Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Jane on January 13, 2017, 08:20:AM
-
I was amused to read, on another forum, where a move seems to be afoot to spring Jeremy from his confinement, how the jury had, allegedly been mislead by RWB who said, on oath, that he wouldn't benefit financially from Jeremy's conviction and revealed that Jeremy had told him "I could easily kill my parents"!!!! We appear to be asked to put aside the fact that Jeremy uttered those words to focus on the fact that RWB -NOT my favourite character but I can't hold that against him- didn't tell the truth when he said he wouldn't benefit. Well, YES, he did! He gave a truthful answer to the question he was asked and SURELY the main thrust WASN'T about whether or not he'd benefit, but what Jeremy said. THIS has been blurred.
There have been other incidents since I've been on this forum -many of them scurrilous and totally untrue slurs on Sheila- to divert attention from the known facts. Shove in some frills, get people to concentrate on those and the facts get forgotten.overlooked/hidden. The fact remains that 31 years ago a jury convicted Jeremy and despite numerous attempts to con money from his family/obtain his release, it's clearly not considered that he's safe to be allowed back into the public -his trial judge said, at the time, it remained to be seen- and attempts by those here to draw every agency, in the Kingdom, into a mass conspiracy is just another attempt at blurring the truth.
-
I was amused to read, on another forum, where a move seems to be afoot to spring Jeremy from his confinement, how the jury had, allegedly been mislead by RWB who said, on oath, that he wouldn't benefit financially from Jeremy's conviction and revealed that Jeremy had told him "I could easily kill my parents"!!!! We appear to be asked to put aside the fact that Jeremy uttered those words to focus on the fact that RWB -NOT my favourite character but I can't hold that against him- didn't tell the truth when he said he wouldn't benefit. Well, YES, he did! He gave a truthful answer to the question he was asked and SURELY the main thrust WASN'T about whether or not he'd benefit, but what Jeremy said. THIS has been blurred.
There have been other incidents since I've been on this forum -many of them scurrilous and totally untrue slurs on Sheila- to divert attention from the known facts. Shove in some frills, get people to concentrate on those and the facts get forgotten.overlooked/hidden. The fact remains that 31 years ago a jury convicted Jeremy and despite numerous attempts to con money from his family/obtain his release, it's clearly not considered that he's safe to be allowed back into the public -his trial judge said, at the time, it remained to be seen- and attempts by those here to draw every agency, in the Kingdom, into a mass conspiracy is just another attempt at blurring the truth.
Excellent thread title and indeed post Jane! Will be coming back to post here for sure..
I typed into google Wordsmiths and manipulation and this was the first article that came up. Interesting hey!?
"THE WORDSMITHS FORGE
http://www.friedgreentomatoes.org/articles/emotional_manipulation.php
"Emotional Manipulation is Also "Covert Aggression." See: "Psychopaths: Wolves in Sheep's Clothing" Here is a list adapted from an article by Fiona McColl
1) There is no use in trying to be honest with an emotional manipulator. You make a statement and it will be turned around. Example: I am really angry that you forgot my birthday. Response - "It makes me feel sad that you would think I would forget your birthday, I should have told you of the great personal stress I am facing at the moment - but you see I didn’t want to trouble you. You are right I should have put all this pain (don’t be surprised to see real tears at this point) aside and focused on your birthday. Sorry." Even as you are hearing the words you get the creeped out sensation that they really do NOT mean they are sorry at all - but since they’ve said the words you’re pretty much left with nothing more to say. Either that or you suddenly find yourself babysitting their angst!! Under all circumstances if you feel this angle is being played - don’t capitulate! Do not care take - do not accept an apology that feels like bullshit. If it feels like bullshit - it probably is. Rule number one - if dealing with an emotional blackmailer TRUST your gut. TRUST your senses. Once an emotional manipulator finds a successful maneuver - it’s added to their hit list and you’ll be fed a steady diet of this shit.
2) An emotional manipulator is the picture of a willing helper. If you ask them to do something they will almost always agree - that is IF they didn’t volunteer to do it first. Then when you say, "ok thanks" - they make a bunch of heavy sighs, or other non verbal signs that let you know they don’t really want to do whatever said thing happens to be. When you tell them it doesn’t seem like they want to do whatever - they will turn it around and try to make it seem like OF COURSE they wanted to and how unreasonable you are. This is a form of crazy making - which is something emotional manipulators are very good at. Rule number two - If an emotional manipulator said YES - make them accountable for it. Do NOT buy into the sighs and subtleties - if they don’t want to do it - make them tell you it up front - or just put on the walk-man headphones and run a bath and leave them to their theater.
3) Crazy making - saying one thing and later assuring you they did not say it. If you find yourself in a relationship where you figure you should start keeping a log of what’s been said because you are beginning to question your own sanity --You are experiencing emotional manipulation. An emotional manipulator is an expert in turning things around, rationalizing, justifying and explaining things away. They can lie so smoothly that you can sit looking at black and they’ll call it white - and argue so persuasively that you begin to doubt your very senses. Over a period of time this is so insidious and eroding it can literally alter your sense of reality. WARNING: Emotional Manipulation is VERY Dangerous! It is very disconcerting for an emotional manipulator if you begin carrying a pad of paper and a pen and making notations during conversations. Feel free to let them know you just are feeling so "forgetful" these days that you want to record their words for posterity’s sake. The damndest thing about this is that having to do such a thing is a clear example for why you should be seriously thinking about removing yourself from range in the first place. If you’re toting a notebook to safeguard yourself - that ol’ bullshit meter should be flashing steady by now!
4) Guilt. Emotional manipulators are excellent guilt mongers. They can make you feel guilty for speaking up or not speaking up, for being emotional or not being emotional enough, for giving and caring, or for not giving and caring enough. Any thing is fair game and open to guilt with an emotional manipulator. Emotional manipulators seldom express their needs or desires openly - they get what they want through emotional manipulation. Guilt is not the only form of this but it is a potent one. Most of us are pretty conditioned to do whatever is necessary to reduce our feelings of guilt. Another powerful emotion that is used is sympathy. An emotional manipulator is a great victim. They inspire a profound sense of needing to support, care for and nurture. Emotional Manipulators seldom fight their own fights or do their own dirty work. The crazy thing is that when you do it for them (which they will never ask directly for), they may just turn around and say they certainly didn’t want or expect you to do anything! Try to make a point of not fighting other people’s battles, or doing their dirty work for them. A great line is "I have every confidence in your ability to work this out on your own" - check out the response and note the bullshit meter once again.
