Author Topic: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie  (Read 661 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12379
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie
« Reply #15 on: June 14, 2017, 09:43:PM »
Piggy backing Jeremy onto the Susan May case, doesn't make Jeremy innocent.

but  piggy backing the mick philpot case ford prove him guilty I suppose.

Offline Jane J

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie
« Reply #16 on: June 14, 2017, 10:09:PM »
but  piggy backing the mick philpot case ford prove him guilty I suppose.


Don't be silly. He's already been proved guilty.

Online nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12379
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie
« Reply #17 on: June 14, 2017, 10:24:PM »

Don't be silly. He's already been proved guilty.

then why are trying to find more proof then.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4668
Re: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie
« Reply #18 on: June 15, 2017, 01:19:AM »
“In 2005, the defence obtained reports from two medical experts, a Professor Marco Meloni and a Professor Cavalli, who expressed the view that Sheila had died no more than two hours before the time of the photographs or PC Woodcock's description of the leaking blood. This would place her death during the period Bamber was standing outside the house with the police.”


Like you say Adam. Experts don't make false reports.  8)
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4668
Re: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie
« Reply #19 on: June 15, 2017, 01:30:AM »
"Some of the world's most eminent ballistics experts have uncovered "the first evidence directly pointing to the innocence of Jeremy Bamber", convicted of a notorious multiple murder 27 years ago"

"Detailed reports, compiled by British and US medical and ballistics analysts, corroborate the initial police view that Bamber's schizophrenic sister Sheila Caffell committed the White House Farm murders in 1985. During the immediate aftermath of the killings on 7 August, detectives and the pathologist thought Caffell, 28, had murdered her parents and sons before turning the gun on herself."


https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/feb/04/jeremy-bamber-murders-ballistics-challenge

Surely as Adam puts it "It would not possible for so many huge mistakes to be made by so many qualified people."
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 19969
Re: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie
« Reply #20 on: June 15, 2017, 02:03:AM »
“In 2005, the defence obtained reports from two medical experts, a Professor Marco Meloni and a Professor Cavalli, who expressed the view that Sheila had died no more than two hours before the time of the photographs or PC Woodcock's description of the leaking blood. This would place her death during the period Bamber was standing outside the house with the police.”


Like you say Adam. Experts don't make false reports.  8)

No, they DO make mistakes though when they are using a dodgy photograph. Wonder what they would make of the FULL picture which shows dried cracked blood on Sheila's face? Also, when did Suthurst write a report on the silencer? Could it be that you simply got the wrong name?  8)
100% GUILTY - No doubts!

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 35033
Re: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie
« Reply #21 on: June 15, 2017, 08:10:AM »
Does anyone know if the relatives asked that VITAL question-------Time of deaths ? If so,what were they told ?

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18189
Re: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie
« Reply #22 on: June 15, 2017, 08:54:AM »
Not sure what David is saying with the 50+ pieces of published forensic evidence.

He disputed about ten of the above forensic list in another thread by posting his own chosen documents.

However it seems he does not agree there was a huge frame which could have involved over 100 people & definately involved several organisations  . It seems the evidence is all wrong due to mistakes.

I assume mistakes was also the reason for the wrong published circumstantial evidence as well. 

 
« Last Edit: June 15, 2017, 09:12:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4668
Re: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie
« Reply #23 on: June 15, 2017, 09:19:AM »
David I know Bamber made you feel important over a year ago. But there is no need to stay local to him. He doesn't need you as he has JackieD & Mike.

He's dumped you and you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.

You haven't got clue what is happening.  8)
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 613
Re: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie
« Reply #24 on: June 15, 2017, 11:25:AM »
David I know Bamber made you feel important over a year ago. But there is no need to stay local to him. He doesn't need you as he has JackieD & Mike.

He's dumped you and you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.

How do you know
Have you ever spoken to jeremy
No
You have no idea what he needs

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 613
Re: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie
« Reply #25 on: June 15, 2017, 11:26:AM »
No, they DO make mistakes though when they are using a dodgy photograph. Wonder what they would make of the FULL picture which shows dried cracked blood on Sheila's face? Also, when did Suthurst write a report on the silencer? Could it be that you simply got the wrong name?  8)

Im sure there will be much more detail in the next documentary series

blood evidence will be key

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 19969
Re: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie
« Reply #26 on: June 15, 2017, 02:42:PM »
Im sure there will be much more detail in the next documentary series

blood evidence will be key

Is this the documentary you're making?  ::)
100% GUILTY - No doubts!

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 35033
Re: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie
« Reply #27 on: June 16, 2017, 10:52:AM »
To all those who doubted Jeremy's innocence from the offset ,including EP and the relatives,I've just watched a young woman speaking about a tragedy that she'd been involved in and her words were," don't worry if you don't show emotion after an event because it clearly shows that your mind hasn't processed what's happened,even the severity of what's happened."
The young woman was delivering this message during an interview to those poor people of Grenfell Tower.
I'm sure we all saw the news about the schoolgirl who,after getting out of the inferno,went to school that morning to finish her exams ( as though nothing had happened ) Given the immensity of the situation and the probability of hundreds who've died,would anyone here start their spouting about " not showing any emotion " like you did regarding JB ??


Caroline with her psychology degree should have known about " thought processing " ??

   
« Last Edit: June 16, 2017, 11:06:AM by lookout »

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 19969
Re: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie
« Reply #28 on: June 16, 2017, 01:07:PM »




You're wrong ! Emotion following a tragic event is as unpredictable as pre-psychosis. Nobody on this earth can say how each individual is going to react. We're individuals,not clones.
Nor can we predict how a person can/does react when a tragedy finally hits home. Most people can remain in denial mode and carry on as normal,as I did myself after losing my husband-----until the funeral 2/3 weeks later when your mind takes in the fact that it's final.

There are actually 5 stages of grief, so grief can be predicted to some extent. https://psychcentral.com/lib/the-5-stages-of-loss-and-grief/

How can you say Jeremy was in denial, he bought every newspaper and watched the TV about the killings, hardly someone who wants to distance himself.
100% GUILTY - No doubts!

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 19969
Re: Manipulated Evidence and Why Would Police Lie
« Reply #29 on: June 16, 2017, 03:01:PM »
To all those who doubted Jeremy's innocence from the offset ,including EP and the relatives,I've just watched a young woman speaking about a tragedy that she'd been involved in and her words were," don't worry if you don't show emotion after an event because it clearly shows that your mind hasn't processed what's happened,even the severity of what's happened."
The young woman was delivering this message during an interview to those poor people of Grenfell Tower.
I'm sure we all saw the news about the schoolgirl who,after getting out of the inferno,went to school that morning to finish her exams ( as though nothing had happened ) Given the immensity of the situation and the probability of hundreds who've died,would anyone here start their spouting about " not showing any emotion " like you did regarding JB ??


Caroline with her psychology degree should have known about " thought processing " ??

 

It's not that Jeremy didn't show ANY emotion that is the problem Lookout - had he tried to go about his business as though nothing had happened, like tend to the farm etc. the above might be relevant, however, that's not what he did. For the first hour or so, he feigned grief, a few tears and the pretend vomiting in the field, just far enough away so that no one could see it was fake. The so called grief didn't last long, he was happy to give his statement, further implicating Sheila and building up his alibi - going so far as to give details that any innocent person wouldn't have bothered with, such as the TV progammes he said he watched the previous evening. He bought all of the newspapers so he wasn't in denial as in the example above.

You don't need a psychology degree to tell the difference, just common sense!

« Last Edit: June 16, 2017, 09:16:PM by Caroline »
100% GUILTY - No doubts!