did in the witness box
(2) A silencer "found by the relatives"
(3) The character assassination of Jeremy Bamber by the relatives, Julie Mugford and the Police and the press
There was no real evidence used to convict Jeremy just circumstantial and damning statements made by the relatives (who gained financially by Jeremys conviction) and Julie Mugford (who gained financially on Jeremys conviction)
The point I would like to make is, it is getting closer and closer to the truth being revealed about this case and I believe public support will be the main factor for Jeremy gaining his freedom (the authorities will be forced into releasing evidence held under PII)
Jeremy has spent 26 long years in prison on the back of statements by relatives and Julie Mugford telling lies about his character.
This behaviour has proved to be very successful in the past securing the conviction of Jeremy and keeping him in prison.
I am not putting up with it anymore it can stop right now and as long as I am a member on this forum I will jump on anyone that states something nasty about Jeremy as fact when it's not.
I don't care if I get banned I am not going to read that rubbish anymore and I get so angry when i think about Jeremy as a 24 year old boy in the witness box with no family left and the herd of relatives making so much noise when he was giving evidence some of them had to be removed.
Jeremy has become like a friend nothing else just a friend and if I have to protect him I will
-
Bob I asked that question yesterday to Hartley but he declined to answer
It was not a concious declination, I either never saw your question, or the question was in amongst an unsavoury post.
You can ask again politely and I will consider if I can answer it.
-
Cripes, calm down Jackie, you'll burst a blood vessel! I was very careful to make my OP non confrontational, respectful etc. so I hope none of your anger is directed at me. I accepted that others know more on this case than I. However, that is a long way from saying I know little about it, and I am (I think) a reasonably intelligent women who can disregard irrelevances. I will say though, as I have said to others elsewhere....if you want people not to bad mouth JB, you (collectively as a forum, not accusing you as an individual) must not support it when it is done regarding others. I read a post on here ....
"Mugford looked a liar from birth , and the bitch because of Jeremy ending the affair gave the biggest sob ,lie story to the police and they bought it they bought it all, today most likely a fat arsed slob might just be starting to sweat".
Nobody seems to challenge this sort of behaviour when its not JB on the receiving end of the comments. As the majority of you I think are supporters, it doesn't reflect well on your campaign.
I will do as I always have done, and that is to stick to facts and relevant evidence.... oh, and try not to offend anyone!
-
I have been wading through the threads on here (as my time permits). I think you regulars will probably accept that, unless you have been here a while and participating, this is no easy task! Even though each thread starts with a title, they understandably get sidetracked and cover all sorts of things (including willys and what not!) and it's easy to get lost - and go crosseyed in the process. I am not trying to be lazy here but could I just state how I look at things. I will firstly admit that my knowledge of the case is not quite as extensive as some on here. However, the fact is, we don't have court time to examine every trial to this level of detail, even if it was all there from the outset. Some things I find (being honest here, not disrespectful) fantasy, some things minutiae and some things worth finding out more about.
By way of ab observation, I think people get bogged down by the innocent/guilty debate, which starts a lot of the arguments you see here and on other internet exchanges elsewhere. I look at it like this:
JB has been found guilty by a court - fact. It is quite pointless for anyone now to try to prove otherwise, either his supporters to prove his innocence or the non supporters to prove his guilt. What has to be established is whether anything has subsequently come to light since the original decision that, had it been available to the court, the jury might have come to a different conclusion. I cannot buy an assertion that anyone and everyone that was involved in this case, was party to some great stitch up. That's not to say that there weren't mistakes made and I accept that, but any appeal that proposed this with a great barrage of examples of mistakes, procedural failures and inconsistencies would likely fail - as well as pissing the judges off.
If I can be so bold as to ask the supporters to list their top ten (or more but keep to a sensible number), of things that they think, had the original jury been aware of, they might have come to a different decision. Obviously in many successful appeals, things are more straightforward - discredited expert testimony, unreliable confession evidence (fabricated, obtained by oppression etc), new technology such as DNA etc. but this case is accepted as much more complex. I can of course guess what the list includes but would like to ask views nevertheless. Just because mistakes are made, they don't automatically negate either the strength or actual validity of the evidence originally presented.
I have to finally add that I am undecided about the issue of PII. Obviously we only see one side of the story here and I am no specialist in this area, so I want to read more on this aspect. However, PII claims are always assessed by a court, so the police cannot just decide what they do or don't disclose.
Hmmm, a bit of rambling there whilst waiting for some downloads. Don't crucify me on my first post!
you have not got a clue about things have you?...if you have then you will know some of the things you claim are false.
-
Welcome to the madhouse Blueyonder, I hope you are not easily offended and have the ability to ignore some of the behaviour on here. For the most part it's limited to a select few, the rest are generally quite civil and amiable regardless of their views.
Hope you find the information on the forum of interest.
-
Okay Smiffy, please tell me. I will happily stand to be corrected.
-
Thankyou Hartley, I have a thick skin so don't worry. :)
-
Okay Smiffy, please tell me. I will happily stand to be corrected.
tell us what you know about police disclosure to dpp as a startpoint....then work it out.
-
Thankyou for such a constructive post Smiffy, I do hope you feel better for that. I just had a lovely afternoon out in the sunshine.
I don't have to know all there is to know about police disclosure and unused material etc. I am talking about PII, which is subject to scrutiny by a court. I put a big caveat in my introductory post about my current conclusion on this case and I admitted I wanted to know more about the PII issue.