5) Emotional manipulators fight dirty. They don’t deal with things directly. They will talk around behind your back and eventually put others in the position of telling you what they would not say themselves. They are passive aggressive, meaning they find subtle ways of letting you know they are not happy little campers. They’ll tell you what they think you want to hear and then do a bunch of jerk off shit to undermine it. Example: "Of course I want you to go back to school honey and you know I’ll support you." Then exam night you are sitting at the table and poker buddies show up, the kids are crying the t.v. blasting and the dog needs walking - all the while "Sweetie" is sitting on their ass looking at you blankly. Dare you call them on such behavior you are likely to hear, "well you can’t expect life to just stop because you have an exam can you honey?" Cry, scream or choke ‘em - only the last will have any long-term benefits and it’ll probably wind your butt in jail.
6) If you have a headache an emotional manipulator will have a brain tumor! No matter what your situation is the emotional manipulator has probably been there or is there now - but only ten times worse. It’s hard after a period of time to feel emotionally connected to an emotional manipulator because they have a way of de-railing conversations and putting the spotlight back on themselves. If you call them on this behavior they will likely become deeply wounded or very petulant and call you selfish - or claim that it is you who are always in the spotlight. The thing is that even tho you know this is not the case you are left with the impossible task of proving it. Don’t bother - TRUST your gut and walk away!
7) Emotional manipulators somehow have the ability to impact the emotional climate of those around them. When an emotional manipulator is sad or angry the very room thrums with it - it brings a deep instinctual response to find someway to equalize the emotional climate and the quickest route is by making the emotional manipulator feel better - fixing whatever is broken for them. Stick with this type of loser for too long and you will be so enmeshed and co-dependent you will forget you even have needs - let alone that you have just as much right to have your needs met.
8) Emotional manipulators have no sense of accountability. They take no responsibility for themselves or their behavior - it is always about what everyone else has "done to them". One of the easiest ways to spot an emotional manipulator is that they often attempt to establish intimacy through the early sharing of deeply personal information that is generally of the "hook-you-in-and-make-you-sorry-for-me" variety. Initially you may perceive this type of person as very sensitive, emotionally open and maybe a little vulnerable. Believe me when I say that an emotional manipulator is about as vulnerable as a rabid pit bull, and there will always be a problem or a crisis to overcome.
-
I've learned a new word also FLOG - instead of Blog. ;D ;D
"FLOG - Fake Blog, intended to manipulate users into thinking a subject is being discussed by disinterested parties when in fact the parties have strong financial or other interest and the blog subject was not incidental, but calculated to "advertise" the product. https://wordsmith.org/board/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=187709
ignis fatuus
By jill
"Enveloped in a cocoon
Safe in a protective crowd
Intent in this technique
Forever shielding himself
Lost in glorified illusion
To keep from coming apart
His ugly unknown truth
Self-serving lies
A knife looming
Forever in darkness
Threatening to shred
Threadbare foundation
Alone in the corner
When everyone has gone
Haunted by echoes
Broken wailing hearts
Eloquently manipulated
Some forever scarred
All unknowing victims
His sick twisted vice
https://wordsmithextraordinaire.wordpress.com/tag/manipulation/
-
I was amused to read, on another forum, where a move seems to be afoot to spring Jeremy from his confinement, how the jury had, allegedly been mislead by RWB who said, on oath, that he wouldn't benefit financially from Jeremy's conviction and revealed that Jeremy had told him "I could easily kill my parents"!!!! We appear to be asked to put aside the fact that Jeremy uttered those words to focus on the fact that RWB -NOT my favourite character but I can't hold that against him- didn't tell the truth when he said he wouldn't benefit. Well, YES, he did! He gave a truthful answer to the question he was asked and SURELY the main thrust WASN'T about whether or not he'd benefit, but what Jeremy said. THIS has been blurred.
There have been other incidents since I've been on this forum -many of them scurrilous and totally untrue slurs on Sheila- to divert attention from the known facts. Shove in some frills, get people to concentrate on those and the facts get forgotten.overlooked/hidden. The fact remains that 31 years ago a jury convicted Jeremy and despite numerous attempts to con money from his family/obtain his release, it's clearly not considered that he's safe to be allowed back into the public -his trial judge said, at the time, it remained to be seen- and attempts by those here to draw every agency, in the Kingdom, into a mass conspiracy is just another attempt at blurring the truth.
I have known many people who think they have this down to a fine art but once bitten it's not difficult to decipher and see what lurks beneath. ::) http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8040.0.html
Textuality and Text Manipulation
"But we often fail to remember that text is symbolic, that it is devoid of meaning but for the meaning we assign to it, and it’s more the fact that we’ve been accustomed to doing so over the course of our lives that makes it harder for most people to simply “see” a word or a letter without assigning it some kind of significance. Manipulating text in a visual setting outside of typical text formatting can help to sort of jog the brain, to remind us that these symbols are just tools, and moreover, that they are first and foremost visual elements that can be manipulated in a myriad of ways. Experiments like the one below can trigger a kind of double vision towards text that helps us to see the symbols for what they are (simple marks that often repeat and combine), while simultaneously allowing us to see words with fresh eyes, when text is taken out of its usually rigid context. http://timothymerritt.com/blog/textuality-and-text-manipulation/
-
I was amused to read, on another forum, where a move seems to be afoot to spring Jeremy from his confinement, how the jury had, allegedly been mislead by RWB who said, on oath, that he wouldn't benefit financially from Jeremy's conviction and revealed that Jeremy had told him "I could easily kill my parents"!!!! We appear to be asked to put aside the fact that Jeremy uttered those words to focus on the fact that RWB -NOT my favourite character but I can't hold that against him- didn't tell the truth when he said he wouldn't benefit. Well, YES, he did! He gave a truthful answer to the question he was asked and SURELY the main thrust WASN'T about whether or not he'd benefit, but what Jeremy said. THIS has been blurred.
