Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Lugg on January 08, 2013, 09:54:AM
-
Well they are a regular thing aren't they? He is bad mouthed at every opportunity by the guilty party. You are all familiar with these terms I am sure. He is a "liar" or "effeminate" or a "druggy" or "vain" or he is "greedy" and of course we are reminded at every opportunity that he is a "child killer". Oh that is bound to enflame every decent sort in the country. In fact according to these people he didn't have a good bone in his body.
We on the forum of course have to receive all this abusive language that is carefully calculated to make sure that no one should be tempted to defend this man. And of course if any do happen to see a miscarriage of justice in this case we are termed simple minded or halfwits and even child murderer lovers. In any case those of us who try to point out where the law has gone wrong are made to feel that we are liars and deceivers and even hypocrites if we seek to point out various anomalies in the case.
We of course dare not even tread near the halos of the relatives. We are never to question their integrity or honesty. If we dare to say anything at all against them we are firmly reminded that such disgraceful and abominable behaviour is off limits because they are protected by the golden throne of common decency. We are also told quite firmly that we we are hypocritical if we dare to express any kind of doubt against their good name. So beware if you intend to tread on their platform of personal piety or transgress those holy Templars who guard the relatives with their lives, never doubting that they too are perhaps being used? For to do so you will surely be made to think that you have the darkest heart in all mankind.
Now looking at this logically don't you think these terms are a little unfair? If of course you would like to see a full blown tyrade of abuse you can go over to the euphemistically termed "red" forum where you will be able to sample the delicacies of abuse not only towards Jeremy Bamber. But also towards his defenders and supporters. Sit down over there and enjoy the good company of some of the worst internet abusers and the sweetmeats of the most miserable psychopathic offenders you may find anywhere in the world. Go ahead. Eat and drink with them and enjoy. But be warned. You are what you eat as we are reminded by some of the greatest food Connoisseurs in the world.
We my friends are meant to take all this and Jeremy is supposed to endure all these lies that are levelled against him because the law says so. Yes this "law" that we are meant to acknowledge just because of a cunning prosecuting counsel who witheld thousands of bits of evidence and a biased judge's summing up and because 10 people say he is guilty. We as honest trusting citizens are supposed to knuckle under and not question this "law" even if this law be considered "unjust" as many lawyers think it is. But because this "law" says it is so, many sheep will support this organisation that is riddled with corruption and deceit and trust its decisions ignorantly to the grave.
So can I propose that in view of the fact that we are supposed to say nothing against the relatives. For to do so is to be accused as hypocrites and liars and/or stupid, because we are "ignorant" people who do not understand the intricacies of tax avoidance amongst the farming community. That if this is to be so, then any abuse against Bamber cease as well. For no one in the world could be that bad as some say he is. The things levelled against him are bordering on the rediculous and quite frankly is becoming laughable and almost of comic book proportions.
-
Lugg, I trust I may speak on behalf of many members of this Forum.
Your post is comparatively mild, but so utterly apt.
-
My word,Lugg,,,that was brilliant and very well put. I wholeheartedly agree with what you've posted. I know my name is mud, on other boards, for supporting a " murderer ",a " child-murderer " at that,,,but I stand firmly by the fact that he had the most unfair trial that this country has seen,,,leading to what will be one of the worst miscarriages of justice that the country will ever see too. You can mark my words on that. I actually care little of what anyone thinks really,,as sometime,in the not too distant future,,it will,as Neville used to say,,all come out in the wash,,,along with all the lies that have been told about Jeremy. I can't wait for that day.
My first words back in 1985,,which I remember vividly,,,were that he didn't do it. I know in my mind,,without spending pounds on books,which are only written after any event anyway. I've always said that if all else fails,write a book.
-
They couldnt write a book before the event, unless it was ali bongo! ;D
-
They couldnt write a book before the event, unless it was ali bongo! ;D
C'mon,Andrea,,you can do better than that.
-
C'mon,Andrea,,you can do better than that.
It was a joke!
-
It was a joke!
Yes I got it Andrea. Ali bongo was a joke and didn't help things much I agree.
-
If it is appropriate to say it for a 3rd time - Ali Bongo.
Let them wallow in the realms of their self delusions.
-
If it is appropriate to say it for a 3rd time - Ali Bongo.
Let them wallow in the realms of their self delusions.
Personally I think all this abuse against Bamber is almost psychopathic in nature?
-
If you want to have a serious debate about your post then I'm quite happy to Grahame.
-
Personally I think all this abuse against Bamber is almost psychopathic in nature?
I've thought that for a long time,Lugg,,,particularly when I get abuse thrown in for good measure.
-
If you want to have a serious debate about your post then I'm quite happy to Grahame.
That is up to you Vic. It is mainly for the enlightening of the forum to let them know what is really happening here. Let's admit it, you weren't even around when this tragedy took place and you only know what the relatives want you to know. As far as I am concerned the onus is on you whether you would like a "serious" debate or one based purely upon the hearsay of the relatives of whom you it appears are their willing and obedient mouthpiece.
-
It is,I'm afraid,,a psychopathic trait. Trouble is Lugg,,it rubs off.
That was one point of my post. The trouble is those to whom it rubs off cannot see it.
-
That was one point of my post. The trouble is those to whom it rubs off cannot see it.
Sorry,I must have overlooked that bit.Don't mean to usurp your fine posts...but I so agree with you.
-
That is up to you Vic. It is mainly for the enlightening of the forum to let them know what is really happening here. Let's admit it, you weren't even around when this tragedy took place and you only know what the relatives want you to know. As far as I am concerned the onus is on you whether you would like a "serious" debate or one based purely upon the hearsay of the relatives of whom you it appears are their willing and obedient mouthpiece.
Well for a start I do not accept "what is really happening here" as being anymore than two sides of an argument. Mike Tesko wasn't 'around' when it happened either, nor were many people that argue for or against his guilt. I doubt you knew the family before and I doubt you have ever met anyone connected with the case since. So I believe that argument to be a poor one.
