Two hundred pieces of evidence against Bamber

[Adam]

Obviously Bamber could not give the jury the alternative reason he stole June's bike. That would just make him look more guilty.

This reason surfaced decades later on the OS.

[Adam]

The defence were snookered when it came to travelling to/from WS.

The prosecution had Wilkinson's WS.

I don't believe the defence ever disputed that Bamber could get to/from WHF quickly. Unseen.

[snow66!]

Obviously Bamber could not give the jury the alternative reason he stole June's bike. That would just make him look more guilty.

This reason surfaced decades later on the OS.

Wouldn't it be more likely that the police received two calls that night about ten minutes appart,and were desperate to prove that JB made them both.One from the Whitehouse and one from JBs cottage,hence the extensive time spend biking the various routes?

[Adam]

Wouldn't it be more likely that the police received two calls that night about ten minutes appart,and were desperate to prove that JB made them both.One from the Whitehouse and one from JBs cottage,hence the extensive time spend biking the various routes?

Bamber did have the option of phoning Chelmsford Police from WHF. Pretending he was Nevill. Then phoning them again when he got back.

The evidence is he didn't do that.

[Cambridgecutie]

Maybe not Dave,but it makes sense.

Your comment proves that you are just making stuff up, creating works of fiction.

You can't say that something did happened on the basis that there is no evidence, and therefore you think that allows you to fill in the blanks with whatever fiction you like, which is what you are doing.  That way, madness lies.

You should always stick to evidence.

There's no evidence that Nevill Bamber made any call (emergency or otherwise) related to what happened that night, and the evidence that has been presented by Jeremy Bamber, can easily be proven to be wrong.

And that was also the view of the CCRC in 2012, who issued a withering statement on Jeremy Bamber's many submissions which led to the 109 page report, that Bamber refuses to allow to be published.

"Pure speculation and unsubstantiated allegations"  they said. 

The CCRC in 2012 accused Jeremy Bamber of making "multiple unsubstantiated allegations".

Because they too, understood that the contents of the 'sender' boxes in the call logs, proves that the originator of those messages were Jeremy Bamber and PC West.  Not Nevill Bamber.

Because they too, noticed that Jeremy Bamber and his legal team, made no mention of the 'sender' and 'receiver' boxes, that clearly states who made the calls.

It's the same with the 'movement in the farm' claims.  It's the same with the 06.09am, 999 call from inside WHF, all of which provably didn't happen, not with the 'evidence' that was presented.

[Roch]

Your comment proves that you are just making stuff up, creating works of fiction.

You can't say that something did happened on the basis that there is no evidence, and therefore you think that allows you to fill in the blanks with whatever fiction you like, which is what you are doing.  That way, madness lies.

You should always stick to evidence.

There's no evidence that Nevill Bamber made any call (emergency or otherwise) related to what happened that night, and the evidence that has been presented by Jeremy Bamber, can easily be proven to be wrong.

And that was also the view of the CCRC in 2012, who issued a withering statement on Jeremy Bamber's many submissions which led to the 109 page report, that Bamber refuses to allow to be published.

"Pure speculation and unsubstantiated allegations"  they said. 

The CCRC in 2012 accused Jeremy Bamber of making "multiple unsubstantiated allegations".

Because they too, understood that the contents of the 'sender' boxes in the call logs, proves that the originator of those messages were Jeremy Bamber and PC West.  Not Nevill Bamber.

Because they too, noticed that Jeremy Bamber and his legal team, made no mention of the 'sender' and 'receiver' boxes, that clearly states who made the calls.

It's the same with the 'movement in the farm' claims.  It's the same with the 06.09am, 999 call from inside WHF, all of which provably didn't happen, not with the 'evidence' that was presented.

I am cautious about the alleged 6.09 call. Not 100% dismissive, but cautious. Re an alleged call from Nevill, it worries me that many supporters do not support it.

[lookout]

Jeremy Bamber case in Parliament----13/7/2022 @5am---youtube. ( officialbambervideo ) No.79 Season 2.

[Rob_]

For me the prosecution case is stronger by saying he cycled to/from WHF.

It matches Julie's WS & Bamber stealing June's bike just before the massacre.

It also matches the 16/26 minute gap between Bamber calling his AM (not verified) & calling the police.

The police were right to cycle the different routes.

Why do you say JB stole June's bike? he had it at his cottage weeks before the crime took place, why did June not report it missing?

200 - 1 = 199 

[Rob_]

Your comment proves that you are just making stuff up, creating works of fiction.

You can't say that something did happened on the basis that there is no evidence, and therefore you think that allows you to fill in the blanks with whatever fiction you like, which is what you are doing.  That way, madness lies.

You should always stick to evidence.

There's no evidence that Nevill Bamber made any call (emergency or otherwise) related to what happened that night, and the evidence that has been presented by Jeremy Bamber, can easily be proven to be wrong.

And that was also the view of the CCRC in 2012, who issued a withering statement on Jeremy Bamber's many submissions which led to the 109 page report, that Bamber refuses to allow to be published.

