Counting Conspiracies.

[Roch]

Thanks for taking the time to rebut QC, don't tell him but I can't even be bothered to read his verbose reply and gave up after the first 5000 words of missing the point.

I tried flattering him at first as he can be even handed and make good points but it is clear he will dance on the head of pin, create straw men, invert known facts and generally bore the living daylights out of anyone he takes a dislike to which is anybody that has the temerity to disagree with him even once.

Just scroll past. He isn't fooling anyone with a brain.

TBF, he did bother to read yours. I like some of your posts but I think he has dismantled the post in question on this occasion. Let's see if CC gets similar treatment. For example, is an innocent man not allowed to respond in a facetious manner to police questioning?

[Armchair Detective]

TBF, he did bother to read yours. I like some of your posts but I think he has dismantled the post in question on this occasion. Let's see if CC gets similar treatment. For example, is an innocent man not allowed to respond in a facetious manner to police questioning?

I thought the point was clear Roch but I will spell it out, it is not the merits or otherwise of the individual points but the sheer volume of them, although some are self evidently ridiculous.

Anybody that tries to argue that PC West not telling Jeremy his father had already called is somehow only a conspiracy after the fact doesn't deserve any attention. Life is too short.   

[killingeve]

TBF, he did bother to read yours. I like some of your posts but I think he has dismantled the post in question on this occasion. Let's see if CC gets similar treatment. For example, is an innocent man not allowed to respond in a facetious manner to police questioning?

I do not consider you an arbitrator.  I reject the idea QC has dismantled AD's post.  Unlikely he will repond to my posts since he claims to have put me on ignore.  I just hope he doesn't think because I didn't tackle all his points that I agree with them because I don't.  As AD said life's too short and I've got housework to do.   

[Adam]

Thanks for taking the time to rebut QC, don't tell him but I can't even be bothered to read his verbose reply and gave up after the first 5000 words of missing the point.

I tried flattering him at first as he can be even handed and make good points but it is clear he will dance on the head of pin, create straw men, invert known facts and generally bore the living daylights out of anyone he takes a dislike to which is anybody that has the temerity to disagree with him even once.

Just scroll past. He isn't fooling anyone with a brain.

QC hasn't started patronising you yet. He will if he feels it neccessary.

[Munksa]

I thought the point was clear Roch but I will spell it out, it is not the merits or otherwise of the individual points but the sheer volume of them, although some are self evidently ridiculous.

Anybody that tries to argue that PC West not telling Jeremy his father had already called is somehow only a conspiracy after the fact doesn't deserve any attention. Life is too short.

[/b]

Absolutely! Had West taken Nevill's call before Bamber's as claimed by CT now, first thing West would have told Bamber was that he had just spoken to his father , he had called and help is on its  way!  West would know immediately both calls were regarding the same incident! No rocket science there. There was no need for him to make Bamber hold. As I always say Nevill's alleged call is the KEY to the case..... IF the call didn't happen he is guilty, period! ... Silencer and Mugford can wait.

[Munksa]

TBF, he did bother to read yours. I like some of your posts but I think he has dismantled the post in question on this occasion. Let's see if CC gets similar treatment. For example, is an innocent man not allowed to respond in a facetious manner to police questioning?

He did not dismantle Roch. He just put his own twist and HIS belief according to his own understanding therefore not a fact based, it's not to say if he is right or wrong just that it's his views and opinion. I guess when one is living and  breathing this forum for years and every day they have plenty of time to bother reading post and spend time responding . I think he does it show how smart he is, it's ego, wanting to be right. He gets pretty upset and easily offended if people don't agree to his posts. He also likes to twist things and portray himself as victim. This is MY experience with him. He might have few good points as many have said which I can't dispute because I personally havnt come across anything even one which I havnt heard before , maybe because I havnt gone through all his posts and comments.

I think most supporters here don't even care if Bamber is innocent or not. For a lot it's all about point scoring and ego to be right! It's just a case to talk about " fooling" around in forum. I just got a chance to get on the forum and it's hard to catch up let alone having time to counter-argue 22 points!

Empty vessels make most noise. Just saying. 😁

[Jane]

I believe the original theory offered was that Bonnet and West, between them, if you please, made the decision to withhold, from JB, the information that his father had already called them, in case it was decided, at a later date, to prosecute JB!!!. It occurs to me, that if all the  -what can they be called, other than deliberate lies- "myths" emerging from the case were erased, there would, more likely, be a much more obvious case for guilt.

[Munksa]

I believe the original theory offered was that Bonnet and West, between them, if you please, made the decision to withhold, from JB, the information that his father had already called them, in case it was decided, at a later date, to prosecute JB!!!. It occurs to me, that if all the  -what can they be called, other than deliberate lies- "myths" emerging from the case were erased, there would, more likely, be a much more obvious case for guilt.

