Evidence of Jeremy Bamber's Guilt

[grahameb]

The devil is in the detail. I wish I'd thought of that!

Jack, we go back a long way, and we're cool with each other. But what if JB is the devil?

If he was the devil he'd be out by now and having dinner with some of the relatives.

[mike tesko]

DS 21 Jones - at the center of the case against Jeremy - he falsified his pocketbook notes:-

It was people like DS Jones that built a false case against Jeremy in order to get him convicted for these murders - no expert is needed to prove that DS Jones falsified his pocketbook entries, its all there for everyone to see simply by looking at the start date on the front cover, accompanied by the official Essex police stamp. My question is what happened to the missing five months worth of evidence that should have been recorded in this pocketbook (between 5th November 1984 and 4th April 1985)?

[Enigma]

Poorbambi we have a very experienced criminal barrister who posts on here and he is very confident that JB will be free soon but you are entitled to your view on things from what you have read but you haventgot access to what is going on like the defence team have

Poor Bambi unfortunately for you the only information you have is what you have read in newspapers and book you have no idea exactly what is happening right now this very minute

Seeing as there is no cctv of Jeremy murdering his family, everybody only has third party information except Jeremy of course and he is very unlikely ever to admit his guilt.

Exactly but you seem so certain and quoting things in the past certain things have happened that the media know nothing about

The devil is in the detail

I could just be glib and say no the devil is in Full Sutton but of course you are correct, I can't know what the defence team is working on and yes I am surprised a ciminal barrister thinks Bamber will be freed soon.

I don't think there is a snowballs chance in hell Bamber will ever be released but I will continue to follow developments in the case with great interest.

By the way, I have introduced myself in the foyer and I do not tag team on here with Hartley or anyone else on. Nor am I that woman from that website Felicity someone or other you suggested I might be. Ok.

[Enigma]

JB is not my type anyway but I quite like the idea of having a boyfriend in jail you would only see them once a fortnight and they wouldn't get on your nerves

I have never been to prison but I think I would rather be there than be your boyfriend :D. And if I had to be your boyfriend I think I would end up in prison anyway! Or I would be spending a fortune on ear plugs!

[Roch]

Poorbambi we have a very experienced criminal barrister who posts on here and he is very confident that JB will be free soon but you are entitled to your view on things from what you have read but you haventgot access to what is going on like the defence team have

Poor Bambi unfortunately for you the only information you have is what you have read in newspapers and book you have no idea exactly what is happening right now this very minute

Seeing as there is no cctv of Jeremy murdering his family, everybody only has third party information except Jeremy of course and he is very unlikely ever to admit his guilt.

Exactly but you seem so certain and quoting things in the past certain things have happened that the media know nothing about

The devil is in the detail

I could just be glib and say no the devil is in Full Sutton but of course you are correct, I can't know what the defence team is working on and yes I am surprised a ciminal barrister thinks Bamber will be freed soon.

I don't think there is a snowballs chance in hell Bamber will ever be released but I will continue to follow developments in the case with great interest.

By the way, I have introduced myself in the foyer and I do not tag team on here with Hartley or anyone else on. Nor am I that woman from that website Felicity someone or other you suggested I might be. Ok.

It was me that suggested you were Felicity Jane Lowde.  Have you seen her blog?  Personally I think the Steel Magnolia blog is better but I can't find a link to it.  It seems to be linked to that youknowwhokilledyoudontyou site.

[ngb1066]

Sorry to disappoint you.............but I have none!

I have noticed that some posters are asking to see proof of Jeremy's innocence.
My answer to that,is that it is all around the forum if you care to look and are intelligent enough to understand.

Likewise,I would like to ask,Where is the proof that points to Jeremys guilt?

Please feel free to get stuck in...............

Bamber was innocent until proven guilty. He was PROVED guilty at trial and is one of a select few with a wholelife tarrif. The proof is in the offical transcripts of the trial and in his sentence.

But if that isn't good enough for you I refer you to Bob Woffinden's excellent article on the MailOnLine website: I am sure you know that he is a recognised crime writer who previously had written articles supporting Bamber. Here is the link:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387438/I-wrong-Jeremy-Bamber-says-crime-writer.html

How do I know you will just dismiss this out of hand? Just the same as all Bamber's supporters on here who refer every difficult question to answers 'all around the forum' as you did above!

