Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on January 19, 2019, 12:54:AM
-
I will start posting previously unseen or unforgotten documents for the benefit and use of all..
I am now going to the storeroom to lay my hand on something which I shall be posting here within the hour..
Document Bag (1)..
-
..
-
..
-
..
-
...
-
..
-
...
-
..
-
Ann Eatons Contemporaneously recorded handwritten notes, compiled by her whilst the details were still fresh in her memory - 7th August 1985, 'June on floor near door. Sheila on bed, bible on chest. Gun beside her. Shot under chin'
-
..
-
..
-
..
-
..
-
..
-
..
-
...
-
..
-
Please bear in mind, the emergence of DS Eastwood into the fray (15th September, 1985) - since, he it was along with DS Davison who had fingerprinted the second silencer (DRB/1) on 13th September 1985, it being the second silencer handed over by Ann Eaton to police on 11th September 1985, and the self same silencer that David Boutflour had contacted the police about on that red letter date (11th September 1985) to tell them that he had found the silencer to the gun...
-
All the listed Lab' items were disposable body samples?
5 - 22?
1 - 72, 75, 81, and 82?
3 - 90
2 - 106
17 - 111
2 - 134
In due course, I shall list each and every one of these lab' items (by numbers quoted) for consideration..
-
..
-
..
-
...
-
...
-
...
-
...
-
...
-
...
-
..
-
..
-
..
-
Please note that the page 9 contents are missing from this presentation:-
-
..
-
..
-
Please bear in miond, the following:-
' This statement (consisting of …. pages each signed by me), is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tended into evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution If I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true'.
PI Miller was telling witnesses what to put in their witness statements, which otherwise the witnesses would not have said...
-
I guess its OK, and lawful for a dodgy cop to insist that all these witnesses should make alterations to their respective witness statements - and all those of you agree with what PI Miller did, please rot in hell!!!
-
..
-
..
-
..
-
..
-
..
-
..
-
..
-
..
-
..
-
...
-
...
-
..
-
...
-
"I prayed for help as I have never prayed before: The finding of that silencer was an act of GOD."
-
"I prayed for help as I have never prayed before: The finding of that silencer was an act of GOD."
Where's this taken from David1819?
-
Where's this taken from David1819?
(https://i.ibb.co/LvqLvd5/166.png)
-
Thanks, I had it all along, but hadn't read what I posted up!
-
Robert Boutflour saying "I prayed for help as I have never prayed before: The finding of that silencer was an act of GOD."
Act of god or an act of the devil?
-
I won't be posting up any previously unseen documentation from this day forth..
I'll keep it all to myself, and take it to my grave!
-
I won't be posting up any previously unseen documentation from this day forth..
I'll keep it all to myself, and take it to my grave!
Why? :(
-
Why? :(
Well, you have found documents from wherever and don't share them with the forum so why should Mike?
-
I won't be posting up any previously unseen documentation from this day forth..
I'll keep it all to myself, and take it to my grave!
What's brought this change of heart on?
As for RWB's document... it just proves to me that in the depths of their shock and grief, these people retained a kind of arrogant self-righteousness. An ignorant and unshakeable belief in their own convictions. An inability to even consider 'thinking outside the box'.
As for the pious sentiments expressed with regards to 'gold'.... his various machinations do not match his handwringing protestations.
He/they tried and convicted Jeremy very early on. As you can see from the crossings out, this wasn't about 'justice'. It was railroading events to fit with their own solid beliefs.
-
What's brought this change of heart on?
As for RWB's document... it just proves to me that in the depths of their shock and grief, these people retained a kind of arrogant self-righteousness. An ignorant and unshakeable belief in their own convictions. An inability to even consider 'thinking outside the box'.
As for the pious sentiments expressed with regards to 'gold'.... his various machinations do not match his handwringing protestations.
He/they tried and convicted Jeremy very early on. As you can see from the crossings out, this wasn't about 'justice'. It was railroading events to fit with their own solid beliefs.
