Jeremy Bamber Forum
OFF TOPIC => General => Topic started by: Hartley on March 06, 2012, 12:39:PM
-
We've all poured over the facts, half truths and outright lies regarding this case, presented on this forum and elsewhere.
A common phrase which is often typed with exasperation into a forum reply is "I can't understand why you can't see that", which is often preceded by a document or image which a person believes beyond doubt proves their take on a particular issue to be the correct and accurate one.
I've come to the conclusion that there are intelligent people on both sides of the argument, there isn't an intellectual divide, so it can't be the case that somebody doesn't agree with somebody else because one person has the intelligence to see the truth and the other doesn't.
So what is it?
I've witnessed over the last year or so a clear divide on peoples opinions of the police, the courts, judges, the CCRC and in fact nearly all aspects of the state.
The clear divide is that those who believe Jeremy to be innocent, generally have a poor opinion of these groups (for want of a better word) and see them as undesirable or even harmful, they are often very emotional about their view although that emotion often manifests itself in a negative or critical way.
Then there are those who believe in Jeremy's guilt, who generally have a good opinion of the police, courts, judges, the CCRC etc, they also seem to be more willing to support and accept the actions and decisions of these groups, and less able to accept criticism of them.
That's a very loose and by no means exclusive description, with various extremes and exceptions within each camp.
Some people may have guessed where I'm going with this by now, but the description above of the two camps, seems to quite neatly fit into two opposing political spectrums, a left (Camp Innocent) and a right (Camp Guilty), with the fence sitters propping up the centre.
I often wonder if the same group of people on this forum were tasked with discussing another, but equally emotive subject, whether the divides would be identical.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, just random musings whilst it was quiet. :-[
-
We've all poured over the facts, half truths and outright lies regarding this case, presented on this forum and elsewhere.
A common phrase which is often typed with exasperation into a forum reply is "I can't understand why you can't see that", which is often preceded by a document or image which a person believes beyond doubt proves their take on a particular issue to be the correct and accurate one.
I've come to the conclusion that there are intelligent people on both sides of the argument, there isn't an intellectual divide, so it can't be the case that somebody doesn't agree with somebody else because one person has the intelligence to see the truth and the other doesn't.
So what is it?
I've witnessed over the last year or so a clear divide on peoples opinions of the police, the courts, judges, the CCRC and in fact nearly all aspects of the state.
The clear divide is that those who believe Jeremy to be innocent, generally have a poor opinion of these groups (for want of a better word) and see them as undesirable or even harmful, they are often very emotional about their view although that emotion often manifests itself in a negative or critical way.
Then there are those who believe in Jeremy's guilt, who generally have a good opinion of the police, courts, judges, the CCRC etc, they also seem to be more willing to support and accept the actions and decisions of these groups, and less able to accept criticism of them.
That's a very loose and by no means exclusive description, with various extremes and exceptions within each camp.
Some people may have guessed where I'm going with this by now, but the description above of the two camps, seems to quite neatly fit into two opposing political spectrums, a left (Camp Innocent) and a right (Camp Guilty), with the fence sitters propping up the centre.
I often wonder if the same group of people on this forum were tasked with discussing another, but equally emotive subject, whether the divides would be identical.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, just random musings whilst it was quiet. :-[
I think there is some merit in your hypothesis. Those who believe JB to be a MOJ victim tend to have a more critical attitude towards the police and the legal system. Those views tend to be more associated with those on the left of the political spectrum. On the other hand I do not believe that JB's supporters can be generally labelled as left wing. To give an example one of his most staunch supporters is the former MP Andrew Hunter, who is on the far right of the conservative party. Some of JB's supporters on this forum have indicated that their political views are conservative rather than left wing.
-
that doesnt take in to account people who have changed sides.
-
that doesnt take in to account people who have changed sides.
I said there were exceptions.
-
that doesnt take in to account people who have changed sides.
Maybe they are floating voters! lol
-
Maybe they are floating voters! lol
;D
-
"I can't understand why you can't see that"
I really really can't see how anyone can think he is guilty when there is simply no hard evidence against him. Take away all the evidence from people with a financial interest in him being found guilty and there is nothing left to convict him with....it's that simple for me :)
-
Maybe they are floating voters! lol
Maybe we should have a poll.
-
I think there is some merit in your hypothesis. Those who believe JB to be a MOJ victim tend to have a more critical attitude towards the police and the legal system. Those views tend to be more associated with those on the left of the political spectrum. On the other hand I do not believe that JB's supporters can be generally labelled as left wing. To give an example one of his most staunch supporters is the former MP Andrew Hunter, who is on the far right of the conservative party. Some of JB's supporters on this forum have indicated that their political views are conservative rather than left wing.
Yes, it was just an observation, I wasn't trying to label anybody.
-
I find an argument that has been used too much on this forum by guilty posters is JB was found guilty by a majority jury and has had two appeals turned down
I do not think that is an arguement when JB has protested his innocence from day 1 and still does
We are really here to debate if this case should go to the appeal court
Juries and Appeal Court Judges have made numerous mistakes in the past and will do in the future
Then we go to the PII evidence still being held. I think if this evidence was all released we would all feel more comfortable which side of the fence we are on
-
I really really can't see how anyone can think he is guilty when there is simply no hard evidence against him. Take away all the evidence from people with a financial interest in him being found guilty and there is nothing left to convict him with....it's that simple for me :)
Colin Cafell. The murdered twins father.
-
Could I ask Hartley and Vic if you think the case should go to the CoA for a third time. I would imagine you don't want it to but giving the recent McKay evidence, do you think it should?
-
I haven't seen the evidence presented to the CCRC so have no idea how strong it is.
If it is strong enough then they will refer if it's not then so be it.
-
Could I ask Hartley and Vic if you think the case should go to the CoA for a third time. I would imagine you don't want it to but giving the recent McKay evidence, do you think it should?
Hi DV8, I've made no secret of my opinion that Jeremy is guilty and it is my gut feeling that this case has little to no chance of being referred, based on what information I have seen.
However, as per a reply to Jackie yesterday, I would also like to emphasise that I have no idea what is contained within the defences submission to the CCRC and I am certainly not in any position where I am any more informed of the likely outcome,than anybody else.
-
Thank's Vic and Hartley. Could I ask do the relatives get a pre-warning by the CCRC of their decisions or do they find out when the decision is made public?
