Author Topic: ANNOUNCEMENT  (Read 609 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6051
  • Total likes: 109
  • Bamber Campaign For Freedom, How Can I Help?!
ANNOUNCEMENT
« on: March 26, 2018, 11:19:54 AM »
I refer all contributors to this forum to the high level rules on the home page:

* Posters are asked to keep to thread topics where possible
* Libellous or defamatory material will be removed on sight
* Abuse will not be tolerated. Break the rules expect a ban!


Many of the posts are way off-topic where not even a tenuous link exists to the thread.  Please stay on topic by starting up new threads or add to existing threads.

Comments of a personal nature ("abuse") will not be tolerated.  The following are examples from recent posts:

- "Again you show your bias, arrogance, egotism and selective thinking".
- "I find people like you odd or lacking in something".
- "Sounds like you have some issues there...you should talk to someone neutral IMO.  Seek help".
- "You've appointed yourself judge and jury".
- "Moderators - could you please stop this idiot posting on this forum".
- "People like you".
- "I'm not interested in your egotistical bollocks".
- "This is nonsense".
- "...and probably commentators of low intelligence like you".

Any poster on the receiving end of the above is asked to report the relevant post to a moderator who will take the appropriate action.  Repeat offenders can expect a ban. 

Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6051
  • Total likes: 109
  • Bamber Campaign For Freedom, How Can I Help?!
Re: ANNOUNCEMENT
« Reply #1 on: March 26, 2018, 11:39:31 AM »
Just to clarify, should it be necessary to report a post to a moderator please do so by pressing the 'Report to moderator' button in the bottom right hand corner of posts. 
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline LuminousWanderer

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT
« Reply #2 on: March 28, 2018, 01:24:59 AM »
I am very sorry, but I don't believe this post addresses the real problems that have arisen on this Forum.  You are characterising the tensions superficially as rudeness between posters.  You ignore what is behind it, which is a tendency - I suppose you could put this down to human nature - to assume guilt or innocence despite the fact that none of us can know this one way or the other.  All we have is evidence, which can be interpreted in different ways.

In my original thread on this Forum, I made it completely and plainly clear and obvious - I couldn't have put it clearer - what I am here for and why.  I explained that I am not an expert and that there are gaps in my knowledge about the case.  I explained that though I was tentatively leaning towards Bamber's conviction as unsafe (which is NOT the same as saying he is innocent), I wanted to ask questions.

Here's a recent post directed at myself from Caroline:

Just checked and it was 2004 (not 2007) that it was claimed a second log was discovered which is when the phone call from Nevil became part of the campaign. LW can believe what he likes, he asked questions -you can't just pick and choose the parts you like and build the rest on 'what ifs'.

Note the comment highlighted in bold.  I am not "picking and choosing" anything or adopting one view or the other.  I am just asking questions and trying to knock down the Crown case as a way of testing it, which is what an objective person might do.  That does not mean I favour Bamber or disfavour him.  I keep having to say this because some people here can't wrap their heads round the concept.

I am neither pro- nor anti-Bamber.  I suppose if you have a partisan mindset (whether pro- or anti-), it's difficult to accept that others might not want to similarly fit their thinking into one box or the other.

Offline LuminousWanderer

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT
« Reply #3 on: March 28, 2018, 03:11:05 AM »
I wish to add to the above.

I have noticed the posts from Stephanie in the latter part of the following thread:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=468.msg454223#msg454223

Note the multiple posts that are intended to cause drama and pick a fight.  This is a very typical pattern of behaviour from her. 

This arose from my response to a post from puglove, which contained a useful point but put it across in a very condescending and insulting way.  Instead of saying to me: "Luminous, have you considered the point that Bamber left the silencer because he didn't want it to be noticed as missing", I get a snide put-down.

This is part of the problem.  Posters on here are dogmatically against Bamber: hence the inflammatory and sniping tone of posts on here when questions are asked.  I tried to preempt this with the cautionary phrasing of my original post on this Forum, but that hasn't worked. 

