Some Basic Questions

[Holly Goodhead]

It seems that Bamber is saying the released evidence shows he is guilty. But after 33 years there is still evidence which hasn't been released. This evidence amazingly negates the mountain of released evidence over the last 33 years.

It can only be unreleased evidence showing an industrial frame.

The standard of paperwork was poor to say the least.  If anything existed which could assist JB it would IMO simply be destroyed.  All court exhibits were destroyed against protocol so there's no reason to think the same wouldn't happen with paperwork.  An exception might be search warrants where copies are maintained elsewhere ie magistrates court but even this seems a long shot.

Afaik it has only recently come to light SC was moved in main bedroom evidenced by A/PS Woodcock's WS and soc images.  Given JB has had years to pore over these docs I'm wondering if he's spending his time productively. 

[Nicholas]

Mike met Bamber in prison & has supported him passionately for most of the 33 years. Creating forums, internet articles & Youtube videos. Nothing will effect his support. 

Nugs is a conspiracy theorist & Lookout has had a 'gut feeling' for 33 years. Evidence will have no influence on these.

David was a hardcore guilter & is the only person I know who has changed stance to supporter. This was a quiet stance change attempt for non evidence reasons,  to give him the future option of changing stance back to guilty. However after the stance change was exposed, he has no option but to continue to support Bamber.

Some people aren't able to admit defeat and publicly admitting to having been conned isn't so appealing.

I guess it's down to each individual and their personnel agenda.

[Nicholas]

The standard of paperwork was poor to say the least.  If anything existed which could assist JB it would IMO simply be destroyed.  All court exhibits were destroyed against protocol so there's no reason to think the same wouldn't happen with paperwork.  An exception might be search warrants where copies are maintained elsewhere ie magistrates court but even this seems a long shot.

Afaik it has only recently come to light SC was moved in main bedroom evidenced by A/PS Woodcock's WS and soc images.  Given JB has had years to pore over these docs I'm wondering if he's spending his time productively.

Have you seen ALL 4 million documents to which Jeremy Bamber has referred to over the years?

[Nicholas]

The standard of paperwork was poor to say the least.  If anything existed which could assist JB it would IMO simply be destroyed.  All court exhibits were destroyed against protocol so there's no reason to think the same wouldn't happen with paperwork.  An exception might be search warrants where copies are maintained elsewhere ie magistrates court but even this seems a long shot.

Afaik it has only recently come to light SC was moved in main bedroom evidenced by A/PS Woodcock's WS and soc images.  Given JB has had years to pore over these docs I'm wondering if he's spending his time productively.

If you believe this to be true, how you do you dismiss Julie Mugfords evidence for example?

[Nicholas]

The standard of paperwork was poor to say the least.  If anything existed which could assist JB it would IMO simply be destroyed.  All court exhibits were destroyed against protocol so there's no reason to think the same wouldn't happen with paperwork.  An exception might be search warrants where copies are maintained elsewhere ie magistrates court but even this seems a long shot.

Afaik it has only recently come to light SC was moved in main bedroom evidenced by A/PS Woodcock's WS and soc images.  Given JB has had years to pore over these docs I'm wondering if he's spending his time productively.

"As far as you know?" Have you seen the photographic evidence/images or are you taking the word of a n other?

[Nicholas]

The standard of paperwork was poor to say the least.  If anything existed which could assist JB it would IMO simply be destroyed.  All court exhibits were destroyed against protocol so there's no reason to think the same wouldn't happen with paperwork.  An exception might be search warrants where copies are maintained elsewhere ie magistrates court but even this seems a long shot.

Afaik it has only recently come to light SC was moved in main bedroom evidenced by A/PS Woodcock's WS and soc images.  Given JB has had years to pore over these docs I'm wondering if he's spending his time productively.

[/b]


His time in prison will be regimented. He will only be able to "pore over these doc" during the time he is banged up. Providing of course he has access to all 4 million docs to which he has referred to.

According to him they were in a massive warehouse. Do his supporters really believe HMP service have provided Jeremy Bamber will a space this size to keep all his docs and they are at his disposal at any given time?

[Nicholas]

[/b]


His time in prison will be regimented. He will only be able to "pore over these doc" during the time he is banged up. Providing of course he has access to all 4 million docs to which he has referred to.