-
They usualy get a 24hr head start.
-
They usualy get a 24hr head start.
So you have to keep it zipped on here for a day eh Vic? ;D
-
yep, if they tell me that is...!!
-
Colin Cafell. The murdered twins father.
What evidence did he give?...was he actually there to witness the events?
-
Then we go to the PII evidence still being held. I think if this evidence was all released we would all feel more comfortable which side of the fence we are on
Well, they are certainly not withholding anything that proves his guilt, so I can't see anyone changing to the he's guilty side if they do release anything else.
-
What evidence did he give?...was he actually there to witness the events?
No but Colin is absolutely convinced of Bamber's guilt and he couldn't be accused of having a financial interest for framing Bamber.
-
No but Colin is absolutely convinced of Bamber's guilt and he couldn't be accused of having a financial interest for framing Bamber.
That must come back to "gut feeling" on his part because like us he hasn't seen the withheld evidence
-
Hartley, Here's one for your random musings. When the recent ECHR ruling went against Bamber, do you think if he had not been used as part of the test case and only the other two, who are serial psychopaths and must never be released, that it would have been thrown out much earlier. And was it wise for his team to have allowed his case to be used at a time when an appeal attempt was underway. I thought it was a cynical and weakened his cause, giving an impression of him as foolish. Declining that offer instead of excepting it would have said more about his campaign of innocence, in my opinion.
-
Vic there are people that lean towards guilty but are not sure because they believe evidence is witheld under PII.
Ngb how factual was In the Name of the Father?
Was there really a file sitting in storage that had on it Do Not Show To The Defence and could there be a file just like sitting in storage?
That film was very haunting!
-
Hartley, Here's one for your random musings. When the recent ECHR ruling went against Bamber, do you think if he had not been used as part of the test case and only the other two, who are serial psychopaths and must never be released, that it would have been thrown out much earlier. And was it wise for his team to have allowed his case to be used at a time when an appeal attempt was underway. I thought it was a cynical and weakened his cause, giving an impression of him as foolish. Declining that offer instead of excepting it would have said more about his campaign of innocence, in my opinion.
No, because the appeal was on the grounds of human rights and directly relating to the whole life tariff, their crimes were given as background only, they were not taken into account in any way.
-
No but Colin is absolutely convinced of Bamber's guilt and he couldn't be accused of having a financial interest for framing Bamber.
Dv8 I am absolutely convinced Lamberton looks like a pervert that doesn't mean he is one
-
No but Colin is absolutely convinced of Bamber's guilt and he couldn't be accused of having a financial interest for framing Bamber.
Out of interest Hartley or Vidvic do you know if Jeremy ever blamed Colin for the deaths of his family?
Re that last journey to WHF when Sheila asked Colin to take her back and he said he was with someone else
-
Dv8 I am absolutely convinced Lamberton looks like a pervert that doesn't mean he is one
But Colin is convinced by the evidence of Bamber's guilt. Just as all the other relatives are.
Not a gut feeling.
-
Dv8 circumstantial evidence as you know
Mugford definitely had nothing to back her story up
-
Out of interest Hartley or Vidvic do you know if Jeremy ever blamed Colin for the deaths of his family?
Re that last journey to WHF when Sheila asked Colin to take her back and he said he was with someone else
How do you know about this private conversation in a car? Even if it did happened, to equate that to blame for the murders is quite beyond the pale IMO.
-
But Colin is convinced by the evidence of Bamber's guilt. Just as all the other relatives are.
Not a gut feeling.
The family of Jill Dando and her close friend Nick Ross stated they were happy with the conviction of Barry George just before his appeal...even after his release Nick Ross never changed his mind.
The family of Rachel Manning said they were happy with the conviction of Barry White and the Police investigation when they were asked by the Rough Justice team re-investigating the case. White was released on appeal and someone else was charged with Rachels murder this year.
My point is it's actually quite rare to find any family members of murder victims coming out and questioning a conviction.
-
[/quote]How do you know about this private conversation in a car? Even if it did happened, to equate that to blame for the murders is quite beyond the pale IMO.
Out of interest Hartley or Vidvic do you know if Jeremy ever blamed Colin for the deaths of his family?
Re that last journey to WHF when Sheila asked Colin to take her back and he said he was with someone else
This is a really good point Jackie. You'd expect Jeremy to have at least a little anger towards Colin if, as he claims, he was innocent, but there has never been anything that I know of.
-
Hartley, Having considered a response carefully, my conclusion is, without Bamber it would not have got the coverage it did.
-
Vic there are people that lean towards guilty but are not sure because they believe evidence is witheld under PII.
Ngb how factual was In the Name of the Father?Was there really a file sitting in storage that had on it Do Not Show To The Defence and could there be a file just like sitting in storage?That film was very haunting!
The film was obviously based on actual events but much was changed for dramatic effect. It was well received but I know it irritated people with a legal background because its depiction of the English legal framework was very inaccurate. For example it blurred the important distinction between solicitors and barristers. Gareth Pierce was depicted as presenting the appeal in court, as if this was a US court with an attorney. In fact the appeal was argued by Mike Mansfield with a junior, and with Gareth Pierce as his instructing solicitor.
It is true that Gareth Pierce found a file that the prosecution had intended the defence not to see so to that extent the film was accurate. There are some similarities to Jeremy's case in that some material held under PII has been discovered by accident. There is more material and my hunch is that some of this would support the defence.
-
The family of Jill Dando and her close friend Nick Ross stated they were happy with the conviction of Barry George just before his appeal...even after his release Nick Ross never changed his mind.
The family of Rachel Manning said they were happy with the conviction of Barry White and the Police investigation when they were asked by the Rough Justice team re-investigating the case. White was released on appeal and someone else was charged with Rachels murder this year.
My point is it's actually quite rare to find any family members of murder victims coming out and questioning a conviction.
That is a fair point. As a topical example, the family of Joan Albert remain convinced of Simon Hall's guilt. It is a natural reaction by those close to a victim. They want to believe that justice has been done, even where it may not have been.
-
Dv8 I am absolutely convinced Lamberton looks like a pervert that doesn't mean he is one
It is apparently Lamberton's brother who is a pervert.
-
Hartley, Having considered a response carefully, my conclusion is, without Bamber it would not have got the coverage it did.
