Jeremy Bamber White House Farm...Innocent or Evil scumbag?

[Roker Skate]

Number 3. I haven't a clue what you're on about. Yesterday you posted that the trial judge ordered the jury to find Bamber guilty. Of course that was lies which you refuse to admit. I commented on that then you started this nonsense about waking you up in 2024 or some other gobbledegook.

READ AGAIN... AS PREVIOUSLY ADVISED. TRY TO ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE READING. WHEN THE PENNY DROPS, BY ALL MEANS COME BACK HERE. IN THE MEANTIME, REPEATEDLY ACCUSING ANOTHER MEMBER OF LYING IS NOT EXACTLY THE BEST FORUM BEHAVIOUR, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT HAS NO BASIS.

 

[Mercia Blackcat]

Amazing isn't it. The only person telling the truth is Bamber. A convicted murderer of 5 people is the only shining light in all this.
Then people like that Notts lad watch a biased sensationalist docu drama or read a few posts on here and declare 'I think he had an unfair trial'. Thankfully our justice system isn't so gullible or so easily duped and Bamber remains inside. He should be thankful he's at least alive, unlike his victims.

That's how Innocence Fraud works. Keep returning and repeat the conspiracy theory. Enough people new to the narrative will eventually accept it as fact. Keep referring to mysterious unnamed people at work in the background like the anonymous officer who allegedly quotes the jury foreman, the anonymous ex officers of Essex police who expressed doubts with the verdict. Convince gullible MPs and other high profile celebrities to join the campaign. In some cases even harass those who speak out against the campaign. Maybe even hope one day a petition can be launched demanding his release. It is indeed a good job our justice system is not based on public opinion because it is public opinion that Innocence Fraud is trying to manipulate.

A prime example being the case of Simon Hall whose innocence fraud was promoted by Bristol University. Wonder what Bill Robertson, the deputy editor of CCRC Watch, has to say about that.

 

[Roker Skate]

That's how Innocence Fraud works. Keep returning and repeat the conspiracy theory. Enough people new to the narrative will eventually accept it as fact. Keep referring to mysterious unnamed people at work in the background like the anonymous officer who allegedly quotes the jury foreman, the anonymous ex officers of Essex police who expressed doubts with the verdict. Convince gullible MPs and other high profile celebrities to join the campaign. In some cases even harass those who speak out against the campaign. Maybe even hope one day a petition can be launched demanding his release. It is indeed a good job our justice system is not based on public opinion because it is public opinion that Innocence Fraud is trying to manipulate.

A prime example being the case of Simon Hall whose innocence fraud was promoted by Bristol University. Wonder what Bill Robertson, the deputy editor of CCRC Watch, has to say about that.

How do MOJ's work?

 

[Mercia Blackcat]

How do MOJ's work?

But your interest is strictly limited to Bamber is it not? Why is that?

 

[Roker Skate]

But your interest is strictly limited to Bamber is it not? Why is that?

It's not the only case I am interested in. But I am not an MOJ nut like some people. Since you can wax lyrical about Innocence fraud - let's hear your views on MOJ's. How do they work, as you put it?

 

[zinedine]

READ AGAIN... AS PREVIOUSLY ADVISED. TRY TO ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE READING. WHEN THE PENNY DROPS, BY ALL MEANS COME BACK HERE. IN THE MEANTIME, REPEATEDLY ACCUSING ANOTHER MEMBER OF LYING IS NOT EXACTLY THE BEST FORUM BEHAVIOUR, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT HAS NO BASIS.

You took a quote from the web and posted it as evidence that the judge effectively nobbled the jury. A jury that was going to find Bamber not guilty.
Then it was pointed out to you that a judge can't tell a jury to find a defendant guilty. You clearly didn't know that and automatically just believe anything you read that shows Bamber might be innocent
I know they weren't your words and I said in the first reply you'd posted a quote that was basically lies. You posted that to back up your argument that Bamber would have been freed if not for the judge. You believed that the judge told the jury to find him guilty.
As for accusing you of lies. By repeating a lie you become the liar. That's how it works.

 

[Roker Skate]

You took a quote from the web and posted it as evidence that the judge effectively nobbled the jury. A jury that was going to find Bamber not guilty.
Then it was pointed out to you that a judge can't tell a jury to find a defendant guilty. You clearly didn't know that and automatically just believe anything you read that shows Bamber might be innocent
I know they weren't your words and I said in the first reply you'd posted a quote that was basically lies. You posted that to back up your argument that Bamber would have been freed if not for the judge. You believed that the judge told the jury to find him guilty.
As for accusing you of lies. By repeating a lie you become the liar. That's how it works.

You have no humility and it's plain for all to see. If you did have, you would hold your hands up an appologise. You've repeatedly falsely accused me of posting lies. Either you cannot fully comprehend what you've been directed to re-read, or more likely, you can - but are too concerned with saving face.