What a lot of bollocks !!! People will make anything up to find Bamber boy innocent. I have never heard anything as ridiculous as this.

[JackieD]

Not as ridiculous as the story that JB used to have sex in prison and actually got someone pregnant

A made up story that’s been going around for years that Jeremy told me personally NEVER happened

[Jane]

Here you invent a myth about a conspiracy.  The actual claim is that the conspiracy arose when Operation Raleigh began, or maybe in the run up to it, not at the point that Jeremy was on the phone.

To what extent such a conspiracy may have involved Myall, Saxby and Bews, is unclear to me.  They were merely the response officers in CA07.  I comprehend the point that the Campaign Team are making, that CA07 was a response to Nevill's call, not Jeremy's, but it does not follow from this that the CA07 officers were in on it as they would have just taken the situation as they found it and the source of the call would not have mattered to them, whether HQ or Witham or wherever.
 
Again, you misrepresent things.  The allegation needs to be understood in context.  You speak of Jeremy forgetting about it, but the initial investigation concluded uncontroversially that Sheila was the culprit, as this matched the evidence found, so there was no reason for Jeremy to raise the issue.  It was only when Jeremy became a suspect that it became relevant. 

Against this background, your suspicions make no sense.  If Jeremy was lying about what occurred, then he would have claimed to have seen the figure himself and Bews and Myall would have denied the whole thing ever occurred.  Instead, Bews admits it occurred, and at one point even states he was the one who saw movement in the window!  It's on YouTube for everybody to see.  Some conspiracy that turned out to be.

Well, they did conspire to withhold the log from the defence!  That is fact. Furthermore, the log quite plainly and in black-and-white states that the firearms team are in conversation with somebody from inside the farm.  It uses those very words.  They perhaps should have disclosed it and added a note that this was officers attempting to hail a suspect believed to be in the farmhouse, not in conversation with a suspect, and these efforts were to no avail. 

Also, if they were hailing to no avail and if there was no sign of life in the farmhouse, then why did they wait so long to attempt entry?  Did they lack the equipment and training to effect low light entry?  I appreciate that safety concerns are legitimate considerations, and anyone with a gun has to be considered dangerous, but ultimately, they were dealing with a young woman, not hardened terrorists.  One argument that occurs to me is that they may have been concerned about setting Sheila off and her then shooting everybody, especially as there were young children in the house.  OK, but they waited three hours.  Three hours.  Why?

Two calls can't be made from one phone at one time, so your claim does not make sense.  Are you saying that as the open line was transferred:

(i). Sheila terminates the open line and makes a call?
(ii). Sheila speaks into the open line (perhaps after hearing voices emanating from the handset)?
(iii). Something else?

Who makes this claim?

It is a fact that an authorised firearms officer, PC Collins, looked through the back kitchen window and when he reported what he saw back to CA07, he stated one dead female.  They then enter the farmhouse and find one dead male.  CA07 then radioed this back to Igor Norman at Chelmsford as one dead male and one dead female found on entry to the farmhouse, and PC West also recorded it this way in the Wireless Log. 

What is clear is that PC Collins' second report back to CA07 could not have included the conjunctive word as there was only one body in the kitchen.  Furthermore, if PC Collins had seen a different body through the window to that found in the kitchen, he would have reported this.

It follows from this that PC Collins' original observation could not have been mistaken in its essential fact - he definitely saw a body, whether male or female.  This in turn leaves open two possibilities:

(i). the body found by the raid group on entry to the main kitchen was in the same position to that observed by PC Collins through the kitchen window;
or,
(ii). the body found by the raid group on entry to the main kitchen was in a different position to that observed by PC Collins through the kitchen window.

If (i) applies, then PC Collins' evidence in this respect is true and he just mistook Nevill's body for female.

If (ii) applies, PC Collins' evidence is false, and either Nevill was still alive at this point or Sheila was in the kitchen just before the raid group entered the farmhouse.

PC Collins was not commenting on whether the bodies he saw were alive or dead.  If he says 'dead bodies', that is because they appear to be dead.  Even a doctor would not be able to tell from behind a window six feet away.

Again, I think you misrepresent the alleged conspiracy.  What is being posited here is that the officers decided to cover up the second shot only.  There is no suggestion that the officers on the scene sought to frame Jeremy.  In fact, it's the very opposite of what you say.  The efforts were intended to make it look like a two-shot suicide.  A variation on the theory is that Taff Jones became aware of what had gone on and this explains his apparent obstinance.