I accept that my reaction to these posts can be equally inflammatory, but I am not the root of the problem.  The root of the problem is the culture of the Forum, which you have allowed to fester, in which posters have turned into Anti-Bamber Know-It-Alls.  I still don't understand how anybody can know Bamber is guilty or innocent.  Can you see inside his head or do you have possession of a working time machine?

I'm highlighting issues relevant to this forum and I think everybody should see this.  I know what response I am going to get.  It's inevitable that you won't be self-critical and accept that there are faults on the part of long-standing posters who have created an obnoxious atmosphere.

Offline APRIL

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT
« Reply #4 on: March 28, 2018, 09:46:39 AM »
I wish to add to the above.

I have noticed the posts from Stephanie in the latter part of the following thread:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=468.msg454223#msg454223

Note the multiple posts that are intended to cause drama and pick a fight.  This is a very typical pattern of behaviour from her. 

This arose from my response to a post from puglove, which contained a useful point but put it across in a very condescending and insulting way.  Instead of saying to me: "Luminous, have you considered the point that Bamber left the silencer because he didn't want it to be noticed as missing", I get a snide put-down.

This is part of the problem.  Posters on here are dogmatically against Bamber: hence the inflammatory and sniping tone of posts on here when questions are asked.  I tried to preempt this with the cautionary phrasing of my original post on this Forum, but that hasn't worked. 

I accept that my reaction to these posts can be equally inflammatory, but I am not the root of the problem.  The root of the problem is the culture of the Forum, which you have allowed to fester, in which posters have turned into Anti-Bamber Know-It-Alls.  I still don't understand how anybody can know Bamber is guilty or innocent.  Can you see inside his head or do you have possession of a working time machine?

I'm highlighting issues relevant to this forum and I think everybody should see this.  I know what response I am going to get.  It's inevitable that you won't be self-critical and accept that there are faults on the part of long-standing posters who have created an obnoxious atmosphere.

Forgive me, but you seem to be doing a lot of finger pointing here. Highlighting the 'problems' you perceive in a forum you've newly joined, is hardly going to aid your cause. It's a given that what we say/do frequently belies what we feel and having read what you SAY about being ambivalent about Jeremy's guilt/innocence, your arguments all seem to favour innocence without acknowledging -indeed, frequently rubbishing- the other side. You may CLAIM logic but, to take the silencer as an example, it wasn't put away in quite the way you'd have us believe. It was placed, very carefully, right at the back of the understair, wedged cupboard. One might all it the thin edge of the wedge. Whatever you say, it whichever way you choose to say it, it appears, very strongly, to me, that you believe Jeremy is innocent. Why not have the courage of your convictions and say it, rather than having a pop at posters who may be seeing, in you, the same as I, and using, as a defense mechanism, "I know what response I'm going to get". Rest assured. The response you get is commensurate with the statements you make.

Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1600
  • Total likes: 27
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: ANNOUNCEMENT
« Reply #5 on: March 28, 2018, 12:24:08 PM »
Forgive me, but you seem to be doing a lot of finger pointing here. Highlighting the 'problems' you perceive in a forum you've newly joined, is hardly going to aid your cause. It's a given that what we say/do frequently belies what we feel and having read what you SAY about being ambivalent about Jeremy's guilt/innocence, your arguments all seem to favour innocence without acknowledging -indeed, frequently rubbishing- the other side. You may CLAIM logic but, to take the silencer as an example, it wasn't put away in quite the way you'd have us believe. It was placed, very carefully, right at the back of the understair, wedged cupboard. One might all it the thin edge of the wedge. Whatever you say, it whichever way you choose to say it, it appears, very strongly, to me, that you believe Jeremy is innocent. Why not have the courage of your convictions and say it, rather than having a pop at posters who may be seeing, in you, the same as I, and using, as a defense mechanism, "I know what response I'm going to get". Rest assured. The response you get is commensurate with the statements you make.

 8((()*/
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6051
  • Total likes: 109
  • Bamber Campaign For Freedom, How Can I Help?!
Re: ANNOUNCEMENT
« Reply #6 on: March 28, 2018, 03:18:57 PM »
I am very sorry, but I don't believe this post addresses the real problems that have arisen on this Forum.  You are characterising the tensions superficially as rudeness between posters.  You ignore what is behind it, which is a tendency - I suppose you could put this down to human nature - to assume guilt or innocence despite the fact that none of us can know this one way or the other.  All we have is evidence, which can be interpreted in different ways.