 

[zinedine]

You have no humility and it's plain for all to see. If you did have, you would hold your hands up an appologise. You've repeatedly falsely accused me of posting lies. Either you cannot fully comprehend what you've been directed to re-read, or more likely, you can - but are too concerned with saving face.

This really is pathetic. You just deny everything and then try and throw it back. It's you trying to save face I don't have any face to save. It wasn't me posting bullshit about the trial judge.
Ok, I'll humour you. So why don't you just explain what you mean instead of this cryptic nonsense you keep coming back with. Like you're the only one who has been let in on a secret.

 

[Roker Skate]

This really is pathetic. You just deny everything and then try and throw it back. It's you trying to save face I don't have any face to save. It wasn't me posting bullshit about the trial judge.
Ok, I'll humour you. So why don't you just explain what you mean instead of this cryptic nonsense you keep coming back with. Like you're the only one who has been let in on a secret.

You want me to explain something to you as if you were a child, when in actual fact you are far from it.

Which bullshit did I post about the trial judge? Back to the drawing board: r-e-a-d i-t a-g-a-i-n.

 

[Mercia Blackcat]

It's not the only case I am interested in. But I am not an MOJ nut like some people. Since you can wax lyrical about Innocence fraud - let's hear your views on MOJ's. How do they work, as you put it?

So when talking about someone like Simon Hall, it is waxing lyrical? You're a moron with no concern for the real victims of horrendous crimes.

So let's wax lyrical about another example of Innocence Fraud, that of Diana Garbutt who was bludgeoned over her head three times by her husband with a metal bar as she slept in their bed above the village post office. He claimed to have handed over cash to an armed robber before discovering her body. His trial was informed that he killed her because he feared his theft of thousands of pounds from the post office was about to be discovered.

Then the Post Office IT scandal emerged that falsely claimed money was missing from Post Office sites. So he files for an appeal. Must be based on the curious claim that a Post Office clerical error bludgeoned his wife to death rather than an armed robber. However his request for appeal was refused as figures from the Horizon system were not essential to his conviction for murder. I guess the numbers just didn't add up.

A family member said, "They've taken the post office evidence of theft out of the equation. They still feel the conviction would be safe. They say if we take that out, the case is still strong enough. How can that possibly be? We just want a retrial then we can have a fair and just trial."

Well we all know what your hero Bill thought of this case of Innocence Fraud. He decided to promote it.

You just can't answer a straight question about your obvious connection to Bamber can you. However, why don't you tell us how the MOJ works, You know you're dying to.

It isn't. I see your fellow mag Lee whats-his-name is a supporter. He went right up in my estimation when I found that out.

This is your response to Nukie a few pages back.

So your estimation of someone is based on whether they are a supporter of Bamber or not?

 

[zinedine]

You want me to explain something to you as if you were a child, when in actual fact you are far from it.

Which bullshit did I post about the trial judge? Back to the drawing board: r-e-a-d i-t a-g-a-i-n.

I said the judge directed the jury to disregard some evidence.

You came back with:

"the Jury were going to find him ‘not guilty’. This was until the Judge, Lord Justice Maurice Drake, instructed them that they had to find Jeremy Bamber ‘guilty’"

Palm1 then said:

A judge can only instruct a Jury to find a defendant not guilty , in no circumstances can the opposite occur.

You then realised your mistake and waffled:

"Whatever was communicated by the judge, the jury interpreted it as being tantamount to being instructed to bring a guilty verdict"

Which is nothing like the judge telling them they had to find Bamber guilty.

So which bit has nobody but you understood?

 

[Mercia Blackcat]

I've been reading through the thread again. Is this Roker Skate the resident flat Earther?

 

[Roker Skate]

So when talking about someone like Simon Hall, it is waxing lyrical? You're a moron with no concern for the real victims of horrendous crimes.

So let's wax lyrical about another example of Innocence Fraud, that of Diana Garbutt who was bludgeoned over her head three times by her husband with a metal bar as she slept in their bed above the village post office. He claimed to have handed over cash to an armed robber before discovering her body. His trial was informed that he killed her because he feared his theft of thousands of pounds from the post office was about to be discovered.

Then the Post Office IT scandal emerged that falsely claimed money was missing from Post Office sites. So he files for an appeal. Must be based on the curious claim that a Post Office clerical error bludgeoned his wife to death rather than an armed robber. However his request for appeal was refused as figures from the Horizon system were not essential to his conviction for murder. I guess the numbers just didn't add up.

A family member said, "They've taken the post office evidence of theft out of the equation. They still feel the conviction would be safe. They say if we take that out, the case is still strong enough. How can that possibly be? We just want a retrial then we can have a fair and just trial."

Well we all know what your hero Bill thought of this case of Innocence Fraud. He decided to promote it.

You just can't answer a straight question about your obvious connection to Bamber can you. However, why don't you tell us how the MOJ works, You know you're dying to.

This is your response to Nukie a few pages back.

