Thoughts On The Case

[Nicholas]

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

Approx what year was this can you remember

Was it around the time you first met or towards the end of your relationship and do you recall the name of the solicitor who allegedly sent him the letter ?

[APRIL]

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

Could now be the right time to ask yourself "But just supposing............" about those 'facts' you have no way of checking?

[Aunt Agatha]

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

I have not seen the original. I've stated that too.

[Aunt Agatha]

Approx what year was this can you remember

Was it around the time you first met or towards the end of your relationship and do you recall the name of the solicitor who allegedly sent him the letter ?

It was def before 1999.  I have no solid information or nothing to refer to.  If ever I decide to go through my letters and come across it, that is if it was mentioned at all, I will update.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

It was def before 1999.  I have no solid information or nothing to refer to.  If ever I decide to go through my letters and come across it, that is if it was mentioned at all, I will update.

Whilst you’re searching for that letter, Ag, see if per chance you stumble upon the statement Jeremy claimed DCI Jones made when he turned up at the soc (2/3 hours after the raid?) claiming (according to only Jeremy) that he found the silencer under the bed.

That statement which Jeremy claims existed and which he insisted he sent to his solicitor’s office never arrived: maybe he sent it to your address by mistake?😳



[attachment deleted by admin]

[ISpyWithMyEye]

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.

So would you say the majority of convicted prisoners are not guilty, Daisy?

For example, would you say Fred West, Rosemary West, Harold Shipman, Ian Brady, Myra Hyndley, John Cannan, Dennis Nilsson, Peter Sutcliffe, Ian Huntley, Levi Bellfield, Steve Wright etc were wrongly convicted?

[Aunt Agatha]

Whilst you’re searching for that letter, Ag, see if per chance you stumble upon the statement of DCI Jones who allegedly claimed when he turned up at the soc (2/3 hours after the raid?) he found the silencer under the bed.

That statement which Jeremy claims existed and which he insisted he sent to his solicitor’s office never arrived: maybe he sent it to your address by mistake?😳

Sorry,  I threw everything out about 7 years ago when i moved house. I had a thorough clear out.

[Nicholas]

Sorry,  I threw everything out about 7 years ago when i moved house. I had a thorough clear out.

When you say you ‘threw everything out‘ - did you shred it beforehand given the sensitive nature of its content ?

[APRIL]

Sorry,  I threw everything out about 7 years ago when i moved house. I had a thorough clear out.

Auntie A, that really struck a chord with me. It was death which, 10 years ago, caused me to part from my adored partner and naturally, although we didn't live at the same address, my house was littered with his stuff. I moved home 6 years ago and it all came with me. I still have it, even his clothes. I could no more part with anything connected to him, than fly, so I wonder how you felt about getting rid of stuff which connected you with Jeremy.

 

[Daisy]

So would you say the majority of convicted prisoners are not guilty, Daisy?

For example, would you say Fred West, Rosemary West, Harold Shipman, Ian Brady, Myra Hyndley, John Cannan, Dennis Nilsson, Peter Sutcliffe, Ian Huntley, Levi Bellfield, Steve Wright etc were wrongly convicted?

Read my post again.  I stated that not everyone who is convicted is guilty.  Why are you trying to promote arguments?

[Holly Goodhead]

So would you say the majority of convicted prisoners are not guilty, Daisy?

For example, would you say Fred West, Rosemary West, Harold Shipman, Ian Brady, Myra Hyndley, John Cannan, Dennis Nilsson, Peter Sutcliffe, Ian Huntley, Levi Bellfield, Steve Wright etc were wrongly convicted?

The convictions of those you refer to are not Afaik underpinned by witness testimony where the witnesses were given immunity against prosecution and/or some sort of personal gain/favourable treatment in exchange for the testimony unlike the following:

Michael Stone - Damian Daley

Michael Steel - Darren Nicholls

Jack Whomes - Darren Nicholls

Jeremy Bamber - Julie Mugford

The above all protest their innocence.

JB - 99.9% innocent imo

Steele/Whomes - 80/90% innocent imo

Stones - Don't know enough to put a % on it

[Robittybob1]

Read my post again.  I stated that not everyone who is convicted is guilty.  Why are you trying to promote arguments?

You stated "Just because someone is convicted doesn’t mean they are guilty. Juries make the wrong decisions for various reasons."

You don't define the percentage of incorrect convictions.   Is it Some, not everyone or all?  Try and be clear in what you say, thank you.

[Brancher]

You stated "Just because someone is convicted doesn’t mean they are guilty. Juries make the wrong decisions for various reasons."

You don't define the percentage of incorrect convictions.   Is it Some, not everyone or all?  Try and be clear in what you say, thank you.

"Just because someone is convicted doesn't mean they are guilty."

"Not everyone who is convicted is guilty".

These statements from Daisy are clear enough for me. 

They are also true.

As for percentages, no reason for Daisy to know and nothing to do with her point.  Maybe ask the Ministry of Justice or academic lawyers/criminologists?

When I was young, it was very common for defendants in the Crown Court to be acquitted.  I recall the acquittal figure hovered around 50%, give or take.  This is because, back then, there was still respect for due process and the institution of the jury, and it was considered - rightly - difficult for the prosecution to prove a case against somebody.

That underlying ethos/philosophy has been lost from the system now.

This erosion of due process can only underpin Daisy's observations.

We are now living through a harsh/convictionist era, which is reflected in the prevailing mindsets/attitudes on this Forum.

I would also argue that we only have jury trials in the nominal sense now. 

Somebody called "Holly Goodhead" messaged me with advice, suggesting narrower topics for threads.  This is good advice, but in response, I would point out that, if you read my original post in this thread, my purpose here is clear.  I believe Jeremy Bamber is probably guilty, but I want to settle the matter in my mind. 

The reason I wanted to move on from Julie Mugford is because, unless you have some strong arguments for me, I can't see the benefit to you or I in discussing her any more on this thread.  There are other points to discuss. 

Where I am at the moment is: If you throw out Julie Mugford and the moderator, could a jury still convict Bamber, or could an appellate bench still uphold his convictions?

I'm not sure.  That's what I'm curious about.

Thanks.

[Daisy]

Thank you Brancher for defending the point I am trying to get across.  One of the jury was asleep in the Bamber case so he couldn’t come to a decision as didn’t hear half the evidence!

My sister was on jury service once and their deliberations were going on late. A member came out with “oh I will just say he is guilty. I want to get home to watch EastEnders”

As juries are chosen randomly across the population there are those who do not have the mental capacity to understand the court process.  There should be some sort of test before they are allowed to go into court and make a life changing decision.

[Nicholas]

As juries are chosen randomly across the population there are those who do not have the mental capacity to understand the court process.  There should be some sort of test before they are allowed to go into court and make a life changing decision.

Maybe the two who couldn’t make their minds up in Bamber’s case didn’t have the ‘mental capacitor’ to which you refer but the other 10 did ?