In your opening paragraph you list regular insults..."He is a "liar" or "effeminate" or a "druggy" or "vain" or he is "greedy" and of course we are reminded at every opportunity that he is a "child killer"
As I believe him guilty, naturally, I believe him to be a liar. Even without my belief in his guilt, there are incidents before conviction where he wasn't truthful. Only yesterday I highlighted a clear lie, that he told to Mike Tesko, there are others too, in his letters and statements to the press.
As I would never criticise anyones sexuality, this does not refer to me and I would not defend anyone who did. Yes, he did drugs, he did coke, but he also supplied. This for me takes him beyond simple adolecent experimentation. Why do people supply? To make money.
Why did a seemingly wealthy, good looking, young man, sell drugs for money? Because he was greedy.
Why does a wealthy, good looking, young man, sleep around? Why does he want a sports car? Holidays abroad? Highly fashionable gear? Probably vain? Who can blame him?! I'd have wanted the same.
In a parallel universe we find......
-
It's only the wealthy that can deal drugs.Take Curtis Warren,worth over £300 million,,but still carried on.
If Jeremy ever did ( I haven't seen any reference to coke ) it was a plant or two that he grew in his garden,in full view,not his attic in heated surrounds,,,then it was strictly for his own,and one or two friends' recreation and leisure.
Sheila,,I would have said,was the biggest user,,along with the biggest debt to pay.She was also a heavy smoker of cigars,cigarettes and cannabis,,some of which Neville kept in the safe,,though doubtless it was never enough.
Vidvic,,,all those quotes you've made about Jeremy,,,are the dreams and realities of young 24 year olds this day and age. So nothing awe-inspiring there,,unless you happen to either be a Quaker,or live out in the sticks having a very insular outlook on life.
-
Quote by V V :- 'In a parallel Universe we find'... the untranslatable latin looking saying, below the post, freely signifies, by double usage of the words Stulti (fool) and the non-latin word 'idiociae' that it speaks for itself.
-
Well they are a regular thing aren't they? He is bad mouthed at every opportunity by the guilty party. You are all familiar with these terms I am sure. He is a "liar" or "effeminate" or a "druggy" or "vain" or he is "greedy" and of course we are reminded at every opportunity that he is a "child killer". Oh that is bound to enflame every decent sort in the country. In fact according to these people he didn't have a good bone in his body.
We on the forum of course have to receive all this abusive language that is carefully calculated to make sure that no one should be tempted to defend this man. And of course if any do happen to see a miscarriage of justice in this case we are termed simple minded or halfwits and even child murderer lovers. In any case those of us who try to point out where the law has gone wrong are made to feel that we are liars and deceivers and even hypocrites if we seek to point out various anomalies in the case.
We of course dare not even tread near the halos of the relatives. We are never to question their integrity or honesty. If we dare to say anything at all against them we are firmly reminded that such disgraceful and abominable behaviour is off limits because they are protected by the golden throne of common decency. We are also told quite firmly that we we are hypocritical if we dare to express any kind of doubt against their good name. So beware if you intend to tread on their platform of personal piety or transgress those holy Templars who guard the relatives with their lives, never doubting that they too are perhaps being used? For to do so you will surely be made to think that you have the darkest heart in all mankind.
Now looking at this logically don't you think these terms are a little unfair? If of course you would like to see a full blown tyrade of abuse you can go over to the euphemistically termed "red" forum where you will be able to sample the delicacies of abuse not only towards Jeremy Bamber. But also towards his defenders and supporters. Sit down over there and enjoy the good company of some of the worst internet abusers and the sweetmeats of the most miserable psychopathic offenders you may find anywhere in the world. Go ahead. Eat and drink with them and enjoy. But be warned. You are what you eat as we are reminded by some of the greatest food Connoisseurs in the world.
We my friends are meant to take all this and Jeremy is supposed to endure all these lies that are levelled against him because the law says so. Yes this "law" that we are meant to acknowledge just because of a cunning prosecuting counsel who witheld thousands of bits of evidence and a biased judge's summing up and because 10 people say he is guilty. We as honest trusting citizens are supposed to knuckle under and not question this "law" even if this law be considered "unjust" as many lawyers think it is. But because this "law" says it is so, many sheep will support this organisation that is riddled with corruption and deceit and trust its decisions ignorantly to the grave.
So can I propose that in view of the fact that we are supposed to say nothing against the relatives. For to do so is to be accused as hypocrites and liars and/or stupid, because we are "ignorant" people who do not understand the intricacies of tax avoidance amongst the farming community. That if this is to be so, then any abuse against Bamber cease as well. For no one in the world could be that bad as some say he is. The things levelled against him are bordering on the rediculous and quite frankly is becoming laughable and almost of comic book proportions.
Im sorry lugg this is the first time i do not agree with certain statements in your post? A lot of good posters have been driven off by being anti bamber and i do not have to repeat the language used, not many posters who believe jeremy guilty now post at all. This forum is prob 90 per cent pro bamber with moderators who do a good job by the way who are nearly always pro bamber so any nonsense is took care of straight away i feel. If we drive the likes of vidvic or hartley or any anti bamber which has happened away you will have a forum that just pats each other on the back. Sometimes emotions take over lugg and i understand what you went through which was awful but do what i do and stop the bus sometimes and get off, as i am writting this i have just had a phone call about some horrible news on the holiday park i worked on in essex for ten years so i am signing off for now.
-
The Eatons, Boutflours, Bambers, Pargeters. All seemingly honest, well respected in their communities, 7th Aug 1985, Bambers gone, wiped out, Jeremy Bamber survives.......
From that point on, there isn't one thing that the relatives did that I wouldn't have done myself, with the exception of taking the silencer out onto the table at Oak Farm. The number of lies and allegations from this point on are far too numerous to go into here and now. Propoganda is not strong enough a word to describe the endless accusations and theories, but in 27 years, 2 appeals, investigations, books, documentaries, forums, he's still where he is.
Establishment cover up? Absolute rubbish. Far more embarrassing cases have been overturned in the past 27 years.
