Burning down of the caravan park shop.

[snow66!]

Ismails evidence is the legally accepted truth, and has gone unopposed for the last 20 years.

It's quite possible that Jeremy Bamber has hired his own expert to have a look at the evidence, and the expert agreed with Ismail.  That would explain the deafening silence on the matter.

The police have openly and publicly documented that they moved the body for a number of reasons.  This was actually discussed at the trial.

For example, the photo of the gun against the window, taken from the landing was a photo that Bamber and his supporters  said went undisclosed for years.  But the very same photo was discussed at length at trial in 1986. 

The police have always been open about moving the body, which was discussed at trial.

It doesn't help Jeremy Bamber's cause that he keeps lying about the evidence, and it doesn't help his cause that his supporters maintain the lie.

If you take the call log that Jeremy Bamber falsely says proves that Nevill Bamber phoned HQIR (999) that night, the document from which Bamber has fabricated that story was supposed to have been undisclosed at trial.  And it was supposed to have been hidden by the police for years.

But one of the photocopies that has been publicly published, actually has a tag attached to it that confirms that is was in fact an exhibit at the 1986 court case at Chelmsford crown court.

And, on top of that, the ten minute time discrepancy was also discussed at trial, so both call logs would have been official exhibits, available to both defence and prosecution.

This isn't evidence of lying by Jeremy Bamber, it is proof of lying by Jeremy Bamber.

And these are really clumsy lies that are easy to expose.

And while I'm here...another lie that springs to mind is that Robert Boutflour's blood group was not disclosed to the defence at the time.  And yet there he is, in court, being cross-examined, being accused of accidentally dripping his own blood into the silencer.

Why does Jeremy Bamber lie so much.  He is addicted to lying.  Why not just tell the truth.  Oh yes, silly me.

I think JB should get in touch with ME regarding Ismails evidence Killingeve.

[lookout]

I suppose I was a detective in a way as a retired nurse, as well as trying to get my head around law and litigation cases, sadly.

[snow66!]

I suppose I was a detective in a way as a retired nurse, as well as trying to get my head around law and litigation cases, sadly.

Well,at least its kept you active Lookout!

[lookout]

Well,at least its kept you active Lookout!

Indeed it did,as I'm still on the ball, thankfully.

[snow66!]

Indeed it did,as I'm still on the ball, thankfully.

Yes,well done.

[Roch]

Well,the blood could only have got to her wrist by running down her arm Roch,else we have to believe that blood spurted out of one of the wounds and landed on her wrist and nowhere else.Both of these ways seem very unlikely,hence I agree the blood was on Sheilas wrist/arm before she shot herself.

If you can suss this, and I can suss this, why does it seem so hard for many others to?

What I find amusing is that me and Bill have always been consistent on this, whereas those who oppose, are all over the place.

On minute Sheila is moving the underside of her wrist to her gunshot wounds; the next minute, it is blood that has ran down Sheila's dress and somehow soaked on to the underside of her wrist; the next minute, blood has spurted on to the underside of her wrist directly from a gunshot wound; the next minute blood has ran down her arm to the underside of her wrist.

Those who oppose have no unified voice. They can't sing from the same hymn sheet - they're all at sixes and sevens 😏

[Jane]

If you can suss this, and I can suss this, why does it seem so hard for many others to?

What I find amusing is that me and Bill have always been consistent on this, whereas those who oppose, are all over the place.

On minute Sheila is moving the underside of her wrist to her gunshot wounds; the next minute, it is blood that has ran down Sheila's dress and somehow soaked on to the underside of her wrist; the next minute, blood has spurted on to the underside of her wrist directly from a gunshot wound; the next minute blood has ran down her arm to the underside of her wrist.

Those who oppose have no unified voice. They can't sing from the same hymn sheet - they're all at sixes and sevens 😏

It's no big deal, though, is it Roch? We can, mainly, safely divide posters into guilty/innocent beliefs -leaving aside those who have no fixed beliefs but just like to argue aggressively!!- but rarely will any of those with the same belief, be united in sub beliefs, ergo whilst you and Bill agree on this point in particular, other than you both being in the same 'camp', there's probably more that divides, than unites, you. I guess finding ourselves united over something gives reason to celebrate.

[David1819]

If you can suss this, and I can suss this, why does it seem so hard for many others to?

