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: Holly Goodhead on July 05, 2015, 04:05:25 PM
-
Tabloid journos - v - broadsheet journos:
Broadsheet journos are notable by their absence from the likes of 'Killing Mum and Dad' and 'Slaugher at The Farm'. The first featured Michael Fielder from the now defunct Sun. The latter featured Kieron Saunders also from The Sun. Both believe JB guilty as charged and placed great emphasis on JB's behaviour and attitude in the aftermath of the tragedy. In their opinion JB's behaviour didn't correspond with how they thought he should behave.
Broadsheet journos seem less convinced. David Connett from The Independent, who attended some of the trial, said:
"In all honesty I would not have convicted Bamber on the evidence I heard. Admittedly, I didn't attend every day of the trial, but the evidence I heard left me far from certain that Bamber's guilt had been established beyond reasonable doubt. And yet I believe Bamber was guilty. I remember thinking later that I now understood the benefit enjoyed by Scottish juries of being able to return a verdict of "not proven":
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/past-crimes-the-bamber-files-2046383.html
David James Smith from The Times, the first journo granted a face-to-face interview with JB, said the following:
"I had said on the way in that I feared I would find him repulsive, but in the event, I found him all too human and understandable. Except for the part of him that I felt was hidden. The corner of his soul that carried the knowledge of what had really happened that night 25 years ago, and who had really killed his family. He knows the truth. And he is the only person in the world who does. Was it Sheila? Was it Jeremy? Reader, I have no idea":
http://davidjamessmith.net/pdf_articles/DJS_bamber.pdf
Most of us are familiar with the views of Eric Alison from The Guardian who firmly believes JB is the victim of a MoJ.
It's interesting how journos from the so called 'quality press' are less convinced about JB's guilt. Perhaps analogous with the more junior ranking officers at SoC eg DS Jones - v - DCI Jones and Chief Sup Harris.
5
-
Yes, and Eric Alison thought pensioner killer Simon Hall innocent too and we all know where that ended up.
Journalists should stick to what they do best and that is write about events. Offering an opinion is not within their brief.
-
Yes, and Eric Alison thought pensioner killer Simon Hall innocent too and we all know where that ended up.
Journalists should stick to what they do best and that is write about events. Offering an opinion is not within their brief.
Just noticed I've referred to The Sun as defunct when it is alive and kicking! I was getting confused with The NoW!
I seem to recall a lot of posters on this forum, including yourself John, also thought SH a MoJ?
Investigative journalists have aided genuine MoJ's:
Paul Foot for Michael Hickey and Don Hale for Stephen Downing.
-
Just noticed I've referred to The Sun as defunct when it is alive and kicking! I was getting confused with The NoW!
I seem to recall a lot of posters on this forum, including yourself John, also thought SH a MoJ?
Investigative journalists have aided genuine MoJ's:
Paul Foot for Michael Hickey and Don Hale for Stephen Downing.
I gave him the benefit of the doubt to begin with but the cracks eventually began to appear. Adrian Prout and Luke Mitchell are two others who claimed to be moj but in the end the truth came out.
-
I gave him the benefit of the doubt to begin with but the cracks eventually began to appear. Adrian Prout and Luke Mitchell are two others who claimed to be moj but in the end the truth came out.
Sadly though genuine MoJ's do exist and usually the convict is believed by few. The majority ie judiciary and public will believe the official verdict. Can you think of any long-running MoJ's where the convict has had widespread support from the judiciary, public and others?
-
Sadly though genuine MoJ's do exist and usually the convict is believed by few. The majority ie judiciary and public will believe the official verdict. Can you think of any long-running MoJ's where the convict has had widespread support from the judiciary, public and others?
The system is far from ideal but is a lot better than the sham which currently exists north of the English border where 8 jurors can convict someone even if 7 other jurors believe them to be not guilty. People for the most part will always believe that Crown Counsel don't tell lies and that verdicts are safe, unfortunately, the truth is somewhat different.
-
The system is far from ideal but is a lot better than the sham which currently exists north of the English border where 8 jurors can convict someone even if 7 other jurors believe them to be not guilty. People for the most part will always believe that verdicts are safe, unfortunately, the truth is somewhat different.
I know very little about the Scottish legal system.
I recall my visit to JB's local, The Chequers, with my Pete during the summer of 2013. We got chatting to this couple originally from Cheshire who had moved to Goldhanger around the time of the murders. They were say early 50's. She was a school teacher, he was a marine biologist. They could recall the case but knew very little about it. The female said she had no strong views either way as she didn't think she knew enough about it. The male said he thought JB guilty. When I asked him why he said he couldn't believe the system had got it so wrong after admitting he knew next to nothing about the case!
-
I know very little about the Scottish legal system.
I recall my visit to JB's local, The Chequers, with my Pete during the summer of 2013. We got chatting to this couple originally from Cheshire who had moved to Goldhanger around the time of the murders. They were say early 50's. She was a school teacher, he was a marine biologist. They could recall the case but knew very little about it. The female said she had no strong views either way as she didn't think she knew enough about it. The male said he thought JB guilty. When I asked him why he said he couldn't believe the system had got it so wrong after admitting he knew next to nothing about the case!
The 'system' is only as good as the people who take part and if some are rotten eggs...
-
Tabloid journos - v - broadsheet journos:
Broadsheet journos are notable by their absence from the likes of 'Killing Mum and Dad' and 'Slaugher at The Farm'. The first featured Michael Fielder from the now defunct Sun. The latter featured Kieron Saunders also from The Sun. Both believe JB guilty as charged and placed great emphasis on JB's behaviour and attitude in the aftermath of the tragedy. In their opinion JB's behaviour didn't correspond with how they thought he should behave.
What were you referring to here Holly ?
-
Broadsheet journos are notable by their absence from the likes of 'Killing Mum and Dad' and 'Slaugher at The Farm'. The first featured Michael Fielder from the now defunct Sun. The latter featured Kieron Saunders also from The Sun. Both believe JB guilty as charged and placed great emphasis on JB's behaviour and attitude in the aftermath of the tragedy. In their opinion JB's behaviour didn't correspond with how they thought he should behave.
- I don't place any weight on contributions from tabloid journalists eg Michael Fielder claimed JB was promiscious. Firstly there's no evidence JB was promiscious. Secondly even if he was so long as any partners consented then surely it is a private matter for the couple concerned? Has anyone ever come forward and said he behaved inappropriately in this regard? I'm surprised by people's attitude in this regard. Are the likes of Michael Fielder chaste or jealous that JB was regarded by many as good looking, sexually desirable and potentially had more success with members of the opposite sex?
Have you seen Kieron Saunders or Michael Fielders witness statements Holly?
-
"In all honesty I would not have convicted Bamber on the evidence I heard. Admittedly, I didn't attend every day of the trial, but the evidence I heard left me far from certain that Bamber's guilt had been established beyond reasonable doubt. And yet I believe Bamber was guilty. I remember thinking later that I now understood the benefit enjoyed by Scottish juries of being able to return a verdict of "not proven":
Sums it up for me.