There have been other incidents since I've been on this forum -many of them scurrilous and totally untrue slurs on Sheila- to divert attention from the known facts. Shove in some frills, get people to concentrate on those and the facts get forgotten.overlooked/hidden. The fact remains that 31 years ago a jury convicted Jeremy and despite numerous attempts to con money from his family/obtain his release, it's clearly not considered that he's safe to be allowed back into the public -his trial judge said, at the time, it remained to be seen- and attempts by those here to draw every agency, in the Kingdom, into a mass conspiracy is just another attempt at blurring the truth.
I think Jane this was covered at trial and dealt with in the 2002 Appeal ground 10.
Ground 10 – the question of inheritance 422. Ground 10 is a complaint that the prosecution failed to disclose that Robert Boutflour, the appellant's uncle, who gave evidence for the prosecution, whilst having no direct interest in the Bamber estate was aware that if the Appellant inherited, he intended to sell what he could, thereby disposing of what had been a part of Robert Boutflour's wife's family's estate.
423. June Bamber's sister, Pamela, was married to Robert Boutflour. He gave evidence that in about March 1985 the appellant had made a remark "Oh Uncle Bobby, I could kill anybody. I could easily kill my parents." This allegation was categorically denied by the appellant, and when he was in the witness box and under cross-examination he was asked by Mr Arlidge QC whether he knew of any reason that Mr Boutflour might have for making such an untrue allegation. The appellant's reply was (transcript PMS/15 page 54):
"I can only surmise reasons. I don't know any specifics, but I can only surmise reasons, and I think it is very dangerous to do so."
424. On the same day, the jury asked a question of some relevance. We have the jury note, and it reads:
"If Jeremy Bamber was found guilty and imprisoned for many years, who would be the beneficiaries of the Bamber estate and monies? Could it be his uncle and family? A possible reason or motive for Robert Boutflour's statement about Jeremy being able to kill his own parents."
425. As a result of this question, a statement was taken from Mr Boutflour dealing with his understanding of the legal position. This was to the effect that on the assumption that the five deceased persons died in order of seniority he personally would have had no claim on the estate and would not have benefited in any way. However, Mr Lawson, QC, no doubt having carried out the necessary research, produced an agreed note for the jury which is acknowledged before us as being an accurate statement of the law. This can also be summarised to the effect that if the deceased died in order of seniority (presumed in the absence of contrary evidence) or if Sheila was found to have survived her parents then, subject only to any specific legacies in any wills (as to which no-one had any information) the Bamber estates would pass to June Bamber's and Pamela Boutflour's mother, Mabel Speakman. At the relevant time Mrs Speakman was a very old lady and died shortly thereafter. Accordingly and subject to any specific bequests, and the establishing by the Court of the order of death, there was a real possibility that the Boutflour family, in the person of Pamela Boutflour, would benefit if any interest that Jeremy Bamber might otherwise have had in those estates were forfeited by reason of his conviction for murder.
426. Plainly, this was an issue to which the entire defence team must have been alive - as was the jury. However, in the internal Essex Police review conducted by Superintendent Dickinson, the following passage appears:
"44….The conviction of Jeremy Bamber for murder is likely to result in material benefit to the Boutflour family. It was known to the Boutflours that had Jeremy inherited the estate he intended to sell what he could, thereby disposing of what had been part of the Speakman family estate. In addition to this, he would have sold an area of land which, unknown to any member of the family, Ralph Bamber had purchased intending to sell it at a later date to Peter and Anne Eaton when they had sufficient funds. This piece of land had previously been owned by the Eaton family.
45.It is not suggested that this interest in any way influenced the Boutflours in what they told the police during the investigation: it was however known to the senior investigating officer during the initial stages and may have been a factor which affected the level of credence he placed upon the information given by the relatives."
427. No-one is able to supply the basis for the comments contained in these paragraphs. The senior investigating officer during the initial stages was DCI Jones, and he tragically died in an accident in the Spring of 1986, prior to trial. Mr Robert Boutflour is now a very old man and is, we are told, unfit to give evidence. But there is not now and never has been any admissible evidence available to the prosecution which could or should have been disclosed to the defence, since Mr Turner rightly concedes that the views or beliefs of an investigating officer are immaterial and inadmissible. If anybody had any evidence to give in respect of this topic it could only have been Mr Jeremy Bamber himself, as the so called "knowledge" of the Boutflours could only have been based upon something that he himself had said. He declined to proffer any such explanation when invited to do so by Mr Arlidge QC in cross-examination, and if he thought that there was any realistic possibility that such a consideration might have influenced Mr Robert Boutflour in the evidence that he was willing to give then we can see no reason why he should not have put it forward for the jury's consideration. As it seems to us, by no stretch of the imagination can the contents of the paragraphs quoted from the Essex review be regarded as fresh evidence. In truth they are not evidence at all. In our judgment there is nothing in this ground of appeal either. Equally it seems to us that even if evidence was available to show that Robert Boutflour was aware that the appellant intended to sell his inheritance, this could not have had any significantly greater impact on the jury than the correct answer to their question which was given to them.
-
Entered the pit of despair have we?
The guilt frenzy is becoming kamikaze!
-
I think Jane this was covered at trial and dealt with in the 2002 Appeal ground 10.
Ground 10 – the question of inheritance 422. Ground 10 is a complaint that the prosecution failed to disclose that Robert Boutflour, the appellant's uncle, who gave evidence for the prosecution, whilst having no direct interest in the Bamber estate was aware that if the Appellant inherited, he intended to sell what he could, thereby disposing of what had been a part of Robert Boutflour's wife's family's estate.
423. June Bamber's sister, Pamela, was married to Robert Boutflour. He gave evidence that in about March 1985 the appellant had made a remark "Oh Uncle Bobby, I could kill anybody. I could easily kill my parents." This allegation was categorically denied by the appellant, and when he was in the witness box and under cross-examination he was asked by Mr Arlidge QC whether he knew of any reason that Mr Boutflour might have for making such an untrue allegation. The appellant's reply was (transcript PMS/15 page 54):
"I can only surmise reasons. I don't know any specifics, but I can only surmise reasons, and I think it is very dangerous to do so."