Well it doesn't really matter, but I disagree, the big storey was "How dare Europe tell us what to do", I don't really think Jeremy Bamber made it into a bigger storey.
Although I respect that you may have a different view.
-
That is a fair point. As a topical example, the family of Joan Albert remain convinced of Simon Hall's guilt. It is a natural reaction by those close to a victim. They want to believe that justice has been done, even where it may not have been.
One can always find examples to support any view. Thankfully MoJ cases as mentioned are very rare.
-
This is a really good point Jackie. You'd expect Jeremy to have at least a little anger towards Colin if, as he claims, he was innocent, but there has never been anything that I know of.
Jeremy does not have any anger towards Colin. He liked him and got on well with him. He certainly does not blame Colin for his conviction.
-
One can always find examples to support any view. Thankfully MoJ cases as mentioned are very rare.
I believe that MOJ cases are far from rare. Obviously most are not murder cases, but even so there is a serious problem with our legal system in the way that MOJ cases are rectified. Our criminal justice system is probably superior to most if not all in Europe, save in the way in which appeals are handled. The Court of Appeal itself has a lametable record and the CCRC has been a spectacular failure. In my humble opinion of course.
-
Neil that must have been an amazing time when the Guildford convictions were overturned.
Was there ever any excuse given for not disclosing such an important file
It is frightening and Jeremy and the guildord four must have been appealing at the same time or have I got the dates wrong?
-
NGB could you dispell the myth that circumstantial evidence is necessarily weak evidence or 'dodgy' evidence as is often suggested. Would you agree that it can be equally as compelling as direct evidence. Evidence stands by it's strength as evidence, be it direct or circumstantial?
Am I correct in believing that DNA, fingerprint and blood analysis evidence is in fact defined as circumstantial evidence?
-
NGB could you dispell the myth that circumstantial evidence is necessarily weak evidence or 'dodgy' evidence as is often suggested. Would you agree that it can be equally as compelling as direct evidence. Evidence stands by it's strength as evidence, be it direct or circumstantial?
Am I correct in believing that DNA, fingerprint and blood analysis evidence is in fact defined as circumstantial evidence?
Circumstantial evidence is any evidence which may support the prosecution case but is not direct evidence(such as an eye witness to the crime itself). By its nature circumstantial evidence is less powerful than direct evidence, but I agree that a case built upon circumstantial evidence can nevertheless be a strong case. A collection of circumstantial evidence taken together may provide a compelling case.
DNA, fingerprint and blood analysis evidence is normally described as expert evidence. Technically I suppose it can be regarded as circumstantial evidence.
-
This is a really good point Jackie. You'd expect Jeremy to have at least a little anger towards Colin if, as he claims, he was innocent, but there has never been anything that I know of.
There is his letter on the forum to Colin. I believe he expresses that he cannot provide Colin with the answers that he seeks because he does not know what happened him self.
There is his letter to Julie (never received?) expressing a plea for her to 'tell the truth'.
I believe I have been previously told that for quite a while, Jeremy was angry with Sheila. This anger allegedly subsided with time and a greater understanding of serious mental illness.
-
why woul anybody hold anger towards colin.
-
The family of Jill Dando and her close friend Nick Ross stated they were happy with the conviction of Barry George just before his appeal...even after his release Nick Ross never changed his mind.
The family of Rachel Manning said they were happy with the conviction of Barry White and the Police investigation when they were asked by the Rough Justice team re-investigating the case. White was released on appeal and someone else was charged with Rachels murder this year.
My point is it's actually quite rare to find any family members of murder victims coming out and questioning a conviction.
This is a very good post. I have suspected for some time that there could be similarities in this case. I have portrayed this as a sort of 'Villain syndrome'. Where a 'villain' exists for a heinous crime but then later serious doubts are prevalent, some of those who have accepted the 'villain' will not readily give up that 'villain' as being the perpetrator.
This could be getting in to the realms of egap territory but I wonder if any statistical research has been carried out regarding acquittals / victims' family maintaining a belief in the acquitted as still culpable?
-
Maybe they are floating voters! lol
Or voting floaters?
-
Circumstantial evidence is any evidence which may support the prosecution case but is not direct evidence(such as an eye witness to the crime itself). By its nature circumstantial evidence is less powerful than direct evidence, but I agree that a case built upon circumstantial evidence can nevertheless be a strong case. A collection of circumstantial evidence taken together may provide a compelling case.
DNA, fingerprint and blood analysis evidence is normally described as expert evidence. Technically I suppose it can be regarded as circumstantial evidence.
Thank you NGB. I do not agree that:
By its nature circumstantial evidence is less powerful than direct evidence,
It depends on each individual item of evidence. For exampe an eyewitness giving direct identification evidence to a crime could quite easily be proved to be mistaken or lying by circumstantial evidence proving the identified person was nowhere near the crime when it happened.
Circumstantial evidence may indeed be far more powerful than direct evidence in some circumstances. IMHO.
-
Thank you NGB. I do not agree that:
By its nature circumstantial evidence is less powerful than direct evidence,
It depends on each individual item of evidence. For exampe an eyewitness giving direct identification evidence to a crime could quite easily be proved to be mistaken or lying by circumstantial evidence proving the identified person was nowhere near the crime when it happened.
Circumstantial evidence may indeed be far more powerful than direct evidence in some circumstances. IMHO.
I understand the point you are making but the example you have given does not really take this any further. The evidence of the eyewitness would be completely discredited so therefore would fall away as evidence. In any event you are presumably talking about circumstantial evidence called by the defence. I am not sure that would be circumstantial evidence rather than direct evidence disproving the evidence given by a prosecution witness. In my view is is correct to say that as a general principle direct evidence is more powerful than circumstantial evidence, but I have accepted your argument that in some cases a body of circumstantial evidence can result in a strong case.
-
I understand the point you are making but the example you have given does not really take this any further. The evidence of the eyewitness would be completely discredited so therefore would fall away as evidence. In any event you are presumably talking about circumstantial evidence called by the defence. I am not sure that would be circumstantial evidence rather than direct evidence disproving the evidence given by a prosecution witness. In my view is is correct to say that as a general principle direct evidence is more powerful than circumstantial evidence, but I have accepted your argument that in some cases a body of circumstantial evidence can result in a strong case.
Without speaking out of turn, I think DV8 is trying to address people who say that JB was convicted on circumstantial evidence, thinking that this indicates a weak/flimsy case against him.
