Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?

[David1819]

At face value, that would seem to be the most logical answer. However, this case is something else.

Not only at face value. If one looks at all the evidence its apparent there was only one call to the police.

B..b..b..but Ainsley conspired to make it look that way!

[lookout]

It's been MADE to be something else.

No, it's been FOUND OUT to be something else. Two heads are always better than one----the other being a sheep's head.

[Roch]

Not only at face value. If one looks at all the evidence its apparent there was only one call to the police.

B..b..b..but Ainsley conspired to make it look that way!

If Jeremy Bamber is innocent, then Ainsley, as head of the investigation, must have conspired with somebody in order to convict him.

[David1819]

If Jeremy Bamber is innocent, then Ainsley, as head of the investigation, must have conspired with somebody in order to convict him.

No.

What brought Jeremy to trial was Malcom Fletcher's misguided conclusions that Sheila's gunshot wounds were not self inflicted. Thanks to what his relatives installed into the investigation.

What convicted Jeremy was a poor defence strategy from an inadequate defence team followed by an unfair summing up by the judge.

Ainsley didn't do nothing.

[lookout]

Ainsley visited RWB on the 6th of September to tell him that JM was helping police with their enquiries and was also backing what the relatives said about JB's involvement with the shootings.
This can be found in RWB's COLP statement of 1991.

[Roch]

No.

What brought Jeremy to trial was Malcom Fletcher's misguided conclusions that Sheila's gunshot wounds were not self inflicted. Thanks to what his relatives installed into the investigation.

What convicted Jeremy was a poor defence strategy from an inadequate defence team followed by an unfair summing up by the judge.

Ainsley didn't do nothing.

Then stick to this type of post, where you argue in this manner. It's interesting to read your research and opinions.

[David1819]

Then stick to this type of post, where you argue in this manner. It's interesting to read your research and opinions.

OK Understood. But I wouldn't have given you that answer if you didn't explain your thought process behind Ainsley having to do it in the first place.

Evidence was suppressed from the trial in this case. That's nothing uncommon. But the idea of Nevills call does not fall into that category, because what is believed to be Nevills police phone log was presented at trial. The two operators who are alleged to have taken such a call testified at the trial.

[David1819]

Saxby took both the radio and telephone call.

[Caroline]

No, it's been FOUND OUT to be something else. Two heads are always better than one----the other being a sheep's head.

MADE that way!

[Reader]

According to that note, both messages were from HQ, so neither was from Pc West, who was at Chelmsford police station.

[David1819]

According to that note, both messages were from HQ, so neither was from Pc West, who was at Chelmsford police station.

Chelmsford police station is their headquarters.

[Reader]

No. CD was the code for Chelmsford police station. HQ was at Springfield, a different place in Chelmsford.

[David1819]

No. CD was the code for Chelmsford police station. HQ was at Springfield, a different place in Chelmsford.

Now you are just splitting hairs.

[Caroline]

Saxby took both the radio and telephone call.

Bonnet must have called Saxby using the phone because it's on his log (CA7) and perfectly matches the time in his pocket book. and he was at HQ

[Reader]

In his statement of 23 September 1985, however, PC Saxby asserts that he received a radio message from Chelmsford Police Station at about 03:30 and makes no mention of receiving a telephone call from Bonnett or HQ.

He then states that as a result of that message, he left to attend WHF with Ps Bew and Pc Myall at about 03:35, arriving at about 0345.

Bonnett stated that after being contacted by Pc West, he (Bonnett) contacted a mobile police car (CA7). Contacting a car would have to be by radio. He then states that he sent that vehicle to WHF at 03:35 and subsequently received notification by radio at 03:48 of its arrival at WHF.