I am very sorry to learn your recent experience here fell short of expectation LuminiousWanderer.  I wonder if it was all down to us or whether you were partly responsible for your experience?  I see internet forums as a microcosm of the real world where we generally have to interact with a variety of people some of whom we actively like; some we dislike; and most are somewhere in between.  I would recommend trying to find common ground with your fellow posters.
   
I first joined this forum Mar 2013.  Spent thousands of hours here!  Current post count stands at 5,786.  Believe JB is innocent.  Haven't experienced any problems.  I'm always mindful that most eg posters here, public at large, media, judiciary etc don't share my views.  I respect the views of others.  I don't expect or want to persuade anyone to my way of thinking.  My objective is always to learn as much as I can about the case by entering into debate and testing my assumptions and theories.

In my original thread on this Forum, I made it completely and plainly clear and obvious - I couldn't have put it clearer - what I am here for and why.  I explained that I am not an expert and that there are gaps in my knowledge about the case.  I explained that though I was tentatively leaning towards Bamber's conviction as unsafe (which is NOT the same as saying he is innocent), I wanted to ask questions.

Here's a recent post directed at myself from Caroline:

Note the comment highlighted in bold.  I am not "picking and choosing" anything or adopting one view or the other.  I am just asking questions and trying to knock down the Crown case as a way of testing it, which is what an objective person might do.  That does not mean I favour Bamber or disfavour him.  I keep having to say this because some people here can't wrap their heads round the concept.

I am neither pro- nor anti-Bamber.  I suppose if you have a partisan mindset (whether pro- or anti-), it's difficult to accept that others might not want to similarly fit their thinking into one box or the other.

You appear to place a lot of emphasis on pro Bamber/anti Bamber.  I don't see it like this at all.  The case against JB is made up of various aspects eg silencer/blood, JM's testimony, NB's location when he sustained his upstairs gsw's, origins of blood stains on bible, hand swabs, phone logs (NB) and there's a lot of overlapping.  Eg although David and I believe JB is innocent we don't believe NB called EP.  Caroline believes JB guilty but doesn't believe the blood/silencer evidence.  The 3 of us agree NB didn't sustain any of his upstairs gsw's in the main bedroom.  David believes the bloodstains on the bible originate from SC.  I believe Caroline is with David on this.  And I believe they originate from June.  I think the hand swab evidence is meaningless whereas David believes it is meaningful.  JB doesn't believe NB sustained any gsw's upstairs.  The CT all seem to believe NB called EP.  So yes people have a tendency to arrive at an overall conclusion of guilty or innocent but there's a lot of overlap on the various aspects. 

I would suggest you see where you sit with the various aspects. 
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92

Offline LuminousWanderer

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT
« Reply #7 on: March 28, 2018, 04:18:50 PM »
I'm not going to counter-respond to the above responses.  They are predictable and nothing is gained by getting into silly arguments.  No doubt I have 'caused' all this, but that may be because of the pre-existing culture of the Forum.  I know that point will never be considered, so let's move on.  I'm not going to be posting here for much longer anyway.

Let me make one further point about the case bias amplified on this Forum.

Consider this thread as an example:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=108.0

Some good points are made, and it's commendable that you would consider this case in such detail and with such rigour; but the tenor of the entire thread is clearly pejorative, much of what is stated to be 'Fact' is not that at all, and on closer examination, most of the points are just a particular interpretation applied to the underlying facts.

I acknowledge that it is very difficult to be objective, simply because we all have to make operative assumptions and come to judgements about things.  I also accept there is nothing wrong with bias per se, and we have free speech - which is very good thing - but that being the case, I also have the right to highlight the obvious: if you start from the assumption of guilt or innocence, you are being dogmatic not reasoned, and your conclusions are flawed.  You will deny this and say that you started from the facts and evidence and came to your conclusion, but even if that is true of you personally, if you then hold to that conclusion dogmatically and treat this as akin to a rivalry between football supporters, then little can be achieved.