-
I understand the point you are making but the example you have given does not really take this any further. The evidence of the eyewitness would be completely discredited so therefore would fall away as evidence. In any event you are presumably talking about circumstantial evidence called by the defence. I am not sure that would be circumstantial evidence rather than direct evidence disproving the evidence given by a prosecution witness. In my view is is correct to say that as a general principle direct evidence is more powerful than circumstantial evidence, but I have accepted your argument that in some cases a body of circumstantial evidence can result in a strong case.
Thank's again NGB.
I won't continue making up an imaginary case! ;D
I was more trying to dispell the notion I have read on a few posts that circumstantial evidence is in someway inferior evidence or indeed necessarily dodgy!
This googled article expresses my point better than I could:
Validity of circumstantial evidence
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence". [2] The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.
Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.
In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other.[3] Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times,[4] and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.[5] Thus strong circumstantial evidence can be a more reliable basis on which to determine a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eye-witness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eye witness does.
However, there is sometimes more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another his innocence, the "benefit of the doubt" principle would apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility.[6]
-
Dv8 I think you will find it's because of the actual strength of the circumstantial evidence' that a number of high profile people have just taken notice of this case and want to let the general public know more.
I don't know exactly what is going on with the media and documentary makers but their could be a solid lot of public opinion behind JB s case over the next couple of weeks if the case is discussed a lot
I think the word reasonable doubt versus a whole life tariff would be a good place to start
Nobody knows if JB is guilty or innocent
-
Without speaking out of turn, I think DV8 is trying to address people who say that JB was convicted on circumstantial evidence, thinking that this indicates a weak/flimsy case against him.
I understand the point he is making, and agree with most of what he says. Many cases are based entirely upon circumstantial evidence and such evidence taken together can be very powerful. Obviously in relation to the Bamber case we disagree about the strength of the evidence, which was almost entirely circumstantial.
-
Dv8 I think you will find it's because of the actual strength of the circumstantial evidence' that a number of high profile people have just taken notice of this case and want to let the general public know more.
I don't know exactly what is going on with the media and documentary makers but their could be a solid lot of public opinion behind JB s case over the next couple of weeks if the case is discussed a lot
I think the word reasonable doubt versus a whole life tariff would be a good place to start
Nobody knows if JB is guilty or innocent
Perhaps we are not looking in the right direction understandable with car lights off but switched on at night there is a signpost ahead with a clue ..mugford.
-
Dv8 I think you will find it's because of the actual strength of the circumstantial evidence' that a number of high profile people have just taken notice of this case and want to let the general public know more.
I don't know exactly what is going on with the media and documentary makers but their could be a solid lot of public opinion behind JB s case over the next couple of weeks if the case is discussed a lot
I think the word reasonable doubt versus a whole life tariff would be a good place to start
Nobody knows if JB is guilty or innocent
Actually Grahame said the other day that nobody should be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone. Ever. I was just address the fact that circumstantial doesn't necessarily mean weak.
Nobody knows if JB is guilty or innocent accept JB of course!
-
Thank's again NGB.
I won't continue making up an imaginary case! ;D
I was more trying to dispell the notion I have read on a few posts that circumstantial evidence is in someway inferior evidence or indeed necessarily dodgy!
This googled article expresses my point better than I could
[
Isn't google wonderful! We don't need lawyers!
I agree that circumstantial evidence is not necessarily dodgy, and it can also be very strong evidence. I do not think the evidence in the Bamber case was strong or reliable, for various reasons.
-
Actually Grahame said the other day that nobody should be convicted on circumstantial evidence alone. Ever. I was just address the fact that circumstantial doesn't necessarily mean weak.
Nobody knows if JB is guilty or innocent accept JB of course!
Or in the event of an incident between police and Sheila... the police.
-
Unfortunately there is absolutely no direct evidence against Jeremy. Also the circumstantial evidence was very poor.
-
Grahame this topic was started over lunchtime if i am correct, i have been out most of the time but could have made a post at any time, my thoughts were not to enter the thread at all so i waited to see how it continues, i became interested in one or two posts, take any topic on the forum and you will have divide galore daily its what the forum does, yet those who believe jb is guilty unless i have it wrong have yet to show any minute sense of morality in mugford in been just in recieving the pay off.
-
Or in the event of an incident between police and Sheila... the police.
You don't believe that do you? Jeremy Bamber doesn't!
-
Grahame this topic was started over lunchtime if i am correct, i have been out most of the time but could have made a post at any time, my thoughts were not to enter the thread at all so i waited to see how it continues, i became interested in one or two posts, take any topic on the forum and you will have divide galore daily its what the forum does, yet those who believe jb is guilty unless i have it wrong have yet to show any minute sense of morality in mugford in been just in recieving the pay off.
Eh?
-
You don't believe that do you? Jeremy Bamber doesn't!
Believe what?
-
Dv8 never underestimate public opinion or public support
What do you really think the public would make of this case if there was a three hour documentary showing the events of the night, highlighting Mugford one of the main witnesses, the police investigation and the PII issue?
I have been told privately on a one to one basis by someone very high profile that they believe Jeremy is innocent.
-
Believe what?
The police shot Sheila.
-
Dv8 never underestimate public opinion or public support
What do you really think the public would make of this case if there was a three hour documentary showing the events of the night, highlighting Mugford one of the main witnesses, the police investigation and the PII issue?
I have been told privately on a one to one basis by someone very high profile that they believe Jeremy is innocent.
Jackie the Bamber case is one of the most sensational and notorious of the last century. The public have been more than well aware of the case and it has never been popularly accepted as a MoJ.
When is this documentary coming out? It might well be too late to matter if the CCRC doesn't refer the case to the CoA?
-
The police shot Sheila.
Right. 'an incident between police and Sheila' leaves room for a number of scenarios. I think the defence are open minded about what exactly took place.
-
It might not have been a popular MOJ but it is like a runaway train at the moment the amount of high profile people getting involved.
We will have to wait and see!
I trust Neils judgement and Simons Judgement and the next high profile person yet to show his hand
The PII information will be released, make no mistake about that
-
Jackie the Bamber case is one of the most sensational and notorious of the last century. The public have been more than well aware of the case and it has never been popularly accepted as a MoJ.
I'm not sure that any moj has been popularly accepted as such? But you can be sure of one thing. It is very popular amoge law students and a great many people from the legal profession.