So your estimation of someone is based on whether they are a supporter of Bamber or not?

My remark about Wraith was tongue in cheek.

You haven't answered my question. You are also attempting to deflect from the topic of our ongoing discussion.

I have held no interest in the case that you mention and am not obligated to agree with other Bamber supporters on any cases, including the Bamber case itself.

Your remarks to me about victims of crimes are offensive and uncalled for.

I've been reading through the thread again. Is this Roker Skate the resident flat Earther?

Never been a flat Earther.

I said the judge directed the jury to disregard some evidence.

You came back with:

"the Jury were going to find him ‘not guilty’. This was until the Judge, Lord Justice Maurice Drake, instructed them that they had to find Jeremy Bamber ‘guilty’"

Palm1 then said:

A judge can only instruct a Jury to find a defendant not guilty , in no circumstances can the opposite occur.

You then realised your mistake and waffled:

"Whatever was communicated by the judge, the jury interpreted it as being tantamount to being instructed to bring a guilty verdict"

Which is nothing like the judge telling them they had to find Bamber guilty.

So which bit has nobody but you understood?

No that's not what happened. Read it again. At this rate, you'll be due to work it out and portray it correctly by 2027.

 

[Mercia Blackcat]

My remark about Wraith was tongue in cheek.

You haven't answered my question. You are also attempting to deflect from the topic of our ongoing discussion.

I have held no interest in the case that you mention and am not obligated to agree with other Bamber supporters on any cases, including the Bamber case itself.

Your remarks to me about victims of crimes are offensive and uncalled for.

Never been a flat Earther.

No that's not what happened. Read it again. At this rate, you'll be due to work it out and portray it correctly by 2027.

You seem to avoid answering questions on a regular basis. If you dismiss Innocence Fraud as simply waxing lyrical then you deserve the response that you got because that is the impression you create whether you intended that or not. Both those cases are significant as far as the CCRC Watch is concerned whose deputy editor is Bill as it reflects their integrity and reliability. The entire campaign team's efforts for Bamber is another example of such Innocence Fraud.

 

[Roker Skate]

You seem to avoid answering questions on a regular basis. If you dismiss Innocence Fraud as simply waxing lyrical then you deserve the response that you got because that is the impression you create. Both those cases are significant as far as the CCRC Watch is concerned whose deputy editor is Bill as it reflects their integrity.

I didn't describe innocent fraud as waxing lyrical. I inferred that since you are able to wax lyrical about how innocence fraud works, then maybe you could do the same for how MOJ's work. You got stumped at this and that's why we're seeing more antics.

 

[Mercia Blackcat]

I didn't describe innocent fraud as waxing lyrical. I inferred that since you are able to wax lyrical about how innocence fraud works, then maybe you could do the same for how MOJ's work. You got stumped at this and that's why we're seeing more antics.

Not stumped just can't be arsed. If you have a point to make, why not just make it?

 

[Cult of Personality]

READ AGAIN... AS PREVIOUSLY ADVISED. TRY TO ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE READING. WHEN THE PENNY DROPS, BY ALL MEANS COME BACK HERE. IN THE MEANTIME, REPEATEDLY ACCUSING ANOTHER MEMBER OF LYING IS NOT EXACTLY THE BEST FORUM BEHAVIOUR, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT HAS NO BASIS.

You’re absolutely unhinged you.

 

[Roker Skate]

You’re absolutely unhinged you.

More like frustrated.

Not stumped just can't be arsed. If you have a point to make, why not just make it?

Certainly, my original point was that the jury were so unimpressed by the prosecution case at trial, that they were going to aquit Bamber.
.
It was the direction of the judge, in his summing up, that caused the jury to pass 10-2 majority. Not the quality of the prosecution case. Not the quality of the prosecution witnesses. So another myth busted.

The other point was probably that I suspect you would rule every example of a claimed wrongful conviction as innocence fraud.

 

[zinedine]

My remark about Wraith was tongue in cheek.

You haven't answered my question. You are also attempting to deflect from the topic of our ongoing discussion.

I have held no interest in the case that you mention and am not obligated to agree with other Bamber supporters on any cases, including the Bamber case itself.

Your remarks to me about victims of crimes are offensive and uncalled for.


Never been a flat Earther.


No that's not what happened. Read it again. At this rate, you'll be due to work it out and portray it correctly by 2027.

Look instead of playing the arsehole why don't you point out what none of us can see? Everything I posted in that last reply is what happened.
You offered some third party hearsay as proof that the judge told the jury they must find Bamber guilty. That didn't happen you repeated a lie.

Your comment on that post was "another myth busted." What was this myth?

 

[Roker Skate]

Look instead of playing the arsehole why don't you point out what none of us can see? Everything I posted in that last reply is what happened.
You offered some third party hearsay as proof that the judge told the jury they must find Bamber guilty. That didn't happen you repeated a lie.

Your comment on that post was "another myth busted." What was this myth?

You should be banned off this thread.