But they did think outside the box. Inside the box was the notion that Shiela was responsible. They were unhappy with the status quo and went down a different avenue.
-
But they did think outside the box. Inside the box was the notion that Shiela was responsible. They were unhappy with the status quo and went down a different avenue.
Point taken but possibly semantics.
They were largely ignorant of the facts pertaining to Sheila's illness and were therefore not afforded a sufficiently informed awareness, regarding the risks or potential consequences. I think this limited understanding greatly inhibited the scope of their thinking, which was already biased anyway.
I would say that 'outside the box' in this case, would require (a) some understanding or recognition that mothers could commit such crimes and (b) an informed understanding of how seriously ill Sheila herself was (including historic incidents relevant to her illness - for example her paranoid and quasi-religious ranting and raving).
I honestly don't believe that the relatives were open to exploring such avenues, which would in any event have presented an inconvenience to them. They had painted themselves in to a corner and did not want to consider inconveniences.
-
Point taken but possibly semantics.
They were largely ignorant of the facts pertaining to Sheila's illness and were therefore not afforded a sufficiently informed awareness, regarding the risks or potential consequences. I think this limited understanding greatly inhibited the scope of their thinking, which was already biased anyway.
I would say that 'outside the box' in this case, would require (a) some understanding or recognition that mothers could commit such crimes and (b) an informed understanding of how seriously ill Sheila herself was (including historic incidents relevant to her illness - for example her paranoid and quasi-religious ranting and raving).
I honestly don't believe that the relatives were open to exploring such avenues, which would in any event have presented an inconvenience to them. They had painted themselves in to a corner and did not want to consider inconveniences.
Talking of inconveniences, RWB sought legal advice on the inheritance if JB was convicted and was told if no order of death could be ascertained, the twins would be assumed to have died last and Colin would be the sole beneficiary of the Bamber estate. This he put in statement.
Why did he not just mention this in response to that jury question about his motive to lie instead of all that rambling? It would have been the most convincing and straight forward answer he could have given. That being he is not expecting the money in the first place. :-\
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9192.0;attach=51811)
Maybe because Colin was in the court room and he didnt want him to hear or know about this.
OR
He didn't want Jeremy's defence hearing that and risk them working out the connection to Julie's statement.
-
Talking of inconveniences, RWB sought legal advice on the inheritance if JB was convicted and was told if no order of death could be ascertained, the twins would be assumed to have died last and Colin would be the sole beneficiary of the Bamber estate. This he put in statement.
Why did he not just mention this in response to that jury question about his motive to lie instead of all that rambling? It would have been the most convincing and straight forward answer he could have given. That being he is not expecting the money in the first place. :-\
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9192.0;attach=51811)
Maybe because Colin was in the court room and he didnt want him to hear or know about this.
OR
He didn't want Jeremy's defence hearing that and risk them working out the connection to Julie's statement.
Which statement is being referred to?
-
Point taken but possibly semantics.
They were largely ignorant of the facts pertaining to Sheila's illness and were therefore not afforded a sufficiently informed awareness, regarding the risks or potential consequences. I think this limited understanding greatly inhibited the scope of their thinking, which was already biased anyway.
I would say that 'outside the box' in this case, would require (a) some understanding or recognition that mothers could commit such crimes and (b) an informed understanding of how seriously ill Sheila herself was (including historic incidents relevant to her illness - for example her paranoid and quasi-religious ranting and raving).
I honestly don't believe that the relatives were open to exploring such avenues, which would in any event have presented an inconvenience to them. They had painted themselves in to a corner and did not want to consider inconveniences.
I believe a lot of people here are ignorant of the facts about schizophrenia - people suffering from mental illness are more likely to become the victim of crime than the perpetrator - this case is no different. The relatives may not have known much about Sheila's illness, but Jeremy did and made good use of it.
Historical incidents did not include violence merely her own 'fears. On top of this, she was taking her medication - she had no choice because it was injected and the dose left in her systems at death was still considered to be a moderate - not low dosage!