End of the road ?

[Adam]

I dont think anyone gives much credence to paragraph 518 ,not even Adam.

I give a lot of credence to it. Equal to the other 74 pieces in the COA.

[snow66!]

I give a lot of credence to it. Equal to the other 74 pieces in the COA.

You are dead right there Adam,it is equal to the other 74 pieces in the COA.So you are finally agreeing that they are also rubbish.Thanks for eventually being honest!

[David1819]

You are dead right there Adam,it is equal to the other 74 pieces in the COA.So you are finally agreeing that they are also rubbish.Thanks for eventually being honest!

There are not even 74 pieces of evidence in the COA anyway. Its just a figure attributed to Adams gish gallop of bullshit.

[snow66!]

There are not even 74 pieces of evidence in the COA anyway. Its just a figure attributed to Adams gish gallop of bullshit.

Yes,I think it even includes the absence of sugar on Sheila's feet,Dosen't it?

[Steve_uk]

There are many problems with Julie's claims. To highlight a few -

Just two days after she went to the police implicating Matthew McDonald as Jeremys hitman. Complete with a story of how Jeremy instructed him to enter the farm. She admits she does not know if Matthew Mcdonald had ever been to the farm in the first place.


"I have been asked what I know about Matthew. I have only met him a couple of times, always at Head Street, Coldhanger. He made me feel very nervous although I do not know why. I am aware that Jeremy met him through a previous relationship, in fact whilst he was living with Sue FORD in Colchester. I do not know if Matthew has ever been to White House Farm".

"I have been asked why I did not make known to any other person, particularly to the authorities the contents of the conversations between myself and Jeremy BAMBER for 20 days, namely the 27th August 1985 when I then told Susan BATTERSBY. In answer to this I can say that in my subconscious I believed what Jeremy had said was true and I would qualify this by stating that I believed Jeremy when he said he had hired Mathew to kill the family".

She believes he was Jeremy's hitman yet doesn't know if he has even ever been to the crime scene?

Then we have her sudden recollection about the twins dying first. This conveniently prevents Colin from inheriting any money should JB be convicted.

She was evidently talking about two separate occasions. As for the wills, it would depend on whether Daniel and Nicholas were mentioned therein. https://www.nelsonslaw.co.uk/commorientes-rule/#:~:text=In%20a%20nutshell%2C%20the%20commorientes,the%20title%20to%20any%20real

[Adam]

She was evidently talking about two separate occasions. As for the wills, it would depend on whether Daniel and Nicholas were mentioned therein. https://www.nelsonslaw.co.uk/commorientes-rule/#:~:text=In%20a%20nutshell%2C%20the%20commorientes,the%20title%20to%20any%20real

I have asked David several times -

What the issue of Julie being told MM committed the massacre & not knowing whether he had been to WHF.

Why Julie would want CC to not inherit.

----------

David has refused to answer.

[Adam]

You are dead right there Adam,it is equal to the other 74 pieces in the COA.So you are finally agreeing that they are also rubbish.Thanks for eventually being honest!

Don't become ignorant & try to pretend the COA evidence does not exist.

Take a similar stance to QC, David or Lookout -

99.5% guilty.

Guilty but Bamber sent me a Christmas card.

Guilty but I changed stance to goad two women.

[snow66!]

Don't become ignorant & try to pretend the COA evidence does not exist.

Take a similar stance to QC, David or Lookout -

99.5% guilty.

Guilty but Bamber sent me a Christmas card.

Guilty but I changed stance to goad two women.

Well you left yourself wide open Adam .Anyway Lookout is 99.5% innocent regardless of christmas cards,as for Dave,I am not sure if he is reasonable doubt or innocent.Which two women do you keep referring to ? Anyway if you still REALLY think that paragraph 518 means anything,I am afraid I will have to go over it again.

[Roch]

“there is no documentary evidence either provided or referred to which supports the existence of a second silencer”

The forensic scientists listed below carried out experiments regarding blood grouping, DNA and ballistics. The results of these tests were presented at trial and at the 2002 Appeal as having come from one sound moderator. Different examinations yielded different measurements for the sound moderator examined at different times by different scientists:


1. Parker Hale                                            175 mm

2. Brian Elliott’s examination                       176 mm

3. Malcolm Fletcher                                    175.2 mm

4. Malcolm Fletcher                      O.L           165.1mm [ Overall Length]

                           M.T            165.1mm [ Muzzle to trigger]

                            B              165 mm [Barrel]

5. Glynis Howard                                        166.1 mm

6. Malcolm Fletcher                                     177.8 mm

7. Martyn Ismail                                          177 mm

8. DI Cook                                                  180 mm

9. Malcolm Fletcher                                    165.1 mm

There are 5 measurements of the length of the silencer at 165/166 mm or 6 ½ inches and there are 6 measurements of the length of the silencer of 175/180 mm or 7 inches.

Courtesy of BR's article: https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/is-the-ccrc-implicated-in-36-years-of-deception-in-the-case-of-jeremy-bamber

There is a difference of 14.9 mm from Malcolm Fletcher's overall length measurement, to Ron Cook's measurement.  How can the same sound moderator have an overall length that is virtually 1.5 cm less than Ron Cook's measurement?  Have you seen 1.5 cm on a ruler?

