Is this an honest forum?

[Enigma]

Oh yes, we've heard a lot about the "integrity" of newspapers these days haven't we?

So you're saying Bamber didn't try and sell explicit photos of Sheila to The Sun?
(So The Sun lied, Mugford lied, the extended family lied, the police lied, the courts didn't give him a fair trial, the appeal courts were biased! The list grows by the day on this forum!)

Nah, PB the papers never lie do they.
Been reading the papers lately, how many more cops are going to resign.
Are you trying to say the cops are not corrupt. This is the tip of an iceberg.
The cops can't get away with it now, but in 1985 they operated with imputunity.
Are you aware the police altered expert evidence without the knowlege of the said expert.
Stay alert PB I will be posting soon, and after you wipe the egg off your face you can answer.

You will be posting soon? Oh the anticiption, I can hardley wait.
No I am not aware the police altered expert evidence and unless you explain what you're refferring to it's a pointless question.
So The Sun lied about Jeremy selling Sheilas photos then?
Perhaps you can explain how Sheila battered her 6ft4" farmer father and overpowered him in the kitchen without sustaining a scratch or a bruise. How she (supposedly) shot to death 5 people without a splatter or spot of blood on her or even breaking a finger nail?
Answer any of these questions in detail if you can? Then we can move on to shooting herself in the neck TWICE with a rifle way to long to fire those shots. Then of course there is the magical silencer.
If we carry on we can cover how Mugford must have lied, the police must have lied and conspired (and altered evidence!), how Bamber had an unfail trial, how the extended family lied and conspired and altered evidence and how the appeal courts were just so wrong!
If Bamber is innocent he must be the one of the unluckiest people on earth.
Please do post soon as I have no doubt you will explain everything!   

[andrea]

how long have you taken an interest in this case pb ?

[grahameb]

Oh yes, we've heard a lot about the "integrity" of newspapers these days haven't we?

So you're saying Bamber didn't try and sell explicit photos of Sheila to The Sun?
(So The Sun lied, Mugford lied, the extended family lied, the police lied, the courts didn't give him a fair trial, the appeal courts were biased! The list grows by the day on this forum!)

Nah, PB the papers never lie do they.
Been reading the papers lately, how many more cops are going to resign.
Are you trying to say the cops are not corrupt. This is the tip of an iceberg.
The cops can't get away with it now, but in 1985 they operated with imputunity.
Are you aware the police altered expert evidence without the knowlege of the said expert.
Stay alert PB I will be posting soon, and after you wipe the egg off your face you can answer.

You will be posting soon? Oh the anticiption, I can hardley wait.
No I am not aware the police altered expert evidence and unless you explain what you're refferring to it's a pointless question.
So The Sun lied about Jeremy selling Sheilas photos then?
Perhaps you can explain how Sheila battered her 6ft4" farmer father and overpowered him in the kitchen without sustaining a scratch or a bruise. How she (supposedly) shot to death 5 people without a splatter or spot of blood on her or even breaking a finger nail?
Answer any of these questions in detail if you can? Then we can move on to shooting herself in the neck TWICE with a rifle way to long to fire those shots. Then of course there is the magical silencer.
If we carry on we can cover how Mugford must have lied, the police must have lied and conspired (and altered evidence!), how Bamber had an unfail trial, how the extended family lied and conspired and altered evidence and how the appeal courts were just so wrong!
If Bamber is innocent he must be the one of the unluckiest people on earth.
Please do post soon as I have no doubt you will explain everything!

Try typing in the search box you may get answers to some of your questions? Unfortunately it's all been asked before and people get a bit tired of answering the same old stuff over and over again.

[nugnug]

Oh yes, we've heard a lot about the "integrity" of newspapers these days haven't we?

So you're saying Bamber didn't try and sell explicit photos of Sheila to The Sun?
(So The Sun lied, Mugford lied, the extended family lied, the police lied, the courts didn't give him a fair trial, the appeal courts were biased! The list grows by the day on this forum!)

Nah, PB the papers never lie do they.
Been reading the papers lately, how many more cops are going to resign.
Are you trying to say the cops are not corrupt. This is the tip of an iceberg.
The cops can't get away with it now, but in 1985 they operated with imputunity.
Are you aware the police altered expert evidence without the knowlege of the said expert.
Stay alert PB I will be posting soon, and after you wipe the egg off your face you can answer.

You will be posting soon? Oh the anticiption, I can hardley wait.
No I am not aware the police altered expert evidence and unless you explain what you're refferring to it's a pointless question.
So The Sun lied about Jeremy selling Sheilas photos then?
Perhaps you can explain how Sheila battered her 6ft4" farmer father and overpowered him in the kitchen without sustaining a scratch or a bruise. How she (supposedly) shot to death 5 people without a splatter or spot of blood on her or even breaking a finger nail?
Answer any of these questions in detail if you can? Then we can move on to shooting herself in the neck TWICE with a rifle way to long to fire those shots. Then of course there is the magical silencer.
If we carry on we can cover how Mugford must have lied, the police must have lied and conspired (and altered evidence!), how Bamber had an unfail trial, how the extended family lied and conspired and altered evidence and how the appeal courts were just so wrong!
If Bamber is innocent he must be the one of the unluckiest people on earth.
Please do post soon as I have no doubt you will explain everything!

well the sun have been known to tell lies.

if you bother to search the forum threads you will see these questions have been answered several times.

if the photos existed the notw and the sun would have bought them and published them.

