Guardian re Boyce findings

[Jane]

You know what they say Jane “Two for good measure”   Here’s another one, in case you missed the first.

Or even "Here's one I made earlier"

[Caroline]

You know what they say Jane “Two for good measure”   Here’s another one, in case you missed the first.

They seem to be pulling them of of a hat!

[Roch]

Then you should read this document sent to me by Jeremy a few years ago, how much confidence does this document fill you with given that it's saying the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of the document you posted. Yours claims that Jeremy called the police (West) at 03:36 having called Julie first and that it was Nevill who called at 03:26. The document he sent me states that HE called the police around 03:20, some minutes prior to the time claimed to have originally been entered on West's C1 form (03:26). He clearly states in your document that he called Julie first, in mine he's adamant that he called the police. He is categorically denying that he called West at 03:36 on mine and the opposite on yours.

I don't actually have a definitive opinion of who phoned who when.  I find the whole calls thing utterly confusing and open to interpretations.

My post wasn't about that.  Neither the conclusions in the document I posted nor whatever JB has claimed to you.  It was about the differences in C1's... and what can be inferred about the honesty or intention of police officers engaged in such activity.   

[Caroline]

I don't actually have a definitive opinion of who phoned who when.  I find the whole calls thing utterly confusing and open to interpretations.

My post wasn't about that.  Neither the conclusions in the document I posted nor whatever JB has claimed to you.  It was about the differences in C1's... and what can be inferred about the honesty or intention of police officers engaged in such activity.

What can be inferred by the honesty of Bamber given that both documents are at odd with each other - using the same logs to claim two opposing conclusions. One that He called the police before Julie (when he felt that was important) and more recently, dropping that claim to stick in a call from Nevill.  This is quite ridiculous but thanks for posting the document - although it highlighted more than you intended.

[Jane]

I don't actually have a definitive opinion of who phoned who when.  I find the whole calls thing utterly confusing and open to interpretations.

My post wasn't about that.  Neither the conclusions in the document I posted nor whatever JB has claimed to you.  It was about the differences in C1's... and what can be inferred about the honesty or intention of police officers engaged in such activity.

Surely it's not possible to have a definitive opinion of guilt or innocence without having a definitive opinion of the points which which add up to you forming those opinions? ie, it was the telephone calls which caused me to question his innocence. Presently, all I'm getting from Jeremy supporters is that whilst they're keen to show underhand dealings by police, that Jeremy is guilty is secondary to their aim and isn't something which concerns them.

[Roch]

What can be inferred by the honesty of Bamber given that both documents are at odd with each other - using the same logs to claim two opposing conclusions. One that He called the police before Julie (when he felt that was important) and more recently, dropping that claim to stick in a call from Nevill.  This is quite ridiculous but thanks for posting the document - although it highlighted more than you intended.

The document has been on the forum for quite some time, on another thread. Caroline, where officials involved in both an incident and its investigation are attempting to re-write original logs - such actions cannot directly relate to the honesty, integrity, or memory abilities of Jeremy Bamber. Surely you can comprehend that point?

[Caroline]

The document has been on the forum for quite some time, on another thread. Caroline, where officials involved in both an incident and its investigation are attempting to re-write original logs - such actions cannot directly relate to the honesty, integrity, or memory abilities of Jeremy Bamber. Surely you can comprehend that point?

I have the logs, they say the same thing! Whereas these documents are polar - surely you can see that attempting to rewrite history is dishonest in the extreme and it's not a case of bad memory Roch, reasons are given for actions taken. Something VERY dodgy is going on here and there is certainly no integrity involved.

[Caroline]

Surely it's not possible to have a definitive opinion of guilt or innocence without having a definitive opinion of the points which which add up to you forming those opinions? ie, it was the telephone calls which caused me to question his innocence. Presently, all I'm getting from Jeremy supporters is that whilst they're keen to show underhand dealings by police, that Jeremy is guilty is secondary to their aim and isn't something which concerns them.

I don't know if you have read both documents but in the one I posted, the claim that that West lied about the time Jeremy called in order to make it look as though he called Julie before the police. It vehemently  claims that Jeremy's to police was around 03:20, giving him time to make the call to West and then call Julie AFTER at 03:30. Roch's document claims that Jeremy called Julie first and that it was Nevill's call that was made prior to 03:26 and that he (Jeremy) called at 03:36. You couldn't make it up ...... although someone is!

[guest7363]

I don't know if you have read both documents but in the one I posted, the claim that that West lied about the time Jeremy called in order to make it look as though he called Julie before the police. It vehemently  claims that Jeremy's to police was around 03:20, giving him time to make the call to West and then call Julie AFTER at 03:30. Roch's document claims that Jeremy called Julie first and that it was Nevill's call that was made prior to 03:26 and that he (Jeremy) called at 03:36. You couldn't make it up ...... although someone is!

Anything to suit at any cost as usual Caroline.

[Caroline]

Anything to suit at any cost as usual Caroline.

It's blatant!

[Jane]

It's blatant!

It's balderdash!!!

[Kaldin]

It can never be said with certainty that the blood inside the sound moderator(s) was from Sheila Caffell. All that can be stated is that the blood grouping was A PGM1+EAP BA AK1 Hp 2-1. Among the people involved in the case this grouping was common to Sheila and Robert Boutflour. If it is the case that blood from that grouping was found in two separate moderators it suggests strongly that Robert Boutflour deliberately contaminated both moderators with his blood, given that Sheila was dead and in no position to donate a blood sample to a second sound moderator.

Did Robert Boutflour know he had the same blood type as Sheila though?

[Kaldin]

I have seen various copies of West's log and although there are some spelling mistake differences, they still say the same thing.

By 'groove patterns' I suspect he means those left on the bullets - however, I didn't think they still had those?

There are different versions of his log? Why would there need to be? That's a bit dodgy IMO.

[David1819]

"based on differing groove patterns, sizes and exhibit numbers, “at least two sound moderators had been examined in this case”


The only groove pattern on the silencers are on the screw caps. Parker Hale SMs do have differing grove patterns on them like below. If that is what Boyce has seen, then there is little room for doubt.  But we will have to wait and see.

[ILB]

I have the logs, they say the same thing! Whereas these documents are polar - surely you can see that attempting to rewrite history is dishonest in the extreme and it's not a case of bad memory Roch, reasons are given for actions taken. Something VERY dodgy is going on here and there is certainly no integrity involved.

what's very dodgy???