Author Topic: Jeremy's Court of Appeal hearings and submissions to CCRC  (Read 6475 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Holly Goodhead

Jeremy's Court of Appeal hearings and submissions to CCRC
« on: February 16, 2014, 04:19:58 PM »
I think I'm right in saying that JB's case was initially heard by the CoA in 1989.  This was on the basis of the judge's summing up showing bias.  This was rejected.

He then submitted an application to the CCRC who referred the case to the CoA in 2002.  This was rejected with the appeal court judges commenting as follows:

"Having considered and rejected each of the grounds advanced on behalf of the appellant,it follows that this appeal must be dismissed".

AND

"We should perhaps add in fairness to the jury that the deeper we have delved into the available evidence the more likely it has seemed to us that the jury were right..."

This is what was said about other MoJ's:

Stefan Kizsko

"We can find no grounds whatsoever to condemn the jury's verdict of murder as in any way safe or unsatisfactory.  The appeal is dismissed".  Lord Justice Bridge.

Stephen Downing

"The court felt that her evidence was not credible and secure enough to allow an appeal against the conviction".

Sally Clarke

"Despite recognition of the flaws in Meadow's statistical evidence, the convictions were upheld at appeal in October 2000."

Guildford Four

"Both the Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal their convictions immediately".

"The Guildford Four tried to obtain from the Home Secretary a reference to the Court of Appeal under Section 17 of Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (later repeled) but were unsuccessful.

Birmingham 6

"In March 1976 their first application for leave to appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, presided over by Lord Widgery CJ".

"In January 1988 after a six week hearing (at that time the longest criminal hearing ever held), the convictions were ruled to be safe and satisfactory.  The Court of Appeal, presided over by the Lord Chief Justice Lord Lane dismissed the appeals".

"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again".


« Last Edit: February 06, 2020, 01:29:07 PM by Holly Goodhead »
Dear God

Please curtail Covid-19 to enable me to have my eyebrows and lashes tinted.  Thank you.  PS please look after Jimmy's farm.

Offline Joanne

Re: Jeremy's Court of Appeal hearings and submissions to CCRC
« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2014, 03:20:10 PM »
When I heard that Jeremy had representation from David Napley in his original trial, it strengthened my belief that Jeremy is indeed guilty.
David Napley was about as good as you could get at the time of the trial and went onto play a large role in miscarriages, so Jeremy could not have picked a better solicitor and I think if he couldn't have proved Jeremy's innocence then I don't think anyone else is going to either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Napley
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/sir-david-napley-1.483443

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: Jeremy's Court of Appeal hearings and submissions to CCRC
« Reply #2 on: February 20, 2014, 06:41:59 PM »
When I heard that Jeremy had representation from David Napley in his original trial, it strengthened my belief that Jeremy is indeed guilty.
David Napley was about as good as you could get at the time of the trial and went onto play a large role in miscarriages, so Jeremy could not have picked a better solicitor and I think if he couldn't have proved Jeremy's innocence then I don't think anyone else is going to either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Napley
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/sir-david-napley-1.483443

He did the best he could with the facts of the case.  A lawyer can try to shape the facts for the benefit of a client but there are limits to that.  When you try to bend too far it is a crapshoot. It hinges entirely on whether the jury will be stupid enough to buy the claims.

The facts of this case were:

1) The killer shot everyone in the house with the same rifle.  The killer fired 25 shots without missing a single time. 

2) The killer made sure that the master bedroom phone was removed prior to the murders started so that the couple could not identify the killer to third persons   

3) The killer started upstairs. June and Nevill were shot in the master bedroom.  June was immobilized by her wounds. Nevill was shot 4 times. 2 gunshot wounds were minor- to his elbow and shoulder. The third tore part of his lip off and the 4th shattered his jaw, teeth and voicebox thus rendering him unable to speak in an understandable fashion. He was able to run out of the room and down the stairs. The evidence does not provide any indication of whether the others were shot before or after June and Nevill. 

4) The killer pursued Nevill into the kitchen where a struggle over the gun ensued. As they wrestled over the gun he silencer scratched the underneath of the fireplace mantle and the paint that was scraped off became stuck on the silencer.   