According to him they were in a massive warehouse. Do his supporters really believe HMP service have provided Jeremy Bamber will a space this size to keep all his docs and they are at his disposal at any given time?

Simon Hall said for years about "going over his case files with a fine tooth comb," many of us did. It turned out, Simon Hall didn't have his case files in his possession. They had been destroyed long before he'd moved to open prison conditions.

I learned after his death that many prisons have incinerators which they use to destroy prisoners docs on request (of a prisoner).

[LuminousWanderer]

I think this thread has now gone off-track a bit with pro- and anti- arguments, which don't interest me.

I have now had time to re-look at the telephone logs and I will start a new thread about that shortly.  I have one specific question about the documents.

[Nicholas]

I think this thread has now gone off-track a bit with pro- and anti- arguments, which don't interest me.

What other argument is there if not pro or anti?

What "interests" you exactly?

Jeremy Bamber is either innocent or guilty - there is nothing in between!

[LuminousWanderer]

What other argument is there if not pro or anti?

What "interests" you exactly?

Jeremy Bamber is either innocent or guilty - there is nothing in between!

I think you misunderstand the way the legal system works.  To be fair, it's a common misunderstanding.

I am not interested in whether Jeremy Bamber is innocent or guilty.  Nor is Jeremy Bamber, if he has any sense. That's because there is no evidence to exonerate him: this is not a miscarriage of justice in that sense.  The only question worth discussing is whether his convictions are legally safe, and that's the only question that interests me. 

I'm not interested in competing in an online WWF wrestling bout.

"And in the red corner.....we have Stephanie and her tag partner, John!  Stephanie is deffo certain that Bamber is guilty!  OK, she wasn't there, but she's read all the forum posts and everything!"

"And in the blue corner.....we have Mike Tesko.  Mike is deffo certain that Jeremy Bamber is innocent and was set up by alien lizards in league with the British Royals, and anybody who disagrees is a numpty!"

I'm not interested in your egotistical bollocks.  I'm not pro-Bamber.  I'm not anti-Bamber.  I don't care.

And anyway, whether these convictions are legally safe is a big question in its own right.  I know I can't possibly answer it myself and it's not my business to.  This is just an idle interest, but in the event, it's a question I haven't even managed to touch on yet, as we're still discussing the basics of the case.

Maybe it would be better for the harmony of this Forum if you stopped reading my posts?

[Nicholas]

I think you misunderstand the way the legal system works.  To be fair, it's a common misunderstanding.

I am not interested in whether Jeremy Bamber is innocent or guilty.  Nor is Jeremy Bamber, if he has any sense. That's because there is no evidence to exonerate him: this is not a miscarriage of justice in that sense.  The only question worth discussing is whether his convictions are legally safe, and that's the only question that interests me. 

I'm not interested in competing in an online WWF wrestling bout.

"And in the red corner.....we have Stephanie and her tag partner, John!  Stephanie is deffo certain that Bamber is guilty!  OK, she wasn't there, but she's read all the forum posts and everything!"

"And in the blue corner.....we have Mike Tesko.  Mike is deffo certain that Jeremy Bamber is innocent and was set up by alien lizards in league with the British Royals, and anybody who disagrees is a numpty!"

I'm not interested in your egotistical bollocks.  I'm not pro-Bamber.  I'm not anti-Bamber.  I don't care.

And anyway, whether these convictions are legally safe is a big question in its own right.  I know I can't possibly answer it myself and it's not my business to.  This is just an idle interest, but in the event, it's a question I haven't even managed to touch on yet, as we're still discussing the basics of the case.

Maybe it would be better for the harmony of this Forum if you stopped reading my posts?

Have you considered applying your reasoning to my posts?

[Nicholas]

I think you misunderstand the way the legal system works.  To be fair, it's a common misunderstanding.

I am not interested in whether Jeremy Bamber is innocent or guilty.  Nor is Jeremy Bamber, if he has any sense. That's because there is no evidence to exonerate him: this is not a miscarriage of justice in that sense.  The only question worth discussing is whether his convictions are legally safe, and that's the only question that interests me. 

I'm not interested in competing in an online WWF wrestling bout.

"And in the red corner.....we have Stephanie and her tag partner, John!  Stephanie is deffo certain that Bamber is guilty!  OK, she wasn't there, but she's read all the forum posts and everything!"