424. On the same day, the jury asked a question of some relevance. We have the jury note, and it reads:
"If Jeremy Bamber was found guilty and imprisoned for many years, who would be the beneficiaries of the Bamber estate and monies? Could it be his uncle and family? A possible reason or motive for Robert Boutflour's statement about Jeremy being able to kill his own parents."
425. As a result of this question, a statement was taken from Mr Boutflour dealing with his understanding of the legal position. This was to the effect that on the assumption that the five deceased persons died in order of seniority he personally would have had no claim on the estate and would not have benefited in any way. However, Mr Lawson, QC, no doubt having carried out the necessary research, produced an agreed note for the jury which is acknowledged before us as being an accurate statement of the law. This can also be summarised to the effect that if the deceased died in order of seniority (presumed in the absence of contrary evidence) or if Sheila was found to have survived her parents then, subject only to any specific legacies in any wills (as to which no-one had any information) the Bamber estates would pass to June Bamber's and Pamela Boutflour's mother, Mabel Speakman. At the relevant time Mrs Speakman was a very old lady and died shortly thereafter. Accordingly and subject to any specific bequests, and the establishing by the Court of the order of death, there was a real possibility that the Boutflour family, in the person of Pamela Boutflour, would benefit if any interest that Jeremy Bamber might otherwise have had in those estates were forfeited by reason of his conviction for murder.
426. Plainly, this was an issue to which the entire defence team must have been alive - as was the jury. However, in the internal Essex Police review conducted by Superintendent Dickinson, the following passage appears:
"44….The conviction of Jeremy Bamber for murder is likely to result in material benefit to the Boutflour family. It was known to the Boutflours that had Jeremy inherited the estate he intended to sell what he could, thereby disposing of what had been part of the Speakman family estate. In addition to this, he would have sold an area of land which, unknown to any member of the family, Ralph Bamber had purchased intending to sell it at a later date to Peter and Anne Eaton when they had sufficient funds. This piece of land had previously been owned by the Eaton family.
45.It is not suggested that this interest in any way influenced the Boutflours in what they told the police during the investigation: it was however known to the senior investigating officer during the initial stages and may have been a factor which affected the level of credence he placed upon the information given by the relatives."
427. No-one is able to supply the basis for the comments contained in these paragraphs. The senior investigating officer during the initial stages was DCI Jones, and he tragically died in an accident in the Spring of 1986, prior to trial. Mr Robert Boutflour is now a very old man and is, we are told, unfit to give evidence. But there is not now and never has been any admissible evidence available to the prosecution which could or should have been disclosed to the defence, since Mr Turner rightly concedes that the views or beliefs of an investigating officer are immaterial and inadmissible. If anybody had any evidence to give in respect of this topic it could only have been Mr Jeremy Bamber himself, as the so called "knowledge" of the Boutflours could only have been based upon something that he himself had said. He declined to proffer any such explanation when invited to do so by Mr Arlidge QC in cross-examination, and if he thought that there was any realistic possibility that such a consideration might have influenced Mr Robert Boutflour in the evidence that he was willing to give then we can see no reason why he should not have put it forward for the jury's consideration. As it seems to us, by no stretch of the imagination can the contents of the paragraphs quoted from the Essex review be regarded as fresh evidence. In truth they are not evidence at all. In our judgment there is nothing in this ground of appeal either. Equally it seems to us that even if evidence was available to show that Robert Boutflour was aware that the appellant intended to sell his inheritance, this could not have had any significantly greater impact on the jury than the correct answer to their question which was given to them.
Thanks for that, Justice. I see David followed you. I'm guessing he's he's feeling scared but I won't be taking him off ignore to find out.
-
Thanks for that, Justice. I see David followed you. I'm guessing he's he's feeling scared but I won't be taking him off ignore to find out.
David who?
-
David who?
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Thanks for that, Justice. I see David followed you. I'm guessing he's he's feeling scared but I won't be taking him off ignore to find out.
I've got David on ignore too ;D ;D Some people may be fooled but I am not. The game was given away when the alleged letter from SH was posted (cira 2005) and no source given. ::)
-
Thanks for that, Justice. I see David followed you. I'm guessing he's he's feeling scared but I won't be taking him off ignore to find out.
To be fair, Jane J has brought up a very important point. These 'Wordsmiths' are a problem and continue to distort. That is why its important to attach documented case evidence that corroborates and provides proof of conformity to facts.
Here is a good example
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8025.0.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8025.0.html)
and even better
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6795.0.html (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6795.0.html)
This brings me to a rather pragmatic question - why does Jane J never post such documented case evidence to verify her claims? ;)
-
I've got David on ignore too ;D ;D Some people may be fooled but I am not. The game was given away when the alleged letter from SH was posted (cira 2005) and no source given. ::)
What do you call this then? ::)
http://web.archive.org/web/20080807142501/http://justice4simon.co.uk/messages_from_simon/02.php (http://web.archive.org/web/20080807142501/http://justice4simon.co.uk/messages_from_simon/02.php)
-
I've got David on ignore too ;D ;D Some people may be fooled but I am not. The game was given away when the alleged letter from SH was posted (cira 2005) and no source given. ::)
The behaviour exhibited thus far is that of a child who isn't part of a group but continually announces that it has -in this case, KNOWS--something they don't and goes on to brag about it. It's called attention seeking. Those who genuinely have something don't exhibit such puerile traits. They're too busy working on their find to take childish pleasure in ridiculing others.
-
The behaviour exhibited thus far is that of a child who isn't part of a group but continually announces that it has -in this case, KNOWS--something they don't and goes on to brag about it. It's called attention seeking. Those who genuinely have something don't exhibit such puerile traits. They're too busy working on their find to take childish pleasure in ridiculing others.
Agreed!
-
The behaviour exhibited thus far is that of a child who isn't part of a group but continually announces that it has -in this case, KNOWS--something they don't and goes on to brag about it. It's called attention seeking. Those who genuinely have something don't exhibit such puerile traits. They're too busy working on their find to take childish pleasure in ridiculing others.
well it seems we all have someone on ignore ! What does that tell us about our forum, pretty sad really.
However I feel David does post some good stuff and always tries to back his posts with sources/ evidence/etc I find them interesting.
