Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Luminous Wanderer on April 01, 2018, 12:24:PM
-
I have now contributed to threads on both the 'red' forum and this forum. Although I am strictly neutral on the question of Bamber's culpability, I think this forum is superior, partly because people are generally more polite and constructive here and the bias towards Bamber that exists here creates a better atmosphere and greater open-mindedness about the evidence. The individuals associated with the 'red' forum come across as rather smug and insufferable.
However, I would argue that a rational discussion of this case is next-to-impossible on the web, and when it does occur, it can't be sustained for long before the My Side Is Right dogma creeps in - be it pro- or anti-Bamber - or somebody gets upset. The reason for this is that human beings are not, on the whole, rational in the first place. Most of us are hormonal, and very ego-driven and tribal, and we tend to want to 'take sides', and I suppose the criminal justice system in England reflects this structurally in that it is adversarial and not, per se, concerned with the truth and proofs but with who can 'win' an argument and 'persuade' the jury of their case.
The way that that manifests on forums like this is that people make undisciplined arguments, assert things factually that aren't true facts and take sides in a discussion that ought to be concerned with establishing, variously, the truthfulness, legality or forensic integrity of a point. For example, a dogmatic anti-Bamber poster on this Forum asserts that the blood evidence is absolutely Sheila's or, if not hers, then definitely Nevill's and June's, but that isn't necessarily the case. That's not what the evidence says and confuses fact with expert opinion. All opinions are assailable.
Nigel, who posts on here, is fanatically pro-Bamber, but I can forgive him. I don't blame people like Nigel and Mike who want to stand by Jeremy, and given the disadvantages that a defendant/appellant has under this system, I think it's admirable what you are doing.
It occurs to me that Jeremy Bamber's case is one of those that might have benefited more from the inquisitorial trial system that exists on the Continent, where an examining judge determines both law and fact, supervises the criminal investigation and sets out to determine the truth - analogous to the typical work of an English coroner. I don't have any statistics to back this up, but my general impression is that adversarial justice systems seem to produce a greater number, and worse, miscarriages of justice than systems that concern themselves purely with establishing the truth.
I have been quite impressed with the workings of the Portuguese criminal justice system during the McCann investigation and the way that police investigations are judicially-supervised. That's not to take a view either way on the case itself - I don't - and I wouldn't say I was impressed with the competence of the actual investigation, but the Portuguese system seems to operate more fairly and carefully overall and seems less susceptible to intellectual tribalism, media influence and manufactured hysteria. Just my opinion.
Where do we go from here? My (layman's) view is that the pro-Bamber side of this needs to be ruthlessly focused on the points that are relevant to an appeal and not allow itself to be sidetracked by non-probative issues. For this Forum, it would probably help if one of us could draw up a list of the points that are thought to bring the conviction into doubt, and we can then whittle that down to the most promising two or three.
-
I have now contributed to threads on both the 'red' forum and this forum. Although I am strictly neutral on the question of Bamber's culpability, I think this forum is superior, partly because people are generally more polite and constructive here and the bias towards Bamber that exists here creates a better atmosphere and greater open-mindedness about the evidence. The individuals associated with the 'red' forum come across as rather smug and insufferable.
However, I would argue that a rational discussion of this case is next-to-impossible on the web, and when it does occur, it can't be sustained for long before the My Side Is Right dogma creeps in - be it pro- or anti-Bamber - or somebody gets upset. The reason for this is that human beings are not, on the whole, rational in the first place. Most of us are hormonal, and very ego-driven and tribal, and we tend to want to 'take sides', and I suppose the criminal justice system in England reflects this structurally in that it is adversarial and not, per se, concerned with the truth and proofs but with who can 'win' an argument and 'persuade' the jury of their case.
The way that that manifests on forums like this is that people make undisciplined arguments, assert things factually that aren't true facts and take sides in a discussion that ought to be concerned with establishing, variously, the truthfulness, legality or forensic integrity of a point. For example, a dogmatic anti-Bamber poster on this Forum asserts that the blood evidence is absolutely Sheila's or, if not hers, then definitely Nevill's and June's, but that isn't necessarily the case. That's not what the evidence says and confuses fact with expert opinion. All opinions are assailable.
