How much has the crown spent on preventing disclosure of sound moderator docs?

[lookout]

Agree with that.

Because they were greedy and wanted everything. They hadn't liked the " cuckoos " from the day they were adopted for that very reason.

[Bubo bubo]

I did not "edit" your post. I simply quoted the specific part I was replying to.

That will not wash editing my sentence in the way you did completely changed my sarcastic comment and altered the sense of what I was saying..
This will be reported.

[Bubo bubo]

The evidence produced by David1819 that shows the Family was 'after' JB from day one is RB's diary typed up and presented by MT. It has not crossed his mind that it could have been and probably was created retrospectively to impress the likes of Simpson & Co, the media or for some other devious reason. JM's diary has been shown to be a confection created retrospectively. Did she have lessons with RB. I do not doubt that the family were looking to get JB to take the blame. The diary is indicative but it is not evidence that their efforts started on day one.

[Bubo bubo]

I would ask readers to use the search facility and to search the word 'diary' for David1819. This guy has no shame. There are over 30 posts most of which denigrate the diary work of both JM and RB. He is now using it as evidence that the family were after JB from day one. I think he needs to make up his mind as to whether the RB diary has any validity.

[Bubo bubo]

You clearly have not read my post on the DB witness statement forgery for the COLP enquiry, which incidentally NGB describes as well argued. How could he retrieve all these items on 10/09/85. The socks DB6 were not collected according to you until after the Eatons moved in. Did they look after them waiting for the police to collect them and why were they not burnt on the Wednesday under JB's permission or at the next weekend when JB burnt his parents clothes. I am afraid you need to revise your over simplistic views which are not supported by the evidence.

Can I remind David1819. That I am still waiting for an answer to the second and third parts of this question. Are we really expected to believe that the socks were still in situ 33 days after the event. They were collected by DB on the day along with DB1 etc. and including the fire debris. He forged his statement and I have shown this to a high level believability.

[Aunt Agatha]

The evidence produced by David1819 that shows the Family was 'after' JB from day one is RB's diary typed up and presented by MT. It has not crossed his mind that it could have been and probably was created retrospectively to impress the likes of Simpson & Co, the media or for some other devious reason. JM's diary has been shown to be a confection created retrospectively. Did she have lessons with RB. I do not doubt that the family were looking to get JB to take the blame. The diary is indicative but it is not evidence that their efforts started on day one.

You are correct!!

[David1819]

The evidence produced by David1819 that shows the Family was 'after' JB from day one is RB's diary typed up and presented by MT. It has not crossed his mind that it could have been and probably was created retrospectively to impress the likes of Simpson & Co, the media or for some other devious reason.

I suggest you read these action reports written on the 8th and 9th of August before Taff Jones threw them out the police station. Or was all this made up in the grand conspiracy also?

[Bubo bubo]

I suggest you read these action reports written on the 8th and 9th of August before Taff Jones threw them out the police station. Or was all this made up in the grand conspiracy also?

These notes merely show that the family could not accept that SC was capable. Which we all know was their primary concern at the outset. They found it hard to believe. They may not have been aware of her mental health history at this time and this was explained. Although JB is mentioned by AE, this is before mental health issues were explained. The others do not join her in that view. In the end DRB agrees she could have done it if her prints were on the shell casings. However, if she only used prefilled magazines she would not have needed to reload.

Again this is not evidence that the FAMILY were after JB from day one and RB is not present at all, who you claim was the lead actor with AE in 'gunning' for JB

I would be interested in the source for these documents. If Taff threw them out were did you get them?

[David1819]

These notes merely show that the family could not accept that SC was capable. Which we all know was their primary concern at the outset. They found it hard to believe. They may not have been aware of her mental health history at this time and this was explained. Although JB is mentioned by AE, this is before mental health issues were explained. The others do not join her in that view. In the end DRB agrees she could have done it if her prints were on the shell casings. However, if she only used prefilled magazines she would not have needed to reload.

Again this is not evidence that the FAMILY were after JB from day one and RB is not present at all, who you claim was the lead actor with AE in 'gunning' for JB

I would be interested in the source for these documents. If Taff threw them out were did you get them?

I believe its mentioned in this lengthy statement. Vital reading in my opinion.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,497.msg8443.html#msg8443

[killingeve]

I believe its mentioned in this lengthy statement. Vital reading in my opinion.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,497.msg8443.html#msg8443

David, are you able to give me the low-down on claims of a second silencer? 

[Adam]

David, are you able to give me the low-down on claims of a second silencer?

This is what the Official Site says -


Issue 1 - The silencers – The corpus of evidence that two silencers featured in the case and were forensically examined. There are multiple grounds regarding chain of evidence and contaminate issues.

Why is this important? One example of the many grounds here is on the Crown’s assertions that a tiny flake of blood inside one of the silencers was a match for Sheila Caffell only. The jury were not told it was also an exact match for the beneficiary Robert Boutflour. This links to Issue 6 and Issue 8.

----------

The relatives could not hand in two silencers. They handed in one silencer.

The police would pass this to the lab for testing.

So not sure why two silencers would be in circulation.

[Adam]

It seems the OS are accusing RB.

----------

The relatives would need to know -

Is Bamber innocent.

Sheila's arm lenght.

The rifle lenght with silencer.

Could Sheila have shot herself with the silencer attached.

What back splatter is.

Who of the 5 deceased received contact shots.

What locations would contact shots need to be to produce back splatter.

Where were the contact shots on the 5 deceased. 

Is there any other forensic evidence against Sheila.

Was there a silencer next to Sheila.

How to realistically put blood into a silencer.

Where was Sheila's blood to insert into a silencer.

Did the rifle barrell already have blood on/in.

Did the crime scene photos show an unscratched aga.

Had the police already checked all silencers at WHF.

The chance of this one piece of framed evidence getting a conviction.

The punishment if caught doing this.

Confidence in each other that none would succumb to police pressure.

[Adam]

The OS would not have  considered David's suggestion that the relatives used diluted period blood inside a bucket of water to put inside the silencer.

This would be impossible to do.

[Adam]

As said, the CT have always focused on one piece of evidence - the silencer.

The other pieces of sourced evidence is not disputed.

Other grounds for appeal are based on the crime scene & Sheila being alive while the police were outside. 

[Bubo bubo]

I believe its mentioned in this lengthy statement. Vital reading in my opinion.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,497.msg8443.html#msg8443

I read the AE stuff sometime ago. I do not need to read it again to know how  she was dripping poison  at every opportunity in her comments and interviews. I thought the reference to MS not having a photo of JB on display was particularly cruel. I would not trust anything she has said. However we do not know who the author is for these notes and whether they were discarded once they had been typed up.

Again this does not provide evidence that the family was 'after' JB from day one

True to your normal behaviour you have not answered the question I asked but deflected my questioning by suggesting I read something else. So I will ask again for the source of this document.