From that point on, if I was truly innocent, I'd have acted very differently. The inconsistencies in his story and subsequent retelling of it are too many. His memory fails at times then regains clarity. As I said 2 years ago, he is either guilty, or the unluckiest man alive.
But my main point in answer to your post is this. I hear an accusation and I respond. If you say that the family 'stole' from Bamber then I will respond, because it isn't true. If you were to say to me that the family have been cute in avoiding paying bamber anything over the years for his shares, then I'd happily agree. It's the manner of it, not the subject.
Over the years the family have had to endure hundreds of accusations from Mike Tesko. He regularly finds a bit of paper, adds 2 and 2 and gets 76. As Bambers plight has got more serious he has started completely making things up. That is evil, nasty and utterly shameful. So please don't lecture me on poor old Bamber getting slagged off.
How many times have you been told, since you supported Bamber, this is it, this is the evidence, be out by Christmas, blah blah blah.??? He's had media support, TV documentaries, lawyers, etc etc....but it always falls short, often because what you are told as a supporter is not the reality. Take the Suthurst photographs for example. For years we hear about it, see interviews about it, Suthurst agrees with Bamber (not the other way around) CCRC say no you can't see the area from the crime scene photos, Suthurst says "yes, I agree" and another episode of false allegations against the relatives quietly goes away!
You have a very compelling prisoner, feeding highly questionable material, to his willing Elves, who show you just enough to make it believable but not enough to prove him wrong. And remember, as a family, they do not have the documentation to be able to back up defences to accusations. The Police have that and do not engage in chat rooms.
-
Quote by V V :- 'In a parallel Universe we find'... the untranslatable latin looking saying, below the post, freely signifies, by double usage of the words Stulti (fool) and the non-latin word 'idiociae' that it speaks for itself.
Awww, Campion, how unbecoming to make cheap shots at my latin. Rumours are spread by fools and believed by idiots.....I thought you'd understand ::)
If you spelt it correctly you might stand a chance?
For someone who refuses to speak to me, you seem to have a lot to say!
-
Vic, Sutherst agreed that his evidence was basically a non starter? Blooming Norah! That was kept quiet!!
-
Vic, Sutherst agreed that his evidence was basically a non starter? Blooming Norah! That was kept quiet!!
According to the Police liason officer, Suthurst never challenged the CCRC expert and accepted his/her findings. I'd already seen a letter from Bamber where he admitted to some of the scratches being there on the day of the crime scene photos, so all those diagrams from Mike and the accusations of the family scratching the arga surround after the event were rubbished.
-
Vidvic,,,if the police had carried out a right and proper investigation from the start,and sealed everywhere off as is done with a crime scene,,then none of this would be happening. It's because of the sloppy investigative ways in which the police conducted the whole case,that brought the extended familiy/ies to the forefront,,and which cast a dark shadow on the case altogether.
I don't doubt that the extended families are upright and honest people,,but the gullibility in allowing words to be put into their mouths,along with thoughts into their heads,,by a group of police who call themselves professionals,is beyond me,and this is exactly what has happened.
The case itself was built on hearsay and supposition.What sort of a person of the law states that it was either one or the other,meaning Sheila or Jeremy.? What if Jeremy had died too.? Would that question still have stood.?
Wouldn't it have been more ethical to have proved Jeremys' innocence rather than his guilt.?
-
According to the Police liason officer, Suthurst never challenged the CCRC expert and accepted his/her findings. I'd already seen a letter from Bamber where he admitted to some of the scratches being there on the day of the crime scene photos, so all those diagrams from Mike and the accusations of the family scratching the arga surround after the event were rubbished.
Sutherst was not necessarily wrong, but further work was required, including an examination of the Aga surround, in order to validate the key conclusions in his intitial report.
-
Sutherst was not necessarily wrong, but further work was required, including an examination of the Aga surround, in order to validate the key conclusions in his intitial report.
A very good question Neil!
The family agreed to a full examination of the aga surround as they have absolutely nothing to hide and this wasn't taken up by the defence.
-
It was one or the other because of that phonecall.
Vic, thats a very interesting development about Sutherst, i had no idea he agreed with the opposing expert.
-
It was one or the other because of that phonecall.
Vic, thats a very interesting development about Sutherst, i had no idea he agreed with the opposing expert.
He agreed that further work needed to be done to validate the conclusions.
-
He agreed that further work needed to be done to validate the conclusions.
Any idea why they never came to the farm?
-
He agreed that further work needed to be done to validate the conclusions.
Is Sutherst still on the case NGB?
-
A very good question Neil!
The family agreed to a full examination of the aga surround as they have absolutely nothing to hide and this wasn't taken up by the defence.
Again vidvic without your input we would not have heard about this? Thanks for all your time vidvic.
-
Is Sutherst still on the case NGB?
I don't think there would be any reason for Sutherst to be involved anymore.
This was an interesting development at the time, but like so many others, there was an explanation that was conceeded by Sutherst.
The CCRC gave me a run down of this over the telephone at the time, and what they said was later confirmed by Vic.
It was another false lead in a case that has nowhere left to go.
Simon McKay can experiment on Zebra's, Donkey's or anything he likes, it won't be making any difference to things.
-
Any idea why they never came to the farm?
It was for a variety of reasons. This was a time when Jeremy Bamber was considering whether to change his legal representation and that did have an impact on the process. I believe that an inspection to validate or refute Sutherst's original conclusions would be a good idea.
-
Is Sutherst still on the case NGB?
No, Peter Sutherst is no longer instructed. Another expert was lined up by the defence to carry out the inspection of the Aga surround but the arrangements for this had not been made by the time of the final submissions.
-
I don't think there would be any reason for Sutherst to be involved anymore.
This was an interesting development at the time, but like so many others, there was an explanation that was conceeded by Sutherst.
The CCRC gave me a run down of this over the telephone at the time, and what they said was later confirmed by Vic.
It was another false lead in a case that has nowhere left to go.
Simon McKay can experiment on Zebra's, Donkey's or anything he likes, it won't be making any difference to things.
