Guardian re Boyce findings

[lookout]

Where? http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

Like I'd already said------that only one of the silencers was presented for examination and it was not known which one of the three it had been. That information had been updated in 2013 by a J.Martin--Adams.

[ILB]

So, it's OK to lie through your teeth in order to try and get an appeal. An innocent man wouldn't need to.

imagine being in a tiny cell and at the age of 58, telling your innocence to all on sundry from day one. Maybe you'd try every avenue and were a bit exhausted and mentally drained after 30 years of confinement. Sorry for disagreeing with you. Profusely apologize

[Caroline]

There is no excuse for the polar claims made in these documents prepared by the Bamber and those supporting him. None whatsoever!

[Caroline]

Like I'd already said------that only one of the silencers was presented for examination and it was not known which one of the three it had been. That information had been updated in 2013 by a J.Martin--Adams.

Updated where?

[ILB]

There is no excuse for the polar claims made in these documents prepared by the Bamber and those supporting him. None whatsoever!

then there is no excuse for Julie, no excuse for ep not finding a silencer and relatives Discovering it days on. Black and White argument has to be applied to both sides of the fence

[lookout]

Updated where?

I'd hardly expect you to search for anything that went against the grain so it's no surprise that you're like a dog with a bone if someone happens to come across some " old news " that wouldn't have interested you anyway.

[Roch]

There is no excuse for the polar claims made in these documents prepared by the Bamber and those supporting him. None whatsoever!

Your 'polar claims' thing sounds like it was taken from Vic (family spokesperson) on the road to Damascus.  Where he goes from being sceptical (or at least open minded) to believing in Bamber's guilt, as if he was Ann Eaton her self.  He used the same reasoning. 

People who believe Bamber is guilty wont consider the shock / disorientation argument in an innocent scenario (as they quite obviously assume a guilty Bamber would be alert, aware, controlled, prepared etc.)

What about 1980's police interviewing?  Stan Jones is at him.  Over and over and over and over and over again.  Trying to get Jeremy's back up.  Trying to be cocky and unpleasant towards him.  Trying to needle him. trying to get him off balance.  Trying to unsettle him.  Not in a clever way but in a harassing manner.

What did the police say to him about the calls?  What did they try and plant in his mind?  'We know you did this' 'we know you did that' etc. 

And what was the catalyst for Bamber changing his timings anyway?  If it was the release of some kind of police document, then how can you blame him?  My mind plays tricks on me all the time.  If a child or anybody provides a completely contradictory version of something to the one I recall myself, eventually, I start questioning my own version.

[Caroline]

Your 'polar claims' thing sounds like it was taken from Vic (family spokesperson) on the road to Damascus.  Where he goes from being sceptical (or at least open minded) to believing in Bamber's guilt, as if he was Ann Eaton her self.  He used the same reasoning. 

People who believe Bamber is guilty wont consider the shock / disorientation argument in an innocent scenario (as they quite obviously assume a guilty Bamber would be alert, aware, controlled, prepared etc.)

What about 1980's police interviewing?  Stan Jones is at him.  Over and over and over and over and over again.  Trying to get Jeremy's back up.  Trying to be cocky and unpleasant towards him.  Trying to needle him. trying to get him off balance.  Trying to unsettle him.  Not in a clever way but in a harassing manner.

What did the police say to him about the calls?  What did they try and plant in his mind?  'We know you did this' 'we know you did that' etc. 

And what was the catalyst for Bamber changing his timings anyway?  If it was the release of some kind of police document, then how can you blame him?  My mind plays tricks on me all the time.  If a child or anybody provides a completely contradictory version of something to the one I recall myself, eventually, I start questioning my own version.

They aren't claims! They are documents and you yourself posted one of those documents. You sound like someone in denial and his interrogation by Jones back in the 1980's has nothing to do with the polar claims he has made in recent years in order to make a decent argument to the CCRC. The polar documents are facts, not theories and they posted here for people to make their minds up. I'm not talking about the stalwart innocent supporters who at times don't really seem to care if he did kill 5 people. Bamber has had plenty of time get his story straight and he STILL can't do that. He called the police earlier in order to hide the fact that he called Julie before the police, he called later to fit in acall from Nevill - it's a mess!

