Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: The telephone off the hook
« Last post by Caroline on October 12, 2018, 06:46:PM »
Quote from: David1819 on October 12, 2018, 04:16:PM

If its so easily broken down then break it down. So far your only answer is to insist its staged and staged so well you cant see that's its staged  ;D - You can see it's staged.

Jeremy's idea to buy a semi-automatic rifle (pre-planning)
Gun/ammo  conveniently left out on the night of the murders
No evidence of other victims blood on Sheila.
Looks like she is wearing false nails and not one damaged
Gun falls neatly across her body, fingers across the trigger area.
Clearly had been dead for quite some time
No suicide note
Choice of death location doesn't fit
Never missed a target
ALL victims were 'executed' with head shots - other shots for effect or to incapacitate
No evidence of a phone call
Unlikely that Sheila would have a psychotic episode as she was medicated and a moderate dose of the medication was still in her system


The crime scene appeared like a murder suicide not just to laymen eyes but also to the trained pathologists. = FACT - Initially! - FACT!

Vanezis thought that the staged crime theory was "Almost too incedible to believe" = FACT - he said that if he has SEEN the crime scene for himself, he would have had concerns - FACT!

Bernard Knight thought the idea of a staged suicicde would be "Extraordinary" = FACT - and?

The crime was staged by someone so well the pathologist cannot tell. = THEORY - You think that hasn't happened before?  ;D ;D

Someone coerced Sheila into doing it all. So thats why it looks that way! = THEORY - Where have I said this?

PS: None of those animals look like something else. That spider is clearly not an ant and that Butterfly is clearly not an Owl! Other examples are the same species just different breeds. I would bet that butterfly does not sound like like owl either. Stupid article.



92
Other high profile cases / Re: Mark Lundy
« Last post by Steve_uk on October 12, 2018, 05:59:PM »
I've finally found the Bryan Bruce video, which examines the case in detail and includes a contribution from Professor Bernard Knight of the Jeremy Bamber trial fame.

. https://youtu.be/6spm3zusUP0
93
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: The telephone off the hook
« Last post by Steve_uk on October 12, 2018, 05:57:PM »
Quote from: David1819 on October 12, 2018, 04:16:PM

If its so easily broken down then break it down. So far your only answer is to insist its staged and staged so well you cant see that's its staged  ;D

The crime scene appeared like a murder suicide not just to laymen eyes but also to the trained pathologists. = FACT

Vanezis thought that the staged crime theory was "Almost too incedible to believe" = FACT

Bernard Knight thought the idea of a staged suicicde would be "Extraordinary" = FACT

The crime was staged by someone so well the pathologist cannot tell. = THEORY

Someone coerced Sheila into doing it all. So thats why it looks that way! = THEORY

PS: None of those animals look like something else. That spider is clearly not an ant and that Butterfly is clearly not an Owl! Other examples are the same species just different breeds. I would bet that butterfly does not sound like like owl either. Stupid article

Vanezis's words were "anyone who did such a thing must be a nutter". Well there are plenty of members here who think that's just what he must be.
94
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: The telephone off the hook
« Last post by Jane on October 12, 2018, 04:37:PM »
Quote from: David1819 on October 12, 2018, 04:16:PM

If its so easily broken down then break it down. So far your only answer is to insist its staged and staged so well you cant see that's its staged  ;D

The crime scene appeared like a murder suicide not just to laymen eyes but also to the trained pathologists. = FACT

Vanezis thought that the staged crime theory was "Almost too incedible to believe" = FACT

Bernard Knight thought the idea of a staged suicicde would be "Extraordinary" = FACT

The crime was staged by someone so well the pathologist cannot tell. = THEORY

Someone coerced Sheila into doing it all. So thats why it looks that way! = THEORY

PS: None of those animals look like something else. That spider is clearly not an ant and that Butterfly is clearly not an Owl! Other examples are the same species just different breeds. I would bet that butterfly does not sound like like owl either. Stupid article


Can you please find a dictionary in which "extraordinary" is synonymous with "impossible" and "almost to incedible (your spelling) to believe" means something couldn't have happened. Where is it said, by ANY of the names you put forward, that what occurred at WHF, was categorically NOT 5 murders?
95
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: The telephone off the hook
« Last post by David1819 on October 12, 2018, 04:16:PM »
Quote from: Caroline on October 12, 2018, 11:41:AM
Rubbish. It's theoretical based on initial assumptions. It's the lazy answer and one which was easily broken down. All you do is dismiss anything that doesn't fit your theory with childish put downs and silly gifs.

Vanezis didn't visit the scene and stated that had he done so, he'd have had reservations

There are MANY examples of animals that are not what they appear to be;

https://listverse.com/2013/07/20/10-devastatingly-deceptive-or-bizarre-animal-mimics/


If its so easily broken down then break it down. So far your only answer is to insist its staged and staged so well you cant see that's its staged  ;D

The crime scene appeared like a murder suicide not just to laymen eyes but also to the trained pathologists. = FACT

Vanezis thought that the staged crime theory was "Almost too incedible to believe" = FACT

Bernard Knight thought the idea of a staged suicicde would be "Extraordinary" = FACT

The crime was staged by someone so well the pathologist cannot tell. = THEORY

Someone coerced Sheila into doing it all. So thats why it looks that way! = THEORY

PS: None of those animals look like something else. That spider is clearly not an ant and that Butterfly is clearly not an Owl! Other examples are the same species just different breeds. I would bet that butterfly does not sound like like owl either. Stupid article



96
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: The telephone off the hook
« Last post by Adam on October 12, 2018, 01:07:PM »
Quote from: maggie on October 12, 2018, 10:04:AM
You're flogging a dead horse here Adam and it proves nothing.