-
"In all honesty I would not have convicted Bamber on the evidence I heard. Admittedly, I didn't attend every day of the trial, but the evidence I heard left me far from certain that Bamber's guilt had been established beyond reasonable doubt. And yet I believe Bamber was guilty. I remember thinking later that I now understood the benefit enjoyed by Scottish juries of being able to return a verdict of "not proven":
Sums it up for me.
You must therefore support his instant release from prison, as clearly in your view there has been a miscarriage of justice?
-
You must therefore support his instant release from prison, as clearly in your view there has been a miscarriage of justice?
What now?
Maybe you didn't actually read it.
I wouldn't have convicted on that evidence either if I was a juror.
But he absolutely did it. You see the difference? Quite apart from my opinion, I don't think there was sufficient evidence to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt'. The bar is, and always should be, high.
-
What now?
Maybe you didn't actually read it.
I wouldn't have convicted on that evidence either if I was a juror.
But he absolutely did it. You see the difference? Quite apart from my opinion, I don't think there was sufficient evidence to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt'. The bar is, and always should be, high.
Then, as a juror you would have had to return a verdict of not guilty. Therefore it follows you believe that there has been a miscarriage of the judicial process, unless I am going completely senile and losing my faculties and unable to grasp the logic of your position?
-
Then, as a juror you would have had to return a verdict of not guilty. Therefore it follows you believe that there has been a miscarriage of the judicial process, unless I am going completely senile and losing my faculties and unable to grasp the logic of your position?
Why does it? I'd be happy that I did my part and cast my vote according to the high bar of beyond reasonable doubt. There's two very separate concepts - do I think he's guilty? Yes. Do I think the prosecution persuaded me of that with the mainly circumstantial evidence provided in this instance? No. So therefore, I would have to find 'not guilty' according to the letter of the law, or according to the Blackstone formulation that 'it is better that Hundred guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer'.
-
Why does it? I'd be happy that I did my part and cast my vote according to the high bar of beyond reasonable doubt. There's two very separate concepts - do I think he's guilty? Yes. Do I think the prosecution persuaded me of that with the mainly circumstantial evidence provided in this instance? No. So therefore, I would have to find 'not guilty' according to the letter of the law, or according to the Blackstone formulation that 'it is better that Hundred guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer'.
Then surely it follows that there has been a miscarriage of justice and that Bamber should be freed? Your opinion about his guilt or otherwise is moot, it's the principle here, the letter of the law, as you say.
-
Then surely it follows that there has been a miscarriage of justice and that Bamber should be freed? Your opinion about his guilt or otherwise is moot, it's the principle here, the letter of the law, as you say.
No. Just because I was not suitably persuaded as a virtual juror, doesn't mean the rest weren't. That's why there's 12 jurors. So the process was followed through as per the rule of law. No miscarriage.
A good defence barrister should always ask the jury to consider this very pertinent point when reaching a decision - has the evidence that the prosecution has posited removed any doubt of the defendant's guilt? A an example, in this case the prosecution built their case around the 2nd hand testimony of JM - and she wasn't exactly unimpeachable.
-
"In all honesty I would not have convicted Bamber on the evidence I heard. Admittedly, I didn't attend every day of the trial, but the evidence I heard left me far from certain that Bamber's guilt had been established beyond reasonable doubt. And yet I believe Bamber was guilty. I remember thinking later that I now understood the benefit enjoyed by Scottish juries of being able to return a verdict of "not proven":
Sums it up for me.
What does it sum up exactly ?
That David Connett is willing to give his public opinion even though he admits to having not attended the trial every day
Yeah that sums it right up
‘In all honesty I would not have convicted Bamber on the evidence I heard‘ but I didn’t hear all the evidence *&^^&
-
What does it sum up exactly ?
That David Connett is willing to give his public opinion even though he admits to having not attended the trial every day
Yeah that sums it right up
I didn't attend any days as I was in short kecks.
It's the concept. It sums up my opinion, notwithstanding his context of being close to the trial, that I do not find the evidence suitably compelling to 'remove reasonable doubt'. He still did it though.
-
No. Just because I was not suitably persuaded as a virtual juror, doesn't mean the rest weren't. That's why there's 12 jurors. So the process was followed through as per the rule of law. No miscarriage.
A good defence barrister should always ask the jury to consider this very pertinent point when reaching a decision - has the evidence that the prosecution has posited removed any doubt of the defendant's guilt? A an example, in this case the prosecution built their case around the 2nd hand testimony of JM - and she wasn't exactly unimpeachable.
As you didn’t actually sit on the jury your opinion is really neither here nor there then is it, as you don’t really know what conclusion you would have reached had you been in that courtroom every single day, listening to every single word, observing every gulp, twitch, tear and smirk.
-
It's the concept.
The concept is this
‘In all honesty I would not have convicted Bamber on the evidence I heard‘ but I didn’t hear all the evidence *&^^&
David Connet’s ‘concept‘ on the case can be read in full here https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/past-crimes-the-bamber-files-2046383.html
-
As you didn’t actually sit on the jury your opinion is really neither here nor there then is it, as you don’t really know what conclusion you would have reached had you been in that courtroom every single day, listening to every single word, observing every gulp, twitch, tear and smirk.
Pertinent point.
But surely you knew all of that when you first commented on my initial assertion?
Given what I know now, being able to proffer an opinion on an internet forum, I agree with the general concept posited by the journalist and I don't believe the case was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed the judge's 'direction' would have probably boiled my p1ss.
-
Pertinent point.
But surely you knew all of that when you first commented on my initial assertion?
Given what I know now, being able to proffer an opinion on an internet forum, I agree with the general concept posited by the journalist and I don't believe the case was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed the judge's 'direction' would have probably boiled my p1ss.
I stand by my original point. If you don’t believe that the case was proven beyond all reasonable doubt, then it follows you don’t believe justice was properly served. I don’t see how you can argue that justice WAS served despite thr fact that the evidence did not prove Bamber’s guilt. Your position does not make sense.
-
Indeed the judge's 'direction' would have probably boiled my p1ss.
What was it about the judges ‘direction’ that would have done as you say?
-
The concept is this
David Connet’s ‘concept‘ on the case can be read in full here https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/past-crimes-the-bamber-files-2046383.html
Would be interested to hear David Connet’s thoughts on abusive relationships, especially ones where the person abusing displays traits of narcissism, machiavellianism, psychopathy & sadism
On JM Connet states,
‘Her evidence was controversial, punctuated frequently by tearful outbursts and upset to the point that Bamber's defence counsel, Geoffrey Rivlin QC, suggested it was almost impossible to cross-examine her. He did establish that she went to the police after Bamber had upset her by ending the relationship. Personally, I couldn't understand how she could be relied upon as a witness, but others, particularly women, thought the contradictions in her evidence made her more compelling.