Nigel, who posts on here, is fanatically pro-Bamber, but I can forgive him. I don't blame people like Nigel and Mike who want to stand by Jeremy, and given the disadvantages that a defendant/appellant has under this system, I think it's admirable what you are doing.
It occurs to me that Jeremy Bamber's case is one of those that might have benefited more from the inquisitorial trial system that exists on the Continent, where an examining judge determines both law and fact, supervises the criminal investigation and sets out to determine the truth - analogous to the typical work of an English coroner. I don't have any statistics to back this up, but my general impression is that adversarial justice systems seem to produce a greater number, and worse, miscarriages of justice than systems that concern themselves purely with establishing the truth.
I have been quite impressed with the workings of the Portuguese criminal justice system during the McCann investigation and the way that police investigations are judicially-supervised. That's not to take a view either way on the case itself - I don't - and I wouldn't say I was impressed with the competence of the actual investigation, but the system seems to operate more fairly and carefully overall and seems less susceptible to intellectual tribalism, media influence and manufactured hysteria. Just my opinion.
Where do we go from here? My (layman's) view is that the pro-Bamber side of this needs to be ruthlessly focused on the points that are relevant to an appeal and not allow itself to be sidetracked by non-probative issues. For this Forum, it would probably help if one of us could draw up a list of the points that are thought to bring the conviction into doubt, and we can then whittle that down to the most promising two or three.
"Nigel, who posts on here, is fanatically pro-Bamber, but I can forgive him"
Do not patronise me.
-
"Nigel, who posts on here, is fanatically pro-Bamber, but I can forgive him"
Do not patronise me.
Sorry, but it is true. Patronising or not. You are every bit as dogmatic as Adam is. Therefore, no rational discussion is possible.
-
NEVER
COMPARE ME TO ADAM666
Nigel, I'm sorry, you are not in a position to tell me what to do and what not to do.
I form my own impressions and you absolutely are the mirror image of Adam. He is dogmatic and so are you. Both of you are, ultimately, immune to reason and facts. Both of you have lied or distorted things. You are the type of people who cause miscarriages of justice, because you don't respect the truth. I've explained above of course that, in fairness, this is partly due to the way the system works.
Sorry to be patronising - but that's what I think, Nigel!
-
probably not its a very long time since ive had one on here.
-
probably not its a very long time since ive had one on here.
Wake up, its happening!
-
I think I read around this (very smart).
However please provide truth for me. re: BOLD
Just keep posting crap and proving my point. This case can't be discussed rationally due to the evident fact that most people can't transcend simple human nature.
Your support for Jeremy Bamber is admirable - not patronising, just a compliment - but I'm not interested in flag-waving and taking sides, so please, don't patronise me, and stop condescending to me and telling me that I'm supposed to know things that can't possibly be known or accept assertions for which you have delivered no proofs.
-
Just keep posting crap and proving my point. This case can't be discussed rationally due to the evident fact that most people can't transcend simple human nature.
Your support for Jeremy Bamber is admirable - not patronising, just a compliment - but I'm not interested in flag-waving and taking sides, so please, don't patronise me, and stop condescending to me and telling me that I'm supposed to know things that can't possibly be known or accept assertions for which you have delivered no proofs.
not 'flag waving' at all. whats your problem?
maybe you should spend more time in SLOANE SQUARE, checking out the FACTS.
-
Just keep posting crap and proving my point. This case can't be discussed rationally due to the evident fact that most people can't transcend simple human nature.
Your support for Jeremy Bamber is admirable - not patronising, just a compliment - but I'm not interested in flag-waving and taking sides, so please, don't patronise me, and stop condescending to me and telling me that I'm supposed to know things that can't possibly be known or accept assertions for which you have delivered no proofs.
You're posts are long but don't say much in you're attempt to remain impartial.
Supporters arguments are extremely weak & with the exception of Mike, sources are never supplied. However at least it is interesting seeing the latest reason why Bamber is innocent.
-
Blimey Adam you are one to talk about loooooong posts.
-
Just keep posting crap and proving my point. This case can't be discussed rationally due to the evident fact that most people can't transcend simple human nature.
Your support for Jeremy Bamber is admirable - not patronising, just a compliment - but I'm not interested in flag-waving and taking sides, so please, don't patronise me, and stop condescending to me and telling me that I'm supposed to know things that can't possibly be known or accept assertions for which you have delivered no proofs.