My personal view is that the best way to look at this case is through a lawyerly lens of whether an application could be made to the CCRC that would have a reasonable prospect of success.  In those terms, 'success' is defined as a referral by the CCRC to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal.  From there, it's down to the judiciary.  If the court then decides that the conviction is unsafe, then it must be quashed, Bamber must be remanded into custody pending a re-trial, and it is then incumbent on the CPS to either re-indict Bamber or drop the case for good.  There is nothing to exonerate Bamber, and he won't confess, so whether he is actually culpable to any degree or not is irrelevant.  It's purely a matter of the legal safety of the conviction.

Some people would brand that sort of approach as cold and Amaral, but it is no more cold than adopting a position that labels a man guilty despite the fact you weren't there and despite him vigorously protesting his innocence for more than three decades.  And it's not Amaral.  It just reflects the best knowledge that we can have about what did and did not happen, and it also advances the legal protections that the system to everybody against flimsy criminal convictions.  What is Amaral and cynical is pretending you know things that you don't. 

Offline APRIL

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT
« Reply #8 on: March 28, 2018, 04:41:26 PM »
I'm not going to counter-respond to the above responses.  They are predictable and nothing is gained by getting into silly arguments.  No doubt I have 'caused' all this, but that may be because of the pre-existing culture of the Forum.  I know that point will never be considered, so let's move on.  I'm not going to be posting here for much longer anyway.

Let me make one further point about the case bias amplified on this Forum.

Consider this thread as an example:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=108.0

Some good points are made, and it's commendable that you would consider this case in such detail and with such rigour; but the tenor of the entire thread is clearly pejorative, much of what is stated to be 'Fact' is not that at all, and on closer examination, most of the points are just a particular interpretation applied to the underlying facts.

I acknowledge that it is very difficult to be objective, simply because we all have to make operative assumptions and come to judgements about things.  I also accept there is nothing wrong with bias per se, and we have free speech - which is very good thing - but that being the case, I also have the right to highlight the obvious: if you start from the assumption of guilt or innocence, you are being dogmatic not reasoned, and your conclusions are flawed.  You will deny this and say that you started from the facts and evidence and came to your conclusion, but even if that is true of you personally, if you then hold to that conclusion dogmatically and treat this as akin to a rivalry between football supporters, then little can be achieved.

My personal view is that the best way to look at this case is through a lawyerly lens of whether an application could be made to the CCRC that would have a reasonable prospect of success.  In those terms, 'success' is defined as a referral by the CCRC to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal.  From there, it's down to the judiciary.  If the court then decides that the conviction is unsafe, then it must be quashed, Bamber must be remanded into custody pending a re-trial, and it is then incumbent on the CPS to either re-indict Bamber or drop the case for good.  There is nothing to exonerate Bamber, and he won't confess, so whether he is actually culpable to any degree or not is irrelevant.  It's purely a matter of the legal safety of the conviction.

Some people would brand that sort of approach as cold and Amaral, but it is no more cold than adopting a position that labels a man guilty despite the fact you weren't there and despite him vigorously protesting his innocence for more than three decades.  And it's not Amaral.  It just reflects the best knowledge that we can have about what did and did not happen, and it also advances the legal protections that the system to everybody against flimsy criminal convictions.  What is Amaral and cynical is pretending you know things that you don't.

'It' may be obvious to you, but at the end of the day, whatever 'it' you choose to highlight is only your opinion. As you correctly point out, "much of what is stated to be 'Fact' is not that at all", and something which might be leveled at forums other than this one. Indeed, it's something you, too, have resorted to. Perhaps it's a case of your "particular interpretation applied to underlying facts", or might it be that you're as "Amaral and cynical" as you accuse others of being?

Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1600
  • Total likes: 27
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: ANNOUNCEMENT
« Reply #9 on: March 28, 2018, 04:48:46 PM »
I'm not going to counter-respond to the above responses.  They are predictable and nothing is gained by getting into silly arguments.  No doubt I have 'caused' all this, but that may be because of the pre-existing culture of the Forum.  I know that point will never be considered, so let's move on.  I'm not going to be posting here for much longer anyway.