Connet makes the claim that Geoffrey Rivlin QC ‘did establish that she went to the police after Bamber had upset her by ending the relationship‘
That’s his interpretation but not how things actually went down nor is it according to what JM wrote in her witness statement
-
What was it about the judges ‘direction’ that would have done as you say?
Trying to find it. I've read it only once. Somewhere.
-
Why does it? I'd be happy that I did my part and cast my vote according to the high bar of beyond reasonable doubt. There's two very separate concepts - do I think he's guilty? Yes. Do I think the prosecution persuaded me of that with the mainly circumstantial evidence provided in this instance? No. So therefore, I would have to find 'not guilty' according to the letter of the law, or according to the Blackstone formulation that 'it is better that Hundred guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer'.
If the evidence didn't convince you, what are you basing your notion of guilt on?
-
On JM Connet states,
‘Her evidence was controversial, punctuated frequently by tearful outbursts and upset to the point that Bamber's defence counsel, Geoffrey Rivlin QC, suggested it was almost impossible to cross-examine her. He did establish that she went to the police after Bamber had upset her by ending the relationship. Personally, I couldn't understand how she could be relied upon as a witness, but others, particularly women, thought the contradictions in her evidence made her more compelling.
And WHO are these ‘women’ Connet refers to ?
Has he made that up to flesh out his article or to cause some controversy ?
-
I stand by my original point. If you don’t believe that the case was proven beyond all reasonable doubt, then it follows you don’t believe justice was properly served. I don’t see how you can argue that justice WAS served despite thr fact that the evidence did not prove Bamber’s guilt. Your position does not make sense.
I'm afraid I disagree.
The concept is valid because I think he's guilty, just that the evidence set out by the prosecution didn't reach the threshold of removing all reasonable doubt, in my opinion. It may have been if I were a real juror I might have had a different view, but at least 2 of the original jurors also weren't happy with the weight of evidence - maybe more if it wasn't for the persuasive judge's direction.
But none of that means that the process wasn't followed, with the possible exception of the summing up, which may be construed as less than impartial.
-
If the evidence didn't convince you, what are you basing your notion of guilt on?
Because I don't believe Sheila capable. So the prosecution posited only two potential perpetrators, Sheila or Jeremy. So pick one? No. You prove it to me that Jeremy did it, not that Sheila didn't. And the test is removal of reasonable doubt and it's a necessarily high bar. I don't believe that happened.
-
I'm afraid I disagree.
The concept is valid because I think he's guilty, just that the evidence set out by the prosecution didn't reach the threshold of removing all reasonable doubt, in my opinion. It may have been if I were a real juror I might have had a different view, but at least 2 of the original jurors also weren't happy with the weight of evidence - maybe more if it wasn't for the persuasive judge's direction.
But none of that means that the process wasn't followed, with the possible exception of the summing up, which may be construed as less than impartial.
Do you have reasonable doubt about the conviction? If not, then the case was proven beyond reasonable doubt. If you do, then you would have to conclude that the only fair and just outcome would have be a Not Guilty verdict. It's as simple as that.
-
Pertinent point.
But surely you knew all of that when you first commented on my initial assertion?
Given what I know now, being able to proffer an opinion on an internet forum, I agree with the general concept posited by the journalist and I don't believe the case was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed the judge's 'direction' would have probably boiled my p1ss.
What was the focus of the judges direction - can you recall?
Paras 344, 370 etc here http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
-
Paras 344, 370 etc here http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
Re para
344. When the judge dealt with this aspect of the matter in his summing up (Transcript page 19C), he said:
"It is the defendant's case, of course, that Julie Mugford's evidence in this case is fabricated, and that she is a brazen, blatant liar,
Bamber habitually attempts to project his own lies onto others and is renowned for attempting to assassinate individuals characters
He began to lie to me and become more aggressive towards me......
My guess is he also called Aunt Agatha a liar
-
Do you have reasonable doubt about the conviction? If not, then the case was proven beyond reasonable doubt. If you do, then you would have to conclude that the only fair and just outcome would have be a Not Guilty verdict. It's as simple as that.
Well at least you've dialled back from: because I wasn't happy with the prosecution proving beyond reasonable doubt for me, ergo I automatically think it's a miscarriage.
I don't have any 'reasonable doubt about the conviction', which is a different concept from me having not been convinced of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt given the evidence posited, as 10 out of 12 jurors was enough.
-
Well at least you've dialled back from: because I wasn't happy with the prosecution proving beyond reasonable doubt for me, ergo I automatically think it's a miscarriage.
I don't have any 'reasonable doubt about the conviction', which is a different concept from me having not been convinced of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt given the evidence posited, as 10 out of 12 jurors was enough.
Semantics.
-
Semantics.
Or an obscure concept which you cannot grasp, or you've just grasped but refuse to admit.
-
Or an obscure concept which you cannot grasp, or you've just grasped but refuse to admit.
Yeah, I cannot grasp it coz I is as thik as too short planx innit. Take your ball and kick it against a wall, I’m not playing with you anymore.
-
Yeah, I cannot grasp it coz I is as thik as too short planx innit. Take your ball and kick it against a wall, I’m not playing with you anymore.
That's a crap poem.
-
That's a crap poem.
That’s a crap response.
-
Because I don't believe Sheila capable. So the prosecution posited only two potential perpetrators, Sheila or Jeremy. So pick one? No. You prove it to me that Jeremy did it, not that Sheila didn't. And the test is removal of reasonable doubt and it's a necessarily high bar. I don't believe that happened.
So, hd you been on the jury, you would have found him innocent even though you believed he was guilty?
-
So, hd you been on the jury, you would have found him innocent even though you believed he was guilty?
This was my point too, but apparently I’m too dumb to understand the General’s nuanced argument.
-
This was my point too, but apparently I’m too dumb to understand the General’s nuanced argument.
Come on, don't be so hard on yourself.
In answer to the question - I don't know, it's particularly hypothetical as I wasn't on jury.
But, as I stated yesterday, the high bar in my opinion wasn't met.
I suppose the only factor that might have swayed me, hypothetically, is the fact that it's almost certain that one of two people did it, and also as I stated yesterday, it's very unlikely Sheila did. But the prosecution didn't persuade me of that, I did, using common sense. I'm guessing and there's no room for a guess when you're a juror - you're instructed that you have to be sure that the evidence has removed doubt.
What I would say, JM's testimony aside, if the prosecution are depending on the silencer as some sort of definitive proof, then I'm afraid the case is weakened as a result.
But he still did it, the horrible, little ****
-
Come on, don't be so hard on yourself.
In answer to the question - I don't know, it's particularly hypothetical as I wasn't on jury.
But, as I stated yesterday, the high bar in my opinion wasn't met.