Ray - That is a very dismissive comment to make about Simon McKay. The tests and reports he commissioned were focussed on evidence at the very heart of the case, although time ran out and the further tests required were not carried out. As far as Peter Sutherst is concerned the position was a little more complex than you suggest. You should also bear in mind that his input pre-dated Simon Mckay's involvement.
You should be cautious about relying upon disparaging comments about Jeremy Bamber's prospects made by a case worker at the CCRC. You more than many will be aware of the CCRC's shortcomings, as a result of your involvement in the Simon Hall case. Would you accept at face value a comment made by someone at the CCRC about Simon's case?
-
Well for a start I do not accept "what is really happening here" as being anymore than two sides of an argument. Mike Tesko wasn't 'around' when it happened either, nor were many people that argue for or against his guilt. I doubt you knew the family before and I doubt you have ever met anyone connected with the case since. So I believe that argument to be a poor one.
In your opening paragraph you list regular insults..."He is a "liar" or "effeminate" or a "druggy" or "vain" or he is "greedy" and of course we are reminded at every opportunity that he is a "child killer"
As I believe him guilty, naturally, I believe him to be a liar. Even without my belief in his guilt, there are incidents before conviction where he wasn't truthful. Only yesterday I highlighted a clear lie, that he told to Mike Tesko, there are others too, in his letters and statements to the press.
As I would never criticise anyones sexuality, this does not refer to me and I would not defend anyone who did. Yes, he did drugs, he did coke, but he also supplied. This for me takes him beyond simple adolecent experimentation. Why do people supply? To make money.
Why did a seemingly wealthy, good looking, young man, sell drugs for money? Because he was greedy.
Why does a wealthy, good looking, young man, sleep around? Why does he want a sports car? Holidays abroad? Highly fashionable gear? Probably vain? Who can blame him?! I'd have wanted the same.
In a parallel universe we find......
Soi explain your remark Vic Statement on bamberbollocks.com - august 2003
? So you think it justified to insult the reasearchers of this website just because you disagree with them. Another ploy I fear by the relatives abd their vassals to call Bambers supporters abusive names. Yet isf they say the same hing about the relatives you cry "foul"
Also I see that you are implying that I am a liar. Exactly the type of insult that I describe in my original post that come from the opposition.
I'm affraid that your continued insults against Bamber and his supporters only go to confirm and establish my complaint. I see that you even "justify" your insults by reasoning that you can call him what you like because he was found guilty in a court of law. Another point that I have addressed in original post.
To believe one guilty is no excuse to continually abuse them and do everything in your power to denigrate him and his supporters. Just because you "belive" something to be true does not make that thing true. Neither does it giuve you the right o declare open season upon him and his supporters to say anything and everything derogatory under the sun. If you want us to respect the relatives, then you had better wise up on this abuse lark.
-
No no no no!. Let's get this thread back on track. If the relatives are to be respected. Then I suggest that JB ought to be also and all this name calling towards his supporters stop right now. That is what this thread is all about. Please do not try and derail it by bringing in Southurst and other stuff just so the opposition can continue their vile abuse.
-
Ray - That is a very dismissive comment to make about Simon McKay. The tests and reports he commissioned were focussed on evidence at the very heart of the case, although time ran out and the further tests required were not carried out. As far as Peter Sutherst is concerned the position was a little more complex than you suggest. You should also bear in mind that his input pre-dated Simon Mckay's involvement.
You should be cautious about relying upon disparaging comments about Jeremy Bamber's prospects made by a case worker at the CCRC. You more than many will be aware of the CCRC's shortcomings, as a result of your involvement in the Simon Hall case. Would you accept at face value a comment made by someone at the CCRC about Simon's case?
That Neil is the kind of remark I am talking about. Derogatory things made EVEN about Bambers Lawyers. Disgusting!.
-
That Neil is the kind of remark I am talking about. Derogatory things made EVEN about Bambers Lawyers. Disgusting!.
I agree Lugg, it is unfortunate that snide comments are made about Simon McKay. He deserves credit for the hard work and skill he has applied to this case, all entirely without payment even for his out of pocket expenses.
-
Im sorry lugg this is the first time i do not agree with certain statements in your post? A lot of good posters have been driven off by being anti bamber and i do not have to repeat the language used, not many posters who believe jeremy guilty now post at all. This forum is prob 90 per cent pro bamber with moderators who do a good job by the way who are nearly always pro bamber so any nonsense is took care of straight away i feel. If we drive the likes of vidvic or hartley or any anti bamber which has happened away you will have a forum that just pats each other on the back. Sometimes emotions take over lugg and i understand what you went through which was awful but do what i do and stop the bus sometimes and get off, as i am writting this i have just had a phone call about some horrible news on the holiday park i worked on in essex for ten years so i am signing off for now.
Ralph I simply cannot agree with your post. Do you actually agree with all the abusive posts directed towards Bamber and his supporters, and now even towards his legal team? This lop sided treatment is the main thrust of my post and I hope this thread.
The almost "santimonious" attitude of the opposition against Bamber and his defenders and the lies about him that are only backed up by hearsay. We are supposed to tolerate this? It's ok for you to bring up old stuff. But since this so called "truce" the supporters are the only one's who have abided by it. You can disagree with someone without calling them names like "hypocrite" and "bamberbollocks.org". This is both disgusting and objectionable. As for antis leaving. Well we also have some excellent posters on the pro bambers leaving as well. So that's not an issue as far as I can see? People will do what they will. But if we are to have a good "clean" forum then this effort must come from both sides. I for one am not going to suck up to the relatives because of the sanctimonious attitude some have towards them.
-
Ray - That is a very dismissive comment to make about Simon McKay. The tests and reports he commissioned were focussed on evidence at the very heart of the case, although time ran out and the further tests required were not carried out. As far as Peter Sutherst is concerned the position was a little more complex than you suggest. You should also bear in mind that his input pre-dated Simon Mckay's involvement.
You should be cautious about relying upon disparaging comments about Jeremy Bamber's prospects made by a case worker at the CCRC. You more than many will be aware of the CCRC's shortcomings, as a result of your involvement in the Simon Hall case. Would you accept at face value a comment made by someone at the CCRC about Simon's case?