-
Students and the Legal quarters world wide so it seems .
-
I'm not sure that any moj has been popularly accepted as such? But you can be sure of one thing. It is very popular amoge law students and a great many people from the legal profession.
I am thinking about the Guilford 4, Birmingham 6, George Davis Is Innocent, campaigns etc. I mean Michael Mansfield hasn't even got involved and he does like to get involved!
I don't think the British public opinion can be considered uneasy at Bamber's conviction.
-
How do you know Mike Mansfied is not involved?
You could be surprised
Neil knows Mike very well
-
How do you know Mike Mansfied is not involved?
You could be surprised
Neil knows Mike very well
Mansfield doesn't normally keep quiet about projects he is involved in. Why is your new high profile personality being kept quiet Jackie? I would of thought the run up to the CCRC decision would be a vital time to speak up and as I have said before, it may be redundant after the decision.
-
You never really know what Mike would be up to do you?
My high profile person is working very hard on the case as we speak but he has asked me not to say who he is right now.
As you know I would never break a confidence, when the time is right
I am in touch with lots of people at the moment but he is the one that will probably change the course of events in a positive way
-
You never really know what Mike would be up to do you?
My high profile person is working very hard on the case as we speak but he has asked me not to say who he is right now.
As you know I would never break a confidence, when the time is right
I am in touch with lots of people at the moment but he is the one that will probably change the course of events in a positive way
Aren't you worried that the CCRC will come back with a negative result for Bamber in which case it will take many years to go thru the process again whatever this new high profile person comes out and says?
-
Looking back at the 1980s 90s and to this day we still are a primitive society, we are unable to stop crime, there is a way but not for this forum to know, its only a matter of time to when someone does something the human race is best at and thats make an error they are fail safe they always do.
-
Looking back at the 1980s 90s and to this day we still are a primitive society, we are unable to stop crime, there is a way but not for this forum to know, its only a matter of time to when someone does something the human race is best at and thats make an error they are fail safe they always do.
Mertol your posts are the stuff of legend. No one expresses themselves quite like you!
-
Mertol your posts are the stuff of legend. No one expresses themselves quite like you!
My pointer is to favour jeremy of course as in evidence.
-
My pointer is to favour jeremy of course as in evidence.
Another classic conundrum! Do you have any stats on the reliability and accuracy of your pointer?
-
Aren't you worried that the CCRC will come back with a negative result for Bamber in which case it will take many years to go thru the process again whatever this new high profile person comes out and says?
What should I be worried about this is not a personal case for me it's to do with an unfair trial, and an unfair summing up and the withholding of PII and standing up to the troll troublemakers. One way another I will with the help I have get EVERYTHING released under PII.
The government will not want another application started to the CCRC and why should we continue to pay for half the story. I have no worries at all these are exciting times
-
My pointer is to favour jeremy of course as in evidence.
I have the letter the 2nd one from jeremy he sent last month he has said something , to keep his privacy i will respect his reply.
-
What should I be worried about this is not a personal case for me it's to do with an unfair trial, and an unfair summing up and the withholding of PII and standing up to the troll troublemakers. One way another I will with the help I have get EVERYTHING released under PII.
The government will not want another application started to the CCRC and why should we continue to pay for half the story. I have no worries at all these are exciting times
I didn't mean you being personally worried Jackie. I think I have read on the site even NGB believes that if the CCRC uphold their original provisional rejection of Bamber's appeal application, then it will be very difficult for the defence to move forward from there and take many, many years.
I would describe the decision as Bamber's last best chance.
I think that should your new personality declare his interest after a CCRC rejection decision then the horse will have bolted IMHO.
Of course my point is irrelevent if the CCRC rule in favour of Bamber.
-
Dv8 I think you have misread things somewhere as Neil and Simon believe Jeremy has a good chance of a referral but there are also those little nuggets of evidence held under PII that could become available and Jeremy could just walk out of prison in weeks anyway.
I am excited about the prime time documentary coming out that will definitely be pro bamber and I am excited to see the publics response.
Because of recent events I might devote time now to make sure Simon Hall never sees the light of day for the horrendous murder he committed. People like that cannot be allowed back on the streets. That's my next twitter campaign. I don't take kindly to the abuse from his troll wife Stephanie Hall. What an evil pair.
-
Dv8 I think you have misread things somewhere as Neil and Simon believe Jeremy has a good chance of a referral but there are also those little nuggets of evidence held under PII that could become available and Jeremy could just walk out of prison in weeks anyway.
I am excited about the prime time documentary coming out that will definitely be pro bamber and I am excited to see the publics response.
Because of recent events I might devote time now to make sure Simon Hall never sees the light of day for the horrendous murder he committed. People like that cannot be allowed back on the streets. That's my next twitter campaign. I don't take kindly to the abuse from his troll wife Stephanie Hall. What an evil pair.
WTF has Simon Hall's case got to do with the discussion.
Simon Hall's case was dropped from this forum without a word mentioned to Stephanie. She then lost many hours of work when you caused the previous forum to be shut down and the reasons being nothing to do with the Hall case. I am not surprised if that upset her.
I think to actively campaign against her husband's case which you previously have shown no interest in because you are upset with Stephanie is appalling behaviour and willingly vindictive. As is you calling her evil for supporting her husband's innocence just as you have supported Bamber.
You complain about the abuse you have received from various quarters. That threat of yours is a perfect example of just why you have had such abuse!
-
dv8 you can stop that right now Stephanie Hall was being abusive to me when she knows nothing about me from the pro boards forum.
Don't talk rubbish
She is a nasty piece of work and someone else from this forum has been threatened by her.
I got the other forum shut down because of the abuse to most of the members on this forum
She was one of the bullies and trolls
Or are you going to say she said nothing about any of us
She was part of a group that thought it was funny to laugh at Mike having cancer, she loves John Lamberton and licks his arse
I am glad all the information was lost it serves them right for all the abuse we have got of them
I think she is dangerous and a nasty person as is her husband
You have really shown your true colours 'phil' haven't you
-
dv8 you can stop that right now Stephanie Hall was being abusive to me when she knows nothing about me from the pro boards forum.
Don't talk rubbish
She is a nasty piece of work and someone else from this forum has been threatened by her.