I suppose the only factor that might have swayed me, hypothetically, is the fact that it's almost certain that one of two people did it, and also as I stated yesterday, it's very unlikely Sheila did. But the prosecution didn't persuade me of that, I did, using common sense. I'm guessing and there's no room for a guess when you're a juror - you're instructed that you have to be sure that the evidence has removed doubt.
What I would say, JM's testimony aside, if the prosecution are depending on the silencer as some sort of definitive proof, then I'm afraid the case is weakened as a result.
But he still did it, the horrible, little ****
Do you have any grounds whatsoever for "reasonable doubt"? If not, why not? "Sheila's unlikely to have done it" just isn't good enough in a court of law, and if you had been on the jury you'd have had to have come up with a bit more of a convincing argument than that with your fellow jurors. You seem to be of the mind that there really isn't one, and it all rests on what you believe about the abilities of Sheila to have done it or not. If that is the case then how can one fail to come to the conclusion that the system failed and he should have been found "Not Guilty"?
-
Come on, don't be so hard on yourself.
In answer to the question - I don't know, it's particularly hypothetical as I wasn't on jury.
But, as I stated yesterday, the high bar in my opinion wasn't met.
I suppose the only factor that might have swayed me, hypothetically, is the fact that it's almost certain that one of two people did it, and also as I stated yesterday, it's very unlikely Sheila did. But the prosecution didn't persuade me of that, I did, using common sense. I'm guessing and there's no room for a guess when you're a juror - you're instructed that you have to be sure that the evidence has removed doubt.
What I would say, JM's testimony aside, if the prosecution are depending on the silencer as some sort of definitive proof, then I'm afraid the case is weakened as a result.
But he still did it, the horrible, little ****
It would be taking altruism a little too far, wouldn't it, to believe, after working through it intelligently, someone guilty, but declare them innocent because the prosecution didn't cross T's and dot I's in the way you believed they should.
-
Do you have any grounds whatsoever for "reasonable doubt"? If not, why not? "Sheila's unlikely to have done it" just isn't good enough in a court of law, and if you had been on the jury you'd have had to have come up with a bit more of a convincing argument than that with your fellow jurors. You seem to be of the mind that there really isn't one, and it all rests on what you believe about the abilities of Sheila to have done it or not. If that is the case then how can one fail to come to the conclusion that the system failed and he should have been found "Not Guilty"?
Go on, read it. Seriously. Just re-read the original post. I gave at least two reasons for the evidence not reaching the required bar.
As for your 2nd point, and I'll stress again, there are two very distinct states of being:
1. I think he's guilty
2. But the prosecution failed to provide me sufficient evidence (in our contemporaneous hypothetical jury situation) to stop me from having to guess.
So even if I vote 'not guilty' because the judge told me that if I have any doubt then I should, it doesn't mean I think there's been a miscarriage, I'm just doing what I've been instructed. It's a common statement that is rattled out ad infinitum in these cases 'if you have any doubt whatsoever, then you must find the defendant 'not guilty', etc, etc. It's the very basis of our adversarial system. They don't want you to guess, toss a coin, have a pop - yes, use your intuition, but you have to be sure.
-
It would be taking altruism a little too far, wouldn't it, to believe, after working through it intelligently, someone guilty, but declare them innocent because the prosecution didn't cross T's and dot I's in the way you believed they should.
It's not altruism; it's doing your civic duty and I'll tell you why.
Because dissenting voices maintain rigour in the system.
-
Do you have any grounds whatsoever for "reasonable doubt"? If not, why not? "Sheila's unlikely to have done it" just isn't good enough in a court of law, and if you had been on the jury you'd have had to have come up with a bit more of a convincing argument than that with your fellow jurors. You seem to be of the mind that there really isn't one, and it all rests on what you believe about the abilities of Sheila to have done it or not. If that is the case then how can one fail to come to the conclusion that the system failed and he should have been found "Not Guilty"?
The logistics of what occurred excluded Sheila so that only left Jeremy Bamber. Add to this the testimony of Julie Mugford and the jury really weren't left with much of a decision. The difficulty is the 'beyond reasonable doubt' requisite. Ultimately however, it all stood on who believed who and obviously Julie was very believable.
-
Go on, read it. Seriously. Just re-read the original post. I gave at least two reasons for the evidence not reaching the required bar.
As for your 2nd point, and I'll stress again, there are two very distinct states of being:
1. I think he's guilty
2. But the prosecution failed to provide me sufficient evidence (in our contemporaneous hypothetical jury situation) to stop me from having to guess.
So even if I vote 'not guilty' because the judge told me that if I have any doubt then I should, it doesn't mean I think there's been a miscarriage, I'm just doing what I've been instructed. It's a common statement that is rattled out ad infinitum in these cases 'if you have any doubt whatsoever, then you must find the defendant 'not guilty', etc, etc. It's the very basis of our adversarial system. They don't want you to guess, toss a coin, have a pop - yes, use your intuition, but you have to be sure.
I guess it depends how you are interpreting "a miscarriage of justice" then doesn't it? I know for example you don't have a problem with the police kicking people in the head and asking questions later. Some might consider that unjust, not to mention unlawful, others might consider such "rough justice" perfectly acceptable.
Without re-reading all your posts on the subject I was under the impression that you felt the evidence did not prove Bamber's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, but that as far as you're concerned that doesn't really matter because you "know" he did it, and therefore justice was served (if I have misunderstood your position feel free to insult my intelligence again). People like G-Unit (who claims to be completely unbiased wrt to Bamber's guilt or innocence) would presumably disagree and that is the basis of all their hard work, research and determination to get JB a re-trial at the very least.
-
Do you have any grounds whatsoever for "reasonable doubt"? If not, why not? "Sheila's unlikely to have done it" just isn't good enough in a court of law, and if you had been on the jury you'd have had to have come up with a bit more of a convincing argument than that with your fellow jurors. You seem to be of the mind that there really isn't one, and it all rests on what you believe about the abilities of Sheila to have done it or not. If that is the case then how can one fail to come to the conclusion that the system failed and he should have been found "Not Guilty"?
So (I'll ask again) So, had you been on the jury, would have found him innocent even though you believed he was guilty?
-
So (I'll ask again) So, had you been on the jury, would have found him innocent even though you believed he was guilty?
I think you meant to ask the squirmy ol' General that question...
-
I think you meant to ask the squirmy ol' General that question...
Let's be nice 8)-)))
-
I think you meant to ask the squirmy ol' General that question...
Hey, less of the 'ol'.
-
I think you meant to ask the squirmy ol' General that question...
I did indeed!
-
So (I'll ask again) So, had you been on the jury, would have found him innocent even though you believed he was guilty?
The squirmy answer is don't know.
It could literally come down to what flavour crisps they gave us with the butties at dinner time.
As someone mentioned earlier, I could have been blown away by JM's emotive and consistent testimony face to face.
-
Hey, less of the 'ol'.