What was Ron Cook using to measure the sound moderator.. the span of his own fingers?

[Rob_]

What was Ron Cook using to measure the sound moderator.. the span of his own fingers? [/b]

Some of the dimensions are to the nearest .1 of a mm so I assume a vernier was used to take some of the measurements? I don't think the guilters can say this was just yet another mistake!

Your post is pretty damming for the prosecution and hard to easily explain away.

[snow66!]

Let us take another quick look at Ismails evidence in paragraph 518.The leg pulling of Sheila.OK,Ismail states that after the first shot Sheila had slipped down and the back of her head was against the cabinet,and that she remained in that same position after the second shot,that is until someone pulled her by the legs away from the cabinet and her head fell down flat on the floor.

Ismail said she had to be pulled because her head didn't have the weight to push her body along the floor.But if you study the photos of Sheila you will see that her body has not BEEN pulled away from the cabinet.The photos show the exact position that Sheila slipped down into after the first shot,and there it remained.

The only part of her body that moved after the second shot was her head which simply fell off the edge of the cabinet and hit the floor.There was no need for any weight to move her body,because her body WAS NOT moved.

For heavens sake,if it is true what Ismail said ,and Sheilas body was pulled away from the cabinet to lower her head ,her whole body including her head and shoulders would be well clear of the cabinet,yet this is not so.If you straightened up Sheilas head it would simply be back resting against the cabinet.

Sheila has not been pulled away from the cabinet by the legs or anything else,that is impossible as the photos show.Sheila must have been sitting at an angle to the cabinet,leaning to the right,prpbably with only her left shoulder against the middle of the cabinet.After the first shot she simply slipped down to the position we see her in,BUT with her head against the outer edge of the cabinet,which INSTANTLY fell to the side after the second shot and hit the floor.

The photos clearly show what must have happened,it is simple and irrefutable.NO ONE PULLED SHEILA AWAY FROM THE CABINET.And as for the rifle being stage managed,I dont see this at all.Sheila would have held onto the rifle after she slipped down following the first shot,then because she was flat on her back after the second shot the rifle would simply stay in position across her body.Nothing suspicious there.

So,thats that,paragraph 518 is nonsensical.just some rubbish to try and upset and put to an end JBs appeal attempt,nothing more.Now move along people,nothing to see here.........

[Roch]

Some of the dimensions are to the nearest .1 of a mm so I assume a vernier was used to take some of the measurements? I don't think the guilters can say this was just yet another mistake!

Your post is pretty damming for the prosecution and hard to easily explain away.

Yes Rob, but apparently the authorities have said.. 

“there is no documentary evidence either provided or referred to which supports the existence of a second silencer”.

So, what should we make of that?

[Cambridgecutie]

There are not even 74 pieces of evidence in the COA anyway. Its just a figure attributed to Adams gish gallop of bullshit.

You can't 'gish gallop' on a forum, you can only really do it in conversation.

On a forum there is plenty of time to go through all the points someone makes, pick out the ones you want, and then answer them with a full narrative answer, in your own time.

'Gish galloping'  is a technique to stop that from happening, but only works in a verbal discussion.

If anything, Adam is giving you all the ammunition you need to shoot his arguments down in your own rime, and yet you don't.  Instead you just accuse him of things like 'gish galloping', and chuck in a few insults. 

The only thing that matters is facts, information, and explanation. 

Responding with one sentence answers declaring someone wrong, or firing off an insult, isn't going to  convince the casual passer by, who genuinely wants to know about the case.  And that will water down your point of view in the eyes of that person.

[Adam]

You can't 'gish gallop' on a forum, you can only really do it in conversation.

On a forum there is plenty of time to go through all the points someone makes, pick out the ones you want, and then answer them with a full narrative answer, in your own time.

'Gish galloping'  is a technique to stop that from happening, but only works in a verbal discussion.

If anything, Adam is giving you all the ammunition you need to shoot his arguments down in your own rime, and yet you don't.  Instead you just accuse him of things like 'gish galloping', and chuck in a few insults. 

The only thing that matters is facts, information, and explanation. 

Responding with one sentence answers declaring someone wrong, or firing off an insult, isn't going to  convince the casual passer by, who genuinely wants to know about the case.  And that will water down your point of view in the eyes of that person.

David is a guilter. He attempted a secret stance change so he could goad two female posters. Eventually giving two reasons for changing stance when outed.

He will be openly changing stance again this week. When I look at his second reason for changing stance from hardcore guilter. His first reason has already been dismissed.

[Jane]

It may have gone on between Boutflour and Bamber senior since as early as 1950.

I personally believe a lot of animosity was held between the two and they weren't particularly close

Well done for highlighting something I believe to have been glaringly obvious. I've been pushing those thoughts for a long time. Those murders weren't just about one family member killing others on the spur of the moment. 'Stuff' -jealousies, rivalries- had been smouldering for years, exacerbated, I suspect, by the realization that Nevill's 'heir apparent' didn't have the same love of working the land as did the rest of the family.