[Enigma]

for poor bambi :

can you explain why the blood coming from sheilas neck wounds ( she didnt shoot herself twice in the head as you seemed to think) is still wet ?

why is there no discolouration of her skin, the official version states she had been dead at least 7 hrs, surely there would be some sign of discolouration after 7 hrs ?


the posts i refer to wich you said she shot herslef in the head are POLL do you think bamber is guilty, you posted feb 28th at 10.33 and again you state again she was shot in the head twice at feb28th at 10.47 that was on the common sense argument. just so theres no confusion !!

Ok to be more precise; Jeremy Bamber shot Sheila twice in the neck. Unfortunately for Jeremy the first shot wasn't fatal so he had to shoot her  again making his murder/suicide plot to blame Sheila even less realistic.

As for discolouration of the skin I am not nearly qualified enough to have an opinion on that. Are you? My amateur guess is that as Jeremy's shots were fatal, Sheila had no circulation to provide bruising and it was too soon for decomposition to occur. This was all in evidence at his trial and doesn't seem to have been a problem so I assume it isn't. I mean he is still in prison isn't he?   


Talking of skin damage you would think that if Sheila had over powered her 6ft4" farmer father in fight in the kitchen she would at least have some bruising or scrapes; she didn't have so much as a broken fingernail; what's your comment on that?   

[Enigma]

To get to the truth we need a prime time doc featuring heavily on Mugford an Ann eaton
Mugfords part shows the cheque fraud, her at the funeral, her at the mortuary, her trying to smother Jeremy and her doing the notw deal

Ann eaton where do I start

Absolutely gripping stuff for tv

Yeah lets do a completely pro Bamber assination job on anyone who dares to think Bamber is guilty. Make sure that Barbara Wilson nor Sheila's ex husband nor the whole extened family aren't allowed to express their views ok? I mean they all know Jeremy did it. You wouldn't want that on tv would you?

[Enigma]

how long have you taken an interest in this case pb ?

Since the murders occurred. It was Jeremy trying to sell porno photos to The Sun that made it something I have always followed.

[grahameb]

To get to the truth we need a prime time doc featuring heavily on Mugford an Ann eaton
Mugfords part shows the cheque fraud, her at the funeral, her at the mortuary, her trying to smother Jeremy and her doing the notw deal

Ann eaton where do I start

Absolutely gripping stuff for tv

Yeah lets do a completely pro Bamber assination job on anyone who dares to think Bamber is guilty. Make sure that Barbara Wilson nor Sheila's ex husband nor the whole extened family aren't allowed to express their views ok? I mean they all know Jeremy did it. You wouldn't want that on tv would you?

Well that's not fair PB. It was you who called for who else had the motive to kill the family and now you protest when people suggest a few who had the motive and call them assassins. When it seems ok for you to do the same to Jeremy Bamber?

[Enigma]

Oh yes, we've heard a lot about the "integrity" of newspapers these days haven't we?

So you're saying Bamber didn't try and sell explicit photos of Sheila to The Sun?
(So The Sun lied, Mugford lied, the extended family lied, the police lied, the courts didn't give him a fair trial, the appeal courts were biased! The list grows by the day on this forum!)

Nah, PB the papers never lie do they.
Been reading the papers lately, how many more cops are going to resign.
Are you trying to say the cops are not corrupt. This is the tip of an iceberg.
The cops can't get away with it now, but in 1985 they operated with imputunity.
Are you aware the police altered expert evidence without the knowlege of the said expert.
Stay alert PB I will be posting soon, and after you wipe the egg off your face you can answer.

You will be posting soon? Oh the anticiption, I can hardley wait.
No I am not aware the police altered expert evidence and unless you explain what you're refferring to it's a pointless question.
So The Sun lied about Jeremy selling Sheilas photos then?
Perhaps you can explain how Sheila battered her 6ft4" farmer father and overpowered him in the kitchen without sustaining a scratch or a bruise. How she (supposedly) shot to death 5 people without a splatter or spot of blood on her or even breaking a finger nail?
Answer any of these questions in detail if you can? Then we can move on to shooting herself in the neck TWICE with a rifle way to long to fire those shots. Then of course there is the magical silencer.
If we carry on we can cover how Mugford must have lied, the police must have lied and conspired (and altered evidence!), how Bamber had an unfail trial, how the extended family lied and conspired and altered evidence and how the appeal courts were just so wrong!
If Bamber is innocent he must be the one of the unluckiest people on earth.
Please do post soon as I have no doubt you will explain everything!

well the sun have been known to tell lies.

if you bother to search the forum threads you will see these questions have been answered several times.

if the photos existed the notw and the sun would have bought them and published them.