So (I'll ask again) So, had you been on the jury, would have found him innocent even though you believed he was guilty?
-
So (I'll ask again) So, had you been on the jury, would have found him innocent even though you believed he was guilty?
See above.
-
The squirmy answer is don't know.
It could literally come down to what flavour crisps they gave us with the butties at dinner time.
As someone mentioned earlier, I could have been blown away by JM's emotive and consistent testimony face to face.
That's not really an answer is it? You said that you don't think the evidence proved him guilty BRD but that you think he's guilty anyway. So on that basis, sat there on the jury, thinking he's guilty but not being impressed with the evidence would you find him guilty or not guilty?
-
That's not really an answer is it? You said that you don't think the evidence proved him guilty BRD but that you think he's guilty anyway. So on that basis, sat there on the jury, thinking he's guilty but not being impressed with the evidence would you find him guilty or not guilty?
Not being impressed? You mean not being convinced of the case against and the evidence provided?
As I said earlier, I'd have to exercise a judgement that I shouldn't at that point.
The prosecution's sole job is to convince me, the court appointed juror and remove all doubt. If they don't do that, then I should return a verdict of not guilty - that's how it works.
So now in context of our hypothetical placing of me in the jury, I would have the benefit of listening and watching JM's testimony first hand, which I don't right now, reading case material many years later. So maybe her evidence now becomes enough to remove my doubt.
But if they give us Prawn Cocktail crisps, then to hell with the judicial system!
-
Let's be nice 8)-)))
That was being nice. You should see my nasty.
-
That was being nice. You should see my nasty.
I haven't heard that pet name for it before.
-
Not being impressed? You mean not being convinced of the case against and the evidence provided?
As I said earlier, I'd have to exercise a judgement that I shouldn't at that point.
The prosecution's sole job is to convince me, the court appointed juror and remove all doubt. If they don't do that, then I should return a verdict of not guilty - that's how it works.
So now in context of our hypothetical placing of me in the jury, I would have the benefit of listening and watching JM's testimony first hand, which I don't right now, reading case material many years later. So maybe her evidence now becomes enough to remove my doubt.
But if they give us Prawn Cocktail crisps, then to hell with the judicial system!
I am well aware of how it works and don't need a lesson, people aren't just influenced by the evidence, there are many other factors at play and I don't believe for one second (crisps or no crisps) that if you thought Bamber was guilty but weren't at all 'impressed' by the courts handling of the case/evidence; that you would find him innocent - regardless of what is 'supposed' to happen.
-
I haven't heard that pet name for it before.
And you can stop that flirting right now.
-
I'm afraid I disagree.
The concept is valid because I think he's guilty, just that the evidence set out by the prosecution didn't reach the threshold of removing all reasonable doubt, in my opinion. It may have been if I were a real juror I might have had a different view, but at least 2 of the original jurors also weren't happy with the weight of evidence - maybe more if it wasn't for the persuasive judge's direction.
But none of that means that the process wasn't followed, with the possible exception of the summing up, which may be construed as less than impartial.
You’re twisting and making assumptions.
You never met the jury. How can you say “AT LEAST 2 of the jurors weren’t happy with the evidence - maybe more if it wasn’t for the judge’s persuasive direction” when you have NO IDEA what went on in that jurors room?
Like it or lump it, the FACT is TEN jurors found him GUILTY.
How do you know those two undecided ones simply weren’t sure and couldn’t decide?
How do you know those two weren’t simple, naive, gullible?
How do you know they DID think he was guilty then changed their minds because they were soft and unsure?
You have no idea — so why make assumptions to suit your own state of mind?
You claim you’re not a supporter of his, but the dreadful way you insult me and others who know he’s guilty as hell, suggests you aren’t being honest.
It’s obvious he’s guilty, the circumstantial evidence is OVERWHELMING. Many people are found guilty on circumstantial evidence. Take the Yorkshire Ripper — what concrete evidence did they have that he was guilty? Are you saying “Ah, well, I know he WAS. But I wouldn’t have found him guilty because there wasn’t enough proof without doubt. And far better to let 100 guilty men go free than imprison one innocent man”
Are you being serious?!!
Aren’t you able to detect when someone is lying? Read between the lines? Can you not see by his statements how he lied and contradicted himself? How it was impossible for Nevill to have rang Jeremy...can you really not see that?
-
You’re twisting and making assumptions.
You never met the jury. How can you say “AT LEAST 2 of the jurors weren’t happy with the evidence - maybe more if it wasn’t for the judge’s persuasive direction” when you have NO IDEA what went on in that jurors room?
Like it or lump it, the FACT is TEN jurors found him GUILTY.
How do you know those two undecided ones simply weren’t sure and couldn’t decide?
How do you know those two weren’t simple, naive, gullible?
How do you know they DID think he was guilty then changed their minds because they were soft and unsure?
You have no idea — so why make assumptions to suit your own state of mind?
You claim you’re not a supporter of his, but the dreadful way you insult me and others who know he’s guilty as hell, suggests you aren’t being honest.
It’s obvious he’s guilty, the circumstantial evidence is OVERWHELMING. Many people are found guilty on circumstantial evidence. Take the Yorkshire Ripper — what concrete evidence did they have that he was guilty? Are you saying “Ah, well, I know he WAS. But I wouldn’t have found him guilty because there wasn’t enough proof without doubt. And far better to let 100 guilty men go free than imprison one innocent man”
Are you being serious?!!
Aren’t you able to detect when someone is lying? Read between the lines? Can you not see by his statements how he lied and contradicted himself? How it was impossible for Nevill to have rang Jeremy...can you really not see that?
CBA reading all that. It's useful that you capitalise where you're shouting at the keyboard the most though, so I did catch 'AT LEAST 2 of the jurors' i.e. two of them found him not guilty.
And skimming over the rest; you missed the point. Big time.
....and you're calling me a liar and I insult you 'dreadfully'? Show me. You won't, of course, because you rarely provide cites, mainly because they don't exist, with you mashing the keyboard with fury - as above.
Come back with a few examples of me lying, dear, when you've composed yourself.
-
You’re twisting and making assumptions.
You never met the jury. How can you say “AT LEAST 2 of the jurors weren’t happy with the evidence - maybe more if it wasn’t for the judge’s persuasive direction” when you have NO IDEA what went on in that jurors room?
Like it or lump it, the FACT is TEN jurors found him GUILTY.
How do you know those two undecided ones simply weren’t sure and couldn’t decide?
How do you know those two weren’t simple, naive, gullible?
How do you know they DID think he was guilty then changed their minds because they were soft and unsure?
You have no idea — so why make assumptions to suit your own state of mind?
You claim you’re not a supporter of his, but the dreadful way you insult me and others who know he’s guilty as hell, suggests you aren’t being honest.
