Martin
Sr. Member
Posts: 223
The Noble Cause Framing Theory
« on: April 27, 2014, 05:42:AM »
The Noble Cause Framing Theory
This is the view that the police fabricated evidence, but only because they genuinely believed that Bamber was guilty. The most reprehensible version of it is one where the person who holds with this idea affects a neutral attitude, pretending to be unconvinced either way (while from a practical point of view fully supporting his guilter friends, because the position itself is really pro guilt through and through, even if not obviously so to everyone).
If Bamber is innocent some of the police MUST know it.
The view that Jeremy Bamber is innocent is inextricably linked to the view that a number of policeman know that he is innocent. There is no scenario which allows for even the possibility that he is innocent which can be separated from the view that he was framed by certain policeman, who know the truth is that Sheila was the killer.
The people who hold with that theory, assuming they are not quite clueless, realise that the belief that Bamber is innocent is inextricably linked to the belief that the police framed him, with some of them knowing the real truth that Sheila was the killer.
The sophisticated guilter
That is why some of the more sophisticated guilters try to sound sympathetic to Bamber’s cause, while at the same time rejecting out of hand the theory that the police intentionally framed an innocent man. These kind of people side with the guilters on every issue where the evidence of Bamber’s innocence is also at the same time evidence that they knew he was innocent. And yet they try to put themselves across as “fair” by admitting that the police faked evidence against him.
The point is that if you reject that assumption that the innocence of Bamber implies that the police know it, you might as well say he’s guilty as hell and put it in block capitals and without an apostrophe, since his innocence can’t be a fact without the conjoining fact that a whole bunch of policemen know about it.
The noble cause framing theory is a catch all, in that the person who holds with it, rejects all the evidence which points to innocence-because that evidence also implies that the police know he is innocent.
Some of the evidence pointing to Bamber’s innocence which implies the police know he is.
1 The logs indicating that two bodies were found downstairs including one which has “One murder and one suicide”. If the police did find Sheila’s body downstairs and she regained consciousness and made her way upstairs then, of course, they know that Bamber is innocent.
2 If Sheila died after the police entered the house, then even to a person with no medical training, it would be obvious that her body could not have been dead for seven hours. It would be still warm for a start. If Sheila died after the police broke into the house, then a group of policemen know that Bamber is innocent.
3 If Sheila’s body was on the bed before the police stage managed it on the floor, the mere fact that they were able to do that implies that the body was not stiff like Nevill’s body was and that Sheila’s death must have occurred hours later.
4 If Nevill Bamber called the police, then the policeman who heard that call knows that Bamber is innocent.
5 Ann Eaton’s note that a policeman told her that Sheila’s body was, at one stage, on the bed with a bible on her chest. This is prima facie evidence that it was the police who stage managed Sheila’s body on the bedroom floor to make it look like she had shot herself in that position.
I could go on. The main point is that such evidence pointing to Bamber’s innocence also at the same time points to the fact that the policemen at the scene know he is innocent. In many cases you just can’t separate the two.
Pro guilt by implication
The noble cause framing theory gives the superficial impression of being fair and of being willing to concede something. But it really implies a solid commitment to supporting the pro guilt group and this is shown in the way that such a supposedly fair minded person takes the pro guilt position on each crucial issue, right across the board. Like for example speaking dismissively of log entries which clearly point to Bamber’s innocence.
Such a person will typically support the rejection of evidence pointing to Bamber’s innocence with expressions like “I just don’t believe that” being used a lot. They like to put themselves across as "sceptical" and as having an open mind.
1 I just don’t believe that the police found Sheila’s body downstairs,
2 I just don’t believe that it was the police who put Nevill’s head in the coal bucket.
3 I just don’t believe that Sheila’s body was ever on the bed with a bible on her chest.
4 I just don’t believe that the police stage managed Sheila’s body on the floor.
5 I just don’t believe that Nevill Bamber made a phone call.
6 I just don’t believe that there were two calls made to the police.
7 I just don’t believe that West and Bonnett would remain silent, if Nevill Bamber had called the police. The very thought of that is just too appalling.
8 I just don’t believe that all those people would have kept quiet for so long.
9 I just don’t believe that Mike Tesko has seen a photograph of Sheila on the bed.
10 I just don’t believe that the police would knowingly frame an innocent man.
11 I just don’t believe that all those people could be lying.
Number 10 is of special significance because, with respect to this case, it is not really one opinion among the rest, but represents the basic position implied by the others and which a guilter realises he must always defend.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2014, 06:40:AM by Martin »
Logged