Let me make one further point about the case bias amplified on this Forum.

Consider this thread as an example:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=108.0

Some good points are made, and it's commendable that you would consider this case in such detail and with such rigour; but the tenor of the entire thread is clearly pejorative, much of what is stated to be 'Fact' is not that at all, and on closer examination, most of the points are just a particular interpretation applied to the underlying facts.

I acknowledge that it is very difficult to be objective, simply because we all have to make operative assumptions and come to judgements about things.  I also accept there is nothing wrong with bias per se, and we have free speech - which is very good thing - but that being the case, I also have the right to highlight the obvious: if you start from the assumption of guilt or innocence, you are being dogmatic not reasoned, and your conclusions are flawed.  You will deny this and say that you started from the facts and evidence and came to your conclusion, but even if that is true of you personally, if you then hold to that conclusion dogmatically and treat this as akin to a rivalry between football supporters, then little can be achieved.

My personal view is that the best way to look at this case is through a lawyerly lens of whether an application could be made to the CCRC that would have a reasonable prospect of success.  In those terms, 'success' is defined as a referral by the CCRC to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal.  From there, it's down to the judiciary.  If the court then decides that the conviction is unsafe, then it must be quashed, Bamber must be remanded into custody pending a re-trial, and it is then incumbent on the CPS to either re-indict Bamber or drop the case for good.  There is nothing to exonerate Bamber, and he won't confess, so whether he is actually culpable to any degree or not is irrelevant.  It's purely a matter of the legal safety of the conviction.

Some people would brand that sort of approach as cold and Amaral, but it is no more cold than adopting a position that labels a man guilty despite the fact you weren't there and despite him vigorously protesting his innocence for more than three decades.  And it's not Amaral.  It just reflects the best knowledge that we can have about what did and did not happen, and it also advances the legal protections that the system to everybody against flimsy criminal convictions.  What is Amaral and cynical is pretending you know things that you don't.

I don't agree with your perceptions towards this case nor do I agree it was a "flimsy criminal conviction" - there are however many cases where that could be suggested. I'd be interested to know why you appear to have singled out the Bamber case.

Jeremy Bamber helped cement the impression his motive was greed when he turned on his surviving relatives some time after he was convicted. You make a mistake by being blinkered in your approach to his conviction and not taking into consideration other aspects of his pathology.

I prefer the "holistic approach."
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline LuminousWanderer

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT
« Reply #10 on: March 28, 2018, 04:56:02 PM »
I don't agree with your perceptions towards this case nor do I agree it was a "flimsy criminal conviction" - there are however many cases where that could be suggested. I'd be interested to know why you appear to have singled out the Bamber case.

Jeremy Bamber helped cement the impression his motive was greed when he turned on his surviving relatives some time after he was convicted. You make a mistake by being blinkered in your approach to his conviction and not taking into consideration other aspects of his pathology.

I prefer the "holistic approach."

I didn't say that I have concluded that Bamber's was a flimsy conviction.  If you re-read what I stated, that part of my post was a justification for the way the system protects people against, and provides relief for, unsafe convictions.  Sometimes culpable people do need to be acquitted or have their convictions quashed.  These 'errors of impunity' are a price for ensuring we are all protected against, or at least minimally-disadvantaged by, the converse evil: state impunity.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2018, 04:58:29 PM by LuminousWanderer »

Offline LuminousWanderer

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT
« Reply #11 on: March 28, 2018, 04:57:46 PM »
'It' may be obvious to you, but at the end of the day, whatever 'it' you choose to highlight is only your opinion. As you correctly point out, "much of what is stated to be 'Fact' is not that at all", and something which might be leveled at forums other than this one. Indeed, it's something you, too, have resorted to. Perhaps it's a case of your "particular interpretation applied to underlying facts", or might it be that you're as "Amaral and cynical" as you accuse others of being?

Again, your post represents a manifest misunderstanding of my purpose here, a misunderstanding you doggedly persist in because, I believe, you have convinced yourself that you know things that are outside your existential knowledge.