-
I was amused to read, on another forum, where a move seems to be afoot to spring Jeremy from his confinement, how the jury had, allegedly been mislead by RWB who said, on oath, that he wouldn't benefit financially from Jeremy's conviction and revealed that Jeremy had told him "I could easily kill my parents"!!!! We appear to be asked to put aside the fact that Jeremy uttered those words to focus on the fact that RWB -NOT my favourite character but I can't hold that against him- didn't tell the truth when he said he wouldn't benefit. Well, YES, he did! He gave a truthful answer to the question he was asked and SURELY the main thrust WASN'T about whether or not he'd benefit, but what Jeremy said. THIS has been blurred.
There have been other incidents since I've been on this forum -many of them scurrilous and totally untrue slurs on Sheila- to divert attention from the known facts. Shove in some frills, get people to concentrate on those and the facts get forgotten.overlooked/hidden. The fact remains that 31 years ago a jury convicted Jeremy and despite numerous attempts to con money from his family/obtain his release, it's clearly not considered that he's safe to be allowed back into the public -his trial judge said, at the time, it remained to be seen- and attempts by those here to draw every agency, in the Kingdom, into a mass conspiracy is just another attempt at blurring the truth.
what forum Jane would like to look. Even I don't think that would happen but would like to read it.
-
well it seems we all have someone on ignore ! What does that tell us about our forum, pretty sad really.
However I feel David does post some good stuff and always tries to back his posts with sources/ evidence/etc I find them interesting.
Notsure, this forum is a microcosm of the wider world. We probably pass the time of day with everyone we meet, but we don't necessarily have any desire to get into conversation with them -or they, with us. My own belief is that David is capable of manipulating what he posts to enforce the point he'e trying to make. Some here will agree with that conclusion. Some won't.
-
what forum Jane would like to look. Even I don't think that would happen but would like to read it.
It's here Notsure but most of the posters don't know much about the case and have some VERY strange ideas.
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=123&t=2931
-
I've got David on ignore too ;D ;D Some people may be fooled but I am not. The game was given away when the alleged letter from SH was posted (cira 2005) and no source given. ::)
Me too!
-
well it seems we all have someone on ignore ! What does that tell us about our forum, pretty sad really.
However I feel David does post some good stuff and always tries to back his posts with sources/ evidence/etc I find them interesting.
Ha Ha, it's easy Notsure makes life better, I have two annoying people on ignore, myself and xxxxx
-
Ha Ha, it's easy Notsure makes life better, I have two annoying people on ignore, myself and xxxxx
Spare a thought for the poor mod who isn't able to put anyone on ignore :'( :'(
-
Ha Ha, it's easy Notsure makes life better, I have two annoying people on ignore, myself and xxxxx
;D
-
Spare a thought for the poor mod who isn't able to put anyone on ignore :'( :'(
Maggie you are a gem x. I feel I could help you out sometimes but I would ban myself lol
-
Maggie you are a gem x. I feel I could help you out sometimes but I would ban myself lol
You are always very kind justice, I'm far from perfect but I do my best. :)
-
Spare a thought for the poor mod who isn't able to put anyone on ignore :'( :'(
Actually, you can ;D
-
Actually, you can ;D
Can I? Don't tempt me!! ;D ;D
-
Can I? Don't tempt me!! ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I was amused to read, on another forum, where a move seems to be afoot to spring Jeremy from his confinement, how the jury had, allegedly been mislead by RWB who said, on oath, that he wouldn't benefit financially from Jeremy's conviction and revealed that Jeremy had told him "I could easily kill my parents"!!!! We appear to be asked to put aside the fact that Jeremy uttered those words to focus on the fact that RWB -NOT my favourite character but I can't hold that against him- didn't tell the truth when he said he wouldn't benefit. Well, YES, he did! He gave a truthful answer to the question he was asked and SURELY the main thrust WASN'T about whether or not he'd benefit, but what Jeremy said. THIS has been blurred.
There have been other incidents since I've been on this forum -many of them scurrilous and totally untrue slurs on Sheila- to divert attention from the known facts. Shove in some frills, get people to concentrate on those and the facts get forgotten.overlooked/hidden. The fact remains that 31 years ago a jury convicted Jeremy and despite numerous attempts to con money from his family/obtain his release, it's clearly not considered that he's safe to be allowed back into the public -his trial judge said, at the time, it remained to be seen- and attempts by those here to draw every agency, in the Kingdom, into a mass conspiracy is just another attempt at blurring the truth.
The biggest irony here is Jane has done exactly what she has accused others of doing. Being a "wordsmith" and Blurring the truth.
In order to let people know one is not making stuff up, everyone should cite explicit textual evidence to support their opinions or statements.
I can cite several pieces of documented evidence to support my claim over on IA. The evidence speaks for itself.
-
Spare a thought for the poor mod who isn't able to put anyone on ignore :'( :'(
???
-
well it seems we all have someone on ignore ! What does that tell us about our forum, pretty sad really.
However I feel David does post some good stuff and always tries to back his posts with sources/ evidence/etc I find them interesting.
Absolutely Notsure
I always look forward to reading David's posts
-
Me too!
That must be excellent news for David
-
The biggest irony here is Jane has done exactly what she has accused others of doing. Being a "wordsmith" and Blurring the truth.
In order to let people know one is not making stuff up, everyone should cite explicit textual evidence to support their opinions or statements.
I can cite several pieces of documented evidence to support my claim over on IA. The evidence speaks for itself.
Thank you David that's why I always look forward to your posts
-
Absolutely Notsure
I always look forward to reading David's posts
When he posts about aspects of the case - his posts are often good.
-
Hi Notsure
I too think David posts some interesting material and seems to research his claims and I enjoy reading his posts he seems to be deeply interested in the case and searching for the truth.
-
Hi Notsure
I too think David posts some interesting material and seems to research his claims and I enjoy reading his posts he seems to be deeply interested in the case and searching for the truth.
hi Susan completely agree.
-
David are you suggesting that the jury in 1986 might have been swayed had they known that the wife of Robert Boutflour was likely to inherit the bulk of the Bambers' estate?
-
That must be excellent news for David
Hopefully!
-
Thank you David that's why I always look forward to your posts
And why no one looks forward to yours! Except when you shared your login details with a banned poster.