It’s obvious he’s guilty, the circumstantial evidence is OVERWHELMING. Many people are found guilty on circumstantial evidence. Take the Yorkshire Ripper — what concrete evidence did they have that he was guilty? Are you saying “Ah, well, I know he WAS. But I wouldn’t have found him guilty because there wasn’t enough proof without doubt. And far better to let 100 guilty men go free than imprison one innocent man”
Are you being serious?!!
Aren’t you able to detect when someone is lying? Read between the lines? Can you not see by his statements how he lied and contradicted himself? How it was impossible for Nevill to have rang Jeremy...can you really not see that?
You speak of facts, but the fact is that two jurors weren't prepared to vote guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
-
You speak of facts, but the fact is that two jurors weren't prepared to vote guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
You might be amazed to learn that some jurors end up with suffering something close to PTSD whilst others may be totally dismissive of the experience. One lady told me of a self appointed jury foreman who told them it was obvious what the verdict was so get a move on because he'd told his wife he'd be home by a certain time!!! Another still ponders over whether she'd made the right decision, made years ago, when she did jury service. I'm as curious as the next person when it comes to wondering how Jeremy's jurors feel, now, about their decision. Incidentally, had the lady who suffered the bossy foreman agreed to be on the jury of the next trial -she declined when told it could last three weeks- it turns out it would have been the Bamber case.
-
Those two jurors may have been conflicted in the manner of the General and his exemplary high standards of justice, i.e: know he’s guilty but don’t believe the evidence proves it beyond all reasonable doubt.
-
Those two jurors may have been conflicted in the manner of the General and his exemplary high standards of justice, i.e: know he’s guilty but don’t believe the evidence proves it beyond all reasonable doubt.
What's wrong with that? Isn't that the point?
-
You speak of facts, but the fact is that two jurors weren't prepared to vote guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
And the fact is — that made no difference
The TEN intelligent jurors DID find him GUILTY.
Accept it and get on with your life...
-
And the fact is — that made no difference
The TEN intelligent jurors DID find him GUILTY.
Accept it and get on with your life...
You’re clutching at straws. We won’t give up questioning this MOJ.
-
CBA reading all that. It's useful that you capitalise where you're shouting at the keyboard the most though, so I did catch 'AT LEAST 2 of the jurors' i.e. two of them found him not guilty.
And skimming over the rest; you missed the point. Big time.
....and you're calling me a liar and I insult you 'dreadfully'? Show me. You won't, of course, because you rarely provide cites, mainly because they don't exist, with you mashing the keyboard with fury - as above.
Come back with a few examples of me lying, dear, when you've composed yourself.
I didn’t realise you took so much note of all my posts — I usually just scan over yours quickly...
Only reason I capitalise is that when I use the italics etc on here it doesn’t seem to work. If you’re bothered by capitals skip my posts, like I usually skip yours. Easy.
The ONLY reason I’m not prepared to hunt YOUR posts is that I find you boring, dull and irrelevant. I’m only on here for a few minutes as I’m going back into my garden to have lunch and then sunbathe...far better than looking at posts of someone I never read anyway
You can look yourself and find them....that’ll keep you entertained, I’m sure 😂
And as for me not posting cites I’ve gone through that previously. Besides, unlike some on here, I have no REASON to lie. I haven’t been convicted of murder. I’m not trying to help worm a mass murderer out of the cage he belongs in. What the hell would I need to lie about?
Incidentally, don’t flatter yourself — you could never instil fury in me, you’re of no significance to me at all. I couldn’t care less what your opinion is of me: you seem to dislike several people so I don’t take your problem personally. I understand you 😌
-
I didn’t realise you took so much note of all my posts — I usually just scan over yours quickly...
Only reason I capitalise is that when I use the italics etc on here it doesn’t seem to work. If you’re bothered by capitals skip my posts, like I usually skip yours. Easy.
The ONLY reason I’m not prepared to hunt YOUR posts is that I find you boring, dull and irrelevant. I’m only on here for a few minutes as I’m going back into my garden to have lunch and then sunbathe...far better than looking at posts of someone I never read anyway
You can look yourself and find them....that’ll keep you entertained, I’m sure 😂
And as for me not posting cites I’ve gone through that previously. Besides, unlike some on here, I have no REASON to lie. I haven’t been convicted of murder. I’m not trying to help worm a mass murderer out of the cage he belongs in. What the hell would I need to lie about?
Incidentally, don’t flatter yourself — you could never instil fury in me, you’re of no significance to me at all. I couldn’t care less what your opinion is of me: you seem to dislike several people so I don’t take your problem personally. I understand you 😌
I did read this one. It's on a par with you convincing yourself I was Holly. There's every chance you still think I am. So that's the level of intellect we're dealing with, notwithstanding the 138 IQ points you were awarded by a clickbait website.
-
I did read this one. It's on a par with you convincing yourself I was Holly. There's every chance you still think I am. So that's the level of intellect we're dealing with, notwithstanding the 138 IQ points you were awarded by a clickbait website.
Perhaps your memory is starting to fail you, but I took my Mensa test at a university room in central London
From what you’ve said it suggests you’ve possibly been fooled by click-bait websites; I’ve seen mad ones pop up on Facebook. Please don’t get sucked in, General, and start devoting all your brain power to taking IQ tests in a quest to get a better result — I’m finding your wrath amusing 😌
-
You speak of facts, but the fact is that two jurors weren't prepared to vote guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
And TEN jurors DID 😊
-
You’re clutching at straws. We won’t give up questioning this MOJ.
Who’s this ‘we’ you keep referring to ?
You don’t appear to be questioning the facts of the case AA but you do seem to have come up with some wild conspiracy theory all on your own *&^^&
-
What's wrong with that? Isn't that the point?
Did I say there was anything wrong with it? But thanks for finally admitting (in a round about way) that that is likely to be what you would have done had you been on the jury.
-
And the fact is — that made no difference
The TEN intelligent jurors DID find him GUILTY.
Accept it and get on with your life...
In my opinion you appear to take so many posts personally - Its as if you're making yourself another victim of JB
-
Did I say there was anything wrong with it? But thanks for finally admitting (in a round about way) that that is likely to be what you would have done had you been on the jury.
I wonder if he would have the same high falutin approach if the case involved him personally?
-
I wonder if he would have the same high falutin approach if the case involved him personally?
who knows? The General seems to be a bit conflicted, but I think this is as much about his forum alliances than anything else. Holly has been “grooming” him for a while (flattering him by confiding in him over various matters) and he obviously holds G-Unit in very high esteem, so he’d never dream of challenging either of them on the forum.
-
who knows? The General seems to be a bit conflicted, but I think this is as much about his forum alliances than anything else. Holly has been “grooming” him for a while (flattering him by confiding in him over various matters) and he obviously holds G-Unit in very high esteem, so he’d never dream of challenging either of them on the forum.
100% 8((()*/
-
Who’s this ‘we’ you keep referring to ?
