Author Topic: Question for JackieD  (Read 1843 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44394
Question for JackieD
« on: October 22, 2021, 03:34:PM »
What do think of the forensic evidence which got Bamber convicted in 1986 & has kept him in prison?
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Question for JackieD
« Reply #1 on: October 22, 2021, 03:37:PM »
What forensic science is that ? Don't say they've found fibres, blood, sweat and snot ? Really ?

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44394
Re: Question for JackieD
« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2021, 03:38:PM »
What forensic science is that ? Don't say they've found fibres, blood, sweat and snot ? Really ?

You are being deliberately ignorant again.

JackieD has never mentioned the evidence since joining in 2017. All her posts and threads are on Julie.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2021, 03:39:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Question for JackieD
« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2021, 03:39:PM »
You are being deliberately ignorant again.

JackieD has never mentioned the evidence since joining in 2017. All her posts and threads are on Julie.





And you're not making any sense !

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44394
Re: Question for JackieD
« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2021, 04:27:PM »




And you're not making any sense !

Do you have difficulty understanding things?
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Rob_

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4822
Re: Question for JackieD
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2021, 04:48:PM »
Everyone agrees there is no forensic evidence Adam. Though there would have been tons of it if your scenario was correct.

But there is evidence coming to light showing SC may have committed the crime:

Copper content of right hand matches copper content of two testers loading 18 bullets into a magazine.

Now I have found her hands were not perfectly clean as the jury were told, see my post.




Offline killingeve

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 299
Re: Question for JackieD
« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2021, 04:56:PM »
Everyone agrees there is no forensic evidence Adam. Though there would have been tons of it if your scenario was correct.

But there is evidence coming to light showing SC may have committed the crime:

Copper content of right hand matches copper content of two testers loading 18 bullets into a magazine.

Now I have found her hands were not perfectly clean as the jury were told, see my post.

We don't know what forensic evidence may have been associated with Bamber had he come under scutiny from the start instead of a month later.  He presented when he was ready to do so.  On the other hand Sheila was found without any sort of debris on her other than obviously blood from her gunshot wounds. 

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44394
Re: Question for JackieD
« Reply #7 on: October 22, 2021, 05:01:PM »
Everyone agrees there is no forensic evidence Adam. Though there would have been tons of it if your scenario was correct.

But there is evidence coming to light showing SC may have committed the crime:

Copper content of right hand matches copper content of two testers loading 18 bullets into a magazine.

Now I have found her hands were not perfectly clean as the jury were told, see my post.

'Everyone agrees there is no forensic evidence'

----------

So that's why the COA said 'the more we have looked at the case, the more we believe the jury were right'.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Question for JackieD
« Reply #8 on: October 22, 2021, 05:51:PM »
Considering two of the jury disagreed and one was asleep  ::)

Offline killingeve

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 299
Re: Question for JackieD
« Reply #9 on: October 22, 2021, 07:34:PM »
Considering two of the jury disagreed and one was asleep  ::)

10 agreed and 11 were awake job done.

Offline Rob_

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4822
Re: Question for JackieD
« Reply #10 on: October 22, 2021, 08:40:PM »
We don't know what forensic evidence may have been associated with Bamber had he come under scutiny from the start instead of a month later.  He presented when he was ready to do so.  On the other hand Sheila was found without any sort of debris on her other than obviously blood from her gunshot wounds.

Are you and Adam the same person? starting a new case number went against JB in my view.

If Taff had lived and his notes were available ...

Offline killingeve

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 299
Re: Question for JackieD
« Reply #11 on: October 22, 2021, 08:51:PM »
Are you and Adam the same person? starting a new case number went against JB in my view.

If Taff had lived and his notes were available ...

Do we look alike  ::)

DCI Jones' notebook is in the forum library.  Again the writing is awful.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Question for JackieD
« Reply #12 on: October 22, 2021, 08:54:PM »
Are you and Adam the same person? starting a new case number went against JB in my view.

If Taff had lived and his notes were available ...




Although they are two different people they've both frequented the Red Forum, but it must be quiet at the moment.





I've more or less mentioned notes on before it became a murder on another thread. The notes SHOULD be available as when something is forbidden suspicion sets in-----which it naturally has with many. 

Offline Rob_

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4822
Re: Question for JackieD
« Reply #13 on: October 22, 2021, 08:55:PM »
Do we look alike  ::)

DCI Jones' notebook is in the forum library.  Again the writing is awful.

No but you sound the same!

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Question for JackieD
« Reply #14 on: October 22, 2021, 09:00:PM »
No but you sound the same!





All the guilters happen to be nasty for some unknown reason.