5) The killer punched Nevill in the face repeatedly breaking his nose and giving him black eyes and the killer eventually got full control over the rifle and bludgeoned Nevill with the stock. He had defensive wounds on his arms indicating he blocked the rifle blows with his arms. Eventually the killer was able to strike him in the head with the rifle stock and to knock him out.  The blows were so hard that the rifle stock broke. Nevill passed out over a chair that had been knocked upside down during the struggle.  The killer then fired some fatal shots into his head. 

6) The Kitchen table had been set for breakfast otherwise it had not been cleared after the last meal because the crockery that was on the table was knocked on the floor during the struggle.  The floor had broken glass, blood and sugar on it. The normal kitchen phone was unplugged and hidden.  The phone that belonged in the master bedroom was plugged in the kitchen phone jack and the receiver was off the hook. There was no blood on or near the phone.

7) Despite the fact his father would not have been able to speak and would have gotten blood on the phone had he picked it up and tried to call anyone, Jeremy maintains that after his father arrived in the kitchen he picked up the phone and phoned Jeremy telling him to come over because Sheila was having a crazy episode,, was running around with a gun and he feared she would use it then the phone was knocked from his hands and he did not speak anymore.

8) Initially Jeremy insisted he immediately hung up and phoned police. But in fact he phoned his girlfriend around 3AM, they spoke for several minutes and then some more time passed before he finally called police. At least 20 minutes elapsed from the time his father allegedly called him and the time he got around to calling police.  He asked police to pick him up but police told him to meet them there.  He was only 3 minutes away but refused to go snoop around the outside without police being on the scene first.  He stopped his car on the road waiting for police to come and pass him then slowly followed them so that he arrive a couple of minutes after them.

9) The police were unarmed.  Jeremy detailed all the guns in the house and lied telling the police that Sheila had fired them all and was proficient with them.  Police were scared to go inside becauseo fhtis and called for armed police.  The armed police were also scared to go in immediately.  Instead they decide to spend a few hours doing recon work and to go in when it was very bright out.  Jeremy was not impatient with police taking so long.  He waited more than 3.5 hours chatting with the police abot cars and guy things in addition to telling them more about his family. He did not try to press police to go in and find out what happened to his family he was very patient and calm to the point officers found it remarkable.

10) Upon being told his family was dead he puked and acted extremely grief stricken.  It was almost as if he was putting on an act because earlier he showed virtually no pressing concern.   

11) Sheila was found in the master bedroom with the gun lying on her body. This in connection with Jeremy's statements lead to the initial suspicion she murdered everyone and then committed suicide.   

12) Sheila's doctors did not consider her at risk for suicide and she never gave any indication of thinking about committing murder.  In her recent visits doctor's believe her mental state and happiness were better than in the past

13) She was not violent and never before tried to pick up a gun or any other weapon to threaten anyone with. At most she threw dishes around when angry but not directly at someone. More of the female smashing of a vase or so in anger.

14) She was on medication which has a calming effect.  That treatment was injected by doctors so she had no ability to forget to take it and indeed had it in her system according to the autopsy results. It therefore is unlikely she would have experienced any episodes.  A few hours before the killing her aunt spoke to her over the phone and testified Sheila was calm, docile and quiet. 

15) Her medication causes tremors and muscle control problems like experienced in Parkison's disease.  Therefore another drug is prescribed to counter these tremors but she ran out of such drug. Thus she was probably experiencing tremors of some sort which would have made it harder for her to shoot accurately.

16) The killer had to be quite strong to inflict the beating that Nevill suffered and would have had abrasions and cuts of some sort on the hands from punching Nevill so hard and from the broken stock which had jagged edges.  Unless wearing shoes the killer's feet would have been covered in Nevill's blood, sugar and most likely would be cut up from the broken crockery. The killer's clothes would have had gunshot residue and blood spatter.  Blood spatter while inflicting the beating as well as the shootings.   

17) Sheila was found barefoot in a nightgown.  She had no wounds on her hands and feet or anywhere else.  She was menstruating but other than that she had no signs of any problems.  Her hands were swabbed and tested for gunshot residue and lead. She tested negative for gunshot residue and her hands had normal levels of lead. If sh eloaded the weapo as many times as suggested she should have had elevated lead levels on her hands and should have had GSR from firing 25 shots.

18) Sheila's clothing was tested and was negative for GSR or foreign blood.

