The Official Jeremy Bamber and White House Farm Podcast Series - Season 1

[Roch]

Its not a fact. Its a conspiracy theory, one that's easily refuted.

Routinely using the term 'conspiracy' in a dismissive and pejorative manner isn't helpful.  It implies that nobody, collectively, ever conspires to distort truths. Also, it over simplifies a situation were certain individuals may be passively involved, while others may be actively involved.

[David1819]

Really? Were you in Court? There were no "blow up" photos shown in Court.
Your infantile posts are unworthy of any attention.

Its widely known that large photos are put up in court so the Judge, Jury, counsel and witness can all see what is being spoken about.  If you read the transcripts of both Knight and Vanezis you can ascertain you have three people talking about one photo in detail, that cannot be done on a small photo.

[David1819]

Routinely using the term 'conspiracy' in a dismissive and pejorative manner isn't helpful.  It implies that nobody, collectively, ever conspires to distort truths. Also, it over simplifies a situation were certain individuals may be passively involved, while others may be actively involved.

Care to address my other two points? On reply #428 are you saying that inanimate surface is cut and bleeding because you don't believe blood flow can change direction?

[Roch]

Care to address my other two points? On reply #428 are you saying that inanimate surface is cut and bleeding because you don't believe blood flow can change direction?

That's because I can't quite comprehend your 'points' within the context of the two seperate individuals' specific blood trails / wounds.  Your explanations seem convoluted, at the expense of accepting far simpler explanations.

[Roch]

Its widely known that large photos are put up in court so the Judge, Jury, counsel and witness can all see what is being spoken about.  If you read the transcripts of both Knight and Vanezis you can ascertain you have three people talking about one photo in detail, that cannot be done on a small photo.

What was the quality of images used at trial? Where they colour or black and white? Which particular image are you referring to?

[lookout]

They're probably copies of copies and worse when you come to enlarge them if the quality's bad to begin with.
They look like abstract drawings to me, that unless you know what you're looking for you'd never make them out 

[Bill Robertson]

Its widely known that large photos are put up in court so the Judge, Jury, counsel and witness can all see what is being spoken about.  If you read the transcripts of both Knight and Vanezis you can ascertain you have three people talking about one photo in detail, that cannot be done on a small photo.

A sweeping generalisation and you have no evidence that such photographs were used at Jeremy's trial. I prefer to take Jeremy's word for it that small images were passed around; sometimes there were several copies, but they were not 'blow-ups'. This is borne out by the Judge and Prosecutor/Defence saying to Vanezis several times how difficult it was to see what he was referring to in his testimony.

[Steve_uk]

I'm sure the Defence would have liked to make the trial all about Sheila. Unfortunately for them it was Jeremy Bamber who sat in the dock.

[Roch]

A sweeping generalisation and you have no evidence that such photographs were used at Jeremy's trial. I prefer to take Jeremy's word for it that small images were passed around; sometimes there were several copies, but they were not 'blow-ups'. This is borne out by the Judge and Prosecutor/Defence saying to Vanezis several times how difficult it was to see what he was referring to in his testimony.

David's non-Newtonian gravity driven blood smears are able to scrape, graze and cut skin..

https://images.app.goo.gl/hEMp9R6myWNiKha59

[Bill Robertson]

I'm sure the Defence would have liked to make the trial all about Sheila. Unfortunately for them it was Jeremy Bamber who sat in the dock.

Wrong
Again
Jeremy was deeply frustrated that Rivlin refused to call witnesses who would testify about Sheila’s propensity to violence and told Jeremy directly that he was on trial, not Sheila.
But don’t let the facts get in the way of your baseless prejudices.

[Steve_uk]

Wrong
Again
Jeremy was deeply frustrated that Rivlin refused to call witnesses who would testify about Sheila’s propensity to violence and told Jeremy directly that he was on trial, not Sheila.
But don’t let the facts get in the way of your baseless prejudices.

Given your dementia I shall rein in my first thoughts as riposte. Jeremy's subterfuge was to blame Sheila. If you can't understand this you understand nothing about the case.

[guest29835]

Given your dementia I shall rein in my first thoughts as riposte. Jeremy's subterfuge was to blame Sheila. If you can't understand this you understand nothing about the case.

I think Bill understands very well that this is the allegation of the pro-guilt side, he just believes Jeremy was not engaged in any such subterfuge.

We could do without your nasty personal attacks on posters, but I see you can't help yourself.

[Steve_uk]

I think Bill understands very well that this is the allegation of the pro-guilt side, he just believes Jeremy was not engaged in any such subterfuge.

We could do without your nasty personal attacks on posters, but I see you can't help yourself.

You mean like you calling me "thick", and oh if I'm a teacher I must be a P. E. teacher mustn't I because I'm a member of this site. By the way, I think you might well be joining the dementia club sooner rather than later, given the fundamental inconsistencies you have shown concerning the Jeremy Bamber case discussion.

[lookout]

Yes, this was naturally " all about Jeremy " for obvious reasons but sadly the court were told very little about Sheila who can't remain blameless.
One part of a post-mortem record showed that " We might therefore conclude that the ingestion of Sheila's medication was unmonitored : posing an increasing probability of risk of uncontrolled frenzied behaviour ".

Were the jury ever told about Sheila's life at all ?

[Steve_uk]

Yes, this was naturally " all about Jeremy " for obvious reasons but sadly the court were told very little about Sheila who can't remain blameless.
One part of a post-mortem record showed that " We might therefore conclude that the ingestion of Sheila's medication was unmonitored : posing an increasing probability of risk of uncontrolled frenzied behaviour ".

Were the jury ever told about Sheila's life at all ?

Well Barbara Wilson did testify that in the spring of 1985 Sheila had told her that "the devil was after her" but her condition had improved by the time of the August stay.