If I was a supporter, I would want to enlighten and educate, not go out of my way to imply newcomers who don't share my views are muppets, and dissuade them from further reading on the case. I am surely glad I am not incarcerated with you batting for my side, dear lord! Even though I don't agree with all that JB's supporters believe, I do admire in many of them their determination and dedication. They really do not deserve their efforts being diminished by the unprovoked snipes so often in your posts.
Have a nice day :)
-
Thankyou for such a constructive post Smiffy, I do hope you feel better for that. I just had a lovely afternoon out in the sunshine.
I don't have to know all there is to know about police disclosure and unused material etc. I am talking about PII, which is subject to scrutiny by a court. I put a big caveat in my introductory post about my current conclusion on this case and I admitted I wanted to know more about the PII issue.
If I was a supporter, I would want to enlighten and educate, not go out of my way to imply newcomers who don't share my views are muppets, and dissuade them from further reading on the case. I am surely glad I am not incarcerated with you batting for my side, dear lord! Even though I don't agree with all that JB's supporters believe, I do admire in many of them their determination and dedication. They really do not deserve their efforts being diminished by the unprovoked snipes so often in your posts.
Have a nice day :)
odd is it not that you did not address the issue I raised.
odd is it not that others are so suspicious of you ,before today, and all about you for things are so familiar and the tone and content is so familiar its as though you have posted on this forum before
suddenly after a few mere posts you resort to abuse...but there again ..your first post on this thread you created was abusive and contemptible of others and typical of someone very pompous.
evasive as ever with many anti-jb types and never dealing with points raised .
-
Cripes, calm down Jackie, you'll burst a blood vessel! I was very careful to make my OP non confrontational, respectful etc. so I hope none of your anger is directed at me. I accepted that others know more on this case than I. However, that is a long way from saying I know little about it, and I am (I think) a reasonably intelligent women who can disregard irrelevances. I will say though, as I have said to others elsewhere....if you want people not to bad mouth JB, you (collectively as a forum, not accusing you as an individual) must not support it when it is done regarding others. I read a post on here ....
"Mugford looked a liar from birth , and the bitch because of Jeremy ending the affair gave the biggest sob ,lie story to the police and they bought it they bought it all, today most likely a fat arsed slob might just be starting to sweat".
Nobody seems to challenge this sort of behaviour when its not JB on the receiving end of the comments. As the majority of you I think are supporters, it doesn't reflect well on your campaign.
I will do as I always have done, and that is to stick to facts and relevant evidence.... oh, and try not to offend anyone!
I challenge all bad behaviour and have done and do ban members from both sides of the argument. But if you would kindly go to the facebook page entitled, "Jeremy Bamber Guilty as Charged" then you will see that by far the majority of abuse is dished out by members of this page to all JB's supporters and Jeremy himself. I will come down hard on anyone abusing their freedom to speak on this forum by badmouthing any other member.
One thing I should make clear here. That Jackie is a well established member here and a valuable contributor. Any new player must learn to be patient when it comes to rashly challenging certain knowledge and calling it fantasy without actually explaining what they are actually reverring to. Also I must remind folk that respect is something that is earned. So it's no good deliberately posting something knowing that it will annoy someone else and then claim that the other person is being abusive to you. So to be sensitive towards other's feelings works both ways.
One other thing. This is a pro Bamber forum and as such we will not tolerate any bad mouthing of Jeremy Bamber either. If and when he is referred to he is to be shown the same respect as if he is here.
So I expect you to be equal in your observations and not to make wild statements that nobody seems to challenge bad comments if they are made by pro Bamber supporters. That statement in itself is inflammatory and unfair and indicates a clear lack of observation and equity on your part.
-
I have no idea of who you think I am, I have never, repeat never, posted on this forum before.
How my first post can be considered abusive I do not know. As for being pompous, I tried to just be honest and open. I am not convinced that the conviction should be interfered with but I keep an open mind and want to know more - which is why I am here, in an effort to do just that.
Anyway, life is way too short already, I am certainly not going to rise to your bait. If anyone sensible and reasonable wants to engage with me then all well and good, if not, I'll just keep reading on my own.
-
I have no idea of who you think I am, I have never, repeat never, posted on this forum before.
How my first post can be considered abusive I do not know. As for being pompous, I tried to just be honest and open. I am not convinced that the conviction should be interfered with but I keep an open mind and want to know more - which is why I am here, in an effort to do just that.
Anyway, life is way too short already, I am certainly not going to rise to your bait. If anyone sensible and reasonable wants to engage with me then all well and good, if not, I'll just keep reading on my own.
blueyonder I have said none of those things about you. What I am doing is setting out the ground rules clearly so that you being new here can be aware of them. I am not laying bait of any sort. Why are you assuming these things? calm down you might burst a blood vessel.
-
Grahame, my last post was not directed at you. You must have posted at same time. I am perfectly calm but would honestly rather occupy my time otherwise than engage in this.
-
Hello Blueyonder, i have read your input over the last day or so perhaps if you can offer your views to the rest on the forum we might just get a debate going,
i have said many times and i will say again i think Jeremy is not guilty and ive based my view on looking at this case from last September and recently joining the forum,in the past month there has been a few members who ran quite bad attacks on Jeremy and some of us did not think this is right, the few had nothing to bring to debate just the same day in, Jeremy did not have a fair trial, if you look on the forum its one of the first things that comes clear,we are here to listen for and against and i will even if i support Jeremy.