19) Her slight size means she would have be unlikely to have been able to inflict the kind of beating Nevill suffered.  Pseudo Parkinson's disease would have made that even harder to accomplish. 

20) There was testimony that Nevill did not trust his son, he did not even trust him with keys to the house.  He told at least one person he feared his son was plotting to kill him.

21) Police discovered one window was not latched shut and prior to trial Jeremy revealed he knew how to get in the house through the windows by using a knife to unlock the latch and could relatch it from the outside. He would do this instead of getting the key from the caretaker.  Thus he had the means to get inside and leave again while leaving the doors locked from the inside.  (Apparently Jeremy was so convinced that police pegged the murder on his sister that he had no problem with police learning he could get in)

22) Police had not inspected Jeremy for injuries or for blood evidence.

23) Testimony established that the gun was usually stored and used with the silencer and scope attached. Human blood of the same type as the adult victims was found in the silencer. It was thus used to shoot someone with those blood types.  The gun was not known to have been used to shoot anyone prior.  The silencer also was present when the struggle over the weapon took place because of the paint that was on it from the mantle.  Sheila could not have killed herself with the silencer attached.  The silencer made it too long for her to reach the trigger. Thus the killer shot her and then removed the silencer and scope and placed them in the gun clost afterwards.

24) Finally his girlfriend Julie Mugford testified that she had talked about killing him for a long time and that he called her to say this is the night.  The call he made prior to police she claimed was to tell her that it was done and they were dead. 

----

Jeremy really boxed his lawyer in.  Had he not said he received a phone call and got the whole ball rolling then things would have been quite different.

If someone else found the bodies then Jeremy's lawyer could have argued it was either a murder suicide or someone else other than Jeremy murdered them and made it look like a murder suicide. Based on the unlocked window it could be claimed anyone left by that exit and that the motive was robbery or something like that.     

Moreover, since Sheila was on her medicaion he could have argued she was cold and calculated not in a crazy rage.  Thus he could argue the planning such as the phone being moved beforehand was taken care of by her.
Jeremy's claim she was in a crazy rage really foreclosed such an argument though.

He had to go with Jeremy's claim that she had a crazy rage and killed everyone including herself even though there was so much evidence that contradicted that.  Evidence that contradicted she was agitated that night, contradicted she was suicidal or desired to kill her sons, contradicted the notion she could physically beat her father up, contradicted the notion she had actually beat him up since she had none of the tell tale injuries, contradicted the notion she had walked through the kitchen or had fired a weapon.  At trial even Jeremy he was forced to concend she never fired the weapon in question before and thus might not even know how to use it.  He coudl not identify any time she fired a gun as an adult he claimed they target shot together as young children which if true means she didn't like it if she never did it again. Other witnesses said she never fired a gun ever.
 
His lawyer did his best to try to suggest that Sheila was in fact mentally unstable enough to commit suicide but all he could point to was statements she made years earlier which doctors said they did not consider her to be at risk of actually doing it and that she improved since that time.

He had to hope that jurors would completely overlook the lack of evidence that she struggled with her father and shot anyone. There was not really any way he could do anything about such lack of evidence or the fact that she had in fact taken her medication and would have been unlikely to have an episode.

He was boxed in he had to blame Sheila because if Sheila didn't do it then it had to be Jeremy.  If Sheila didn't do it then Jeremy made up the phone call and had to be the one who killed everyone and framed her. 

He did what he could to suggest Sheila was guilty but the evidence was simply not on his side.  The best he could hope for was a stupid jury that would overlook the lack of physical evidence, overlook the fact Nevill could not have called and if he had he would have said we are shot send an ambulance, and to simply believe crazy people are capable of anything.  He only managed to get 2 such jury members. 

Looking back I bet Jeremy wishes he staged a break in instead.   
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Online Holly Goodhead

Re: Jeremy's Court of Appeal hearings and submissions to CCRC
« Reply #3 on: February 20, 2014, 07:39:28 PM »
When I heard that Jeremy had representation from David Napley in his original trial, it strengthened my belief that Jeremy is indeed guilty.
David Napley was about as good as you could get at the time of the trial and went onto play a large role in miscarriages, so Jeremy could not have picked a better solicitor and I think if he couldn't have proved Jeremy's innocence then I don't think anyone else is going to either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Napley
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/sir-david-napley-1.483443

I think I am right in saying that when David Napley's firm represented JB it was the first time they had acted on a case funded by legal aid.  As such they were not familiar etc with the funding of expert witnesses on this basis.