Personally, I do not believe there is anything to support this theory but I retain an open mind. Stranger things have happened.

I don't know if there was a suicide note, but it was Stan Jones who mentioned a suicide note in his COLP interview.  It's not as if Jeremy was stood there with him saying, 'Go on Stan, mention the suicide note.
Go on.  I'll give you all my dinner money if you do...'  Jeremy seems to be blamed for drawing natural inferences from things people have done or said of their own free will, which seems rather unfair to me.

Personally, I suspect it was just clumsy expression on Stan Jones' part that Jeremy has now seized on, but if Jeremy Bamber is innocent, can you blame him for making hay of it?  Shouldn't the COLP officers have sought clarification from DS Jones on the point?  Why blame Jeremy when it's the police who are not being rigorous and checking things?

Well you're wrong here too.  Even the prosecution counsel, Anthony Arlidge, Q.C. disagrees with you.  He conceded the point in his closing speech on 27th. October 1985, when he told the jury:

"Somebody in this case is lying, and lying their head off.  It's just something you have to face up to."

You say the phone call was at 3 a.m.  Julie said it was at 3.15 a.m.  Susan Battersby said it was at 3.12 a.m., based on her alarm clock, which she asks us to assume was deadly accurate.

Julie told the police in her first statement that Douglas Dale had answered the phone, then corrected this later and admitted she answered.

Putting aside the truth or otherwise of all this, I'm not clear why you think this is a wild supposition or 'conspiracy theory'.  You do realise that people tell lies in court, including women and policemen?  You do understand that people are sometimes framed for crimes they did not commit?  I will grant you that normally this is because the person framed is believed to be guilty or is looked upon as suspicious, but the point is that you seem to be dismissing as wild supposition things that actually have occurred in real life in other cases.

Again, putting aside the truth or otherwise of this, I'm unclear why you put these allegations in the 'conspiracy theory' category, as if they can be dismissed out-of-hand as beneath your notice.  People do plot together to tell lies, and - brace yourself for this because it will shock you - they sometimes do it because they're greedy or nasty.  You do realise this? 

Are you serious when you suggest there was no motive for them to lie?  I'm not saying they were lying, but you can't seriously be telling us there was no motive.

I don't believe anything that comes out of the mouth or pen of a reporter from the Sun, or any journalist, from any newspaper, or any media person or anybody who works in broadcasting.  If a journalist or media person gave me the time of day, I'd ring up the Greenwich Observatory to double-check.  Not one of them is trustworthy in the sense that you can rely on their word without carrying out your own checks.  They tell lies.

That having been said, I think you have to make a choice.  If Michael Fielder's story was true, then we have another reason in support of Sheila as the killer, don't we, and if Jeremy is lying about selling photographs, that is no proof that he is a murderer.  If, on the other hand, Michael Fielder's story is false, it does not follow that Jeremy is innocent, it merely serves to establish what we already know, that journalists are scumbags; and, it may be that Fielder lied because Brett and Jeremy themselves were a couple of scumbags.

Certainly, what we can say is that Jeremy's moral orientation took a turn for the worse under the influence of young Brett.

Where is it said by anybody supporting Jeremy that everybody has lied?  Anyway, why shouldn't it be the case that large numbers of people told lies in different ways?  Why can't experienced professionals make mistakes?  How did the Post Office Horizon scandal happen?  By accident?

Again, I'm not clear why you think this is far-fetched.  The TV drama was based partly on Colin Caffell's book.  You do realise that Colin Caffell would crawl bollock-naked over broken glass to stop Jeremy being freed? And do you think Carol Ann Lee just woke up in a manger?  She writes for money.  She doesn't just do it for the good of her health.  She appeared on that podcast and said what they want her to say because they paid her.  This is not a silly person.  She's a shrewd lady.
 
I'm starting to view you as a bit of a naif.  I'm starting to think you might be a promising mark for a confidence man.  You seem to be under the belief that what you see on TV and read in newspapers is true and doesn't represent some sort of agenda. 

No such thing occurred.  Jeremy fully admits that he had Crispy put down. The controversy is over why.  You fail to ask why Carol Ann Lee would impute the worst possible motives in Jeremy for the most mundane incident while absolving everybody else.

What a silly comment.  If Essex Police have concealed evidence, then what else should we conclude than that they have....concealed evidence?  That is literally what they have done.  And if you were innocent of something and still in prison for it, what else would you do other than protest your innocence at every opportunity?

To my knowledge, nobody associated with Jeremy Bamber has ever made this accusation.  There would be no need.