-
Simon Hall wrote this on his website in 2005. It was an interesting read IMO.
Trying to blank out his confession from my mind to prevent hindsight bias, I found it rather uninspiring.
Stephanie, It would be interesting to hear your views on it with the benefit of hindsight.
Hello,
As a result of all the media coverage of this case recently, I feel as if I have to say a few things once again.
First, I am causing quite a stir at the moment it seems. Well, actually, I'm not. It isn't me talking on Look East and it isn't me printing controversial articles in the newspapers is it? All I have done is ask the people who believe in me to set up a website on my behalf to show this miscarriage of justice for what it is.
It is not my intention to hurt anyone and it is not my intention to make anyone's life hard or unbearable in any way. It is my intention however, to categorically state that I did not kill Mrs Albert, to raise awareness of my situation and to find help in getting my case back into court.
I did not want to get personal and I have done my utmost to avoid treading on anyone's toes or causing unnecessary pain for Mrs Albert's family, but after a recent article in the Evening Star and East Anglian Daily Times, I do have to stick up for myself.
I would like to question people who have not actually read the website.
If they haven't read it all, how can they say it's a load of nonsense? To me, that says they do not want to read it because they do not want to believe that I am an innocent man.
I can understand Mrs Albert's family not wanting to believe it because it would mean that their pain must continue, especially after I am acquitted, but the fact remains that I am an innocent man and I will more than likely be acquitted.
My confidence of this has been boosted after hearing recent news concerning new evidence, but I cannot go into this at present.
I would also like to ask why having a criminal record for fighting can reassure someone that I am guilty of murder? Yes I was sentenced to 17 months youth custody for ABH and wounding when I was 19, but does this mean I am a killer? I had fist fights with men of equal size and age, which I am not proud of at all, but that was in January 1997 and going to prison made me realise that I was foolish and I grew up very quickly as a result. Now I am supposed to have committed first degree murder? Sorry, wrong M.O., plus I am sure a lot of 19 year old lads would have come to blows with any man who stole their wallet and money. It is not the right thing to do, I know that, but I detest thieves, which is a touch ironic considering the prosecution's motive for this murder was burglary!
It is these attitudes that convict innocent men.
I do not want to be all over the news, but I have no choice. What do you think happens to people in prison who have been convicted of such heinous crimes? There are special wings for people like that, but I refuse to go on them at a detriment to my safety. I walk my head held high because I have nothing to hide.
I have a few questions.
Why am I getting so much coverage? How many murder convictions have there been on the news recently? Why don't they get this much attention? It is because something is not right and a lot of people are starting to realise it. It's that simple.
A serving police officer in Suffolk has allegedly posted a message of support on this website, to which Suffolk Police cannot confirm or deny, is legitimate. Surely after this much time they know the email's origin yet they still cannot deny it? Well they are hardly likely to confirm it are they? But if they are still investigating after all this time, it just goes to show how inept and how rubbish they actually are.
A member of Mrs Albert's family openly says she has her doubts since the trial where she thought I was guilty. Is that normal?
Plus a forensic expert raising his doubts and offering to conduct experiments to test his own theory, what about that?
But it seems that people who weren't even at the trial have opinions as to me being guilty. People who claim to know me and my family, leaving messages on this website to say they think I'm guilty. These were removed because you did not leave a valid name if any and it therefore means nothing to me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, don't get me wrong. I mean how many people are convinced the moon landings were fake or have been abducted by aliens? They cannot be moved on that.
If you think I am guilty, please tell me. Use the guestbook or private email to do so, but would you be so kind as to tell me why you think I am guilty especially after reading this site. Tell me who you are or I'll ignore it and treat it as a waste of time.
Just so when I get out I don't buy you a beer as you tell me:
Thank you for your time,
Simon Hall
Notsure, this forum is a microcosm of the wider world. We probably pass the time of day with everyone we meet, but we don't necessarily have any desire to get into conversation with them -or they, with us. My own belief is that David is capable of manipulating what he posts to enforce the point he'e trying to make. Some here will agree with that conclusion. Some won't.
What amazes me is that Davids posts are a contradiction in terms yet his supporters once again either turn a blind eye, change the subject entirely or praise him for his double standards (Suggesting they too hold double standards) and David then appears to go along with his supporters, repeating what they do. And so it goes on.....
For example; he brings a letter to the board from 2005 written by SH asking for my views on it, he states he finds it uninspiring yet not one of his supporters ask him why he finds it uninspiring, as though he is points scoring and by joining in, they too point are scoring?
Everyone according to David should back up what they cite with evidence. Well here is my evidence. What was the point David was attempting to make here?
When it becomes clear to David (and David's supporters) that Bamber is guilty, I wonder what they will make of his (Bambers) FLOGS/letters and arguments of innocence, with the benefit of hindsight?
Some of us can already see what David cannot.
-
David are you suggesting that the jury in 1986 might have been swayed had they known that the wife of Robert Boutflour was likely to inherit the bulk of the Bambers' estate?
if you were on a jury would it sway to know that the man who discored the most damming evdence aggianst the defendant would inherit the bulk of the estate should the defendant be convicted if i dont know about you but if i was on a jury id consider it least to be reasonable doubt.
-
if you were on a jury would it sway to know that the man who discored the most damming evdence aggianst the defendant would inherit the bulk of the estate should the defendant be convicted if i dont know about you but if i was on a jury id consider it least to be reasonable doubt.
The most damning evidence came from Julie.
-
And why no one looks forward to yours! Except when you shared your login details with a banned poster.
Who exactly is no one ?
I get numerous pm messages actually !!!
Shows how little you know about the forum members here
-
What amazes me is that Davids posts are a contradiction in terms yet his supporters once again either turn a blind eye, change the subject entirely or praise him for his double standards (Suggesting they too hold double standards) and David then appears to go along with his supporters, repeating what they do. And so it goes on.....
For example; he brings a letter to the board from 2005 written by SH asking for my views on it, he states he finds it uninspiring yet not one of his supporters ask him why he finds it uninspiring, as though he his points scoring and by joining in, they too point are scoring?
Everyone according to David should back up what they cite with evidence. Well here is my evidence. What was the point David was attempting to make here?