JB's then girlfriend, Anji Greaves, secured the services of David Napley.  I understand JB now thinks with the benefit of hindsight he might have been better served remaining with the local solicitor that represented him during his early interviews, Bruce Bowler.

If JB's case is ever again referred to CoA I would like to see some female legal representation.  Helen Kennedy springs to mind.

Throughout the history of this case ie from police originally being called to current state of play the only women involved have been WPC Jeapes and Glynis Howard a scientist at FSS.  That imo is why it is such a tangled mess.  It cannot be right to have so little female input?

Here in the ITV docu we have more men blah, blah, blah...The only women involved are the two presenters; no doubt reading from scripts given to them by men. 

We have at around 6 min in David Boutflour commenting on Sheila's nails.  No scientific evidence of course to back any claims up re Sheila's nails in terms of is it possible to load and fire the said firearm without any damage to nails and vanish?  Then at about 16 min in we have Mark Williams Thomas and the gun expert commenting on the burns to Nevill's  back.  When the pathologist was asked about injuries Nevill sustained other than gunshot wounds he makes no reference to the burn marks on Nevill's back.  Might the reason for this be that the burn marks were simply old wounds and not inflicted on the night of the tragedy? 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo

Would women make the same mistakes?  I don't think so  8)-)))

It is an absolute travesty.

I am not a raving feminist but the complete male domination on the case is plainly absurd.
Dear God

Please curtail Covid-19 to enable me to have my eyebrows and lashes tinted.  Thank you.  PS please look after Jimmy's farm.

Offline Angelo222

Re: Jeremy's Court of Appeal hearings and submissions to CCRC
« Reply #4 on: February 20, 2014, 08:13:25 PM »
I think I am right in saying that when David Napley's firm represented JB it was the first time they had acted on a case funded by legal aid.  As such they were not familiar etc with the funding of expert witnesses on this basis.

JB's then girlfriend, Anji Greaves, secured the services of David Napley.  I understand JB now thinks with the benefit of hindsight he might have been better served remaining with the local solicitor that represented him during his early interviews, Bruce Bowler.

If JB's case is ever again referred to CoA I would like to see some female legal representation.  Helen Kennedy springs to mind.

Throughout the history of this case ie from police originally being called to current state of play the only women involved have been WPC Jeapes and Glynis Howard a scientist at FSS.  That imo is why it is such a tangled mess.  It cannot be right to have so little female input?

Here in the ITV docu we have more men blah, blah, blah...The only women involved are the two presenters; no doubt reading from scripts given to them by men. 

We have at around 6 min in David Boutflour commenting on Sheila's nails.  No scientific evidence of course to back any claims up re Sheila's nails in terms of is it possible to load and fire the said firearm without any damage to nails and vanish?  Then at about 16 min in we have Mark Williams Thomas and the gun expert commenting on the burns to Nevill's  back.  When the pathologist was asked about injuries Nevill sustained other than gunshot wounds he makes no reference to the burn marks on Nevill's back.  Might the reason for this be that the burn marks were simply old wounds and not inflicted on the night of the tragedy? 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo

Would women make the same mistakes?  I don't think so  8)-)))

It is an absolute travesty.

I am not a raving feminist but the complete male domination on the case is plainly absurd.

How many women were in the jury which found him guilty by majority? 
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: Jeremy's Court of Appeal hearings and submissions to CCRC
« Reply #5 on: February 20, 2014, 08:37:42 PM »
I think I am right in saying that when David Napley's firm represented JB it was the first time they had acted on a case funded by legal aid.  As such they were not familiar etc with the funding of expert witnesses on this basis.

JB's then girlfriend, Anji Greaves, secured the services of David Napley.  I understand JB now thinks with the benefit of hindsight he might have been better served remaining with the local solicitor that represented him during his early interviews, Bruce Bowler.

If JB's case is ever again referred to CoA I would like to see some female legal representation.  Helen Kennedy springs to mind.

Throughout the history of this case ie from police originally being called to current state of play the only women involved have been WPC Jeapes and Glynis Howard a scientist at FSS.  That imo is why it is such a tangled mess.  It cannot be right to have so little female input?

