newblueIt’s known who the actual bombers are. Framing people who didn’t do it is not justice.
Exactly, Gerry knows different though.
gerry1875. Because they knew him, that doesen’t make you guilty of anything.Greebo joeThe Facts are in the post, i am asking a question which is not difficult to draw your own opinions, its either yes why would they be going to a terrorists funeral, or NO they were just innocent men.gerry1875HEWSTEVEThese are not my opinions , these are actual FACTS, my opinions on whether they were guilty or not i will keep to myselfI thought you were keeping your opinions to yourself?
Asking why this or why that aren’t’facts are they.
Greebo joeGerry doesnt know different, Gerry has based his opinions on actual facts, accounts of when we lived in the same area as the Birmingham 6, and people who were around a lot longer than i was back in the 1970s, I was 13 when the bombings took place. I did not know the 6 personally but i have friends and family who did, who still to this day will never believe anything elsenewblueIt’s known who the actual bombers are. Framing people who didn’t do it is not justice.
Exactly, Gerry knows different though.
Well they’re wrong, and being friends and family gives zero extra credibility.
newblueI never said it did,I am not saying they did it or not, if other cases are to go by the justice system in this country is corrupt and has been for years, the Carl bridgewater case, Colin Stagg in the Rachel nickell case, Derek bentley in the 50s, Timothy Evans in the Rillington Place murders they were all miscarriages of justice.Well they’re wrong, and being friends and family gives zero extra credibility.
newblueI have stolen this article from another source its from a leading detective not linked to the Bombings case.Yeah. Like the Birmingham 6 judgement was.
That investigation was a mess. It focused on suspects and relied upon confessions brought about, allegedly, by torture. This was confirmed by testimony from some officers. The forensics used in detecting traces of nitroglycerine on the suspect’s hands were, likewise misinterpreted. Once you focus on specific suspects there is a tendency to conduct the rest of an investigation a little less carefully. Six people were convicted, but eventually that was overturned. I don’t believe that it was proven that they didn’t commit the murders, but that wasn’t the point. As long as there is reasonable doubt that the suspects did it, then they must be declared not guilty.
gerry1875Greebo joeThe Facts are in the post, i am asking a question which is not difficult to draw your own opinions, its either yes why would they be going to a terrorists funeral, or NO they were just innocent men.gerry1875HEWSTEVEThese are not my opinions , these are actual FACTS, my opinions on whether they were guilty or not i will keep to myselfI thought you were keeping your opinions to yourself?
Asking why this or why that aren’t’facts are they.
The fact is that their conviction was quashed and they are once again innocent until proven guilty. I'm not sure what your point is really. Are you implying that the legal system got it wrong and they were the perpetrators of the crime that they were wrongly convicted for and should perhaps be tried again? Or are you implying that they should be tried for a different crime (eg membership of a proscribed organisation) that you believe they may have been guilty of? Or are you just spreading hearsay that they were republican wrong 'uns that got what they deserved irrespective of due legal process? Or is this just one anecdote to exemplify why you think the presumption of innocence in our justice system is flawed? Or are you just posing as in ITKer and is that somehow linked to the same psychology that led you to referring to yourself in the third person in one of your posts? Not my opinion, you understand, just asking...
gerry1875newblueI have stolen this article from another source its from a leading detective not linked to the Bombings case.Yeah. Like the Birmingham 6 judgement was.
That investigation was a mess. It focused on suspects and relied upon confessions brought about, allegedly, by torture. This was confirmed by testimony from some officers. The forensics used in detecting traces of nitroglycerine on the suspect’s hands were, likewise misinterpreted. Once you focus on specific suspects there is a tendency to conduct the rest of an investigation a little less carefully. Six people were convicted, but eventually that was overturned. I don’t believe that it was proven that they didn’t commit the murders, but that wasn’t the point. As long as there is reasonable doubt that the suspects did it, then they must be declared not guilty.
Last comment. It’s known who committed the bombings and they weren’t the six originally convicted.
You aren’t relaying ‘facts’, as you think, but supposition and speculation. None of which is relevant to the justice campaign anyway.
YellowRiverswhat I would like to know is if someone else has posted, the police knew the bombers then why was these people never arrested, what I will say is that no one else either a single participant or a collective group have ever been arrested for this horrendous crime, if the truth is out there then I very much doubt that after almost half a century we will ever find out.gerry1875Greebo joeThe Facts are in the post, i am asking a question which is not difficult to draw your own opinions, its either yes why would they be going to a terrorists funeral, or NO they were just innocent men.gerry1875HEWSTEVEThese are not my opinions , these are actual FACTS, my opinions on whether they were guilty or not i will keep to myselfI thought you were keeping your opinions to yourself?
Asking why this or why that aren’t’facts are they.
The fact is that their conviction was quashed and they are once again innocent until proven guilty. I'm not sure what your point is really. Are you implying that the legal system got it wrong and they were the perpetrators of the crime that they were wrongly convicted for and should perhaps be tried again? Or are you implying that they should be tried for a different crime (eg membership of a proscribed organisation) that you believe they may have been guilty of? Or are you just spreading hearsay that they were republican wrong 'uns that got what they deserved irrespective of due legal process? Or are you just posing as in ITKer and is that somehow linked to the same psychology that led you to referring to yourself in the third person in one of your posts? Not my opinion, you understand, just asking...
gerry1875YellowRiverswhat I would like to know is if someone else has posted, the police knew the bombers then why was these people never arrested, what I will say is that no one else either a single participant or a collective group have ever been arrested for this horrendous crime, if the truth is out there then I very much doubt that after almost half a century we will ever find out.gerry1875Greebo joeThe Facts are in the post, i am asking a question which is not difficult to draw your own opinions, its either yes why would they be going to a terrorists funeral, or NO they were just innocent men.gerry1875HEWSTEVEThese are not my opinions , these are actual FACTS, my opinions on whether they were guilty or not i will keep to myselfI thought you were keeping your opinions to yourself?