I got the other forum shut down because of the abuse to most of the members on this forum
She was one of the bullies and trolls
Or are you going to say she said nothing about any of us
She was part of a group that thought it was funny to laugh at Mike having cancer, she loves John Lamberton and licks his arse
I am glad all the information was lost it serves them right for all the abuse we have got of them
I think she is dangerous and a nasty person as is her husband
You have really shown your true colours 'phil' haven't you
You carry on Jackie if that's how you want to live your life.
-
because you are upset with Stephanie is appalling behaviour and willingly vindictive
I am upset with her foul mouth and troll like behaviour and abuse to members of this forum
People like that are disgusting try reading her posts or I might post them all tomorrow so we can all look at them
No DV8 I don't want to be a STEPHANIE
Vile
-
because you are upset with Stephanie is appalling behaviour and willingly vindictive
I am upset with her foul mouth and troll like behaviour and abuse to members of this forum
People like that are disgusting try reading her posts or I might post them all tomorrow so we can all look at them
No DV8 I don't want to be a STEPHANIE
Vile
At least she has met the person she is campaigning for and he talks to her! ;D
-
Funny!!!
The latest fairy story from the grotto is they are taking the piss out of Vic and still making out they are friends with the people at WHF
They must eat magic mushrooms over there
-
Funny!!!
The latest fairy story from the grotto is they are taking the piss out of Vic and still making out they are friends with the people at WHF
They must eat magic mushrooms over there
That doesn't interest me in the slightest. I have told you what I think about your future career plans and will leave it at that.
-
Bye close the door on your way out and hurry back to your mates!
-
I meant to add while they have been taking the piss out of someone 'golden grahams'
grahams daughter has been critically ill
Scumbags the lot of them
-
Bye close the door on your way out and hurry back to your mates!
Don't forget to blow out the candles on your little Bamber shrine before you hit the sack .... alone. Nite.
-
Night Tim
-
WTF has Simon Hall's case got to do with the discussion.
Simon Hall's case was dropped from this forum without a word mentioned to Stephanie. She then lost many hours of work when you caused the previous forum to be shut down and the reasons being nothing to do with the Hall case. I am not surprised if that upset her.
I certainly didn't delete Simon Hall's case and I suspect that Neil didn't either? Stephanie just decided to delete her account for no apparent reason. She most certainly didn't abuse anyone whilst on this forum and neither did she receive any abuse from any member here. I feel that I must emphasise that Simon Hall's case was to the best of my knowledge NOT DROPPED from the forum. Unless anyone knows something that I don't?
-
I certainly didn't delete Simon Hall's case and I suspect that Neil didn't either? Stephanie just decided to delete her account for no apparent reason. She most certainly didn't abuse anyone whilst on this forum and neither did she receive any abuse from any member here. I feel that I must emphasise that Simon Hall's case was to the best of my knowledge NOT DROPPED from the forum. Unless anyone knows something that I don't?
Well I've been all through the logs back to the biginning of November and I can't see that the Simon Hall case has been deleted? I'll ask Neil to see if he can find anything.
-
WTF has Simon Hall's case got to do with the discussion.
Simon Hall's case was dropped from this forum without a word mentioned to Stephanie. She then lost many hours of work when you caused the previous forum to be shut down and the reasons being nothing to do with the Hall case. I am not surprised if that upset her.
I think to actively campaign against her husband's case which you previously have shown no interest in because you are upset with Stephanie is appalling behaviour and willingly vindictive. As is you calling her evil for supporting her husband's innocence just as you have supported Bamber.
You complain about the abuse you have received from various quarters. That threat of yours is a perfect
example of just why you have had such abuse!
So Grahame once again more lies from the trolls. Stephanie Hall thinks she can take the piss out of everyone on this forum for no reason.
This forum didn't drop Simon Halls Case
The other forum was closed immediately they realised the abuse that was going on
So why exactly is Stephanie Hall upset with me?
Because she is a nasty person
Just to make it very clear what I have threatened to do is publish every single abusive post she makes against anyone on this forum
At least DV8 aka Tim aka Ferdia Shepherds couldn't resist showing his true colours
-
I meant to add while they have been taking the piss out of someone 'golden grahams'
grahams daughter has been critically ill
Scumbags the lot of them
Jackie. It is and always has been my policy never to frequent or even look at that exquisite trollarium of a forum. As a result I am blissfully ignorant of the alleged abuse towards me. In fact it is so childish that it fails miserably to produce anything that can raise interest. Even to stir my mind up to lethargy.
-
Grahame you are absolutely doing the right thing, I only go on there when people message me to say something seriously bad is on there.
I get great pleasure knowing the whole forum was shut down for over a week and it's taking ages to get up and running and they have about 6 members.
They achieve nothing and time will tell what happens with the ringleaders
They are still saying on a daily basis on twitter and on the forum that they have a relationship with the Eatons and thank god they are not Bamber supporters
-
Grahame you are absolutely doing the right thing, I only go on there when people message me to say something seriously bad is on there.
I get great pleasure knowing the whole forum was shut down for over a week and it's taking ages to get up and running and they have about 6 members.
They achieve nothing and time will tell what happens with the ringleaders
They are still saying on a daily basis on twitter and on the forum that they have a relationship with the Eatons and thank god they are not Bamber supporters
I agree with Grahame.
They didn't even know he existed.
-
He is a very disturbed individual. Poor man.
-
Grahame I apologise if I was wrong about the Simon Hall thread on here. I didn't say you or any particular person/mod deleted the thread but it's my unerstanding that's what happened. I will check my information though.
As far as I am concerned I was in a polite exchange of opinions last night and it deterioated into a farce involving other people and threats that had nothing to do with the discussion.
I have been accused of being John, Lamberton, Blue Eyes, Tim and numerous other people so far on this forum and quite frankly I am not interested in the slightest in getting involved in a slanging match.
I will withdraw hopefully with some dignity.
-
Grahame I apologise if I was wrong about the Simon Hall thread on here. I didn't say you or any particular person/mod deleted the thread but it's my unerstanding that's what happened. I will check my information though.
As far as I am concerned I was in a polite exchange of opinions last night and it deterioated into a farce involving other people and threats that had nothing to do with the discussion.
I have been accused of being John, Lamberton, Blue Eyes, Tim and numerous other people so far on this forum and quite frankly I am not interested in the slightest in getting involved in a slanging match.
I will withdraw hopefully with some dignity.