A Zebra will be water off a ducks back to Simon McKay.
The 'disparaging comments' re. Sutherst turned out to be 'deadly accurate'.
Anything the CCRC have relayed to me by telephone or email has proved to be reliable.
So, in answer to your final point....well, yeah why not?
-
A Zebra will be water off a ducks back to Simon McKay.
The 'disparaging comments' re. Sutherst turned out to be 'deadly accurate'.
Anything the CCRC have relayed to me by telephone or email has proved to be reliable.
So, in answer to your final point....well, yeah why not?
That's strange SJ. I thought this case was dead in the water according to you? So why do you seem to think that any kind of disparaging comment against those who are helping Bamber is justified in any way? Come to think of it, why are you here if you think the case is dead in the water? You interest in the case tells me that it is still quite alive to you?
-
A Zebra will be water off a ducks back to Simon McKay.
I do not think Simon McKay would lose any sleep over your comment, but I still think it is unnecessary and unfair to be so dismissive of his efforts.
The 'disparaging comments' re. Sutherst turned out to be 'deadly accurate'.
Fair enough but since the further work has not yet been undertaken it is not possible to say that Sutherst's conclusions were invalid.
Anything the CCRC have relayed to me by telephone or email has proved to be reliable.
Again, fair enough insofar as this relates to facts, but opinions about the case generally are just that and you cannot say whether they are reliable or not.
So, in answer to your final point....well, yeah why not?
Do you really mean that? If the CCRC dismiss the submissions you helped to prepare last year about the "alternative suspects" are you saying you would simply accept their view?
-
Do you really mean that? If the CCRC dismiss the submissions you helped to prepare last year about the "alternative suspects" are you saying you would simply accept their view?
I wonder if we we get the same comment if they dismiss the Simon Hall case? Interesting.
Also I am wondering by what authority the particular person at the CCRC has to divulge confidential information to RH?
-
No no no no!. Let's get this thread back on track. If the relatives are to be respected. Then I suggest that JB ought to be also and all this name calling towards his supporters stop right now. That is what this thread is all about. Please do not try and derail it by bringing in Southurst and other stuff just so the opposition can continue their vile abuse.
You think the people who believe Bamber innocent are abused? You should try being someone who believes him being guilty.....then you'd truly understand it.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone abused for simply supporting Bamber, but when a Bamber supporter seems to blindingly follow suit when they show little knowledge is where things become uneasy.
I don't think it is correct to promote the feeling that there is much abuse between those for and against Bamber on this forum - most people seem to get along very well. I would say that if anyone is having problems with other members then it is likely because of who they are and their personality more than their stance on the case.
-
I wonder if we we get the same comment if they dismiss the Simon Hall case? Interesting.
Also I am wondering by what authority the particular person at the CCRC has to divulge confidential information to RH?
Well Lugg, I have no influence over what the CCRC may or may not do, I'll always know I put months into this case and it has been an incredible experience, and an education.
Stephanie Hall has done far more than me.
All I did with the CCRC in both the Bamber case and that of Simon Hall was pick up the phone and ask them some questions, surely there is nothing stopping anyone else doing that.
They do have a press office ( or at least they did ).
So a press officer is not likely to be leaking anything of a 'confidential' nature.
I don't think the media picked up much on the Sutherst aftermath, that was why I phoned Birmingham.
It's only fair to add that I have had contact with David Jessel in relation to Simon's case, but this was only to get an overview of the way to process some findings.
What 'confidential information'?
-
Hi Guy's & Dolls :)
When I was young I was told that little ones should be seen and not heard. I was also taught manners and that I was to respect my elders.
At the end of the day the extended family are not to blame for murders of their family. They had no hand in it at all. It must have been a heartbreaking time for all of them, especially June's sister Pamela. I can understand their frustration and their loss. Please lets not forget that.
However, 27 years has passed and this case is still under discussion and, whether we like it or not their names will continue to crop up; there is no getting away from that. Some of it will be good, some of it will be bad. Sometimes, it not how we say it, it's the way we say it. We do have to be mindful at times, when we discuss the living and the dead. We can all put our point across, in a respectful way. There is no need to abuse anyone or to be abused. The mods should take care of that, anyway.
At times conversations get heated, but sometimes they go too far.....It's true that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit....
I also don't think we should be frightened of debating the families concerned....in what they did or didn't do.
Lastly, I would like to say that I get on with Bridget, Ralph, Vic, Hartley and lovely Mat....who all think Jeremy is guilty....we don't have to fall out and have the lip on...Vic, dontcha dare laugh.
I'm on Jeremy's side....I think he never had a fair trial and that the police committed gross misconduct when they may have destroyed vital evidence in 1996.... :) :) :) :) :)
-
Well Patti from the answers that we have had from the opposition it is quite clear to me that their attitude comes across as "It is still ok to bash Bamber and his supporters. But we must not investigate or even doubt the testimonies of the family because they are very honest and upright people who never lie. Therefore we must believe them on their words alone. It happened at the trial and it is still happening today.
And to suggest that I don't know what it is to receive abuse until I become a supporter of the guilty party is quite simply rediculous to say the least. But to those who relish the idea of calling JB names and who wish to continue to call his supporters, who are interested only in questioning the accusations of the family, "hypocrites" and "liars" then please carry on till your hearts content. He is in prison anyway and cannot seem to do much to change that. So personally, although I can see that legitimate arguments should be permitted, I cannot see the reason for the constant abuse we receive just because it is apparent to us and many others, some very influential and respected people that there has been a miscarriage of justice. Indeed if I thought that Bamber was definitely guilty and that all the family past and present are lilly white and perfect as regards the truth, especially when some profess the Christian faith. Then I would not be on this forum and would abandon the cause immediately.
