Nevill was first shot as he exited his bedroom.

[G-Unit]

So who were you referring to here, G-Unit?

“Her psychologist “

You know full well, and once your IP is discovered you’ll understand how costly libellous comments against experts are....

Was her psychologist Dr Vanezis oh clever one?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Was her psychologist Dr Vanezis oh clever one?

Sheila didn’t have a psychologist

[Holly Goodhead]

You quoted him, you fool

Look, why don’t you stop replying to me

I don’t like your views, you don’t like mine — so let’s leave it at that, eh

It’s difficult to argue with an intelligent person, but to argue with an idiot is impossible...so I’ve given up on you, OK?

I've given up on you too in that I think you're taking most of us for fools regardless of our views on JB.  Devils advocate springs to mind.

I don't mind admitting I find many of your posts amusing but as a moderator I have to balance this with what others rightly expect of the forum as set out in the rules:

The rules of this forum are very straightforward.  Please treat all members with respect, avoid speculation and ensure that any material posted is accompanied by the relevant links.

Please avoid conflict and do not enter into prolonged arguments over matters which are speculative or cannot be corroborated at this time.

Members will receive warnings if their conduct is not conducive to the well being of this forum and bans will only be introduced as a last resort measure.

Happy posting!

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4.msg34336#msg34336

Times up my friend.  Its your choice: if you wish to continue posting here please either follow the rules or anticipate sanctions.

[G-Unit]

Sheila didn’t have a psychologist

Whoops! You're absolutely right, I meant psychiatrist. (Dr Vanezis was/is a pathologist mind).

[Brietta]

How is my reconstruction perpetuating JB's narrative when he doesn't even believe NB sustained any gsw's upstairs?

Perhaps you would like to enlighten us with your own reconstruction based on the physical evidence: blood stains and lack of, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks.

And if the case/posts so upset your sensibilities pray tell why why you continue to participate? 

You thinking something doesn't make it so.  We have a significant amount of material here from 2 eminent pathologists: Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight both of whom thought SC capable of carrying out what took place.

Nota bene

It is not for you to question my participation ... or the participation of any other member in any conversation on any board on the forum particularly it seems when it does not fit with what I believe is your rather limited and narrow viewpoint.

I will continue to post within the rules as I see fit without your imprimatur.  Thank you ... and thank God for 'sensibilities' which I find is something quite lacking on behalf of Bamber's victims in some posts.

In my opinion Nevill Bamber for example has been discussed ignoring the living human being he was until the moment the life was shot and battered out of him by his killer son; and I find it very difficult to reconcile anyone condoning that heinous crime in the face of all the evidence - not academic but factual - there is to the contrary.

[Brietta]

The pathologist didn't rule out the possibility that Sheila Caffell overpowered her father. Her psychologist acknowledged that she was capable of harming her mother and her children. Those who suggested she had no interest in or expertise with the rifle were giving an opinion, they didn't actually know.

Yet another post trying to shift the blame from the patently guilty perpetrator to the patently innocent victim.

I don't know what savegary Sheila Caffell witnessed on the night she was slaughtered along with her parents and her two little boys ... but she must certainly have known something horrific beyond belief was going on. 
It was all happening to her and to her family not in a nightmare but in real life.  Unthinkable!!!

[G-Unit]

Nota bene

It is not for you to question my participation ... or the participation of any other member in any conversation on any board on the forum particularly it seems when it does not fit with what I believe is your rather limited and narrow viewpoint.

I will continue to post within the rules as I see fit without your imprimatur.  Thank you ... and thank God for 'sensibilities' which I find is something quite lacking on behalf of Bamber's victims in some posts.

In my opinion Nevill Bamber for example has been discussed ignoring the living human being he was until the moment the life was shot and battered out of him by his killer son; and I find it very difficult to reconcile anyone condoning that heinous crime in the face of all the evidence - not academic but factual - there is to the contrary.

