Jeremy Bamber Forum

If there were any wounds on Sheila's back then there would have been subsequent damage to the back of Sheila's nightdress, yet there wasn't any.

Now I just need Roch and Bill to claim Ainsley edited the lab records of the nightdress and swapped it for a new one when due to be shown as a trial exhibit.  🙄

Unless you are claiming to have purchased a set of crime scene photographs from the CCRC, you do not have the same photos in your possession as the ones that I evaluated. Or, perhaps Essex Police gave them to you? Where did you obtain the photos?

Now, try not being so naive; Ainsley altered many witness statements. He may well have altered Vanezis' initial statements. None of the dates on notes or witness statements can be taken as accurate and many might have been re-written and back-dated months after the event. As for DI Cook, he is under investigation with Ainsley for destroying evidence and falsifying evidence, so don't place too much reliance on his word. Any other police officers present at the autopsy would simply have been ordered to keep their mouths shut.

When the case is referred to the Court of Appeal it will be apparent that Vanezis statements about the condition of the bodies of the adults were wrong. The question is why? Was he utterly incompetent or did he commit perjury?

I seem to remember Jeremy was talking about a kit car so can you provide proof

But reloading a rifle lookout? She couldn't even drive a car.

You don't believe me, which is the same as saying that I am lying. I truly don't care whether you believe me or not. I first posted on this site in 2013. I rarely see anything approaching sensible debate about the case, so I don't post very often, but I don't think that 8 years can be regarded as "as quickly as you appeared".

There is currently interest in the CCRC submissions and some of the materials that have been released such as the podcasts, so I have felt motivated to post some views and some facts. You are free to reject the entire lot, it is no skin off my nose. When Julie is extradited and imprisoned for perjury, I promise not to gloat, it's not my thing.

Now, take the 28 wounds to Sheila Caffell. Why would I make that up? It is detailed in the CCRC submission and is discussed in the podcasts. Importantly, a prestigious firm of lawyers has evaluated the evidence and has included it in the CCRC submission. The lawyers are not mugs, if the wounds didn't exist the submission would not mention them.

The 28 wounds were discovered in 2015 I believe and since then considerable time and money has been spent on supplementary forensic evaluation by professional scientists. It has taken a long time and a lot of money to have them confirm that there are indeed at least 28 wounds to Sheila Caffell not mentioned by Peter Vanezis. As to why his witness statements don't mention them will probably have to wait a public enquiry after Jeremy is released. But his evidence in Court is unambiguous; he said that there were no wounds to Sheila other than two to her throat. It is difficult to conclude other than perjury when confronted with evidence of 28 other wounds.

Okay, you haven't seen the evidence yet, but it is a bit premature to call me a liar, not that I care.

I don't plan to disappear from this site. I will just wait for something sensible to be posted and see if I feel any need to comment. It may be a long wait based on past experience.

Listen to Roch, he talks a lot of sense.