What I find amusing is that me and Bill have always been consistent on this, whereas those who oppose, are all over the place.

Seriously?

You have an alleged cut on Sheila's shoulder with blood running out towards the floor (as it should). Then on Sheila's arm the rules of gravity have completely reversed and is pulling the blood upwards away from the ground.



Then on top of that, you have all these alleged wounds that only seem to have bled in one direction despite allegedly suffering from these wounds while standing and mobile.

Then you have the autopsy evidence that requires a convoluted conspiracy you have no scintilla of evidence to support.

Then you have June inflicting all these wounds and going back to bed.

Then you have June inflicting fingernail wounds that caused blood to flow out of Sheila's arm. While Sheila is supposed to have inflicted the same nature of wounds to Nevills arm yet no blood is flowing from Nevill's arm and the injuries on Nevill's arm looks completely different to what is on Sheila's arm. Yet they are supposed to be the same type of injuries (according to you).

Then you have the evidence of two other experts - Bernard Knight and Helbert MacDonnell that contradict this idea. The excuse being the photos were not good enough despite the fact none of them complained about the quality and felt them to be of adequate quality to draw their conclusions on.

This entire hodgepodge of lunacy rests solely on the claims of someone who has assumed there is expert evidence to support the claim because someone in the CT told him it would be part of the submission. The same person who told everyone to put money on JB being released by Christmas 2017.

So who is all over the place here? 

 

[Cambridgecutie]

So you know JB and the case well then,do you killingeve ? Not just through some drama that was on TV ??

I'd say I know the case as well as most people.

I got interested not because of the TV drama, but because of the online stuff about Jeremy Bamber, generated by Jeremy Bamber.

I found his evidence fascinating.  On the surface it looked valid, but dig a bit deeper and it became obvious that he was creating fabricated stories from individual sheets of paper.

I found it amazing that national newspapers supported him, even though the evidence that he put forward never stood up to close scrutiny.

The fact remains that it has been as good as proven that Sheila was murdered. No one here on this forum has come up with anything to put a dent in that.

It's Bamber himself who has condemned himself to a life in prison, but not because he murdered his family, but because he has spent 37 years blaming Sheila Caffell for the crimes.

It is Jeremy Bamber, who has straightjacketed the legal system into only considering Jeremy Bamber or Sheila Caffell as the criminals.

If Sheila's innocent, then Jeremy's guilty.  That comes from Jeremy. He really has hoisted himself on his own petard.

Had he allowed his defence to entertain the idea that a third party may have been involved, then his defence team could have introduced reasonable doubt.

I think it's in CAL's book that Mike Ainsley says something like, if Jeremy had allowed his defence team to put forward a possible third party, then he may have been found not guilty.

Not guilty doesn't mean innocent, but it does mean you walk free with the inheritance intact.

If it was me, and  I was genuinely innocent, I would have begged the police to investigate the possibility of a third party.  I'd definitely instruct my defence team along those lines.

Why didn't Bamber?

[David1819]

If it was me, and  I was genuinely innocent, I would have begged the police to investigate the possibility of a third party.  I'd definitely instruct my defence team along those lines.

Why didn't Bamber?

Because he knows it was Sheila. 😏

[Adam]

Bamber did briefly suggest Nevill said 'she' on the phone. In his police interviews.

This was after the police said Sheila could not have shot herself a second time.

[David1819]

Bamber did briefly suggest Nevill said 'she' on the phone. In his police interviews.

This was after the police said Sheila could not have shot herself a second time.

That is incorrect. You can find those words in Jeremys August 7th W/S. This has been pointed out to you before. Repeating disinformation you have concocted is not going to help you in convincing anyone (something that you are yet to achieve).

[Adam]

That is incorrect. You can find those words in Jeremys August 7th W/S. This has been pointed out to you before. Repeating disinformation you have concocted is not going to help you in convincing anyone (something that you are yet to achieve).

You are not quoting the section when the police say Sheila could not have shot herself a second time.

This is selective lying.

[Adam]

Bamber also suggested Crispy fired the second shot. As well as saying Sheila's reflexes may have fired the second shot.

Bamber never queried that Sheila could not have fired the second shot. That is because he knew the first shot had knocked her out.

[Adam]

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=296.0

I'll get the page later.