Here you rely on the 2002 appeal judges, but they actually got this wrong.  There is a factor they failed to take account of.  As to why Jeremy's defence did not raise the Bible during the trial, I have no idea and I doubt anybody else does, even Jeremy himself.  I suspect the only person who knows is Geoffrey Rivlin, Q.C., and he's probably forgotten.  It may be that Rivlin was worried that blood impressions inside the Bible may incriminate Jeremy.  OK, so what?  Doesn't mean Jeremy is guilty, as the cause of it can be more than one thing.

Which is true. It is admitted by the authorities that this occurred.

Well, which is it?  I'm not clear how this is wild supposition.  The concern seems well-founded.

Again, this actually happened.  It is fact.  Whether the documents were technically stolen by police officers is a matter of law, but no legitimate reason for them to have those documents springs to mind.  "Any chance I can take this document home, guv, show it to the wife?" "Yeah, go on. Jeremy's legal team won't need it anymore", sounds to me like a conversation that should not take place between police officers.  However, we are talking about the police force that destroyed crucial evidence in a murder case involving a disputed conviction, so perhaps that's how it panned out.

Why not?  Why shouldn't this be a factor?  I doubt anybody would claim it was the only reason, but why shouldn't it have come into play?  The Birmingham Six would say they were stitched up because they were Irish (in fact, they were all Irish Republicans).  Judith Ward was an IRA groupie.  My point is that the personal habits, views, and lifestyle choices of an individual can firm them up as a suspect, especially if these personal attributes have some relevance to the case itself.  It turned out that Judith Ward was innocent. 

In the present case, and to give due credit to Stan Jones (who was an able detective), Jeremy's slightly decadent, 'alternative', metropolitan outlook and lifestyle formed a background against which a picture could be painted of him as someone materialistic rather than dutiful and, taken together with other things, allowed the prosecution to portray Jeremy as perhaps the type of person who would seek to escape a rural north Essex life and might - just might - resort to desperate measures to do it.  If it turns out that Stan Jones was wrong, then this train of thought starts to look a bit prejudiced.  Indeed, I'm told that early in his prison career, Jeremy Bamber was subscribing to Farmers Weekly.  Was that just to give him another appeal point?  And even his detractors base their detraction on Jeremy wanting to use the money he would inherit to buy a small farm in Devon.  Why would they come up with something like that?  Why would Jeremy want to sell up one farm-business conglomerate that is prosperous and doing well only to set up another in some random part of the country he has no connection to?  Does that make any sense to you?

One cannot escape the thought that, for the most part, your intention is not simply to play devil's advocate, but to aggressively argue, lengthily, against whatever was posted last.

[Jane]

Not as ridiculous as the story that JB used to have sex in prison and actually got someone pregnant

A made up story that’s been going around for years that Jeremy told me personally NEVER happened

Whatever JB told you -and frankly, he can tell you anything- if a woman claims to be pregnant with his child, there's no way you can prove otherwise............unless there is evidence of JB's sterility.

[JackieD]

Whatever JB told you -and frankly, he can tell you anything- if a woman claims to be pregnant with his child, there's no way you can prove otherwise............unless there is evidence of JB's sterility.

There are so many fake stories about JB and this will obviously be another one from a desperate women and quite hilarious as the guilters like to promote the stories that JB is gay

Unless there is evidence this women exists it will be a fake story

[Munksa]

Not as ridiculous as the story that JB used to have sex in prison and actually got someone pregnant

A made up story that’s been going around for years that Jeremy told me personally NEVER happened

Jackie, Jeremy told you so must be true! I believe you ... 🤪

You can't digest the fact that Bamber indeed had intimate relationship with that someone, two bodies became one, awww. Why Jackie? Why are you refusing to believe? Why does it upset you so much that you bring it up everytime? So what if he had? Nothing wrong I am sure Bamber has desire like everyone else, wouldn't you want him to fullfill his God given desires and wants? Don't be so mean Jackie. Let him.

[JackieD]

One cannot escape the thought that, for the most part, your intention is not simply to play devil's advocate, but to aggressively argue, lengthily, against whatever was posted last.

QC conveys the facts and in my opinion his long post is Probably one of the best I have read on this form but as expected slated by the guilters as everything is on point

[JackieD]

Jackie, Jeremy told you so must be true! I believe you ... 🤪

You can't digest the fact that Bamber indeed had intimate relationship with that someone, two bodies became one, awww. Why Jackie? Why are you refusing to believe? Why does it upset you so much that you bring it everytime? So what if he had? Nothing wrong I am sure Bamber has desire like everyone else, wouldn't you want him to fullfill his God given desires and wants? Don't be so mean Jackie. Let him.

Why on earth would you believe a mad women that is anonymous. She doesn’t exist.  All famous men are accused of the same thing