Asking why this or why that aren’t’facts are they.
The fact is that their conviction was quashed and they are once again innocent until proven guilty. I'm not sure what your point is really. Are you implying that the legal system got it wrong and they were the perpetrators of the crime that they were wrongly convicted for and should perhaps be tried again? Or are you implying that they should be tried for a different crime (eg membership of a proscribed organisation) that you believe they may have been guilty of? Or are you just spreading hearsay that they were republican wrong 'uns that got what they deserved irrespective of due legal process? Or are you just posing as in ITKer and is that somehow linked to the same psychology that led you to referring to yourself in the third person in one of your posts? Not my opinion, you understand, just asking...
OK, so is your point that it pointless to pursue the investigation because the truth will never be found? Or are you now making a different point? I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I just don't understand what you're getting at.
YellowRiversgerry1875YellowRiverswhat I would like to know is if someone else has posted, the police knew the bombers then why was these people never arrested, what I will say is that no one else either a single participant or a collective group have ever been arrested for this horrendous crime, if the truth is out there then I very much doubt that after almost half a century we will ever find out.gerry1875Greebo joeThe Facts are in the post, i am asking a question which is not difficult to draw your own opinions, its either yes why would they be going to a terrorists funeral, or NO they were just innocent men.gerry1875HEWSTEVEThese are not my opinions , these are actual FACTS, my opinions on whether they were guilty or not i will keep to myselfI thought you were keeping your opinions to yourself?
Asking why this or why that aren’t’facts are they.
The fact is that their conviction was quashed and they are once again innocent until proven guilty. I'm not sure what your point is really. Are you implying that the legal system got it wrong and they were the perpetrators of the crime that they were wrongly convicted for and should perhaps be tried again? Or are you implying that they should be tried for a different crime (eg membership of a proscribed organisation) that you believe they may have been guilty of? Or are you just spreading hearsay that they were republican wrong 'uns that got what they deserved irrespective of due legal process? Or are you just posing as in ITKer and is that somehow linked to the same psychology that led you to referring to yourself in the third person in one of your posts? Not my opinion, you understand, just asking...
OK, so is your point that it pointless to pursue the investigation because the truth will never be found? Or are you now making a different point? I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I just don't understand what you're getting at.
Nothing proved they did it either. And as you are so knowledgable about the 6 and the area they came from you will also have heard of other prominent people from that area who were mixed up in all of the mess. Specifically 2 brothers who everybody knew from that area. You k ow who I mean Gerry ?
Joys and SorrowsI wrote a post last week relating to the 49th anniversary of the Birmingham pub bombings. Thank you for the feedback I have received directly and through social media. It also prompted two stories to come forward from two people closely associated with the site. They have given me permission Read Mo
[joysandsorrows.co.uk]
Thanks for sharing
gerry1875All the people involved especially the victims families want the truth, if the police or the higher powers to be are witholding this information then its a bloody scandal, Look i cant prove anyones innocence or guilt just like anybody else , whether i think they are guilty or innocent is not going to change anything, when these guys went to the high court just like the guidford four, their cases were quashed because of the brutality of the police and the fabricated statements, they were not quashed on innocence alone. WMP serious crime squad were the worst in the country for brutality, I dont think we will ever know 100% who bombed Birmingham, just like we will never know who Jack the Ripper was, someone out there knows the 100% facts but unfortunately we will never find outYellowRiversgerry1875YellowRiverswhat I would like to know is if someone else has posted, the police knew the bombers then why was these people never arrested, what I will say is that no one else either a single participant or a collective group have ever been arrested for this horrendous crime, if the truth is out there then I very much doubt that after almost half a century we will ever find out.gerry1875Greebo joeThe Facts are in the post, i am asking a question which is not difficult to draw your own opinions, its either yes why would they be going to a terrorists funeral, or NO they were just innocent men.gerry1875HEWSTEVEThese are not my opinions , these are actual FACTS, my opinions on whether they were guilty or not i will keep to myselfI thought you were keeping your opinions to yourself?
Asking why this or why that aren’t’facts are they.
The fact is that their conviction was quashed and they are once again innocent until proven guilty. I'm not sure what your point is really. Are you implying that the legal system got it wrong and they were the perpetrators of the crime that they were wrongly convicted for and should perhaps be tried again? Or are you implying that they should be tried for a different crime (eg membership of a proscribed organisation) that you believe they may have been guilty of? Or are you just spreading hearsay that they were republican wrong 'uns that got what they deserved irrespective of due legal process? Or are you just posing as in ITKer and is that somehow linked to the same psychology that led you to referring to yourself in the third person in one of your posts? Not my opinion, you understand, just asking...
OK, so is your point that it pointless to pursue the investigation because the truth will never be found? Or are you now making a different point? I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I just don't understand what you're getting at.