"And in the blue corner.....we have Mike Tesko.  Mike is deffo certain that Jeremy Bamber is innocent and was set up by alien lizards in league with the British Royals, and anybody who disagrees is a numpty!"

I'm not interested in your egotistical bollocks.  I'm not pro-Bamber.  I'm not anti-Bamber.  I don't care.

And anyway, whether these convictions are legally safe is a big question in its own right.  I know I can't possibly answer it myself and it's not my business to.  This is just an idle interest, but in the event, it's a question I haven't even managed to touch on yet, as we're still discussing the basics of the case.

Maybe it would be better for the harmony of this Forum if you stopped reading my posts?

Are you suggesting Jeremy Bamber has no "sense" or that you are superior to Bamber because you believe you have "sense?"

IMO Mike Tesco is a con man who now knows he's been conned by another con man but his fragile ego won't allow him to admit he's been conned.

He could of course also be in denial but i don't believe that.

Your interest in this case may be an "idle interest" but for many of us we are mindful 5 people were murdered (including 2 sleeping children) and many lives have been profoundly affected by Jeremy Bambers callous, cold and calculating actions.

[adam]

If members wish to 'ignore' other members they can adjust their forum profile as follows:

Go into your profile - top of home page

Go into account settings under modify profile which is on the left hand side and it enables members to place other members on ignore.

LuminousWanderer is lucky to not be posting on the Blue forum.

My posts & threads brutally highlighted Bamber's guilt & passionate supporters called me every name under the sun to try to deflect from this. David posting his abusive images. 

I did recently suggest abusive images shouldn't be allowed on the forum, as is the case on this forum. But these images are still allowed. I also suggested that 3 or more moderstors should be in agreement prior to making a big decision on a poster, rather than one moderator acting independently. But got no response.

One of the moderator supporters doesn't like me and is fiercely protective of former moderator collegues, women, elderly posters or posters with learning disabilities.  Which is basically everyone else. There is no point complaining to Mike as he is too wrapped up posting to himself. I have complained to another moderator but just get a standard response that a moderator collegue will always be supported.

These days I just let 'The Famous Five', Mike, David, Nigel, Nugs & Lookout solve the case amongst themselves.

[puglove]

Are you suggesting Jeremy Bamber has no "sense" or that you are superior to Bamber because you believe you have "sense?"

IMO Mike Tesco is a con man who now knows he's been conned by another con man but his fragile ego won't allow him to admit he's been conned.

He could of course also be in denial but i don't believe that.

Your interest in this case may be an "idle interest" but for many of us we are mindful 5 people were murdered (including 2 sleeping children) and many lives have been profoundly affected by Jeremy Bambers callous, cold and calculating actions.

Very good post.

[Nicholas]

I think you misunderstand the way the legal system works.  To be fair, it's a common misunderstanding.

I am not interested in whether Jeremy Bamber is innocent or guilty.  Nor is Jeremy Bamber, if he has any sense. That's because there is no evidence to exonerate him: this is not a miscarriage of justice in that sense.  The only question worth discussing is whether his convictions are legally safe, and that's the only question that interests me. 

I'm not interested in competing in an online WWF wrestling bout.

"And in the red corner.....we have Stephanie and her tag partner, John!  Stephanie is deffo certain that Bamber is guilty!  OK, she wasn't there, but she's read all the forum posts and everything!"

"And in the blue corner.....we have Mike Tesko.  Mike is deffo certain that Jeremy Bamber is innocent and was set up by alien lizards in league with the British Royals, and anybody who disagrees is a numpty!"

I'm not interested in your egotistical bollocks.  I'm not pro-Bamber.  I'm not anti-Bamber.  I don't care.

And anyway, whether these convictions are legally safe is a big question in its own right.  I know I can't possibly answer it myself and it's not my business to.  This is just an idle interest, but in the event, it's a question I haven't even managed to touch on yet, as we're still discussing the basics of the case.

Maybe it would be better for the harmony of this Forum if you stopped reading my posts?

"We" aren't discussing the basics of this case YOU are!

There are far more deserving cases and indeed causes than mass murderer and psychopath Jeremy Bamber!

As you'll find out quite quickly, if you haven't already, there are only a handful of "supporters" left.