UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: Myster on September 11, 2021, 05:39:47 AM
-
Will the profound prolix profiler reach the right conclusion this time?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drfIypw4wqM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drfIypw4wqM)
-
At around 1.01:22 Bamber gets a mention here too https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UDWOr2P9nvk
-
I think that Pat Brown woman was talking about Bamber when she said she thinks he's guilty. If she is a professional profiler, then I don't know how she could be in any doubt about his guilt.
The people who believe he's innocent are the ones who choose to believe the lies and conspiracy theories that come only from Bamber supporters. Nothing has ever come from actual physical evidence that points to his innocence.
She said that there are huge numbers of people campaigning for his release. A dozen or so hard core would be more accurate, with a hundred or so hangers on.
None of what the Campaign team produce online gets much of a reaction. Statistically speaking, no one cares about this case from a pro Bamber point of view. Normal, well balanced people accept that he's guilty.
-
I don't know how she could be in any doubt about his guilt.
She’s not
-
Will the profound prolix profiler reach the right conclusion this time?...
Pat Brown on fire and taking no prisoners. Although I don't agree with her Amaral-supporting stance re the McCanns, (she's still miffed because they got Amazon to block the sale of her book on the case) she was spot on and nailed it with the guilt of Bamber and Bain. The funniest part was when she blocked a Bamber bootlicking troll and deleted all of his dubious content...
https://youtu.be/drfIypw4wqM?t=5141 (https://youtu.be/drfIypw4wqM?t=5141)
-
I think that Pat Brown woman was talking about Bamber when she said she thinks he's guilty. If she is a professional profiler, then I don't know how she could be in any doubt about his guilt.
The people who believe he's innocent are the ones who choose to believe the lies and conspiracy theories that come only from Bamber supporters. Nothing has ever come from actual physical evidence that points to his innocence.
She said that there are huge numbers of people campaigning for his release. A dozen or so hard core would be more accurate, with a hundred or so hangers on.
None of what the Campaign team produce online gets much of a reaction. Statistically speaking, no one cares about this case from a pro Bamber point of view. Normal, well balanced people accept that he's guilty.
Sounds a bit arrogant, to me!! How do you know what "normal, well balanced people " think? Are you assuming that anyone who believes in Bamber's innocence is not "normal and well balanced"?
-
Sounds a bit arrogant, to me!! How do you know what "normal, well balanced people " think? Are you assuming that anyone who believes in Bamber's innocence is not "normal and well balanced"?
"Normal and well balanced people" think like 'us', don't they &^^&* 8)--))
-
For normal and well balanced, I suppose I really mean people who use plain old fashioned common sense to solve a problem or issue.
If 'normal, well balanced' annoys you or offends you in any way, then replace it with 'people who use facts and common sense' instead, as that is what I really mean.
Please accept my apologies for the misunderstanding.
Some Bamber supporters on the blue forum, and Bamber's representatives on the campaign website do come across as unhinged people, obsessing over and relentlessly promoting obvious falsehoods regarding the case, and presenting those falsehoods as absolute proof of innocence, whilst completely ignoring the weight of all the evidence in its 'totality'.
Pat Brown put it very succinctly in her webinar thingy, explaining how defence lawyers manipulate people by misrepresenting a simple and innocent paperwork error, whilst ignoring the weight of evidence in its totality.
Her comments about juries are true, but the way she described the manipulation of juries by defence lawyers is exactly the same process that is happening to many of Bamber's supporters.
But Bambers truly hardcore supporters (some of them at least) may have personality disorders themselves, which may explain their obsessiveness and aggressiveness when discussing Bamber, as well as their point blank refusal to accept any of the known incriminating facts about the case. They know deep down they are wrong, but they just can't accept the truth. There is something deeply psychological going on there.