Here in the ITV docu we have more men blah, blah, blah...The only women involved are the two presenters; no doubt reading from scripts given to them by men. 

We have at around 6 min in David Boutflour commenting on Sheila's nails.  No scientific evidence of course to back any claims up re Sheila's nails in terms of is it possible to load and fire the said firearm without any damage to nails and vanish?  Then at about 16 min in we have Mark Williams Thomas and the gun expert commenting on the burns to Nevill's  back.  When the pathologist was asked about injuries Nevill sustained other than gunshot wounds he makes no reference to the burn marks on Nevill's back.  Might the reason for this be that the burn marks were simply old wounds and not inflicted on the night of the tragedy? 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i2CjYDJGTo

Would women make the same mistakes?  I don't think so  8)-)))

It is an absolute travesty.

I am not a raving feminist but the complete male domination on the case is plainly absurd.

The gender of the participants had nothing to do with it.  The poor facts of the case did.

You have ignored those facts because they really demolish your claims he is innocent. 

Just because you are female doesn't mean you are qualified to say she should not have broken her nails or had damage to her hands from punishing Nevill in the face hard enough to break his nose and give him black eyes, should not have broken her nails while trying to load bullets int he magazine particularly the last couple of bullets bullets that are tough to load or would not have dmaged her hands on the broken stock.

Being in my fair share of fights my hands were bruised anytime I caused significant injuries like those inflicted on Neville.  Wielding a sharp object like the rifle stock afte rit was broken also would cause damage evne if you want to ignore that fact.

Firing a gun results in gunshot residue on clothing and hands and the list goes on.

You responded to me by saying well maybe she took a bath and changed her clothes before she killed herself.  A person in a crazy rage kills everyone, takes a bath, changes clothes then commits suicide? 

Seriously you need to stop with the nonsense and face reality.

Jeremy's lawyers had a very poor case to work with.  Jeremy boxed his lawyer in so tha this lawyer could make only one claim- that Sheila went into a crazy rage and killed everyone then herself even though the physical evidence did not support such an occurrence and other evidence related to her mental condition did not support such. Add in no evidence she knew how to use the gun in question, the fact Nevill could not have spoken over the phone and would not have stated what he did even if he could speak along with Jeremy's odd actions after supposedly being called and there was not much for his lawyer to work with.

You tried to explain away the facts that Nevill was shot before he could have reached the phone thus there should have been blood on the phone, that he would not have been able to speak intelligently and even if he could then he would have stated he and June had been shot send medical help by claiming he made the call went upstairs and then she shot him.

You suggest that he made the call about her having the gun, then she told Nevill to drop the phone and march upstairs and he complied without trying to disarm her.  Upstairs she began shooting everyone and then he ran back down, they struggled in the kitchen and she shot him dead in the kitchen.  Then she went and took a bah, changed her clothes and freshened up to kill herself.  Why would she order him upstairs instea dof shooting him whil ehe was talking on the phone.  What you describe is not a crazy person but a person who decided to carry out a cold calculated execution. Moreover she planned to get away with it, that is the only reason to take the phone from the bedroom.  So no one can call to say what she did and she could try to stage the scene to get away with it. 

You are doing women everywhere a disservice if you are portrarying women as stupid enough to buy this crap because you are female and buy it.  Buy you don't just "buy it" you are purveying it.  You invented the tale about her marching him upstairs after he spoke on the phone then shooting him 4 times up there but him escaping downstairs again because you realize just how damning it is to suggest Nevill called after being shot.  Your perspective is not the informed female perspective it is a gender neutral biased perspective. 

     

 
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Online Holly Goodhead

Re: Jeremy's Court of Appeal hearings and submissions to CCRC
« Reply #6 on: February 21, 2014, 10:32:01 AM »
How many women were in the jury which found him guilty by majority?

Verdict By Gender

7 Males          :  Guilty           58.33%
                          Not Guilty          0%

5 Females      :  Guilty           24.99%
                         Not Guilty     16.66%

All the information presented by professionals at trial was male: Anthony Arlidge, Geoffrey Rivlin, Ed Lawson, Mr Justice Drake, Police, Dr Ferguson, Dr Bradley, Prof Knight, various male police officers, Malcolm Fletcher, Dr Vanezis, John Hayward, etc

Even the jury was unfairly balanced in terms of gender.  Had the jury have been gender balanced the outcome might have been different.  How can this be right in a supposedly modern democratic country?  Saudia Arabia without the burqas  8()(((@# 8()(((@# 8()(((@#


Dear God

Please curtail Covid-19 to enable me to have my eyebrows and lashes tinted.  Thank you.  PS please look after Jimmy's farm.