It seems to me that your posts have been lacking in any real argumentative substance. You let us know what your feelings are, what your attitude is and that’s about it. I admit that, like Rochford, I noticed a great similarity to that Felicity Jane blogger.
I wonder if you could give us an intellectual response to the following quotation from the Wikipedia entry.

“In 2005, the defence obtained reports from two medical experts, a Professor Marco Meloni and a Professor Cavalli, who expressed the view, based on the photographs, that Sheila had died no more than two hours before the time of the photographs or PC Woodcock's description of the leaking blood; this would place her death during the period Bamber was standing outside the house with the police.”

Absolutely. Firstly you stated that the defence obtained these reports; I assume the two doctors were working at the behest of the defence team then as the police were carrying out no investigative work in 2005. As you surely know, most serious cases have experts on both sides, (often saying oppossing things), put up by their side to support their argument. Shall we call them friendly experts who will say what their employers wish to hear.
Which I am sure is the case here.
How can I be so sure I hear you ask?
Well as stated this was in 2005; no doubt this 'evidence' would have been subsequently presented before the CCRC by the defence and as Jeremy is not getting a third appeal this argument cannot have carried any weight at all with the commission.
And lastly I am surprised you asked such a silly question .... as the statement itself says the two doctors quote 'EXPRESSED THE VIEW' that Sheila died no more than two hours before the photos were taken. Any so called expert who walked into court and gave evidence 'expressing a view' would be slaughtered in cross examination and probably laughed out of the court.       
That is my view and I think I expressed it rather well. ;-)

PB  - I am not sure what point you are trying to make here.  All expert witnesses can do is "express a view", i.e. give their opinion, on a specific piece of evidence.  Expert witnesses are by definition not witnesses of fact and therefore what they say in court can only be their own view, i.e. opinion, on the evidence.  I do not see how you can say they would be "slaughtered in cross examination" or "laughed out of court" if they "expressed a view" on Sheila's time of death.  I accept that this is your view but I am afraid it is not based upon reality.



 

[Enigma]

Sorry to disappoint you.............but I have none!

I have noticed that some posters are asking to see proof of Jeremy's innocence.
My answer to that,is that it is all around the forum if you care to look and are intelligent enough to understand.

Likewise,I would like to ask,Where is the proof that points to Jeremys guilt?

Please feel free to get stuck in...............

Bamber was innocent until proven guilty. He was PROVED guilty at trial and is one of a select few with a wholelife tarrif. The proof is in the offical transcripts of the trial and in his sentence.

But if that isn't good enough for you I refer you to Bob Woffinden's excellent article on the MailOnLine website: I am sure you know that he is a recognised crime writer who previously had written articles supporting Bamber. Here is the link:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387438/I-wrong-Jeremy-Bamber-says-crime-writer.html

How do I know you will just dismiss this out of hand? Just the same as all Bamber's supporters on here who refer every difficult question to answers 'all around the forum' as you did above!

It seems to me that your posts have been lacking in any real argumentative substance. You let us know what your feelings are, what your attitude is and that’s about it. I admit that, like Rochford, I noticed a great similarity to that Felicity Jane blogger.
I wonder if you could give us an intellectual response to the following quotation from the Wikipedia entry.

“In 2005, the defence obtained reports from two medical experts, a Professor Marco Meloni and a Professor Cavalli, who expressed the view, based on the photographs, that Sheila had died no more than two hours before the time of the photographs or PC Woodcock's description of the leaking blood; this would place her death during the period Bamber was standing outside the house with the police.”

Absolutely. Firstly you stated that the defence obtained these reports; I assume the two doctors were working at the behest of the defence team then as the police were carrying out no investigative work in 2005. As you surely know, most serious cases have experts on both sides, (often saying oppossing things), put up by their side to support their argument. Shall we call them friendly experts who will say what their employers wish to hear.
Which I am sure is the case here.
How can I be so sure I hear you ask?
Well as stated this was in 2005; no doubt this 'evidence' would have been subsequently presented before the CCRC by the defence and as Jeremy is not getting a third appeal this argument cannot have carried any weight at all with the commission.
And lastly I am surprised you asked such a silly question .... as the statement itself says the two doctors quote 'EXPRESSED THE VIEW' that Sheila died no more than two hours before the photos were taken. Any so called expert who walked into court and gave evidence 'expressing a view' would be slaughtered in cross examination and probably laughed out of the court.       
That is my view and I think I expressed it rather well. ;-)