"Pure speculation and unsubstantiated allegations"  they said. 

The CCRC in 2012 accused Jeremy Bamber of making "multiple unsubstantiated allegations".

Because they too, understood that the contents of the 'sender' boxes in the call logs, proves that the originator of those messages were Jeremy Bamber and PC West.  Not Nevill Bamber.

Because they too, noticed that Jeremy Bamber and his legal team, made no mention of the 'sender' and 'receiver' boxes, that clearly states who made the calls.

It's the same with the 'movement in the farm' claims.  It's the same with the 06.09am, 999 call from inside WHF, all of which provably didn't happen, not with the 'evidence' that was presented.

Can you point me to your 200 pieces of evidence that proves JB committed the crime please, from what you posted above I am expecting some pretty strong evidence.

Perhaps if you start with your top ten pieces of evidence then post the rest latter, your chance to switch me to a guilter.

[Adam]

Can you point me to your 200 pieces of evidence that proves JB committed the crime please, from what you posted above I am expecting some pretty strong evidence.

Perhaps if you start with your top ten pieces of evidence then post the rest latter, your chance to switch me to a guilter.

My thread post points to it. 

[Adam]

Why do you say JB stole June's bike? he had it at his cottage weeks before the crime took place, why did June not report it missing?

200 - 1 = 199 

It was days before.

Bamber & June had no relationship for years. Even Bamber agreed with Mary Mugford's damning testimony saying 'there was a lack of understanding'.

You can say that again.

[Adam]

Chapter 31, page 220 of Wilkes's book -

Julies mother Mary Mugford followed her daughter into the witness box.

She said 'Jeremy hated his mother & blamed her for turning Sheila mad. And he resented her for loving the twins more than him. Jeremy disliked his mother intensely & I felt he was more affectionate to me'.

'He used to call me mummy all the time. He offerred me his mothers small car which had been bought that Christmas. This was just after the shooting. A list had been drawn up and he was going to keep no momentoes, which I thought very strange. He wanted to sell everthing'.

'Jeremy resented his mother because she sent him away to boarding school. He never forgave her for that.

'Apparently she was a religious maniac.

A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.

'Jeremy never spoke to his mother & she never showed any affection towards him'.

'He often spoke of this'.

[Rob_]

Chapter 31, page 220 of Wilkes's book -

Julies mother Mary Mugford followed her daughter into the witness box.

She said 'Jeremy hated his mother & blamed her for turning Sheila mad. And he resented her for loving the twins more than him. Jeremy disliked his mother intensely & I felt he was more affectionate to me'.

'He used to call me mummy all the time. He offerred me his mothers small car which had been bought that Christmas. This was just after the shooting. A list had been drawn up and he was going to keep no momentoes, which I thought very strange. He wanted to sell everthing'.

'Jeremy resented his mother because she sent him away to boarding school. He never forgave her for that.

'Apparently she was a religious maniac.

A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.

'Jeremy never spoke to his mother & she never showed any affection towards him'.

'He often spoke of this'.

Who did June approach Adam about changing her will? you say a few months before so if she really intended to she would have started proceedings? Possibly B Cock?

[snow66!]

Your comment proves that you are just making stuff up, creating works of fiction.

You can't say that something did happened on the basis that there is no evidence, and therefore you think that allows you to fill in the blanks with whatever fiction you like, which is what you are doing.  That way, madness lies.

You should always stick to evidence.

There's no evidence that Nevill Bamber made any call (emergency or otherwise) related to what happened that night, and the evidence that has been presented by Jeremy Bamber, can easily be proven to be wrong.

And that was also the view of the CCRC in 2012, who issued a withering statement on Jeremy Bamber's many submissions which led to the 109 page report, that Bamber refuses to allow to be published.

"Pure speculation and unsubstantiated allegations"  they said. 

The CCRC in 2012 accused Jeremy Bamber of making "multiple unsubstantiated allegations".

Because they too, understood that the contents of the 'sender' boxes in the call logs, proves that the originator of those messages were Jeremy Bamber and PC West.  Not Nevill Bamber.

Because they too, noticed that Jeremy Bamber and his legal team, made no mention of the 'sender' and 'receiver' boxes, that clearly states who made the calls.

It's the same with the 'movement in the farm' claims.  It's the same with the 06.09am, 999 call from inside WHF, all of which provably didn't happen, not with the 'evidence' that was presented.

Hi Killingeve,hope your well this evening.I will try and sum up the phone call issue tonight.

[Adam]

Who did June approach Adam about changing her will? you say a few months before so if she really intended to she would have started proceedings? Possibly B Cock?

No idea.

June would inherit from Nevill after Nevill's death. If June was still alive.

June had allocated money to other friends & the church in her will.

If June died before Nevill, Bamber would inherit her shares of the caravan site. Sheila inheriting the freehold of caravan site.

After the caravan break in it is likely June would have cut Bamber out of her will by the time of her death. Re allocating to the twins, church, Sheila & other friends/relatives.

Bamber testified he would have to continue working at WHF to inherit anything from Nevill.