Offline Stephanie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1600
  • Total likes: 27
  • I was conned by Simon Hall & many others
Re: ANNOUNCEMENT
« Reply #12 on: March 28, 2018, 05:17:13 PM »
I'm not going to counter-respond to the above responses.  They are predictable and nothing is gained by getting into silly arguments.  No doubt I have 'caused' all this, but that may be because of the pre-existing culture of the Forum.  I know that point will never be considered, so let's move on.  I'm not going to be posting here for much longer anyway.

Let me make one further point about the case bias amplified on this Forum.

Consider this thread as an example:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=108.0

Some good points are made, and it's commendable that you would consider this case in such detail and with such rigour; but the tenor of the entire thread is clearly pejorative, much of what is stated to be 'Fact' is not that at all, and on closer examination, most of the points are just a particular interpretation applied to the underlying facts.

I acknowledge that it is very difficult to be objective, simply because we all have to make operative assumptions and come to judgements about things.  I also accept there is nothing wrong with bias per se, and we have free speech - which is very good thing - but that being the case, I also have the right to highlight the obvious: if you start from the assumption of guilt or innocence, you are being dogmatic not reasoned, and your conclusions are flawed.  You will deny this and say that you started from the facts and evidence and came to your conclusion, but even if that is true of you personally, if you then hold to that conclusion dogmatically and treat this as akin to a rivalry between football supporters, then little can be achieved.

My personal view is that the best way to look at this case is through a lawyerly lens of whether an application could be made to the CCRC that would have a reasonable prospect of success.  In those terms, 'success' is defined as a referral by the CCRC to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal.  From there, it's down to the judiciary.  If the court then decides that the conviction is unsafe, then it must be quashed, Bamber must be remanded into custody pending a re-trial, and it is then incumbent on the CPS to either re-indict Bamber or drop the case for good.  There is nothing to exonerate Bamber, and he won't confess, so whether he is actually culpable to any degree or not is irrelevant.  It's purely a matter of the legal safety of the conviction.

Some people would brand that sort of approach as cold and Amaral, but it is no more cold than adopting a position that labels a man guilty despite the fact you weren't there and despite him vigorously protesting his innocence for more than three decades.  And it's not Amaral.  It just reflects the best knowledge that we can have about what did and did not happen, and it also advances the legal protections that the system to everybody against flimsy criminal convictions.  What is Amaral and cynical is pretending you know things that you don't.

I've considered all you've posted, as I'm sure others members have done also.

What became apparent was your ego and bias. You think you've been objective - doesn't make it a fact however! Why don't you do as April suggested on another thread and show you have courage for your convictions. Identify yourself. Your call of course but whilst you remain anon I cannot reconsider my current viewpoint. If you wish to remain anon maybe you would give the forum an indication as to where your interest in Bambers case stemmed from. You don't just happen to land on this forum and refer to the jeremybamberforum as the blue forum.

And with regards your comments on coming from things from a "lawerly lens" gives me the impression you are naive or ignorant. Giovanni De Stefano looked at this case with a "lawyerly lens"

ANYONE can make an application to the CCRC. No legal qualifications or "lawyerly lens" required.

Bamber has nothing left to scrutinise. His claims that his innocence sits in a box somewhere in a police station cellar and that it (his innocence) was withheld from his original trial because the police fitted him up is only being peddled by those he's manipulated.
"When flying monkeys come calling, just click your ruby slippers together and remember that even narcs can be defeated once you know the truth"

Offline APRIL

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT
« Reply #13 on: March 28, 2018, 05:18:41 PM »
Again, your post represents a manifest misunderstanding of my purpose here, a misunderstanding you doggedly persist in because, I believe, you have convinced yourself that you know things that are outside your existential knowledge.

I can't help but feel that either there's projection going on here, OR what you say and what you feel are in opposition, something for which I take no responsibility.

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6051
  • Total likes: 109
  • Bamber Campaign For Freedom, How Can I Help?!
Re: ANNOUNCEMENT
« Reply #14 on: March 28, 2018, 05:28:44 PM »
Can someone explain the meaning of the word Amaral please. 
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy. Victims of poorly arranged baby scoop era adoptions. Australia has apologised. Time for the UK to do the same?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/92