Any discussion of murder will of necessity involve discussing a previously 'living human being' will it not? You appear to believe that the evidence was irrefutable, but if it was no appeals would have been granted imo. Questioning the strength of the evidence doesn't equate to condoning a crime either.

[G-Unit]

Yet another post trying to shift the blame from the patently guilty perpetrator to the patently innocent victim.

I don't know what savegary Sheila Caffell witnessed on the night she was slaughtered along with her parents and her two little boys ... but she must certainly have known something horrific beyond belief was going on. 
It was all happening to her and to her family not in a nightmare but in real life.  Unthinkable!!!

I respect your right to believe that one person was guilty and one innocent beyond doubt. I reject your right to expect others to share your conviction.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Nota bene

It is not for you to question my participation ... or the participation of any other member in any conversation on any board on the forum particularly it seems when it does not fit with what I believe is your rather limited and narrow viewpoint.

I will continue to post within the rules as I see fit without your imprimatur.  Thank you ... and thank God for 'sensibilities' which I find is something quite lacking on behalf of Bamber's victims in some posts.

In my opinion Nevill Bamber for example has been discussed ignoring the living human being he was until the moment the life was shot and battered out of him by his killer son; and I find it very difficult to reconcile anyone condoning that heinous crime in the face of all the evidence - not academic but factual - there is to the contrary.

I couldn’t agree more with what you’ve said, Brietta, and it’s refreshing to see there’s a healthy balance of people on here who remember that Nevilll Bamber was a kind, decent, caring, hardworking gentleman who cherished his family and only wanted the best for them.

None of us are perfect or infallible, but Nevill did what he believed was the very best in trying to steer Jeremy onto the right path — for his own good and wellbeing.

Jeremy repaid that love Nevill bestowed on him by cutting his life short in the most horrific and painful way possible. Not only did Nevill suffer the horror of seeing his beloved wife, June shot dead, he was beaten brutally and must have suffered excruciating pain.

I haven’t even started on June, Sheila, and the twins....but for those who mock our legal system and think we’d allow an evil mass murderer freedom he denied to five people (two who were little older than babies) are sorely mistaken.

[Holly Goodhead]

Yet another post trying to shift the blame from the patently guilty perpetrator to the patently innocent victim.

I don't know what savegary Sheila Caffell witnessed on the night she was slaughtered along with her parents and her two little boys ... but she must certainly have known something horrific beyond belief was going on. 
It was all happening to her and to her family not in a nightmare but in real life.  Unthinkable!!!

If it is all so patently obvious as you seem to think perhaps you could explain how initially the police surgeon, all officers, bar 1, and the pathologist thought they were dealing with 4 murders and a suicide for over a month.

About a month after the murders a DCI new to the case was appointed to review all the evidence and concluded SC was responsible.

The case turned on two highly contentious issues: Julie Mugford's testimony and a silencer.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I've given up on you too in that I think you're taking most of us for fools regardless of our views on JB.  Devils advocate springs to mind.

I don't mind admitting I find many of your posts amusing but as a moderator I have to balance this with what others rightly expect of the forum as set out in the rules:

The rules of this forum are very straightforward.  Please treat all members with respect, avoid speculation and ensure that any material posted is accompanied by the relevant links.

Please avoid conflict and do not enter into prolonged arguments over matters which are speculative or cannot be corroborated at this time.

Members will receive warnings if their conduct is not conducive to the well being of this forum and bans will only be introduced as a last resort measure.

Happy posting!

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4.msg34336#msg34336

Times up my friend.  Its your choice: if you wish to continue posting here please either follow the rules or anticipate sanctions.

Holly,

I most certainly don’t take most of you as fools; if that were the case I wouldn’t contribute.

There’s many people on here who give valid arguments, views, ideas, including factual evidence. But there’s also some who appear so enamoured by JB that they can’t bear to hear the truth about him.