Please keep posting DV8. As far as I am concerned you have been very respectuful in your posts and also you can call yourself what you like. It is your choice. All I am concerned with is this forum and the welfare of the posters here. These heated exchanged sometimes flare up between members. We just hpoe that each of us can rise above it and carry on. Beleve me I have often felt like leaving myself.
-
DV8 I await your apology and I would like your 'explanation' as to why Stephanie Hall is annoyed with me
When you have checked your 'information'
-
Just a reminder of why the other bad forum was closed down. This is something I picked up on and I have the whole thread topic saved as has ProBoards, this was part of a general discussion when the poster was suddenly turned on. I might post on twitter later today
-
Don't forget to blow out the candles on your little Bamber shrine before you hit the sack .... alone. Nite.
This turn of phrase sounds familiar DV8. Are you really Phil Boswell from Sevenoaks, Kent? Any forum member is of course free to select any username and true identity can be concealed. I will protect members from attempts to "out" them and have done so in the past. However when a member chooses to reveal his identity questions about that become legitimate. Is there anything you would like to tell us?
-
This turn of phrase sounds familiar DV8. Are you really Phil Boswell from Sevenoaks, Kent? Any forum member is of course free to select any username and true identity can be concealed. I will protect members from attempts to "out" them and have done so in the past. However when a member chooses to reveal his identity questions about that become legitimate. Is there anything you would like to tell us?
It stood out to me also.
................... I think you have a little shrine to Jeremy in your attic ........................................
-
brilliant Hartley but you are normally much quicker than that !
-
brilliant Hartley but you are normally much quicker than that !
Sorry :-[ I thought it for a while but didn't want to cause trouble.
-
It stood out to me also.
Hartley you have a great memory and I still reluctantly admire your intellectual abilities. (no sarcasm is intended here I can assure you)
-
Sorry :-[ I thought it for a while but didn't want to cause trouble.
I think a few people had an inkling. He did manage to contain him self very well (for the most part). I've not witnessed him be so restrained before.
-
I think a few people had an inkling. He did manage to contain him self very well (for the most part). I've not witnessed him be so restrained before.
Can I bring Dr. Strangelove in here? ;D
-
Can I bring Dr. Strangelove in here? ;D
Is that the Peter Sellers fascist parody? never seen the film.
-
Is that the Peter Sellers fascist parody? never seen the film.
Dr. Strangelove is a german scientist who been brought in by the Americans to try and figure out how to....well here's a clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iesXUFOlWC0&feature=related
-
Sorry :-[ I thought it for a while but didn't want to cause trouble.
To be fair Hartley you are normally the first to spot a troll
-
To be fair Hartley you are normally the first to spot a troll
Is there a joke involving mirrors on the way? :P
-
Is there a joke involving mirrors on the way? :P
Do you have a reflection! ;) ;D
-
Do you have a reflection! ;) ;D
Just trying to work out if being called a vampire is an insult or not. >:( ;D ;D ;D
-
Just trying to work out if being called a vampire is an insult or not. >:( ;D ;D ;D
It depends on how you view blood sucking creatures of the night I suppose, but they are popular at the moment!! ;D
Another give away - do you keep a diary ;)
-
Hartley there was no joke I meant you are good at searching words and guessing who is who
-
It stood out to me also.
Well done Hartley, there is the proof.
I will add Enigma to the list of John, Lamberton, Blue Eyes, Tim and a few others I don't recall who I am supposed to be. Do you not think a little shrine jibe maybe a common response to someone who has dedicated their whole life to freeing someone she has never met.
A jibe occassioned by that person turning a polite exchange into vindictive threats to a third party about a completely different MOJ case. If you read the posts I think you will agree it was a strange and uncalled for tangent to take.
NGB I am thinking this is very weak and flimsy circumstantial evidence. ;D
-
It depends on how you view blood sucking creatures of the night I suppose, but they are popular at the moment!! ;D
Another give away - do you keep a diary ;)
They are indeed, I prefer werewolves though I think. :)
Diaries are only kept retrospectively, and only completed if necessary. ::)
-
Well done Hartley, there is the proof.
I will add Enigma to the list of John, Lamberton, Blue Eyes, Tim and a few others I don't recall who I am supposed to be. Do you not think a little shrine jibe maybe a common response to someone who has dedicated their whole life to freeing someone she has never met.
A jibe occassioned by that person turning a polite exchange into vindictive threats to a third party about a completely different MOJ case. If you read the posts I think you will agree it was a strange and uncalled for tangent to take.
NGB I am thinking this is very weak and flimsy circumstantial evidence. ;D
Not on this site it isn't.
Plus, she's only spent a year on his case :)
-
Well done Hartley, there is the proof.
I will add Enigma to the list of John, Lamberton, Blue Eyes, Tim and a few others I don't recall who I am supposed to be.
NGB I am thinking this is very weak and flimsy circumstantial evidence. ;D
But as you have pointed out DV8, circumstantial evidence can be very strong. I think we can eliminate three of the suggested names, but to Enigma and Tim we can add Poor Bambi, Captain Chevasse, Ferdiashepherds and Invictus. Any more?
-
NGB I am thinking this is very weak and flimsy circumstantial evidence. ;D
Well what is good for the goose is good for the gander so they say. ;D
-
Don't forget to blow out the candles on your little Bamber shrine before you hit the sack .... alone. Nite.
Tim I am intrigued about the comment that I hit the sack alone?
Please enlighten me?
-
Mods:
I started this thread as a bit of a joke to start with, it seems to have taken a meandering course, but may I suggest 'Off Topic' may be a more suitable location for now?
-
Mods:
I started this thread as a bit of a joke to start with, it seems to have taken a meandering course, but may I suggest 'Off Topic' may be a more suitable location for now?
It is done.
-
where it belonged in the first place.
-
Dv8 I think you have misread things somewhere as Neil and Simon believe Jeremy has a good chance of a referral but there are also those little nuggets of evidence held under PII that could become available and Jeremy could just walk out of prison in weeks anyway.
I am excited about the prime time documentary coming out that will definitely be pro bamber and I am excited to see the publics response.
Because of recent events I might devote time now to make sure Simon Hall never sees the light of day for the horrendous murder he committed. People like that cannot be allowed back on the streets. That's my next twitter campaign. I don't take kindly to the abuse from his troll wife Stephanie Hall. What an evil pair.