Peoples opinions on Jeremy Bamber and if this case is a miscarriage of justice are quite straightforward
Can you believe Julie Mugford or not when it has been accepted she was a prolific liar
Do you believe the tampered silencer evidence?
There is no evidence of phone calls either way
You have to make your mind up was Jeremy a cold bloodied killer although it was know he hated blood sports
Who tried to mislead the jury and benefitted from Jeremy’s conviction? A family that would never have benefitted from the Bamber fortunes
-
I have now contributed to threads on both the 'red' forum and this forum. Although I am strictly neutral on the question of Bamber's culpability, I think this forum is superior, partly because people are generally more polite and constructive here and the bias towards Bamber that exists here creates a better atmosphere and greater open-mindedness about the evidence. The individuals associated with the 'red' forum come across as rather smug and insufferable.
That's a fair summary. I glanced at your posts and the predictable responses over there, wondering why you chose to start there. I wondered whether you would venture here and reasoned that if you did, it would soon become apparent to you that this is the better forum (for this particular case).
-
Where do we go from here? My (layman's) view is that the pro-Bamber side of this needs to be ruthlessly focused on the points that are relevant to an appeal and not allow itself to be sidetracked by non-probative issues. For this Forum, it would probably help if one of us could draw up a list of the points that are thought to bring the conviction into doubt, and we can then whittle that down to the most promising two or three.
The evidence available on the forum has been 'done to death'. The case has progressed behind the scenes and beyond the reach of the forum. Therefore to some extent, the evidence available to the forum is outdated. I personally don't think the system plays fair in this case: therefore I doubt even if strong exculpatory evidence was available to the defence, it would necessarily lead to the conviction being over-turned. To me it looks like they're determined to keep him in prison on technicalities - the opposite of what is claimed by the rabid brigade on the red.
-
The evidence available on the forum has been 'done to death'. The case has progressed behind the scenes and beyond the reach of the forum. Therefore to some extent, the evidence available to the forum is outdated. I personally don't think the system plays fair in this case: therefore I doubt even if strong exculpatory evidence was available to the defence, it would necessarily lead to the conviction being over-turned. To me it looks like they're determined to keep him in prison on technicalities - the opposite of what is claimed by the rabid brigade on the red.
It does not matter if its outdated. Its still part of the jigsaw.
There are some practical experiments I would like to carry out. But I don't have the apparatus needed.
-
I have now contributed to threads on both the 'red' forum and this forum. Although I am strictly neutral on the question of Bamber's culpability, I think this forum is superior, partly because people are generally more polite and constructive here and the bias towards Bamber that exists here creates a better atmosphere and greater open-mindedness about the evidence. The individuals associated with the 'red' forum come across as rather smug and insufferable.
However, I would argue that a rational discussion of this case is next-to-impossible on the web, and when it does occur, it can't be sustained for long before the My Side Is Right dogma creeps in - be it pro- or anti-Bamber - or somebody gets upset. The reason for this is that human beings are not, on the whole, rational in the first place. Most of us are hormonal, and very ego-driven and tribal, and we tend to want to 'take sides', and I suppose the criminal justice system in England reflects this structurally in that it is adversarial and not, per se, concerned with the truth and proofs but with who can 'win' an argument and 'persuade' the jury of their case.
The way that that manifests on forums like this is that people make undisciplined arguments, assert things factually that aren't true facts and take sides in a discussion that ought to be concerned with establishing, variously, the truthfulness, legality or forensic integrity of a point. For example, a dogmatic anti-Bamber poster on this Forum asserts that the blood evidence is absolutely Sheila's or, if not hers, then definitely Nevill's and June's, but that isn't necessarily the case. That's not what the evidence says and confuses fact with expert opinion. All opinions are assailable.
Nigel, who posts on here, is fanatically pro-Bamber, but I can forgive him. I don't blame people like Nigel and Mike who want to stand by Jeremy, and given the disadvantages that a defendant/appellant has under this system, I think it's admirable what you are doing.
It occurs to me that Jeremy Bamber's case is one of those that might have benefited more from the inquisitorial trial system that exists on the Continent, where an examining judge determines both law and fact, supervises the criminal investigation and sets out to determine the truth - analogous to the typical work of an English coroner. I don't have any statistics to back this up, but my general impression is that adversarial justice systems seem to produce a greater number, and worse, miscarriages of justice than systems that concern themselves purely with establishing the truth.