You frequently reprimand me, but when someone has a pop at my views, you never say a word — that shows you’re biased. So how can this be an unbiased forum?

You may be surprised to learn that I don’t enjoy conflict, despite you calling me Devil’s Advocate. But you should realise as a moderator, that when members discuss such a heartbreaking event emotions run high — that’s normal, Im sure you’ll agree. I’ve frequently ignored little swipes I’ve had from certain members as they’re not worthy of a response, but you must see they goad, yet you don’t give them warnings or sanctions. That smacks of favouritism and is unfair and immature. Worse, you could well be missing valid points you’ve never even considered...

Also, your point about not speculating is bizarre to me: why are you and a few favoured others allowed to speculate, but not me? You make hypothesis all the time: suggesting this, that and the other — and it all stems from your imagination. One can’t post links to one’s imagination can they?  Yes, you post links/screenshots to some official documents which most members have already seen, and that’s your choice as I don’t read them when I know what they are — and you're probably posting them for new members, so that’s good of you.

But to order me to post links/facts/screenshots when you yourself ignore requests to post the same when someone questions some of your hypothesis is hypocritical. 

If I’m not goaded I won’t react will I? So I suggest you say much the same to them as you have me.

Have a good day!

[mrswah]

Yet another post trying to shift the blame from the patently guilty perpetrator to the patently innocent victim.

I don't know what savegary Sheila Caffell witnessed on the night she was slaughtered along with her parents and her two little boys ... but she must certainly have known something horrific beyond belief was going on. 
It was all happening to her and to her family not in a nightmare but in real life.  Unthinkable!!!

Nobody apart from Jeremy Bamber knows , with absolute certainty,   who is  "patently guilty " and  "patently innocent" in this case.  Even he, perhaps, has come to believe something that isn't true!

[Holly Goodhead]

Holly,

I most certainly don’t take most of you as fools; if that were the case I wouldn’t contribute.

There’s many people on here who give valid arguments, views, ideas, including factual evidence. But there’s also some who appear so enamoured by JB that they can’t bear to hear the truth about him.

You frequently reprimand me, but when someone has a pop at my views, you never say a word — that shows you’re biased. So how can this be an unbiased forum?

You may be surprised to learn that I don’t enjoy conflict, despite you calling me Devil’s Advocate. But you should realise as a moderator, that when members discuss such a heartbreaking event emotions run high — that’s normal, Im sure you’ll agree. I’ve frequently ignored little swipes I’ve had from certain members as they’re not worthy of a response, but you must see they goad, yet you don’t give them warnings or sanctions. That smacks of favouritism and is unfair and immature. Worse, you could well be missing valid points you’ve never even considered...

Also, your point about not speculating is bizarre to me: why are you and a few favoured others allowed to speculate, but not me? You make hypothesis all the time: suggesting this, that and the other — and it all stems from your imagination. One can’t post links to one’s imagination can they?  Yes, you post links/screenshots to some official documents which most members have already seen, and that’s your choice as I don’t read them when I know what they are — and you're probably posting them for new members, so that’s good of you.

But to order me to post links/facts/screenshots when you yourself ignore requests to post the same when someone questions some of your hypothesis is hypocritical. 

If I’m not goaded I won’t react will I? So I suggest you say much the same to them as you have me.

Have a good day!

Unlike other forums this forum has always been anti JB.  Currently I'm the only regular poster who supports JB.  AA also supports JB but posts irregularly.  G-Unit and Mrswah are undecided.  The rest are anti JB or at least post in this vein.  In other words you are in the majority here and yet you only seem to hurl insults at the minority who disagree with you? 

I haven't seen anyone insult you but if they have or do then please report it by using the 'Report to moderator' function and your report will be investigated.

With regard to cites, sources etc I've posted the forum rules above.  Anyone can launch onto a forum and write lengthy posts making all sorts of claims but we're interested in quality over quantity and fact based posts.  Eg you claim SC had her nails professionally manicured in MV but when asked for evidence your stock answer appears to be "I'll find it for you" but then nothing is forthcoming even after several requests. 

