Thoughts On The Case

[ISpyWithMyEye]

You will be even more astonished then when he stands on the steps of CoA a free man declared innocent by the court.

I must say, I do admire your optimism and sense of humour😌

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Why should anyone thank a member for complying with the rules? Should you be thanked each time you refrain from abusing fellow members too?

You proved that CAL said something in her book, you didn't prove it was true.

If it were obvious whether posters were posting fact or opinion cites wouldn't be needed. It wasn't obvious when you claimed Julie Mugford didn't know in advance that Jeremy was going to burgle the camp site. You even claimed it as fact, until you were confronted with the evidence.

When members do that others have to spend time finding the real facts while the offender is free to repeat the offense  on another thread. It's the poster's job to find support for their claims, not the responder.

I suggest, Gunit, that you read my posts correctly

April implied that Jeremy hadn’t been diagnosed a psychopath by the psychiatrist his defence brought in. I told her he had. In my original post I made an error by saying the psychiatrist told Jeremy when I meant to write his defence told him

It was an obvious and somewhat petty error that put April in a bad mood for some reason

I then found the evidence in CAL’s book, which YOU STILL refute...you’re now suggesting CAL has made libellous statements in her book. That’s rubbish, and you know that.

You seem to be a stickler for cites, evidence, facts — and when they are presented to you, you say they’re not true

Then you wonder why I can’t be bothered to waste my time searching...

Anyway, you’ll be relieved to know I’m off out into my garden now to sunbathe, have another BBQ with a friend who’s coming round, and so you won’t have to monitor any more posts from me today 😊

Toodles...have a lovely sunny day 🌝

[APRIL]

I suggest, Gunit, that you read my posts correctly

April implied that Jeremy hadn’t been diagnosed a psychopath by the psychiatrist his defence brought in. I told her he had. In my original post I made an error by saying the psychiatrist told Jeremy when I meant to write his defence told him

It was an obvious and somewhat petty error that put April in a bad mood for some reason

I then found the evidence in CAL’s book, which YOU STILL refute...you’re now suggesting CAL has made libellous statements in her book. That’s rubbish, and you know that.

You seem to be a stickler for cites, evidence, facts — and when they are presented to you, you say they’re not true

Then you wonder why I can’t be bothered to waste my time searching...

Anyway, you’ll be relieved to know I’m off out into my garden now to sunbathe, have another BBQ with a friend who’s coming round, and so you won’t have to monitor any more posts from me today 😊

Toodles...have a lovely sunny day 🌝

I asked myself, was there no end to this person's talent for misrepresentation and myself replied that there wasn't, and to prove it, you've done it again.

SO! Just to clear up the debacle of the psychiatrist who assessed him and first diagnosed him as a psychopath. It was information I've had for the last 6 years. His words, passed on to me, being "He's a liar, a fantasist, and undoubtedly, a psychopath". It can possibly be confirmed that I put this information out LONG before you were interested in the case -I may even have shared it with you when you first joined- whatever, it hasn't been accepted because I can't prove that it was said. I DO find it odd that the psychiatrist YOU mention, uses, according to your claim, remarkably similar words to the one in my story, but if one psychiatrist diagnoses him as being a psychopath, why should not another? RIGHT! Given that I've known that story for YEARS, why would I imply that he hadn't been diagnosed a psychopath? I implied nothing! I CLAIMED the psychiatrist didn't breeze into his cell to break the good news to him that the diagnosis couldn't be used in court, to which you subsequently said was a typo, and as a result, I should apologize.

Now, whilst you appear to be having a ripping time, dining out on the fact that I haven't apologized -something I have no intention of doing, your mistakes being your own responsibility, just like you won't apologize for misrepresenting my words- the incident you're making a meal of was simply the example I used of your great talent for misrepresentation, something, I note, I'm not alone in mentioning. Please feel free to continue dropping my name into your posts, although I'm guessing you'll achieve little by so doing, other than to be the cause of irritation.

Have a wonderful afternoon in the garden. Enjoy the sun, and don't drink too much. Better to keep a clear head when impressing fingers on keyboards.

Toodle Pip, Old Bean

[Daisy]

You can use my name, you know 😌

I don’t “think” he’s guilty — he IS guilty. He was convicted, remember?

I have spent a lot of time on here, partly due to lockdown and having taken an interest in the case since WHF aired. But unlike you, Holly, I haven’t spent almost TEN years on here discussing him; nor have I gone into gun shops to put magazines in a rifle; worked tirelessly trying to find ballistic experts, forensic experts, all manner of people to try and get him out of jail when he’s actually a stranger to you in reality. You’re even trying to arrange a reconstruction of what happened 35 years ago, and then you tell me that by me discussing the case that “happened 35 years ago” it’s strange  🤷‍♀️

Just because someone is convicted doesn’t mean they are guilty. Juries make the wrong decisions for various reasons.  Sally Clarke, Angela Cannings, Victor Nealon, The Guildford Four and Birmingham Six were all convicted but TOTALLY INNOCENT.  I remember an “expert” in the Sally Clarke case when she was on trial for murdering her three children saying “one death is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is murder”. The jury convicted on those powerful words.  The “expert “ was later struck off. 

