Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Express Article
« Last post by Steve_uk on February 22, 2020, 06:35:PM »
Click on the link again lookout and the grey strip on the right should stay for a fraction of a second, during which time you have to scroll down quickly then read what you can. It's the Steel Magnolia Innocent Man link which is still not working for me, though I have read it before a few years ago.
92
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Express Article
« Last post by lookout on February 22, 2020, 06:31:PM »
For some unknown reason my laptop doesn't like the Express online----it refuses to budge and just freezes.
 No problem with any others online at all. Isn't it in the Mirror ?
94
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: The ITV Drama
« Last post by Roch on February 22, 2020, 03:35:PM »
I have been told that Jeremy has received an influx of letters since the series ended and is struggling to reply to them all.

Seems the dark forces at conspiracy HQ that commissioned the show have miscalculated. 👍

I never used the phrase 'Dark forces'. I stand by my assertion that's it's either deliberate or opportunist media manipulation. For every new person who writes to Jeremy, a thousand other people will say 'guilty as sin'.
95
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: The ITV Drama
« Last post by JackieD on February 22, 2020, 03:19:PM »
I have been told that Jeremy has received an influx of letters since the series ended and is struggling to reply to them all.

Seems the dark forces at conspiracy HQ that commissioned the show have miscalculated. 👍

I’m not surprised. Imagine the Jury or the relatives of members of the jury.  Other documentary makers and producers from here and America.

I have always thought the publicity will get more important become involved.

Carol Ann Lee clearly misled the public to sell books
The whole thing was a farce
96
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: The ITV Drama
« Last post by Steve_uk on February 22, 2020, 02:46:PM »
I can't really see much good has come out of this drama except maybe Colin has found the experience cathartic and received a small sum to supplement his pension pot, though foregoing his anonymity in the process. Carol Ann Lee's book has been somewhat eviscerated, though it may encourage the general public to read up on the case for themselves.
97
Off Topic / Re: R.I.P Caroline Flack
« Last post by nugnug on February 22, 2020, 02:25:PM »
looks like the cps wanted a show trail to me with a high profile celbraty.
98
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: The ITV Drama
« Last post by David1819 on February 22, 2020, 01:30:PM »
The figures you mention are paltry. Millions of people will have viewed the drama. Verdict: evil; guilty; inheritance killer; child killer.. Etc etc.  Ask around. Whether it's a masterstroke or whether it's a Godsend, it's benefited the authorities in upholding the convictions.

I have been told that Jeremy has received an influx of letters since the series ended and is struggling to reply to them all.

Seems the dark forces at conspiracy HQ that commissioned the show have miscalculated. 👍
99
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: The guardian
« Last post by Janet ((Formerly known as Takeshi)) on February 21, 2020, 11:54:PM »
Remember reading this years ago. Such a shame we never got to see Chapters 16 through 19 *sigh*.
100
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Mystery Stan Jones witness statement
« Last post by mike tesko on February 21, 2020, 11:28:PM »
If Mike is wrong about the signature, then it would leave little doubt as to who the author is.

But, I am not wrong about the signatures, and this can be verified and substantiated by reference to the fact that DS Stan Jones, was not a member of any SOCO team at the scene, so how could four exhibits (SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4, ever have been recovered by DS Jones? Furthermore, considering that there exist handwritten entries in at least one of the four Major Incident Property Registers, that all four of the exhibits bearing reference to exhibits bearing DS Jones reference marks were 'Destroyed', including SBJ/1 a silencer?

If exhibit SBJ /1 (Silencer) was 'Destroyed' along with three other exhibits directly connected to DS Jones involvement in seizing them all, how come the only silencer to make it through to the start of the trial (DRB/1) when if as alleged silencer (SBJ/1) had been destroyed beforehand?

And..

Why destroy the other three exhibits bearing exhibit references, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4 before the start of the 2nd part of the police investigation (SC/786/85)?



Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]