Is that all you can post. Again ?

If you want me to provide proof, I have 70 pieces of sourced forensic evidence.

You must believe Bamber turned his answering machine off before going to bed ? Otherwise there was no call from Nevill.

Why do you think Nevill wanted to leave a message on Bamber's answering machine, which Nevill would assume was turned on ?

When the answering machine did not come on, why did Nevill continue waiting several minutes, optimistically hopeing Bamber would answer ?
97
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: The telephone off the hook
« Last post by Jane on October 12, 2018, 12:58:PM »
Quote from: mike tesko on October 11, 2018, 08:46:PM
Jeremy's vauxhall astra motor vehicle was fitted with a black box tracking device, they knew everywhere that Jeremy went in his car, and the drugs squad had the added intelligence that Julie Mugford' was providing them with as a result of her role of agent provocateur, informant, and low life criminal! For the benefit of this not in the know, I can tell you that Julie Mugford' was deliberately put into Jeremy Bamber, she was never his girlfriend, it was all part of an act, she was receiving massive financial payments from the police for the role she took on...

There is an informants register in London, and her name appears on it, along with all the payments she received for information she provided about Jeremy, his associates and their activities!

Quote from: maggie on October 12, 2018, 10:04:AM
You're flogging a dead horse here Adam and it proves nothing.


Rather like the above then, Maggie, eh?
98
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: The telephone off the hook
« Last post by Caroline on October 12, 2018, 11:41:AM »
Quote from: David1819 on October 12, 2018, 04:09:AM

No. The murder suicide is not theoretical. Its a logical inference based on the known facts.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

It looked like a frenzied murder suicide to Vanezis, It looked like a frenzied murder suicide to Prof Knight. If it looks like a frenzied murder suicide to those who know how to differentiate a suicide from a staged suicide and have seen frenzied murder scenes. Then its probably a frenzied murder suicide.

There is no tangible evidence at the scene of crime or anywhere else that indicates any other version of events. To say that scene is staged is to say its a scene of a perfect murder.

Rubbish. It's theoretical based on initial assumptions. It's the lazy answer and one which was easily broken down. All you do is dismiss anything that doesn't fit your theory with childish put downs and silly gifs.

Vanezis didn't visit the scene and stated that had he done so, he'd have had reservations

There are MANY examples of animals that are not what they appear to be;

https://listverse.com/2013/07/20/10-devastatingly-deceptive-or-bizarre-animal-mimics/
99
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: The telephone off the hook
« Last post by maggie on October 12, 2018, 10:04:AM »
Quote from: Adam on October 11, 2018, 07:58:PM
Do you believe Bamber turned his answering machine off before going to bed on the massacre night ?  Maybe he unplugged his toaster as well.

I've heard of people turning lights off & alarms on before bed.....
You're flogging a dead horse here Adam and it proves nothing.
100
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: The telephone off the hook
« Last post by mike tesko on October 12, 2018, 08:40:AM »
Quote from: Caroline on October 11, 2018, 09:00:PM
No I wasn't - Yes, you were..I actually tracked down an engineer who worked at the Maldon exchange (Geoff) - he didn't know Bamber and wasn't a personal friend. so, your trying to suggest that because Ian Manley was a personal friend of Jeremy Bambers, that his contribution can't be relied upon in this matter? Well, I beg to differ.. If anyone wants to get the information for themselves, they can email the BT Archives - which doesn't deal with what I am talking about..which are also a good source. It maybe but it is limited information..

https://www.btplc.com/Thegroup/BTsHistory/BTgrouparchives/index.htm

Interesting that you're telling us Bamber knew a BT engineer though, yeah, he ran the original Jeremy Bamber .com website.. so much for not understanding how the system worked. Well, Jeremy may not have understood how the system worked back in the day, so what?He certainly had a useful source of information to hand. that might have been the case, but that doesn't alter the fact about an operator being unable to break into a line where a negative and a negative influence is at play! The only people who could do that back in the day were the BT engineers themselves, and even then they weren't supposed to eavesdrop calls, but sometimes had to disconnect the line so that somebody's phone wouldn't work. The only other explanation I can offer, is that police have been known to interfere with telephone connections as part of the telephone telecommunications act warrant they operated under - even now in the modern technogical world the authorities interfere with phone calls all of the time..

Back in the day (August 1985), the operator could only break into a line if the following conditions were met:-

(1) - phone off the hook - negative

(2) - phone off the hook, and no-one trying to contact it - negative / positive

(3) - two users talking on two different phones to one another - positive / positive

However, the operator could not break into a line when the following conditions were met :-

(4) - phone off hook, and someone trying to call them - negative /  negative

Interference by an operator back in the day, was treated as a positive influence, and in order for the operator to be able to break into a line there had to be either a state of equilibrium where there was only a negative condition equalled by the positive influence of the operator, or a condition where the positive influence was greater than the negative! Where the negative influence exceeded the positive one (inclusive of the operator) the operator would have to wait until one or other party replaced the handset of their phone, so that the conditions were met to enable the operator access!



Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]