[Roch]

They aren't claims! They are documents and you yourself posted one of those documents. You sound like someone in denial and his interrogation by Jones back in the 1980's has nothing to do with the polar claims he has made in recent years in order to make a decent argument to the CCRC. The polar documents are facts, not theories and they posted here for people to make their minds up. I'm not talking about the stalwart innocent supporters who at times don't really seem to care if he did kill 5 people. Bamber has had plenty of time get his story straight and he STILL can't do that. He called the police earlier in order to hide the fact that he called Julie before the police, he called later to fit in acall from Nevill - it's a mess!

That's my point.  I don't really see a problem with him changing timings to fit in a call from Nevill, if that's what he genuinely interpreted must have occurred from any subsequently released documents.
 
I'm not so sure police interviewing did not have an impact on him or bamboozle him.

The whole phoning Julie thing before or after is bollocks for me.  We are supposed to feel that if he phoned Julie before phoning the police, then this because he was not really arsed about phoning the police otherwise he would have phoned them first blah blah.  What a load of tosh.

If I was woken by a strange call telling me I had to help etc. i couldn't guarantee for certain that I wouldn't phone my partner instinctively out of a need for some kind of reassurance, especially if I was disorientated.

[Caroline]

That's my point.  I don't really see a problem with him changing timings to fit in a call from Nevill, if that's what he genuinely interpreted must have occurred from any subsequently released documents.
 
I'm not so sure police interviewing did not have an impact on him or bamboozle him.

The whole phoning Julie thing before or after is bollocks for me.  We are supposed to feel that if he phoned Julie before phoning the police, then this because he was not really arsed about phoning the police otherwise he would have phoned them first blah blah.  What a load of tosh.

If I was woken by a strange call telling me I had to help etc. i couldn't guarantee for certain that I wouldn't phone my partner instinctively out of a need for some kind of reassurance, especially if I was disorientated.

Like I said, people just continue to make excuses! These claims are worthless when they are full of contradictions. He is intending on using this as part of CCRC submissions - it's laughable!

[Jane]

Like I said, people just continue to make excuses! These claims are worthless when they are full of contradictions. He is intending on using this as part of CCRC submissions - it's laughable!

I'd also be interested to know why certain posters choose to ridicule the fact that a friend's late husband interviewed Jeremy -I fail to see what they should find so amusing -I'm guessing that I have a relative in the Met doesn't come into it- I can only imagine it comes from a place of intolerance and ignorance. I live on the doorstep. It's not my problem if you don't like it.

My friend's late husband -and I won't be naming names as I wouldn't want his widow hounded in the same way that members here have bragged about having had an active hand in hounding Julie and her family- clearly was blessed with the same gut instincts as SJ and Lookout..............except he believed Jeremy was guilty, However, before the blame for Jeremy's conviction gets laid at his door, his was just one voice. Initially, it's doubtful that anyone asked his -or any other pc's- opinion. There was probably the same differing opinions within the force as there are here.

[Jane]

imagine being in a tiny cell and at the age of 58, telling your innocence to all on sundry from day one. Maybe you'd try every avenue and were a bit exhausted and mentally drained after 30 years of confinement. Sorry for disagreeing with you. Profusely apologize

Are you simply playing devil's advocate? Do you have any interest in anything other than arguing for arguing's sake? You have no proof of his innocence, any more than you have proof of anyone's innocence who claims it, and you've never yet said whether you were guilty or innocent of the crime(s) you were imprisoned for. It may just be that this particular 58 year old chooses to keep his brain active by devising ways of getting released. At the very least, it may afford him higher status than other prisoners.

[guest7363]

Like I said, people just continue to make excuses! These claims are worthless when they are full of contradictions. He is intending on using this as part of CCRC submissions - it's laughable!

It really is laughable, let’s fit the timing to suit, doesn’t matter what went on between.  They don’t understand why we have a problem.  Better still, let’s give a amnesty to any one convicted (child killer, sex offender murderer) who can come up with a better story, the jail would be empty.

[David1819]

imagine being in a tiny cell and at the age of 58, telling your innocence to all on sundry from day one. Maybe you'd try every avenue and were a bit exhausted and mentally drained after 30 years of confinement. Sorry for disagreeing with you. Profusely apologize

Like when Larry Swearingen tried to get a serial killer to take credit for what he was convicted of.

https://streamable.com/429iz

[Jane]

It really is laughable, let’s fit the timing to suit, doesn’t matter what went on between.  They don’t understand why we have a problem.  Better still, let’s give a amnesty to any one convicted (child killer, sex offender murderer) who can come up with a better story, the jail would be empty.

Exactly! The "Ah, but supposing.........." thing can be attributed to all who claim innocence.  The cry might not be quite as loud if those released, on the back of it, killed, raped, or abused one of their family members