0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8339.0;attach=48765
If I've got this right these are Robert Boutflour's notes regarding him needing proof of Sheila's fingerprints on the shell casings. Since 25 bullets were fired it's really a worthless source.David I expected better from you.
I agree that is ambiguous but a strange note to take whilst in a conversation with the police ? So you read it as he is telling the police they should be checking for her prints? But he makes notes about prints on specific casings ?
The answer to Mike's thread question is 'yes'. Obviously it would mean - The police were corrupt & mightily efficient in creating false evidence. - not necessarily completely true non disclosure can be just as damaging The experts lied through perjury & forgery to create false evidence. - which "experts " specifically? And don't forget about the fact that the forensics were not an independent lab.The relatives were greedy & created false WS's. They did appear to lie about the benefits to them ? And if you read the Dickinson report they made every effort possible to blacken Jeremy's name , in ways that would not be allowed today .Julie was jealous & psychotic. She herself threatened to smother Jeremy with a pillow , so yes perhaps a bit jealous Mary Mugford was protective & brave. Why brave ? She made sure she was with her daughter to seal theNOW dealJames Richards was mistaken when testifying. ?Bamber's expensive defence team were not good enough. . Well there were definitely a few angles they did not query enough imo The huge amount of accepted evidence were just coincidences. . Even the Dickinson reported said if it was not for two things , Julie and the silencer then there was no other convincing evidence The judge was biased. His summing up to the jury was apparently misleading in respect of the silencer evidence , so if he did not understand it then how were the jury supposed to ? The COA is out of date. The police complaints commission were wrong which justifies Bamber's dirty protest. Not sure why you keep going on and on about this ? The CCRC are scared. No. They just cant immediately disbelieve the police , that's not their job .
So Bamber is innocent. Shame on EP, the experts, relatives, Julie, Mary Mugford, James Richards, Bamber's lawyers, the judge, the COA, the police complaints commission & the CCRC.