That's rubbish I am afraid my friend, even The Sun does not print nude posed photos of murder victims. Or even a murderess as she was believed to be at the time.
Have you watched the programme where the reporter describes what happened and how his editor told him to "turn the bastard over" ( meaning expose Bamber) ..... is that someone else lying too? 

[grahameb]

Oh yes, we've heard a lot about the "integrity" of newspapers these days haven't we?

So you're saying Bamber didn't try and sell explicit photos of Sheila to The Sun?
(So The Sun lied, Mugford lied, the extended family lied, the police lied, the courts didn't give him a fair trial, the appeal courts were biased! The list grows by the day on this forum!)

Nah, PB the papers never lie do they.
Been reading the papers lately, how many more cops are going to resign.
Are you trying to say the cops are not corrupt. This is the tip of an iceberg.
The cops can't get away with it now, but in 1985 they operated with imputunity.
Are you aware the police altered expert evidence without the knowlege of the said expert.
Stay alert PB I will be posting soon, and after you wipe the egg off your face you can answer.

You will be posting soon? Oh the anticiption, I can hardley wait.
No I am not aware the police altered expert evidence and unless you explain what you're refferring to it's a pointless question.
So The Sun lied about Jeremy selling Sheilas photos then?
Perhaps you can explain how Sheila battered her 6ft4" farmer father and overpowered him in the kitchen without sustaining a scratch or a bruise. How she (supposedly) shot to death 5 people without a splatter or spot of blood on her or even breaking a finger nail?
Answer any of these questions in detail if you can? Then we can move on to shooting herself in the neck TWICE with a rifle way to long to fire those shots. Then of course there is the magical silencer.
If we carry on we can cover how Mugford must have lied, the police must have lied and conspired (and altered evidence!), how Bamber had an unfail trial, how the extended family lied and conspired and altered evidence and how the appeal courts were just so wrong!
If Bamber is innocent he must be the one of the unluckiest people on earth.
Please do post soon as I have no doubt you will explain everything!

well the sun have been known to tell lies.

if you bother to search the forum threads you will see these questions have been answered several times.

if the photos existed the notw and the sun would have bought them and published them.

That's rubbish I am afraid my friend, even The Sun does not print nude posed photos of murder victims. Or even a murderess as she was believed to be at the time.
Have you watched the programme where the reporter describes what happened and how his editor told him to "turn the bastard over" ( meaning expose Bamber) ..... is that someone else lying too?

I think I read somewhere in the forum that the reporter WAS lying? And that Jeremy didn't want anything to do with it. That could explain why these photographs haven't surfaced over the years.? Colin Caffell took some photos of Sheila in various poses and I think I read somewhere that he took them from her flat. He most probably destroyed them. But in any case there is absolutely no proof that JB ever offered these photos to the Sun newspaper. Only words of dubious people in the sleazy world of newspaper journalism. And without any photos to back up this hearsay I'm afraid that is all it will remain. Hearsay.

[nugnug]

havent you heard whats been hapening at the moment you phone hacking milly dowler and all that.

dont tell that anybody at the sun or the news of the world has principles.

i think its proven that they do not.

[andrea]

poor bambie: the photos of sheila were NOT pornographic.

they were pictures taken of sheila, by colin, as they were sunbathing in fields surrounding whf.

she had just come out of hospital after loosing a child, so she would have hardly been in any condition to do a porn shoot.

[Roch]

I've yet to see poor bambi debate any attachments on this forum.  As such, it seems that he has either come to the forum with a completely closed mind and/or is wary of discovering anything that might cause him to question has own stance on Jeremy Bamber's guilt.  Instead of debating crime scene photographs which seemed to only surface 18 years after Bamber was locked up and were subsequently examined by medical professors, PB would rather debate alleged racy pics of Sheila Caffell.  Yet another case of somebody covering their eyes or ears lest they encounter an alternative 'truth' to the one they are clinging on to.

Can I also suggest that some people seem to experience what I would call 'villain syndrome'?  This is where a known culprit exists for a heinous or serious crime.  Some people seem unwilling to give up the defensive crutch of having such a villain for that particular crime, no matter how much subsequent information comes to light to the contrary.  The same people tend to rigidly stand by the saying 'no smoke without fire' etc.  They may also have an implicit near absolute trust in authority, the state, due process etc.

In this case I am minded to believe that there was nobody on hand to protect Jeremy Bamber from Robert Woodris Boutflour.  And that is one half of the equation.  The other half being the bungled raid.  I suspect Julie Mugford may have become 'used' by both halves here.  There is no law in life which states events leading to a conviction must always be linear and simple.  There is no law to suggest that a conviction cannot instead, result out of series of unforeseen events, at first unrelated but then converging, to devastating effect.

 

[Hartley]

You've become very preachy just lately Roch, everything okay?

I guess we're on the 'go slow' without much happening until September, hopefully Mike posting the new statements will help to keep people occupied gor a while.

[Roch]

You've become very preachy just lately Roch, everything okay?

I guess we're on the 'go slow' without much happening until September, hopefully Mike posting the new statements will help to keep people occupied gor a while.

Ill cut the sermons out hartley       Yes mate, the more attachments and stuff the better.  We might even see PB posting on them