Two hundred pieces of evidence against Bamber

[snow66!]

Snow, since I joined this site, the number of the ex police officers who allegedly believe JB to have been stitched up and innocent, must run into hundreds! Don't you think it odd that, rather than taking this vital information to the appropriate places, they choose to whisper in the ear of of someone on a forum who can do diddly squat. Even declines to deliver his own 'vital' and freedom granting information because it, allegedly, wasn't the right time. Ya' see, Snow, all this rubbish about "evidence exists" and "there's proof that" has been touted out for at least ten years and nothing has changed.

What if there is documented proof of the 6.09 ,  999call from the farm house Jane?

[lookout]

Come off it killingeve, JB hoodwinking hundreds of his followers for nigh-on 37 years----some of them QC's,lawyers and ex/retired police ?

[Steve_uk]

What if there is documented proof of the 6.09 ,  999call from the farm house Jane?

You may as well lump it together with everything else. https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/jeremy-bamber-police-evidence-withheld-32-years/

[Adam]

It was me who said 200 pieces of evidence, and I said it in reference to taking all of the publicly available evidence into account in its totality. Only then can you get an idea of what actually happened.

To ascertain guilt or innocence, you need to look at all the evidence in its totality, which is how the legal system works.  And it's why the legal system continues to say he is guilty.

The evidence taken as a whole, will tell the most accurate story.

What Jeremy Bamber has been doing over the decades is to take a single piece of evidence, create a narrative that supports his innocence from that single piece of evidence, and then claim that that piece of evidence alone proves his innocence beyond any reasonable doubt.

On the surface, and to a member of the public who hasn't investigated further, such out of context single pieces of evidence, can look very convincing.

And to the CCRC in 2012 those single pieces of evidence was declared to be "pure speculation and unsubstantiated allegations"

An example would be the two call logs, one of which Bamber says shows that Nevill Bamber spoke to Malcolm Bonnett at Chelmsford HQIR at 03:26 am

FYI - Chelmsford HQIR is where 999 calls go to, and civilian staff like Malcolm Bonnett then co-ordinate the emergency, such as sending ambulances, police cars etc.

The other 'call log' shows a call from Jeremy Bamber calling the local Chelmsford police station at 03:36 am

For the uninitiated, If Nevill Bamber directly spoke to the police that night, then it means that Sheila really was going crazy with the gun, and that would make Jeremy Bamber innocent.

But in reality,  neither of those 'call logs' show that Nevill Bamber phoned Malcolm Bonnett at HQIR.


And this is the reason why:

There is a piece of information on both forms (or call logs) that shows categorically, exactly who made the phone calls.

Each form has a box on the top left that is labelled 'sender'

Each form has a box on the top right that is labelled 'receiver'

The box labelled 'sender' contains the name of the person who made the call.

The box labelled 'receiver' contains the name of the person who took the call.

On the form that has a handwritten time stamp of 03:36, the 'sender' box contains the originator of the call, and that is Jeremy Bamber, Goldhanger Lane.

On that same form the 'receiver' is PC 1990, which is PC West's Police ID number.  Therefore PC West took the call, from Jeremy Bamber. 

The message that Jeremy Bamber gave to PC West in that message, recorded in writing on the same form, is obviously an emergency, and so as per police protocol, he contacted the 999 call handlers to hand what was obviously an emergency over to them.

However, PC West already had Jeremy Bamber on the only available phoneline, and didn't have access to another phone, so he used his radio to contact Malcolm Bonnett at HQIR (the 999 emergency call handling facility)

PC West explained to Malcolm Bonnett what Jeremy Bamber had said to him, and Malcolm Bonnet, as per police procedures, created another form (the other call log).

In the 'sender' box he wrote 1990 (PC Wests police ID number), because PC West was the originator of the call.

In the 'receiver' box he wrote MB, short for Malcolm Bonnett, which was himself, as he was taking the call from PC West.

Malcolm Bonnet wrote 03:26 on the form for the time stamp.

And that is the simple true story of how the two 'call logs' came to be.

And it shows conclusively that Nevill Bamber was NOT the originator of either of those calls. Jeremy Bamber was the originator of one, and PC West was the originator of the other

And therefore it proves that Jeremy Bamber has used these forms to create the narrative that Nevill Bamber made a call to the police, when in fact it is easily provable with the very evidence that Jeremy Bamber has submitted, that Nevill Bamber did no such thing.

Jeremy Bamber, his lawyers, his campaign team, and his supporters, have never made any mention whatsoever of the 'sender' and 'receiver' boxes.

And that is because the 'sender' and 'receiver' boxes provide
insurmountable evidence (proof in all but name) that neither call was made by Nevill Bamber.

Given the strength of the above evidence in relation to the call logs, the different time stamps (03:26 and 03:36), which Jeremy Bamber attaches so much importance to, actually becomes insignificant.

And that is how, using single pieces of evidence and taking them out of context, Jeremy Bamber has attempted to make himself look innocent,  when the very same evidence that he submits, very often says the opposite, when you look at it more closely.