I have been quite impressed with the workings of the Portuguese criminal justice system during the McCann investigation and the way that police investigations are judicially-supervised. That's not to take a view either way on the case itself - I don't - and I wouldn't say I was impressed with the competence of the actual investigation, but the Portuguese system seems to operate more fairly and carefully overall and seems less susceptible to intellectual tribalism, media influence and manufactured hysteria. Just my opinion.
Where do we go from here? My (layman's) view is that the pro-Bamber side of this needs to be ruthlessly focused on the points that are relevant to an appeal and not allow itself to be sidetracked by non-probative issues. For this Forum, it would probably help if one of us could draw up a list of the points that are thought to bring the conviction into doubt, and we can then whittle that down to the most promising two or three.
The problem with the Continental system is that it's far too slow, the juge d'instruction has dozens of cases to investigate at any one time and as there's no habeas corpus the temptation is just to slap somebody in jail and let them rot until release or trial. I wasn't particularly impressed with the McCann investigation, where Police were slow off the mark but quick to make the couple arguidos on flimsy if any real evidence of involvement.
The downside to the adversarial system is that when Police do get it wrong as in the Stephen Dowling case they will be dragged kicking and screaming before they admit to any mistake, the Establishment holding firm until those involved in the original investigation have long since retired.
In both systems more public money should be spent on the pursuit of justice to level out the playing field between those defendants who have access to the best legal representation and those who do not.
-
The problem with the Continental system is that it's far too slow, the juge d'instruction has dozens of cases to investigate at any one time and as there's no habeas corpus the temptation is just to slap somebody in jail and let them rot until release or trial. I wasn't particularly impressed with the McCann investigation, where Police were slow off the mark but quick to make the couple arguidos on flimsy if any real evidence of involvement.
The downside to the adversarial system is that when Police do get it wrong as in the Stephen Dowling case they will be dragged kicking and screaming before they admit to any mistake, the Establishment holding firm until those involved in the original investigation have long since retired.
In both systems more public money should be spent on the pursuit of justice to level out the playing field between those defendants who have access to the best legal representation and those who do not.
Thanks Steve.
-
You're posts are long but don't say much in you're attempt to remain impartial.
Supporters arguments are extremely weak & with the exception of Mike, sources are never supplied. However at least it is interesting seeing the latest reason why Bamber is innocent.
I think it's Your, not You're.
And it's Supporters', not Supporters.
Not that I'm above making mistakes myself, but those are glaring. I'm a bit of a snob when it comes to that sort of thing, especially when such mistakes are made by somebody who critiques my posts, flatly lies about evidence, and presumes to know what happened at White Horse Farm - even though (we must assume) you weren't there.
I repeat what I have said or inferred already: miscarriages of justice are the result of poor thinking skills. In your case, you provide us with some telling clues: basic and consistent errors of diction in your posts; assumptions about matters beyond your knowledge; and repeated lies about the evidence - as well as arrogance and egotism. It's a long list.
-
I think it's Your, not You're.
And it's Supporters', not Supporters.
Not that I'm above making mistakes myself, but those are glaring. I'm a bit of a snob when it comes to that sort of thing, especially when such mistakes are made by somebody who critiques my posts, flatly lies about evidence, and presumes to know what happened at White Horse Farm - even though (we must assume) you weren't there.
I repeat what I have said or inferred already: miscarriages of justice are the result of poor thinking skills. In your case, you provide us with some telling clues: basic and consistent errors of diction in your posts; assumptions about matters beyond your knowledge; and repeated lies about the evidence - as well as arrogance and egotism. It's a long list.
It sounds a nice place I would like to visit one day, but on this forum it's the White House Farm murders.
-
It sounds a nice place I would like to visit one day, but on this forum it's the White House Farm murders.
;D If you are a member of the apostrophe police, make sure you're ( :P) own ship's in order.
-
;D If you are a member of the apostrophe police, make sure you're ( :P) own ship's in order.
It was me, not Steve.
We all make mistakes with English.
-
So you run with the hare and hunt with the hounds then,Luminous Wanderer ?