To answer Vic's doubt of my honesty in suggesting that I wasn't there at the beginning when Bamber was found guilty. And that I didn't know any of the family. (1) I most definitely WAS at the beginning. Because I tried to get hold of a transcript of the trial just after the verdict, but couldn't. The reason was because there certainly seemed something really unjust about the verdict. (2) The answer to this one is NO I did not and do not know any of the family personally and I have never said I did. In fact I even said so at times in the past posts. What I did say however is that I knew many locals from that area and have done work for various farmers and knew those farmers who knew the family. For this it was of course implied that I was lying. Do you see how it works. By adding something that I never said and then suggesting that I am a liar for saying what I never said, I am shown up before the forum as a liar. Very smart move isn't it? ;)
-
Lugg Nobody on this forum thinks you are a liar and most members have the utmost respect for you and your passion for Justice. In my humble opinion Jeremy Bamber was found guilty of a majority verdict not a unanimous one so we will always have an element of doubt as to whether or not the correct verdict was reached. Many people on this forum are searching for just the truth no more no less.
-
Lugg Nobody on this forum thinks you are a liar and most members have the utmost respect for you and your passion for Justice. In my humble opinion Jeremy Bamber was found guilty of a majority verdict not a unanimous one so we will always have an element of doubt as to whether or not the correct verdict was reached. Many people on this forum are searching for just the truth no more no less.
That is correct Susan. The "many" are searching for the truth. The "few" believe they have found it and use that as a justification for continually bashing him over the head with faults that only have their existance in "hearsay" and the poor research of some authors. Remember the definition of a novel? A factual account where the author hasn't enough facts to back up that account.
-
Well Patti from the answers that we have had from the opposition it is quite clear to me that their attitude comes across as "It is still ok to bash Bamber and his supporters. But we must not investigate or even doubt the testimonies of the family because they are very honest and upright people who never lie. Therefore we must believe them on their words alone. It happened at the trial and it is still happening today.
And to suggest that I don't know what it is to receive abuse until I become a supporter of the guilty party is quite simply rediculous to say the least. But to those who relish the idea of calling JB names and who wish to continue to call his supporters, who are interested only in questioning the accusations of the family, "hypocrites" and "liars" then please carry on till your hearts content. He is in prison anyway and cannot seem to do much to change that. So personally, although I can see that legitimate arguments should be permitted, I cannot see the reason for the constant abuse we receive just because it is apparent to us and many others, some very influential and respected people that there has been a miscarriage of justice. Indeed if I thought that Bamber was definitely guilty and that all the family past and present are lilly white and perfect as regards the truth, especially when some profess the Christian faith. Then I would not be on this forum and would abandon the cause immediately.
To answer Vic's doubt of my honesty in suggesting that I wasn't there at the beginning when Bamber was found guilty. And that I didn't know any of the family. (1) I most definitely WAS at the beginning. Because I tried to get hold of a transcript of the trial just after the verdict, but couldn't. The reason was because there certainly seemed something really unjust about the verdict. (2) The answer to this one is NO I did not and do not know any of the family personally and I have never said I did. In fact I even said so at times in the past posts. What I did say however is that I knew many locals from that area and have done work for various farmers and knew those farmers who knew the family. For this it was of course implied that I was lying. Do you see how it works. By adding something that I never said and then suggesting that I am a liar for saying what I never said, I am shown up before the forum as a liar. Very smart move isn't it? ;)
Hi Lugg :)
You know what I think of abuse and, it can never be justified. It tells you the type of person that person is...in reality. >:( >:(
What happened to the transcripts? Who has them? :-\ :-\ :) :) :)
-
Hi Lugg lets hope Mason Doyle comes up with a good book based on facts as I am sure he will.
-
Hi Guy's & Dolls :)
When I was young I was told that little ones should be seen and not heard. I was also taught manners and that I was to respect my elders.
At the end of the day the extended family are not to blame for murders of their family. They had no hand in it at all. It must have been a heartbreaking time for all of them, especially June's sister Pamela. I can understand their frustration and their loss. Please lets not forget that.
However, 27 years has passed and this case is still under discussion and, whether we like it or not their names will continue to crop up; there is no getting away from that. Some of it will be good, some of it will be bad. Sometimes, it not how we say it, it's the way we say it. We do have to be mindful at times, when we discuss the living and the dead. We can all put our point across, in a respectful way. There is no need to abuse anyone or to be abused. The mods should take care of that, anyway.
At times conversations get heated, but sometimes they go too far.....It's true that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit....
I also don't think we should be frightened of debating the families concerned....in what they did or didn't do.
Lastly, I would like to say that I get on with Bridget, Ralph, Vic, Hartley and lovely Mat....who all think Jeremy is guilty....we don't have to fall out and have the lip on...Vic, dontcha dare laugh.
I'm on Jeremy's side....I think he never had a fair trial and that the police committed gross misconduct when they may have destroyed vital evidence in 1996.... :) :) :) :) :)
:)
-
Hi Lugg :)
You know what I think of abuse and, it can never be justified. It tells you the type of person that person is...in reality. >:( >:(
What happened to the transcripts? Who has them? :-\ :-\ :) :) :)
I don't know Patti. At the time I asked a barrister friend of mine if they could be obtained and she said, "Probably not". That is all I can say really. I think I read on the forum that the complete transcript is not in existance? But there are parts of it floating about.
-
I don't know Patti. At the time I asked a barrister friend of mine if they could be obtained and she said, "Probably not". That is all I can say really. I think I read on the forum that the complete transcript is not in existance? But there are parts of it floating about.
I'm not sure, but can you buy them? Please don't tell me some of the transcripts are not available, that makes it ever worse... :) :) :)
-
Hi Lugg lets hope Mason Doyle comes up with a good book based on facts as I am sure he will.