You don’t appear to be questioning the facts of the case AA but you do seem to have come up with some wild conspiracy theory all on your own *&^^&
*%87
-
*%87
Youve been at this a long time Nicholas... This is NOT your average poster. She is here solely to discredit and stop any further debates regarding Jeremy's innocence.
That is not normal forthis forum unless you have anbalteriir motive and I'm suspecting she does.
If I'm correct Nicholas, she is playing you. You're wiser than this... Look at her posts and you'll see a pattern.
There's lots of giveaways... And she's slipped up trying to convince you all that Jeremy is a psychopaths monster who is evil and guilty beyond belief.
How the F*ck does she know that.... She spouts lies and misinformation continually, she totally misinterprets anything meaningful or of any consideration, leading everybody away from the facts that are wanting to be discussed in a deliberate attempt to frustrate and ridicule the poster.
-
Youve been at this a long time Nicholas... This is NOT your average poster. She is here solely to discredit and stop any further debates regarding Jeremy's innocence.
That is not normal forthis forum unless you have anbalteriir motive and I'm suspecting she does.
If I'm correct Nicholas, she is playing you. You're wiser than this... Look at her posts and you'll see a pattern.
There's lots of giveaways... And she's slipped up trying to convince you all that Jeremy is a psychopaths monster who is evil and guilty beyond belief.
How the F*ck does she know that.... She spouts lies and misinformation continually, she totally misinterprets anything meaningful or of any consideration, leading everybody away from the facts that are wanting to be discussed in a deliberate attempt to frustrate and ridicule the poster.
Bamber is a psychopath AA
-
In my opinion you appear to take so many posts personally - Its as if you're making yourself another victim of JB
Your opinion, which you’re entitled to of course , is wrong
I’ve never seen, met, spoken, written or had ANY contact with that repugnant psychopath in my life.
I’m here defending a beautiful, sweet, kind young woman who was brutally murdered by her evil vile brother, and who he tried to denigrate after he’d killed her. I’m also speaking for Sheila’s two beautiful six-year-old twin sons who had their lives snatched away from them by the psychopathic, evil, greedy Jeremy Bamber.
Nevill Bamber was a good man. A kind man. A gentleman. He was loving, generous and kind. And the son he took in smashed his head to a pulp exposing his brain before shooting him dead. Poor June wasn’t a well woman, that’s obvious. But she still cared, she still tried, and she was generous, hard working, and brought her children up as best she could. Jeremy repaid her by shooting her point blank between her eyes,
You should think about that...
-
She is somehow connected and is pulling the wool over people's eyes.
I've never attacked anyone on here, in all my years around, and we've crossed many supporters and guilters alike - this one is not here to debate or try to understand what happened. She has a pretty good idea. Someone unburdened themselves to her and she is out to protect them and ensure Jeremy goes to his grave with the truth.
If I'm correct, after reading Every posy she has made on here, then we have a serious issue going on and she needs to be called out on it. .
Youve been at this a long time Nicholas... This is NOT your average poster. She is here solely to discredit and stop any further debates regarding Jeremy's innocence.
That is not normal forthis forum unless you have anbalteriir motive and I'm suspecting she does.
If I'm correct Nicholas, she is playing you. You're wiser than this... Look at her posts and you'll see a pattern.
There's lots of giveaways... And she's slipped up trying to convince you all that Jeremy is a psychopaths monster who is evil and guilty beyond belief.
How the F*ck does she know that.... She spouts lies and misinformation continually, she totally misinterprets anything meaningful or of any consideration, leading everybody away from the facts that are wanting to be discussed in a deliberate attempt to frustrate and ridicule the poster.
Your judgement appears faulty AA
-
Bamber is a psychopath AA
OK, I'm not disputing your beliefs... Its hers and how she comes across. You ask questions Nicholas, you want to know everything, and I mean EVERYTHING...
-
Your opinion, which you’re entitled to of course , is wrong
I’ve never seen, met, spoken, written or had ANY contact with that repugnant psychopath in my life.
I’m here defending a beautiful, sweet, kind young woman who was brutally murdered by her evil vile brother, and who he tried to denigrate after he’d killed her. I’m also speaking for Sheila’s two beautiful six-year-old twin sons who had their lives snatched away from them by the psychopathic, evil, greedy Jeremy Bamber.
Nevill Bamber was a good man. A kind man. A gentleman. He was loving, generous and kind. And the son he took in smashed his head to a pulp exposing his brain before shooting him dead. Poor June wasn’t a well woman, that’s obvious. But she still cared, she still tried, and she was generous, hard working, and brought her children up as best she could. Jeremy repaid her by shooting her point blank between her eyes,
You should think about that...
No you're not!!
-
Your judgement appears faulty AA
It's you're opinion. I've read her posts Nicholas, I've observed her ways and seen how she operates.
She is desperately trying to mislead everybody.
-
Your opinion, which you’re entitled to of course , is wrong
I’ve never seen, met, spoken, written or had ANY contact with that repugnant psychopath in my life.
I’m here defending a beautiful, sweet, kind young woman who was brutally murdered by her evil vile brother, and who he tried to denigrate after he’d killed her. I’m also speaking for Sheila’s two beautiful six-year-old twin sons who had their lives snatched away from them by the psychopathic, evil, greedy Jeremy Bamber.
Nevill Bamber was a good man. A kind man. A gentleman. He was loving, generous and kind. And the son he took in smashed his head to a pulp exposing his brain before shooting him dead. Poor June wasn’t a well woman, that’s obvious. But she still cared, she still tried, and she was generous, hard working, and brought her children up as best she could. Jeremy repaid her by shooting her point blank between her eyes,
You should think about that...
Your sentiment is spot on Ispy but could you tone it down just a tad.
-
It's you're opinion. I've read her posts Nicholas, I've observed her ways and seen how she operates.
She is desperately trying to mislead everybody.
Could you please elaborate on the last sentence AA?
-
Your sentiment is spot on Ispy but could you tone it down just a tad.
Sorry, John
I shall do 🙂
-
No you're not!!
Not what, Agatha?
-
who knows? The General seems to be a bit conflicted, but I think this is as much about his forum alliances than anything else. Holly has been “grooming” him for a while (flattering him by confiding in him over various matters) and he obviously holds G-Unit in very high esteem, so he’d never dream of challenging either of them on the forum.
Must say, if one doesn’t have the courage to say what they truly think and feel too ashamed/embarrassed to admit they’re JB supporters, they should ask themselves why that is. Having to post up sly, contradictory posts purporting to be “on the fence” simply shows they know there’s something terribly wrong in their skewed beliefs, and they’re too gutless to be honest.
-
who knows? The General seems to be a bit conflicted, but I think this is as much about his forum alliances than anything else. Holly has been “grooming” him for a while (flattering him by confiding in him over various matters) and he obviously holds G-Unit in very high esteem, so he’d never dream of challenging either of them on the forum.
I'm a popular guy, waddayagonnadoo?
-
I'm a popular guy, waddayagonnadoo?