-
So you run with the hare and hunt with the hounds then,Luminous Wanderer ?
No. I have little time for anybody who adopts a pro- or anti- Bamber position. For reasons that I have explained, it's not appropriate for this case.
However I would say that the pro-Bamber people are much easier to discuss and debate with.
The anti-Bamber people are obnoxious and full of themselves and don't like questions being asked - cases in point are, regrettably, found on this Forum.
-
No. I have little time for anybody who adopts a pro- or anti- Bamber position. For reasons that I have explained, it's not appropriate for this case.
However I would say that the pro-Bamber people are much easier to discuss and debate with.
The anti-Bamber people are obnoxious and full of themselves and don't like questions being asked - cases in point are, regrettably, found on this Forum.
For goodness sake we are not allowed an opinion now..
-
No. I have little time for anybody who adopts a pro- or anti- Bamber position. For reasons that I have explained, it's not appropriate for this case.
However I would say that the pro-Bamber people are much easier to discuss and debate with.
The anti-Bamber people are obnoxious and full of themselves and don't like questions being asked - cases in point are, regrettably, found on this Forum.
For starters I'm a staunch pro-Bamber,always have been and remain to be so. Because I remember these murders as though it were yesterday, and I immediately " sensed " that JB wasn't guilty, I've naturally been interested in what others had to say regarding it.
I can be quite forthright in opposing opinions,mainly because others can't see it the way I do,but hey-ho that's what debate is about.
To me,the case was over before it began.
-
My interest is in the legal safety of Bamber's conviction. I believe that is the only issue that can be discussed. Unfortunately, it seems that 99% of people disagree and believe in treating this case as an article of faith. For that reason, I don't believe the blue or the red forums achieve anything - though I think for the most part the problems are being caused by the anti-Bamber camp.
I speak here as a neutral - I have no interest in deciding Bamber's guilt or innocence - but in my view, anti-Bamber people are inhibiting proper discussion of this case. They are bringing a close-minded agenda into the Forum.
I do find assertions of Bamber's innocence objectionable enough, but at least I can have a reasonably sensible discussion with most pro-Bamber people here.
I've had enough. I'm asking the administrators to delete my account and posts here.
-
My interest is in the legal safety of Bamber's conviction. I believe that is the only issue that can be discussed. Unfortunately, it seems that 99% of people disagree and believe in treating this case as an article of faith. For that reason, I don't believe the blue or the red forums achieve anything - though I think for the most part the problems are being caused by the anti-Bamber camp.
I speak here as a neutral - I have no interest in deciding Bamber's guilt or innocence - but in my view, anti-Bamber people are inhibiting proper discussion of this case. They are bringing a close-minded agenda into the Forum.
I do find assertions of Bamber's innocence objectionable enough, but at least I can have a reasonably sensible discussion with most pro-Bamber people here.
I've had enough. I'm asking the administrators to delete my account and posts here.
What a weak attitude !
-
My interest is in the legal safety of Bamber's conviction. I believe that is the only issue that can be discussed. Unfortunately, it seems that 99% of people disagree and believe in treating this case as an article of faith. For that reason, I don't believe the blue or the red forums achieve anything - though I think for the most part the problems are being caused by the anti-Bamber camp.
I speak here as a neutral - I have no interest in deciding Bamber's guilt or innocence - but in my view, anti-Bamber people are inhibiting proper discussion of this case. They are bringing a close-minded agenda into the Forum.
I do find assertions of Bamber's innocence objectionable enough, but at least I can have a reasonably sensible discussion with most pro-Bamber people here.
I've had enough. I'm asking the administrators to delete my account and posts here.
It's not entirely unexpected. You can't expect to set an agenda and expect everyone to run with it. There's no excuse for swearing or profanity either, except it marks you out as somebody not in control of your own thoughts or emotions.
-
There are some who enjoy being top dog and when it doesn't materialise they show their true colours. Their aim being to disrupt when things don't go their way.
-
The Campaigners have got it wrong about Kenneally's position as being Detective Inspector. He was a Detective Superintendent. Bit of a difference.
-
For goodness sake we are not allowed an opinion now..
Where have I said you're not allowed to have an opinion,. you f.ucking lying idiot?
-
What a weak attitude !
The weak attitude is siding with one camp or the other without any rational basis for doing so.