With regard to my approach to moderating I think I apply a 'light touch' to the rules set out by John.  John will know I rarely pm him about moderating and contrary to your opinion the only poster I've ever put forward for some sort of ban was a 'supporter'.  I also prevented another 'supporter' from using emoticons and gifs to goad.

I accept everyone has their own style of posting and you're free to choose yours so long as you adhere to the high level rules set out on the homepage.

Maybe we could all come to some sort of agreement over when cites and sources are required?  Everyone? 

[G-Unit]

Holly,

I most certainly don’t take most of you as fools; if that were the case I wouldn’t contribute.

There’s many people on here who give valid arguments, views, ideas, including factual evidence. But there’s also some who appear so enamoured by JB that they can’t bear to hear the truth about him.

You frequently reprimand me, but when someone has a pop at my views, you never say a word — that shows you’re biased. So how can this be an unbiased forum?

You may be surprised to learn that I don’t enjoy conflict, despite you calling me Devil’s Advocate. But you should realise as a moderator, that when members discuss such a heartbreaking event emotions run high — that’s normal, Im sure you’ll agree. I’ve frequently ignored little swipes I’ve had from certain members as they’re not worthy of a response, but you must see they goad, yet you don’t give them warnings or sanctions. That smacks of favouritism and is unfair and immature. Worse, you could well be missing valid points you’ve never even considered...

Also, your point about not speculating is bizarre to me: why are you and a few favoured others allowed to speculate, but not me? You make hypothesis all the time: suggesting this, that and the other — and it all stems from your imagination. One can’t post links to one’s imagination can they?  Yes, you post links/screenshots to some official documents which most members have already seen, and that’s your choice as I don’t read them when I know what they are — and you're probably posting them for new members, so that’s good of you.

But to order me to post links/facts/screenshots when you yourself ignore requests to post the same when someone questions some of your hypothesis is hypocritical. 

If I’m not goaded I won’t react will I? So I suggest you say much the same to them as you have me.

Have a good day!

If something is claimed to be a fact then it's possible to provide a link to the source of that fact. If something is an opinion or speculation it's possible to make that clear by posting 'in my opinion' or 'I think'.

It's not rocket science and it ensures that forum rules are adhered to.

[Brietta]

If it is all so patently obvious as you seem to think perhaps you could explain how initially the police surgeon, all officers, bar 1, and the pathologist thought they were dealing with 4 murders and a suicide for over a month.

About a month after the murders a DCI new to the case was appointed to review all the evidence and concluded SC was responsible.

The case turned on two highly contentious issues: Julie Mugford's testimony and a silencer.

You precis your opinion in your post as you interpret it but having had the benefit of reading the events for myself please note that I have reached a totally different interpretation of events which takes me not a million miles away from the conclusion of Judge and majority Jury regarding mass killer Bamber.

I would be obliged if you would respect that because at the end of the day my opinion might be no worse informed than yours.

I don’t know where the initial shots were pumped into Nevill Bamber’s body: neither do you.

I don’t know the sequence the shots were fired in: neither do you. The experts have given an indication of what they think may have happened but the only expert who can give a definitive answer to that conundrum is the killer Bamber and he is still blaming his victim.

I couldn’t begin to attempt to justify the savage beating meted out to Nevill Bamber … broken nose et al as recorded in evidence but which seems to have dropped off some radars … wasn’t yours one?  Forgive me if I’ve misremembered that as there appears to be a lot of it going about.

In my opinion many of your posts not only fly in the face of reason but actually impart disinformation which reflects your interpretation of events and not necessarily the spirit or the reality of the facts we have.  Else why do you resist the notion of Bamber's guilt as confirmed by the judge and majority jury at his trial; the failed appeals despite which you appear to hold the belief that yet another appeal is in order.