Offline Angelo222

Re: Jeremy's Court of Appeal hearings and submissions to CCRC
« Reply #7 on: February 21, 2014, 12:56:59 PM »
Gender has nothing to do with it unless you want to count all the women Bamber has used in the last 29 years.  Just ask the Jackie's!
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Online Holly Goodhead

Re: Jeremy's Court of Appeal hearings and submissions to CCRC
« Reply #8 on: February 21, 2014, 01:38:05 PM »
Gender has nothing to do with it unless you want to count all the women Bamber has used in the last 29 years.  Just ask the Jackie's!

We will have to agree to disagree.  I am not a raving a feminist far from it but the fact that those capable of influencing the direction of the case eg police, pathologist, psychologists, judiciary, journalists, scientists etc have only ever been male cannot imo be right.  No female representation cannot be healthy.

If women who approach a category A prisoner serving life end up feeling used then perhaps they should take a deeper look within.  It is interesting that it is only women that end up feeling used.  Men that support Bamber don't complain about being used save Misty's owner. 
 
Dear God

Please curtail Covid-19 to enable me to have my eyebrows and lashes tinted.  Thank you.  PS please look after Jimmy's farm.

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: Jeremy's Court of Appeal hearings and submissions to CCRC
« Reply #9 on: February 21, 2014, 04:50:53 PM »
We will have to agree to disagree.  I am not a raving a feminist far from it but the fact that those capable of influencing the direction of the case eg police, pathologist, psychologists, judiciary, journalists, scientists etc have only ever been male cannot imo be right.  No female representation cannot be healthy.

If women who approach a category A prisoner serving life end up feeling used then perhaps they should take a deeper look within.  It is interesting that it is only women that end up feeling used.  Men that support Bamber don't complain about being used save Misty's owner.

I fail to see how this helps your claims, in fact it harms them.

The men who support Bamber are mainly doing so because they have an agenda of their own not really any love for Bamber and thus are using his case as a platform.  In contrast the women have some problems from within where they either have a crush on him or some female need to help reform him or take care of him and thus are willing to let their emotions control instead of rational thought and when burned they feel used.

This seems to be what you are driving at.  Thus you are suggesting there should have been more women on the jury to ignore the facts and free him on emotion.  That would have been a bad result not a good and fair result. 

You say you are not a feminist, definitely not because even though you believe in female superiority you set back the female cause wih your claims that more women would have been just like the 2 who voted to acquit him even though 3 of 5 women voted to convict and another woman would by your own stats have been more likely to convict.  The truth is that we do not know whether an extra female would have followed the evidence or would have been an emotional fool and ignored it.  That depends on the person's own personality not the person's gender.       
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline puglove

Re: Jeremy's Court of Appeal hearings and submissions to CCRC
« Reply #10 on: February 21, 2014, 04:53:24 PM »
We will have to agree to disagree.  I am not a raving a feminist far from it but the fact that those capable of influencing the direction of the case eg police, pathologist, psychologists, judiciary, journalists, scientists etc have only ever been male cannot imo be right.  No female representation cannot be healthy.

If women who approach a category A prisoner serving life end up feeling used then perhaps they should take a deeper look within.  It is interesting that it is only women that end up feeling used.  Men that support Bamber don't complain about being used save Misty's owner.

98% of Bamber's fan base are middle-aged/elderly women and you're right, Holly, he couldn't give a toss about any of them. Just like they wouldn't give a toss about him, if he looked like Stefan Kiszko.
Bamber - fruitcake magnet.

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: Jeremy's Court of Appeal hearings and submissions to CCRC
« Reply #11 on: February 21, 2014, 05:05:19 PM »
98% of Bamber's fan base are middle-aged/elderly women and you're right, Holly, he couldn't give a toss about any of them. Just like they wouldn't give a toss about him, if he looked like Stefan Kiszko.