Yes Susan. I am looking forward to its publication whatever side he falls in favour of. As I said there is nothing in it for me if he be guilty or innocent. But I am interested in justice and I hate corruption in high places. Where those people in high places are able to work the law in their favour and I really do believe that to happen. If you look at the various MOJ's that have finally been acknowledged you will see that most of those people now freed because of new evidence were actually subjected to the same verbal abuse as Bamber now is. But the hypocritical thing about it all is that now they are haled as heroes and victims of British Justice because they are free. Can you see my point? Everyone was certain they were guilty at the time and they said so in no uncertain terms. But now they have all changed their tune and praise the British Justice system for freeing them. Laughable isn't it? ;D
-
Yes Susan. I am looking forward to its publication whatever side he falls in favour of. As I said there is nothing in it for me if he be guilty or innocent. But I am interested in justice and I hate corruption in high places. Where those people in high places are able to work the law in their favour and I really do believe that to happen. If you look at the various MOJ's that have finally been acknowledged you will see that most of those people now freed because of new evidence were actually subjected to the same verbal abuse as Bamber now is. But the hypocritical thing about it all is that now they are haled as heroes and victims of British Justice because they are free. Can you see my point? Everyone was certain they were guilty at the time and they said so in no uncertain terms. But now they have all changed their tune and praise the British Justice system for freeing them. Laughable isn't it? ;D
Can't argue with any of that! Well said Lugg :)
-
Jeremy Bamber has had stick lets say on the forum almost daily, anyone bilty i cant see changing now, the end product is you get debate,there are if you look still today a couple of areas still untouched, in answer to the post of Lugg on the search of the truth, many will say there is no need to its already known, a view i dont share however the truth if it came out meaning full known disclosure of remaining documents may find either way.
-
I would understand the purpose of this thread a little better if someone would point out a post where a 'guilty' poster has abused an innocent poster on THIS forum simply for their beliefs. I think in general we all get along together quite nicely.
Of course you are going I get a reaction if you describe people who someone else considers friends as evil, conniving thieves, but surely this also comes down to mutual respect between us as posters. Whatever I may think of him I don't use the kind of language suggested at the beginning of this thread to describe JB, and that is mainly out of respect for those here who believe differently. If some innocent posters cannot find it within themselves to show respect for the family they should at least afford some respect to those they are posting alongside and tone down the accusations. No one wants to stifle debate, but there are inoffensive ways to discuss a subject and then there are the frankly offensive. Anyone choosing the latter, no matter what side of the fence they are on, can expect a backlash.
-
I would understand the purpose of this thread a little better if someone would point out a post where a 'guilty' poster has abused an innocent poster on THIS forum simply for their beliefs. I think in general we all get along together quite nicely.
Of course you are going I get a reaction if you describe people who someone else considers friends as evil, conniving thieves, but surely this also comes down to mutual respect between us as posters. Whatever I may think of him I don't use the kind of language suggested at the beginning of this thread to describe JB, and that is mainly out of respect for those here who believe differently. If some innocent posters cannot find it within themselves to show respect for the family they should at least afford some respect to those they are posting alongside and tone down the accusations. No one wants to stifle debate, but there are inoffensive ways to discuss a subject and then there are the frankly offensive. Anyone choosing the latter, no matter what side of the fence they are on, can expect a backlash.
So you don't consider the term "bamberbollocks.org" to be offensive towards someone who is only expressing their beliefs then? Or do you think it acceptable that I am am being hypocritical just because I question the views of some of the opposition? If that is so then you must find it very acceptable for someone to question the motives and in that the character of someone such as Simon McKay just because he volunteers to defend Bamber for free? There are three example for you straight off the cuff.
-
So you don't consider the term "bamberbollocks.org" to be offensive towards someone who is only expressing their beliefs then? Or do you think it acceptable that I am am being hypocritical just because I question the views of some of the opposition? If that is so then you must find it very acceptable for someone to question the motives and in that the character of someone such as Simon McKay just because he volunteers to defend Bamber for free? There are three example for you straight off the cuff.
Frankly I think the premise of this whole thread is offensive to those of us who manage to post here without taking part in the sort of things of which you accuse us and some of the comments within this thread are a reaction to that.
-
So you don't consider the term "bamberbollocks.org" to be offensive towards someone who is only expressing their beliefs then? Or do you think it acceptable that I am am being hypocritical just because I question the views of some of the opposition? If that is so then you must find it very acceptable for someone to question the motives and in that the character of someone such as Simon McKay just because he volunteers to defend Bamber for free? There are three example for you straight off the cuff.
I think you need to be careful about grouping different peoples views together, for example Vidvics BB comment was in direct response to what he considered a pack of lies and went some way to showing it to be the case, this however bore no relationship to comments regarding SM by another member.
Personally I think it's at best six and two threes, you're not adverse to getting all hot and bothered yourself at times Grahame. There are bad eggs in either camp (awaiting an egg based Campion cryptic snipe ::) ).
Some of the comments directed at the relatives are digusting in the extreme (In my opinion).
You can have your high horse back now, it costs too much to feed. ;) Besides I think by creating this thread you are actually being quite offensive to certain individuals without justification. :-\
-
Hi Lugg lets hope Mason Doyle comes up with a good book based on facts as I am sure he will.
Where is this book in the pre-release data?
My books are always up on Amazon 6 to 9 months pre-release date.
What is the author's real name?
Who are the publishers?
What is the ISBN number?
-
Simonjones...why don't you ask the questions direct to the author,since he is a member of this forum!
-
Simonjones...why don't you ask the questions direct to the author,since he is a member of this forum!
Indeed, with a bit of luck they will answer.
-
I have enjoyed reading this thread. Some good points made. Lively debate.
-
I have enjoyed reading this thread. Some good points made. Lively debate.
The Mason Doyle thread has hotted up too!
-
Lugg Nobody on this forum thinks you are a liar and most members have the utmost respect for you and your passion for Justice. In my humble opinion Jeremy Bamber was found guilty of a majority verdict not a unanimous one so we will always have an element of doubt as to whether or not the correct verdict was reached. Many people on this forum are searching for just the truth no more no less.
I don't believe that Grahame is a born liar or someone who sets out to spread mistruths, although I do believe he lies when it suits him. I think that is a fair assesment.
-
I don't believe that Grahame is a born liar or someone who sets out to spread mistruths, although I do believe he lies when it suits him. I think that is a fair assesment.
The only liars i know are in the House of Commons.
-
I don't believe that Grahame is a born liar or someone who sets out to spread mistruths, although I do believe he lies when it suits him. I think that is a fair assesment.
