Tabloids - V - Broadsheets

[Holly Goodhead]

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

[John]

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.

[Holly Goodhead]

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.

[John]

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.

[Holly Goodhead]

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?

[John]

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.

[Holly Goodhead]

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!     

[John]

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...

[Nicholas]

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 ?

[Nicholas]

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?

[The General]

"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.

[Vertigo Swirl]

"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? 

[The General]

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.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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?

[The General]

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'.