Aww Jackie,this post is a bit strong?It would be highly unfair to punish a man you have never met and who may very well be innocent,just because you dont like his wife?
I did take a look at that forum once and was quite shocked regarding some of her vindictive posts considering that she is trying to raise public awareness with regards to her husbands case,but nethertheless,two wrongs dont make a right?
You really need to stop going there.Ignorance is,surely bliss? x
-
Don't forget to blow out the candles on your little Bamber shrine before you hit the sack .... alone. Nite.
How immature! >:(
-
Just a reminder of why the other bad forum was closed down. This is something I picked up on and I have the whole thread topic saved as has ProBoards, this was part of a general discussion when the poster was suddenly turned on. I might post on twitter later today
Trouble is Tyler the wife doesn't make he is very innocent here it sounds like she is trying to make out he is the Don
-
Tyler what do you make of this, one of many I have copied off the troll forum and this man is trying to win an appeal
-
Hmmm,it doesnt look good does it.
-
Hmmm,it doesnt look good does it.
Yes it doesn't look as if she is helping his case much? I wonder what decisions he has made in the past?
-
Exactly imagine the CCRC reading that and they have the gall to say nasty stuff about us lot
-
I wonder what Private Eye would say?
I am keeping everything now that is written on that forum and everything that I printed off the old one
-
Jackie is it true David Icke has views of this case ?
-
I think so I did read something somewhere.
I will try and google it Mertol
-
Jackie is it true David Icke has views of this case ?
yes he thinks the lizards did it.
-
yes he thinks the lizards did it.
Yes hes a nutter. Thinks he's god so he can have several wives.
-
They are indeed, I prefer werewolves though I think. :)
Diaries are only kept retrospectively, and only completed if necessary. ::)
I was just referring to the current popular TV series - Vampire Diaries :P
-
Yes hes a nutter. Thinks he's god so he can have several wives.
i would feel safer if he was prime minister the NHS is about to be destroyed.
-
We've all poured over the facts, half truths and outright lies regarding this case, presented on this forum and elsewhere.
A common phrase which is often typed with exasperation into a forum reply is "I can't understand why you can't see that", which is often preceded by a document or image which a person believes beyond doubt proves their take on a particular issue to be the correct and accurate one.
I've come to the conclusion that there are intelligent people on both sides of the argument, there isn't an intellectual divide, so it can't be the case that somebody doesn't agree with somebody else because one person has the intelligence to see the truth and the other doesn't.
So what is it?
I've witnessed over the last year or so a clear divide on peoples opinions of the police, the courts, judges, the CCRC and in fact nearly all aspects of the state.
The clear divide is that those who believe Jeremy to be innocent, generally have a poor opinion of these groups (for want of a better word) and see them as undesirable or even harmful, they are often very emotional about their view although that emotion often manifests itself in a negative or critical way.
Then there are those who believe in Jeremy's guilt, who generally have a good opinion of the police, courts, judges, the CCRC etc, they also seem to be more willing to support and accept the actions and decisions of these groups, and less able to accept criticism of them.
That's a very loose and by no means exclusive description, with various extremes and exceptions within each camp.
Some people may have guessed where I'm going with this by now, but the description above of the two camps, seems to quite neatly fit into two opposing political spectrums, a left (Camp Innocent) and a right (Camp Guilty), with the fence sitters propping up the centre.
I often wonder if the same group of people on this forum were tasked with discussing another, but equally emotive subject, whether the divides would be identical.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, just random musings whilst it was quiet. :-[
The Dingle peninsula, County Kerry, where the non Essex side if my family come from.
You're not going to like this, Dingleberry, but I guess this means we're family, you and I.
There really isn't any great divide, you're my long lost cousin... ;D
-
Hi Cuz, how goes it? xx
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atxyOCHFd8U
-
I was just referring to the current popular TV series - Vampire Diaries :P
I think I should give up whilst I'm behind. :-[
-
The Dingle peninsula, County Kerry, where the non Essex side if my family come from.
You're not going to like this, Dingleberry, but I guess this means we're family, you and I.
There really isn't any great divide, you're my long lost cousin... ;D
I've been there. It is very beatiful. I love Ireland. My mother lives near Kenmare and the Dingle peninsular is not far away. You need a car that can climb vertical hills though and thin enough to get by the horse and carts. You've left me longing for Ireland.
-
I've been there. It is very beatiful. I love Ireland. My mother lives near Kenmare and the Dingle peninsular is not far away. You need a car that can climb vertical hills though and thin enough to get by the horse and carts. You've left me longing for Ireland.
The Dingle peninsula is stunningly beautiful. You're right about the near vertical climbs on the roads, Grahame. I long for Ireland too.
-
I spent a wonderful few months working in Ireland and living in the Westbury Hotel in Dublin and that just reminds me of what lovely people I met.
My favorite song for lots of reasons
Check out this video on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHPMmRHauNE&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Sent from my iPhone
-
Re the state etc, I believe many people's faith in these organisations has been severely damaged over recent years by all the complacency and corruption:
Financial Crisis
MP's expenses
Paedophile priests in abundance
Leveson enquiry
Totally agree, and said as much on here a few weeks back. This is why it grates on me when people are driven to shore up the official version of events in this case. If the official version of events in this case was sound and not suspect in the extreme, we simply wouldn't be here.
There is a potential major backlash against the authorities if the truth of this comes to light in my opinion. I'm very interested to know who knew what and when they knew it. Shit, stick, barge pole and safe distance are terms which come to mind.
-
Posted today but held back at trial hardly the person the relatives would have us believe
(@Bambertweets):
16/03/2012 08:36
Sue Ford, Jeremy Bamber former girlfriend: the statement's that never made it to court, buried for 27 years http://twitpic.com/8wxwp5
https://twitter.com/Bambertweets/status/180573123404500993
-
Posted today but held back at trial hardly the person the relatives would have us believe
(@Bambertweets):
16/03/2012 08:36
Sue Ford, Jeremy Bamber former girlfriend: the statement's that never made it to court, buried for 27 years http://twitpic.com/8wxwp5
https://twitter.com/Bambertweets/status/180573123404500993
A very interesting read Jackie. The bit that court my eye was that "he loved farming". Have we got any other references to his love of farming anywhere?
-
Grahame it's like reading about a different person to the way Hartley and Vic describe him
It's sad about him liking children if he is as I believe innocent