[Aunt Agatha]

I asked myself, was there no end to this person's talent for misrepresentation and myself replied that there wasn't, and to prove it, you've done it again.

SO! Just to clear up the debacle of the psychiatrist who assessed him and first diagnosed him as a psychopath. It was information I've had for the last 6 years. His words, passed on to me, being "He's a liar, a fantasist, and undoubtedly, a psychopath". It can possibly be confirmed that I put this information out LONG before you were interested in the case -I may even have shared it with you when you first joined- whatever, it hasn't been accepted because I can't prove that it was said. I DO find it odd that the psychiatrist YOU mention, uses, according to your claim, remarkably similar words to the one in my story, but if one psychiatrist diagnoses him as being a psychopath, why should not another? RIGHT! Given that I've known that story for YEARS, why would I imply that he hadn't been diagnosed a psychopath? I implied nothing! I CLAIMED the psychiatrist didn't breeze into his cell to break the good news to him that the diagnosis couldn't be used in court, to which you subsequently said was a typo, and as a result, I should apologize.

Now, whilst you appear to be having a ripping time, dining out on the fact that I haven't apologized -something I have no intention of doing, your mistakes being your own responsibility, just like you won't apologize for misrepresenting my words- the incident you're making a meal of was simply the example I used of your great talent for misrepresentation, something, I note, I'm not alone in mentioning. Please feel free to continue dropping my name into your posts, although I'm guessing you'll achieve little by so doing, other than to be the cause of irritation.

Have a wonderful afternoon in the garden. Enjoy the sun, and don't drink too much. Better to keep a clear head when impressing fingers on keyboards.

Toodle Pip, Old Bean

 

[Caroline]

You will be even more astonished then when he stands on the steps of CoA a free man declared innocent by the court.

That will never happen.

[Nicholas]

You will be even more astonished then when he stands on the steps of CoA a free man declared innocent by the court.

How many times have the CoA declared a person ‘innocent’ following the overturning of their conviction ?

[Nicholas]

Haha I know you said maths isn't your strong point but I didn't become active on this forum until Nov 2013 so < 7 years ago.  My behind the scenes endeavours are much more recent.

What year did you register on the blue forum?

[Caroline]

Haha I know you said maths isn't your strong point but I didn't become active on this forum until Nov 2013 so < 7 years ago.  My behind the scenes endeavours are much more recent.

You have been going on about it for at least 2 years.

[Nicholas]

Why indeed?  If I was the bereaved and believed JB responsible I would be happy to think of him spending the rest of his natural life behind bars.  And after 35 years I would probably think his appeal prospects were zero. 

If I thought him guilty and had no personal involvement I might be interested in a case related book/watching a TV prog but I doubt I could muster the enthusiasm for much else. Certainly not spending hours a day on on a forum telling everyone basically what the trial judge said some 33 years ago.

Isn’t it interesting how you make this claim yet according to Bamber and people like Aunt Agatha much has changed regarding the case over the past 33 years - what with new disclosures for example and ‘new’ discoveries

[Caroline]

Isn’t it interesting how you make this claim yet according to Bamber and people like Aunt Agatha much has changed regarding the case over the past 33 years - what with new disclosures for example and ‘new’ discoveries

Holly is discounting all of that and asking that the COA concentrates on her test results (whatever they are - whenever they materialise).

[Nicholas]

One of them is lying...that’s for sure.

I cannot question JM, but I could certainly question Jeremy and I did....consistently!

I’m of the opinion he IS NOT lying...os therefore, it must be Julie.

And no, I would not waste my time on reading through her statements again, she is a liar and we’re not talking once or twice here....once she started it was lie upon lie upon lie.....

That’s why a legal letter was sent to Jeremy to back off from requesting a lie detector. He was threatened.

We’ll leave it there.

And you don’t have,to believe me, I do not have that letter in my possession and never did.

Can you confirm whether or not Bamber told you this AA before the question is posed to others

Did Bamber tell you this

or

did you make it up ?

[Aunt Agatha]

Can you confirm whether or not Bamber told you this AA before the question is posed to others

Did Bamber tell you this

or

did you make it up ?

I have told you he read a letter to me, over the phone.

[Caroline]

I have told you he read a letter to me, over the phone.

But he could have written it himself to read out to you.

[Nicholas]

But he could have written it himself to read out to you.

Or there could have been no letter and he made it up