Wordsmiths And How Truth Becomes Hidden Or Manipulated

[Caroline]

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! 

[nugnug]

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.

[nugnug]

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.

[Stephanie]

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.

[Caroline]

yes becouse information was withold but theres no knowing what verdict they would of reached had they been told it.

Such as?

[nugnug]

Such as?

try reading thread.

[Caroline]

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?

[nugnug]

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.

[Caroline]

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.

[maggie]

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.

[nugnug]

could th other personal coments be removed then.

[Caroline]

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! 

[Caroline]

could th other personal coments be removed then.

Such as?

[Adam]

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.

[nugnug]

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! 

yes you have on servral ocaisions.

most of your posts are personal atacks on people.