How do we know the makeup of his fan base?  Out of curiousity did anyone try figuring out the makeup of those registered on the Jeremy Bamber website?  Your point about many liking his looks is probably true but I doubt a majority of his supporters are swayed by that.  Many are gullible people with mental and emotional problems and their needs are filled by taking up causes like his. They read some of the BS put out there by his supporters and fall for it like the people who unexplainably still fall for Nigerian email scams.  There are more males supporting him than many think.       
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Online Holly Goodhead

Re: Jeremy's Court of Appeal hearings and submissions to CCRC
« Reply #12 on: February 21, 2014, 08:37:52 PM »
98% of Bamber's fan base are middle-aged/elderly women and you're right, Holly, he couldn't give a toss about any of them. Just like they wouldn't give a toss about him, if he looked like Stefan Kiszko.

Watcha puglove  8((()*/  Hope you've had a good week.

I am reminded of David James Smith interview with JB some 3 years ago:

"He will be 50 in January and looks his age, in sharp contrast to the fine-boned, haughty youth in photographs of 25 years ago. He is jowly, porky, his hair tinged with grey. His upper body muscles suggest years of lifting weights in prison gyms, but his general appearance is sagged, middle-aged and tired. He wears baggy blue denims, black trainers and a red Lonsdale T-shirt".

IF his conviction is ever quashed his greatest challenge ever might well be reintegrating back into society.


Dear God

Please curtail Covid-19 to enable me to have my eyebrows and lashes tinted.  Thank you.  PS please look after Jimmy's farm.

Online Holly Goodhead

Re: Jeremy's Court of Appeal hearings and submissions to CCRC
« Reply #13 on: February 21, 2014, 09:42:34 PM »
I fail to see how this helps your claims, in fact it harms them.

The men who support Bamber are mainly doing so because they have an agenda of their own not really any love for Bamber and thus are using his case as a platform.  In contrast the women have some problems from within where they either have a crush on him or some female need to help reform him or take care of him and thus are willing to let their emotions control instead of rational thought and when burned they feel used.

This seems to be what you are driving at.  Thus you are suggesting there should have been more women on the jury to ignore the facts and free him on emotion.  That would have been a bad result not a good and fair result. 

You say you are not a feminist, definitely not because even though you believe in female superiority you set back the female cause wih your claims that more women would have been just like the 2 who voted to acquit him even though 3 of 5 women voted to convict and another woman would by your own stats have been more likely to convict.  The truth is that we do not know whether an extra female would have followed the evidence or would have been an emotional fool and ignored it.  That depends on the person's own personality not the person's gender.     

Have I said I believe in female superiority?  No I haven't.  I believe in equal rights nothing more; nothing less.

You seem to be implying that the two female jurors returned not guilty verdicts based on emotion rather than logic (the evidence)?  It could just as easily be argued that women would come down hard on a man accused of shooting two small sleeping boys in bed.  Especially when in this case his ex and extended adoptive family took to the stand and didn't have a good word to say about him.  If the women who returned not guilty verdicts were swayed by emotion then it seems to be there was enough high drama for it to happen and go against JB.

Believe it or not the prosecution did actually use the fact that Sheila's fingernails were still intact and undamaged as evidence. The defence were dozy enough not to counter this. Most women will know that loading and firing a rifle 25 times is extremely unlikely to damage nails and/or vanish.  I break or split a nail a few times a year despite engaging in a wide range of activities on a daily basis.  Perhaps one of the most hazardous things I've ever done as far as nails go is fastening and unfastening ski boots which are incredibly stiff especially when compacted with snow/ice. Not possible to do with gloves on.  I have even used my nails to dig away the snow/ice from the clips and I've never broken a nail in the process
Dear God

Please curtail Covid-19 to enable me to have my eyebrows and lashes tinted.  Thank you.  PS please look after Jimmy's farm.

Offline goatboy

Re: Jeremy's Court of Appeal hearings and submissions to CCRC
« Reply #14 on: February 21, 2014, 10:44:37 PM »
Have you ever gone on a crazed rampage with a rifle, reloaded it twice and battered a man twice as big as you senseless? Putting ski boots on doesn't really compare with that. I can understand you may not have broken your nails putting on ski boots. But I'd put a lot of money on you breaking a nail in during the first scenario I mentioned.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2014, 09:33:22 AM by goatboy »