Were you there at White House Farm on the night of the murders? No, and given the nature of the case, you can't know what occurred. Ergo, the very fact you adopt one position or another shows that you have fundamentally misunderstood the case - which is the very problem with this forum. You can't rationally take a pro- or anti-Bamber view in this case, due to its nature.
Steve in one of his comments asserted that the sound moderator links Bamber forensically to the scene, but it doesn't. Steve has been commenting here for years, yet he doesn't know the basics, whereas I have been commenting here for five minutes and I know more than he does.
Maybe you should pay more attention to my pleas for objectivity?
-
It's not entirely unexpected. You can't expect to set an agenda and expect everyone to run with it. There's no excuse for swearing or profanity either, except it marks you out as somebody not in control of your own thoughts or emotions.
That's not going to wash, Steve. I've exposed your ignorance about this case, so we know that you're a fraud.
I've also demonstrated that Julie Mugford's evidence is not relevant. This was at a time when most people commenting on here were going off down that tangent. I've stopped that.
That's because I'm neutral and, unlike you, I don't pretend that I know things that I can't know.
Before I arrived here a short while ago, this forum was dead and pretty much the only posts were coming from Mike Tesko, and maybe Nigel. I suspect you'd prefer that it returns to that state because like most anti-Bambers you don't want honest discussion about the case.
-
The weak attitude is siding with one camp or the other without any rational basis for doing so.
Were you there at White House Farm on the night of the murders? No, and given the nature of the case, you can't know what occurred. Ergo, the very fact you adopt one position or another shows that you have fundamentally misunderstood the case - which is the very problem with this forum. You can't rationally take a pro- or anti-Bamber view in this case, due to its nature.
Steve in one of his comments asserted that the sound moderator links Bamber forensically to the scene, but it doesn't. Steve has been commenting here for years, yet he doesn't know the basics, whereas I have been commenting here for five minutes and I know more than he does.
Maybe you should pay more attention to my pleas for objectivity?
Oh but I do understand the case------more so than you'd imagine and I can take whatever view of the case that I wish without your controlling attitude thank you very much.
-
BTW,it didn't take the relatives long to reach their conclusion did it--------and without the need for EP ? :o
Had they looked at the whys and wherefors of the case ? Of course not,so what's the difference in their prompt decision and mine ?
-
i exept he may of done it but the evdence is tainted to say the least.
and very few people can prove there innocence 100 percent.
-
i exept he may of done it but the evdence is tainted to say the least.
and very few people can prove there innocence 100 percent.
There are the exceptions when it comes to 100% innocence though nugs.
-
There are the exceptions when it comes to 100% innocence though nugs.
I only know of about 2 cases in the uk were innocence was proved beyond doubt.
but then it shouldn't have to be.
-
My interest is in the legal safety of Bamber's conviction. I believe that is the only issue that can be discussed. Unfortunately, it seems that 99% of people disagree and believe in treating this case as an article of faith. For that reason, I don't believe the blue or the red forums achieve anything - though I think for the most part the problems are being caused by the anti-Bamber camp.
I speak here as a neutral - I have no interest in deciding Bamber's guilt or innocence - but in my view, anti-Bamber people are inhibiting proper discussion of this case. They are bringing a close-minded agenda into the Forum.
I do find assertions of Bamber's innocence objectionable enough, but at least I can have a reasonably sensible discussion with most pro-Bamber people here.
I've had enough. I'm asking the administrators to delete my account and posts here.
We seem to have managed well enough until now, so much that you wish to join us. Incidentally I'm glad you're back ,despite you indicating at intervals various members' failings.
-
Where have I said you're not allowed to have an opinion,. you xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx?
You implied it in #21. We should be allowed to speculate on the motives of the various protagonists involved in the case, just as you speculate on the different scenarios in the sound moderator thread in post #245.
Incidentally there has been more use of the "f" word by you in the past few days than at any other time I can remember on the forum. It reflects far worse on you than the recipient, of that I am sure.
-
The weak attitude is siding with one camp or the other without any rational basis for doing so.
Were you there at White House Farm on the night of the murders? No, and given the nature of the case, you can't know what occurred. Ergo, the very fact you adopt one position or another shows that you have fundamentally misunderstood the case - which is the very problem with this forum. You can't rationally take a pro- or anti-Bamber view in this case, due to its nature.