Ingratiating with those you perceive to be a cut above us mere freaks and weirdos more like.
-
Ingratiating with those you perceive to be a cut above us mere freaks and weirdos more like.
Look, people gravitate to me all the time. Even Ispy secretly likes me. I'm a funny guy, not like a clown funny.
I've got very little to add to the conversation, everyone knows that and I make no secret of the fact that my knowledge and research is very limited. But there's wee bits of that I have a bit of knowledge about.
....and I think you'd rather I was here than not.
-
Look, people gravitate to me all the time. Even Ispy secretly likes me. I'm a funny guy, not like a clown funny.
I've got very little to add to the conversation, everyone knows that and I make no secret of the fact that my knowledge and research is very limited. But there's wee bits of that I have a bit of knowledge about.
....and I think you'd rather I was here than not.
I’d like to know why you have aligned yourself with Jeremy’s supoorters and never direct you “funny guy” schtick in their direction, or slap them down. Any particular reason? But yes, of course I would rather you were here, you have a good way with words, even if I’m often the target of the put down.
-
I’d like to know why you have aligned yourself with Jeremy’s supoorters and never direct you “funny guy” schtick in their direction, or slap them down. Any particular reason? But yes, of course I would rather you were here, you have a good way with words, even if I’m often the target of the put down.
I think you may be on to something - let's put it this way, you have to respect the sheer bloody mindedness and fortitude of someone who's willing to defend someone like Bamber so vociferously, to the point where they have researched the subject for several years, maybe becoming an 'expert' (if we use the 10,000 hour premise).
That's where Holly's at. I admire that because they're displaying a level of commitment I can only aspire to. I'm a lazy get. I soak information up, rather than have a ready reference, so it makes my argument unreliable, so I don't try. Whereas G-Unit, Holly, et al will give you chapter and verse because they've put the work in.
Do I need to agree? No.
My point yesterday was more about the general concept of beyond reasonable doubt - we've done it to death, but my motives are purely conceptual, they usually are as my lack of knowledge in the finer detail will find me out.
I've said it before, there's no mystery here, but there's a bit of interest for us laymen in the investigation and the court proceedings.
-
I think you may be on to something - let's put it this way, you have to respect the sheer bloody mindedness and fortitude of someone who's willing to defend someone like Bamber so vociferously, to the point where they have researched the subject for several years, maybe becoming an 'expert' (if we use the 10,000 hour premise).
That's where Holly's at. I admire that because they're displaying a level of commitment I can only aspire to. I'm a lazy get. I soak information up, rather than have a ready reference, so it makes my argument unreliable, so I don't try. Whereas G-Unit, Holly, et al will give you chapter and verse because they've put the work in.
Do I need to agree? No.
My point yesterday was more about the general concept of beyond reasonable doubt - we've done it to death, but my motives are purely conceptual, they usually are as my lack of knowledge in the finer detail will find me out.
I've said it before, there's no mystery here, but there's a bit of interest for us laymen in the investigation and the court proceedings.
I don't agree with everything Holly says either but I treat her with respect because she treats me with respect. The same applies to Carana on the McCann thread.
-
It is disappointing to note that despite numerous warnings, some members continue to use crude and totally uncalled-for language when responding to other members. This will no longer be allowed to continue.
I have instructed the moderation team to clamp down heavily on rule breakers from now on.
There will be no exceptions!
-
Youve been at this a long time Nicholas... This is NOT your average poster. She is here solely to discredit and stop any further debates regarding Jeremy's innocence.
That is not normal forthis forum unless you have anbalteriir motive and I'm suspecting she does.
If I'm correct Nicholas, she is playing you. You're wiser than this... Look at her posts and you'll see a pattern.
There's lots of giveaways... And she's slipped up trying to convince you all that Jeremy is a psychopaths monster who is evil and guilty beyond belief.
How the F*ck does she know that.... She spouts lies and misinformation continually, she totally misinterprets anything meaningful or of any consideration, leading everybody away from the facts that are wanting to be discussed in a deliberate attempt to frustrate and ridicule the poster.
I know Bamber’s a psychopath AA and your posts help prove the point
-
Your opinion, which you’re entitled to of course , is wrong
I’ve never seen, met, spoken, written or had ANY contact with that repugnant psychopath in my life.
I’m here defending a beautiful, sweet, kind young woman who was brutally murdered by her evil vile brother, and who he tried to denigrate after he’d killed her. I’m also speaking for Sheila’s two beautiful six-year-old twin sons who had their lives snatched away from them by the psychopathic, evil, greedy Jeremy Bamber.
Nevill Bamber was a good man. A kind man. A gentleman. He was loving, generous and kind. And the son he took in smashed his head to a pulp exposing his brain before shooting him dead. Poor June wasn’t a well woman, that’s obvious. But she still cared, she still tried, and she was generous, hard working, and brought her children up as best she could. Jeremy repaid her by shooting her point blank between her eyes,
You should think about that...
We don't need you to keep spelling it out for us that 3 decent adults lost their lives along with two innocent children.
I find your repeated reference to the victims in this way crude melo-drama.
-
We don't need you to keep spelling it out for us that 3 decent adults lost their lives along with two innocent children.
I find your repeated reference to the victims in this way crude melo-drama.
It’s not though Holly - it’s real life
-
I'm a popular guy, waddayagonnadoo?
Somewhere.
-
We don't need you to keep spelling it out for us that 3 decent adults lost their lives along with two innocent children.
I find your repeated reference to the victims in this way crude melo-drama.
That's strange, Holly, given that they form such a large part of the evidence.
-
It’s not though Holly - it’s real life
It's real life for those who were intimately involved with the victims. For others to repeatedly refer to them in such terms appears disingenuous.
-
That's strange, Holly, given that they form such a large part of the evidence.
Were the victims repeatedly described in such terms at trial?
-
We don't need you to keep spelling it out for us that 3 decent adults lost their lives along with two innocent children.
I find your repeated reference to the victims in this way crude melo-drama.
What?!!!!
You say it’s MELODRAMATIC that FIVE family members:
A hard-working respectable father
Hard-working, generous mother
Loving, sweet sister
TWO little sweet six-year-old boys
We’re all SHOT DEAD in their heads by a GREEDY, PSYCHOPATHIC member of their OWN family?!
You call that MELODRAMATIC?!
Really?!
-
It's real life for those who were intimately involved with the victims. For others to repeatedly refer to them in such terms appears disingenuous.
It’s one of the most heinous crimes in history!
-
Were the victims repeatedly described in such terms at trial?
This isn’t a court room, in case you’ve forgotten
The QC’s and Judge may not have voiced to the court what they thought of that lump of evil, but you can be sure they called him much worse outside of court!
-
It's real life for those who were intimately involved with the victims. For others to repeatedly refer to them in such terms appears disingenuous.
So why does Jeremy who WAS intimately involved with the victims only talk about HIMSELF?