Yes there is around 200 pieces of incriminating evidence.

The main recent claims from supporters here are -

Bamber couldn't cycle in the dark.

Four cartridges were moved into the bedroom to help create a Bamber scenario.

Bamber would leave the silencer next to Sheila.

[snow66!]

You may as well lump it together with everything else. https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/jeremy-bamber-police-evidence-withheld-32-years/

So,you are not impressed Steve.

[lookout]

I'm waiting for the 200 pieces of evidence. Killingeve has only listed 1----which in my estimation is wrong anyway, but carry on. 

[snow66!]

I'm waiting for the 200 pieces of evidence. Killingeve has only listed 1----which in my estimation is wrong anyway, but carry on.

Yes,we understand about the sender and receiver and all that,but what I want explained is the VAST difference in the wording of the two logs.No one has addressed this to my satisfaction Lookout.Not West in his interview and not Killingeve.

[Rob_]

Yes,we understand about the sender and receiver and all that,but what I want explained is the VAST difference in the wording of the two logs.No one has addressed this to my satisfaction Lookout.Not West in his interview and not Killingeve.

It would only take a very minor change in the top left corner of MB's log, sorry to be so cynical Snow.

I have always thought a call came in from WHF and still do, West's two statements just add insult to injury.

[Cambridgecutie]

Come off it killingeve, JB hoodwinking hundreds of his followers for nigh-on 37 years----some of them QC's,lawyers and ex/retired police ?

The facts speak for themselves.  The sender and receiver boxes in my example prove who made the calls.  Nevill Bamber did not make one of those calls. 

The time stamps that Jeremy Bamber talks about are irrelevant.

As for the lawyers, they don't care about the truth, they only care about representing their client.

Michael Turner QC represented Bamber in the 2002 CoA.  At the time, he did an interview with the Telegraph, and here are some quotes from that article...

If you ever find yourself accused of murder, covered in blood and holding a smoking gun, Michael Turner is the man to call. “If you say you didn’t do it, the gun was planted and it’s a stitch-up, then fine,” says this leading defence lawyer. “You want me to believe you – or at least appear to – and put that case with passion.”


“It’s not my job to believe my client. It’s my job to represent him.”


What if he realises halfway through a trial that his client is evil? “Whether I think my client is an evil individual or not is neither here nor there.”

[Rob_]

The facts speak for themselves.  The sender and receiver boxes in my example prove who made the calls.  Nevill Bamber did not make one of those calls. 

The time stamps that Jeremy Bamber talks about are irrelevant.

As for the lawyers, they don't care about the truth, they only care about representing their client.

Michael Turner QC represented Bamber in the 2002 CoA.  At the time, he did an interview with the Telegraph, and here are some quotes from that article...

If you ever find yourself accused of murder, covered in blood and holding a smoking gun, Michael Turner is the man to call. “If you say you didn’t do it, the gun was planted and it’s a stitch-up, then fine,” says this leading defence lawyer. “You want me to believe you – or at least appear to – and put that case with passion.”


“It’s not my job to believe my client. It’s my job to represent him.”


What if he realises halfway through a trial that his client is evil? “Whether I think my client is an evil individual or not is neither here nor there.”

Why do you say the time stamps are irrelevant? to me they are critical.

[snow66!]

It would only take a very minor change in the top left corner of MB's log, sorry to be so cynical Snow.

I have always thought a call came in from WHF and still do, West's two statements just add insult to injury.

I never thought a call from Nevill to the police was that important Rob,as long as Nevill called JB.But now I am inclined to think Nevill did make a call to the police,and the only conclusion that makes sense to me is that West received two calls,the first from Nevill which he passed on to Bonnet,hence the wording.Then West must have received JBs call five or ten minutes later,so I must be cynical too Rob,believing that a log exists somewhere that has the details from Nevills call that West wrote down,before sending the info to Bonnet.Its the only thing that makes sense to me.

[David1819]

Why do you say the time stamps are irrelevant? to me they are critical.

The time stamps are not electronic and asynchronous. The best they can do is give an estimation.

[snow66!]

The time stamps are not electronic and asynchronous. The best they can do is give an estimation.

How do you explain the vast difference in the wording of the logs Dave,apparently from the same call from JB?

[Rob_]

The time stamps are not electronic and asynchronous. The best they can do is give an estimation.

Yes I agree, in those days a minute or to is the best we are going to get. But looking at Wests and MB's logs I would say that their clocks were set quite close to one another?

[Rob_]

I never thought a call from Nevill to the police was that important Rob,as long as Nevill called JB.But now I am inclined to think Nevill did make a call to the police,and the only conclusion that makes sense to me is that West received two calls,the first from Nevill which he passed on to Bonnet,hence the wording.Then West must have received JBs call five or ten minutes later,so I must be cynical too Rob,believing that a log exists somewhere that has the details from Nevills call that West wrote down,before sending the info to Bonnet.Its the only thing that makes sense to me.

I believe there were two calls Snow but we must also remember at this stage nothing underhand was going on, it was only when the dodgy silencer turned up.