Steve in one of his comments asserted that the sound moderator links Bamber forensically to the scene, but it doesn't. Steve has been commenting here for years, yet he doesn't know the basics, whereas I have been commenting here for five minutes and I know more than he does.
Maybe you should pay more attention to my pleas for objectivity?
I wonder if there's a formulation of words that we could all agree on. In your post #250 in the sound moderator thread you write:
Why would Jeremy stage Nevill's body? In an attempt to exclude from evidence the moderator he had used in the killings, realising that a moderated gun in and of itself potentially implicates him, and also having realised at some point that Sheila could not kill herself with a moderated gun. His error was in not understanding the forensic possibilities of the moderator. He puts the moderator back rather than taking it with him because he thinks the moderator will be missed.
Whether you like it or not you have admitted that the sound moderator is classified in the forensic evidence category. Now I am perfectly prepared to admit that it is not the smoking gun the guilters are looking for and indeed many here deny its involvement in the crime. I thoroughly respect that view.
All I would say to you is that IF you believe the silencer was used by Jeremy and IF you believe that he left it in situ in the gun cupboard then I am entitled because of the purported telephone call from Nevill to himself to infer that the suspects are limited to two, namely Sheila or Jeremy. Therefore IF I rule out Sheila for many valid reasons I am entitled to say that as Sheila's blood was more likely present in the sound moderator than Robert Boutflour's (or anyone else's with Type A blood) then the sound moderator is a piece of forensic evidence which is incriminatory towards Jeremy.
I don't profess to know everything about the case, which is why I enjoy reading other members' opinions here. I might suggest that it is you who is trying to close off debate by framing it in paramaters that most of us here just do not accept.
-
I wonder if there's a formulation of words that we could all agree on. In your post #250 in the sound moderator thread you write:
Why would Jeremy stage Nevill's body? In an attempt to exclude from evidence the moderator he had used in the killings, realising that a moderated gun in and of itself potentially implicates him, and also having realised at some point that Sheila could not kill herself with a moderated gun. His error was in not understanding the forensic possibilities of the moderator. He puts the moderator back rather than taking it with him because he thinks the moderator will be missed.
Whether you like it or not you have admitted that the sound moderator is classified in the forensic evidence category. Now I am perfectly prepared to admit that it is not the smoking gun the guilters are looking for and indeed many here deny its involvement in the crime. I thoroughly respect that view.
All I would say to you is that IF you believe the silencer was used by Jeremy and IF you believe that he left it in situ in the gun cupboard then I am entitled because of the purported telephone call from Nevill to himself to infer that the suspects are limited to two, namely Sheila or Jeremy. Therefore IF I rule out Sheila for many valid reasons I am entitled to say that as Sheila's blood was more likely present in the sound moderator than Robert Boutflour's (or anyone else's with Type A blood) then the sound moderator is a piece of forensic evidence which is incriminatory towards Jeremy.
I don't profess to know everything about the case, which is why I enjoy reading other members' opinions here. I might suggest that it is you who is trying to close off debate by framing it in paramaters that most of us here just do not accept.
No, no, no, no....Again, with great respect, you've misunderstood me. The point is that the evidence doesn't directly link Jeremy to the crime. I realise that, in and of itself, this isn't very important. I only attach significance to it in the sense of how I am reasoning the whole thing out. In other words, I'm (provisionally) concluding that the lack of direct forensic evidence is of no relevance (which, if anything, leans in favour of the anti-Bamber position, though I would argue it's a neutral conclusion on the basis that, oddly enough, the Crown could actually have used the lack of forensics in support of their case). Of course, you may find all that to be a statement of the obvious, but remember I am trying to delineate the issues here from a neutral perspective. I'm not taking sides and I need to be able to think all this through as logically as my capabilities allow.
If I come across as frustrated and angry, it's because I am trying to understand this case from a neutral position and it is very frustrating when people want to 'take sides'. I've explained why taking sides is completely unhelpful given the special features of this case.
-
Oh but I do understand the case------more so than you'd imagine and I can take whatever view of the case that I wish without your controlling attitude thank you very much.
You're just straw-manning, so I'll ignore you.
-
You're just straw-manning, so I'll ignore you.
Good ! Ditto.