When it becomes clear to David (and David's supporters) that Bamber is guilty, I wonder what they will make of his (Bambers) FLOGS/letters and arguments of innocence, with the benefit of hindsight?
Some of us can already see what David cannot.
I am absolutely convinced JB is innocent and one day you will see that too
-
if you were on a jury would it sway to know that the man who discored the most damming evdence aggianst the defendant would inherit the bulk of the estate should the defendant be convicted if i dont know about you but if i was on a jury id consider it least to be reasonable doubt.
I don't think Caroline understands the saying reasonable doubt
-
if you were on a jury would it sway to know that the man who discored the most damming evdence aggianst the defendant would inherit the bulk of the estate should the defendant be convicted if i dont know about you but if i was on a jury id consider it least to be reasonable doubt.
I would have thought that the evidence should be judged on its own merits, not what motivation brought it to them.
-
I don't think Caroline understands the saying reasonable doubt
10 people thought there was no reasonable doubt and neither do I. I don't think your understand what 'a saying' is! ::)
-
10 people thought there was no reasonable doubt and neither do I. I don't think your understand what 'a saying' is! ::)
yes becouse information was withold but theres no knowing what verdict they would of reached had they been told it.
-
I would have thought that the evidence should be judged on its own merits, not what motivation brought it to them.
how can you honestly not take that fact into considreation though.
i think it would put a doubt
in a lot of peoples minds.
-
I am absolutely convinced JB is innocent and one day you will see that too
But you bring absolutely nothing to the board to show he is innocent. In fact what you do bring to the board further supports guilt but you choose to ignore it.
He is a proven liar. He robbed his family, stage managing the scene to make it appear it was someone else. You have clearly been taken in by his emotional manipulation which your posts also further support and you use your own form of emotional manipulation to support your posts. For example, you suggest he is a brilliant cook, people where you work believe he didn't do it, I am absolutely convinced he is innocent, 2 members of the jury were undecided, You don't think Caroline understands reasonable doubt
All this demonstrates is you appear to lack the ability to recognise the confirmation bias in every post you make and your puerile reasoning's for posting as you do.
"Verbal abuse is a feature of emotional abuse and an article from Sweden states that it is a mechanism that 'communicates worthlessness'.(Hyden, 1995) Any relationship that consists of strategies to control or overpower another person must be considered maladaptive. From a feminist perspective emotional abuse is a means of establishing power and control over the victim in addition to enabling the abuser to maintain a system of psychological abuse behaviours that reinforce this power and control. (Shepard & Campbell, 1992). In a book by Deborah Sinclair (1989) entitled Understanding Wife Assault, she states that "underlying all abuse is a power imbalance between the victim and the offender.) Several authors agreed. (Anderson et al, 1991; Loring, 1994; Alexander, 1993) Patriarchal structures are reiterated in several articles and books. (Chang, 1996)http://www.springtideresources.org/resource/emotional-abuse-women-their-intimate-partners-literature-review
I recognise Bamber's maladaptive behaviors by the way in which he treated Julie, as one example, and indeed the way in which he appears to treat many of his supporters. I have yet to see him make any apology regarding his maladaptive behaviour which further supports my belief he does not care.
Constantly abusing others in the public manner to which you do Jackie is abuse. It is maladaptive and those who support you in this should be rebuked not congratulated.
-
yes becouse information was withold but theres no knowing what verdict they would of reached had they been told it.
Such as?
-
Such as?
try reading thread.
-
try reading thread.
Try answering the question! You say information was withheld that would have changed the verdict - what information was withheld that would have changed the verdict?
-
david allready explianed that if you bothred to read the thread the jury were not told that rwb was going to cash on jeremys conviction had they known i cant see them voting the way they did.
-
david allready explianed that if you bothred to read the thread the jury were not told that rwb was going to cash on jeremys conviction had they known i cant see them voting the way they did.
That's it? ::) Why would I need to read his version? It's been said on the forum since before I joined. RWB was only one aspect of the evidence. Julie sealed the deal.
-
nugnug, have just removed your post to Caroline as imo it's not acceptable.
Can everyone calm down and try to concentrate on the thread subject rather backtracking anyone who has a different opinion.
The personal abuse on here lately has been dreadful.
-
could th other personal coments be removed then.
-
Bug bug, have just removed your post to Caroline as imo it's not acceptable.
Can everyone calm down and try to concentrate on the thread subject rather backtracking anyone who has a different opinion.
The personal abuse on here lately has been dreadful.
Thanks Maggie I'm clam and I haven't attacked Nug Nug as was suggested a few days ago. However, the fact that these people can't keep their emotions calm and debate with intelligence speaks volumes.
I must say it's ironic that Nug Nug is questioning my intelligence while failing to understand that 'reasonable doubt' isn't a saying! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
could th other personal coments be removed then.
Such as?
-
david allready explianed that if you bothred to read the thread the jury were not told that rwb was going to cash on jeremys conviction had they known i cant see them voting the way they did.
It was common knowledge that if Bamber got convicted, the other relatives would inherit. Bamber & the legal team would have made sure everyone was aware of that.
It's also common sense that this would happen as it's what happens with wills
The jury didn't believe already rich & law abiding relatives would or could frame another relative of murdering his mother, father, sister & nephews.
-
Thanks Maggie I'm clam and I haven't attacked Nug Nug as was suggested a few days ago. However, the fact that these people can't keep their emotions calm and debate with intelligence speaks volumes.
I must say it's ironic that Nug Nug is questioning my intelligence while failing to understand that 'reasonable doubt' isn't a saying! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
yes you have on servral ocaisions.
most of your posts are personal atacks on people.
-
It was common knowledge that if Bamber got convicted, the other relatives would inherit. Bamber & the legal team would have made sure everyone was aware of that.
It's also common sense that this would happen as it's what happens with wills
The jury didn't believe already rich & law abiding relatives would or could frame another relative of murdering his mother, father, sister & nephews.
How do you know the family was very rich Adam? Also the family didn't think of Jeremy as family.
'cuckoo' remember.
-
How do you know the family was very rich Adam? Also the family didn't think of Jeremy as family.
'cuckoo' remember.
https://youtu.be/BLedeOGdj2U
-
My link also confirms for Nugs that the jury were told the relatives would inherit if Bamber was convicted.