Mat, I believe your assessment to be true of at LEAST 99% of us. I would be truly interested to the person to whom it didn't apply.
-
Morning my dear april
It applies to me I don't tell lies I just get confused and get everything mixed up ;D ;D ;D
-
Mat, I believe your assessment to be true of at LEAST 99% of us. I would be truly interested to the person to whom it didn't apply.
Hopefully not to any great extent though! ;D
-
Morning my dear april
It applies to me I don't tell lies I just get confused and get everything mixed up ;D ;D ;D
Hopefully not to any great extent though! ;D
Susan/Mat, good morning to you both. The truth is often subjective. I could say that X is a wonderful person, you could say X is a rogue. Who is correct? We may both be.
I was fascinated to see dear Lugg SO castigated when nobody MENTIONS the salacious c..p that Steve presents on a regular basis and openly says it's his version of the truth as he sees it OR as it COULD have happened, it entitles him to say it DID happen. Folks, this is a rose by any other name.
-
"To answer Vic's doubt of my honesty in suggesting that I wasn't there at the beginning when Bamber was found guilty. And that I didn't know any of the family. (1) I most definitely WAS at the beginning. Because I tried to get hold of a transcript of the trial just after the verdict, but couldn't. The reason was because there certainly seemed something really unjust about the verdict. (2) The answer to this one is NO I did not and do not know any of the family personally and I have never said I did. In fact I even said so at times in the past posts. What I did say however is that I knew many locals from that area and have done work for various farmers and knew those farmers who knew the family. For this it was of course implied that I was lying. Do you see how it works. By adding something that I never said and then suggesting that I am a liar for saying what I never said, I am shown up before the forum as a liar. Very smart move isn't it?"
I DIdnt question your honesty Grahame! I was just defending your point saying that I wasn't around at the time! And that I think that's a poor argument as virtually none of us were!
I thought everyone was getting along very well until you accused the relatives of stealing from Bamber over the caravan park to which I objected and I believe with every justification. I have a great relationship with many innocent posters and have never knowingly insulted anyone.
I called the site bamberbollocks.com (the old site) because it was the most error strewn website I've ever seen. With wrong times, dates, even a pro-bamber supporter would have difficulty recognising the arguments. I had a number of pro bamber supporters pm me, saying it made them laugh, so it wasn't THAT insulting!
I even set out that I don't believe you've got a bad bone in your body, which I meant as an olive branch, but you've continued to attack me along with Campion, who for the life of me I've never said a bad word about!
So, do we shake hands or not?
-
Morning vidvic
a lovely gesture which I am sure Lugg will take you up on :)
-
Morning vidvic
a lovely gesture which I am sure Lugg will take you up on :)
Morning Susan,,,I've felt the same way as Lugg has,because of my views,and I know that I'm the least liked poster because of my stance on this subject.
-
Morning lookout that is not true you are very popular and well thought of on this forum by many posters. :)
-
Morning lookout that is not true you are very popular and well thought of on this forum by many posters. :)
Hi Susan. I play it by ear,or eyesight as the case maybe. This is such a serious subject,and a desperate one for Jeremy,that I can't take the subject anything other than serious,so I don't come over as being as friendly as I might.
-
Lookout I know you to be one very friendly lady and others know it too. :) :) :)
-
Lookout I know you to be one very friendly lady and others know it too. :) :) :)
Aww,Susan,,you're so very kind with your compliments. You too are a friendly and lovely person who doesn't really see bad in anyone. :) :) :)
-
Re post #72.
For the sake of clarity, I did not attack V V.
He categorically asked of me if I thought he was an idiot. It remains my intention to 'not talk to idiots'.
-
Re post #72.
For the sake of clarity, I did not attack V V.
He categorically asked of me if I thought he was an idiot. It remains my intention to 'not talk to idiots'.
Please copy and re-post my question then.
-
Zzzzzzzzzzz...
-
Zzzzzzzzzzz...
Nope. That's not it.
-
Hi Susan. I play it by ear,or eyesight as the case maybe. This is such a serious subject,and a desperate one for Jeremy,that I can't take the subject anything other than serious,so I don't come over as being as friendly as I might.
Lookout your a very sweet person and what i like about you and like about lugg you say it from the heart.
-
Lookout your a very sweet person and what i like about you and like about lugg you say it from the heart.
Ralph,,goodness me,,,how can I pass on that one ?. How very kind,and what a lovely compliment. I thank you so much. I do enjoy the forum very much.
-
Hi lookout Ralph is an out and out gentleman and although he has opposite views from you he will always be kind and respectful to you and that is the very least we can expect from each other :)
-
Hi lookout Ralph is an out and out gentleman and although he has opposite views from you he will always be kind and respectful to you and that is the very least we can expect from each other :)
Hi Susan,,,sorry,had to go out,but am catching up now. Opposing views too.? I hadn't noticed,,,but it just goes to show that there's no need,or place for hostilities.
Yes,,,what a gentleman indeed. How refreshing it is to say the least. I have the utmost respect for anyone such as he.
-
What are these so called abusive remarks towards JB ?
-
I think it is wrong to state happenings that we know nothing about i.e Sheila put the end of the gun against the cooker in order to burn the body of her dead stepfather. I do not recall any such happening at the time of the original Court case against Jeremy Bamber why all the suppostion after the deaths. ? A very tragic and sad case.
-
What are these so called abusive remarks towards JB ?
I suggest you read the thread from the start curious. ;)
-
I think it is wrong to state happenings that we know nothing about i.e Sheila put the end of the gun against the cooker in order to burn the body of her dead stepfather. I do not recall any such happening at the time of the original Court case against Jeremy Bamber why all the suppostion after the deaths. ? A very tragic and sad case.
Hi Coll,,,the burns were on the back of Nevilles' neck and I was saying on another thread that my thoughts were,that they were done with a thick cigar which Sheila was partial to. Three circular burns. If you haven't had a look at the archives take a look and judge for yourself to get an insight into the case. Some parts of it you tend to forget.