So a double Whammy thanks to Bamber's CT.
-
My link also confirms for Nugs that the jury were told the relatives would inherit if Bamber was convicted.
So a double Whammy thanks to Bamber's CT.
Well pointed out Adam, the Jury was told and it is covered in earlier post Number 4
-
yes you have on servral ocaisions.
most of your posts are personal atacks on people.
then you will be able to point to the post where I attacked you?
-
Well pointed out Adam, the Jury was told and it is covered in earlier post Number 4
Was that after the jury had asked the question, I don't remember?
Also didn't the judge say something along the lines of jbs evidence not to be relied on.
-
Well pointed out Adam, the Jury was told and it is covered in earlier post Number 4
With respect that proves absolutely nothing.
The family were beholden to Ralph. He bought the land from the family, because they were skint.
-
Was that after the jury had asked the question, I don't remember?
Also didn't the judge say something along the lines of jbs evidence not to be relied on.
Just on my way out Notsure,(football ha ha) will have a look later.
-
With respect that proves absolutely nothing.
The family were beholden to Ralph. He bought the land from the family, because they were skint.
Dont forget the wording, Bamber estate and monies, that's what the jury asked, estate I would think meant land? Yes indirectly RWB would benefit and I would have thought the jury would have seen this if his wife was the main beneficiary?
-
Dont forget the wording, Bamber estate and monies, that's what the jury asked, estate I would think meant land? Yes indirectly RWB would benefit and I would have thought the jury would have seen this if his wife was the main beneficiary?
If the jury were told the family were wealthy in their own right it was untrue.
BW wasn't over impressed by the families antics.
-
Also from the clip that Adam referred to mentioned the silencer/s which he failed to address.
-
If the jury were told the family were wealthy in their own right it was untrue.
BW wasn't over impressed by the families antics.
Have you got a source that Bamber's CT video is wrong and that the relatives were not rich in their own right ?
They owned property and farm land in the prosperous 1980's.
-
Also from the clip that Adam referred to mentioned the silencer/s which he failed to address.
I answered you're question which mis quoted me anyway. As I said the relatives were already rich, not 'very' rich.
The silencer has been discussed in other threads. You may have noticed.
-
Was that after the jury had asked the question, I don't remember?
Also didn't the judge say something along the lines of jbs evidence not to be relied on.
Have you got a source that the judge said this ? I've already posted a summary of the judges summing up which does not include this.
-
I answered you're question which mis quoted me anyway. As I said the relatives were already rich, not 'very' rich.
The silencer has been discussed in other threads. You may have noticed.
Adam, on another thread you said the family were very wealthy.
-
Adam, on another thread you said the family were very wealthy.
Did I. Look forward to you showing me.
-
Just on my way out Notsure,(football ha ha) will have a look later.
blimey we do have a lot in common. My hubby is an ex pro. Son plays semi pro, footie been and is big part of our lives, funnily enough son not playing today though. Got a day off lol.
-
blimey we do have a lot in common. My hubby is an ex pro. Son plays semi pro, footie been and is big part of our lives, funnily enough son not playing today though. Got a day off lol.
Ha Ha I think we will be related by time we've done. Played football nearly 20 years, best players played with Peter Swan, played against Crazy Horse (Emlyn Hughes) not pro though, local soccer, Emlyn was a real gent, Swany was such a laugh.
-
Was that after the jury had asked the question, I don't remember?
Also didn't the judge say something along the lines of jbs evidence not to be relied on.
I think it was pointed out after the Jury asked the Question Notsure? JBS?
-
I think it was pointed out after the Jury asked the Question Notsure? JBS?
JB's evidence not to be relied on.
-
JB's evidence not to be relied on.
Oh thanks Caroline, I was trying to work out who jbs was, I thought Notsure had got it wrong and meant RWB so was checking this line.
-
JB's evidence not to be relied on.
Indeed Caroline! Nothing he says can be relied upon.
http://www.businessinsider.com/9-signs-youre-dealing-with-an-emotional-manipulator-2016-12?IR=T
"Emotional manipulators are incredibly skilled liars. They insist an incident didn't happen when it did, and they insist they did or said something when they didn't. The trouble is they're so good at it that you end up questioning your own sanity. To insist that whatever caused the problem is a figment of your imagination is an extremely powerful way of getting out of trouble.
Emotional manipulators will tell you what you want to hear, but their actions are another story. They pledge their support, but, when it comes time to follow through, they act as though your requests are entirely unreasonable. They tell you how lucky they are to know you, and then act as though you're a burden. This is just another way of undermining your belief in your own sanity. They make you question reality as you see it and mold your perception according to what is convenient to them.
When it comes to emotional manipulators, nothing is ever their fault. No matter what they do — or fail to do — it's someone else's fault. Someone else made them do it — and, usually, it's you. If you get mad or upset, it's your fault for having unreasonable expectations; if they get mad, it's your fault for upsetting them. Emotional manipulators don't take accountability for anything.
No matter what problems you may have, emotional manipulators have it worse. They undermine the legitimacy of your complaints by reminding you that their problems are more serious. The message? You have no reason to complain, so shut the heck up.
-
My link also confirms for Nugs that the jury were told the relatives would inherit if Bamber was convicted.
So a double Whammy thanks to Bamber's CT.
Wrong
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6432.msg380119.html#msg380119 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6432.msg380119.html#msg380119)
-
Ha Ha I think we will be related by time we've done. Played football nearly 20 years, best players played with Peter Swan, played against Crazy Horse (Emlyn Hughes) not pro though, local soccer, Emlyn was a real gent, Swany was such a laugh.
RIP Emlyn Hughes, hero of Liverpool FC. Died too young. :)
-
RIP Emlyn Hughes, hero of Liverpool FC. Died too young. :)
Hi Maggie, he was a gent, he came in our changing room after the match and thanked us for playing, my mate shouted him back as he was going and he came back, to which my mate said Thanks for coming Emlyn, he laughed and chuckled as he went. Me and my mate still use this phrase. He played for Dronfield at the time top man.
-
Who exactly is no one ?
I get numerous pm messages actually !!!
Shows how little you know about the forum members here
Yeah I'm sure you do, but I bet the banned member got more PM's because her posts were more intelligent! :o