PB  - I am not sure what point you are trying to make here.  All expert witnesses can do is "express a view", i.e. give their opinion, on a specific piece of evidence.  Expert witnesses are by definition not witnesses of fact and therefore what they say in court can only be their own view, i.e. opinion, on the evidence.  I do not see how you can say they would be "slaughtered in cross examination" or "laughed out of court" if they "expressed a view" on Sheila's time of death.  I accept that this is your view but I am afraid it is not based upon reality.

Expert witnesses are often witnesses of fact; for example a DNA or fingerprint expert would be stating facts in court. If an expert witness testified that he was expressing a view on anything he had better expect some serious cross examination and be prepared to defend his testimony with something a lot better than he is 'expressing a view'.

[ngb1066]

Sorry to disappoint you.............but I have none!

I have noticed that some posters are asking to see proof of Jeremy's innocence.
My answer to that,is that it is all around the forum if you care to look and are intelligent enough to understand.

Likewise,I would like to ask,Where is the proof that points to Jeremys guilt?

Please feel free to get stuck in...............

Bamber was innocent until proven guilty. He was PROVED guilty at trial and is one of a select few with a wholelife tarrif. The proof is in the offical transcripts of the trial and in his sentence.

But if that isn't good enough for you I refer you to Bob Woffinden's excellent article on the MailOnLine website: I am sure you know that he is a recognised crime writer who previously had written articles supporting Bamber. Here is the link:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387438/I-wrong-Jeremy-Bamber-says-crime-writer.html

How do I know you will just dismiss this out of hand? Just the same as all Bamber's supporters on here who refer every difficult question to answers 'all around the forum' as you did above!

It seems to me that your posts have been lacking in any real argumentative substance. You let us know what your feelings are, what your attitude is and that’s about it. I admit that, like Rochford, I noticed a great similarity to that Felicity Jane blogger.
I wonder if you could give us an intellectual response to the following quotation from the Wikipedia entry.

“In 2005, the defence obtained reports from two medical experts, a Professor Marco Meloni and a Professor Cavalli, who expressed the view, based on the photographs, that Sheila had died no more than two hours before the time of the photographs or PC Woodcock's description of the leaking blood; this would place her death during the period Bamber was standing outside the house with the police.”

Absolutely. Firstly you stated that the defence obtained these reports; I assume the two doctors were working at the behest of the defence team then as the police were carrying out no investigative work in 2005. As you surely know, most serious cases have experts on both sides, (often saying oppossing things), put up by their side to support their argument. Shall we call them friendly experts who will say what their employers wish to hear.
Which I am sure is the case here.
How can I be so sure I hear you ask?
Well as stated this was in 2005; no doubt this 'evidence' would have been subsequently presented before the CCRC by the defence and as Jeremy is not getting a third appeal this argument cannot have carried any weight at all with the commission.
And lastly I am surprised you asked such a silly question .... as the statement itself says the two doctors quote 'EXPRESSED THE VIEW' that Sheila died no more than two hours before the photos were taken. Any so called expert who walked into court and gave evidence 'expressing a view' would be slaughtered in cross examination and probably laughed out of the court.       
That is my view and I think I expressed it rather well. ;-)

PB  - I am not sure what point you are trying to make here.  All expert witnesses can do is "express a view", i.e. give their opinion, on a specific piece of evidence.  Expert witnesses are by definition not witnesses of fact and therefore what they say in court can only be their own view, i.e. opinion, on the evidence.  I do not see how you can say they would be "slaughtered in cross examination" or "laughed out of court" if they "expressed a view" on Sheila's time of death.  I accept that this is your view but I am afraid it is not based upon reality.

Expert witnesses are often witnesses of fact; for example a DNA or fingerprint expert would be stating facts in court. If an expert witness testified that he was expressing a view on anything he had better expect some serious cross examination and be prepared to defend his testimony with something a lot better than he is 'expressing a view'.

PB   -  I do not propose simply repeating points but I am afraid that you have misunderstood the nature of expert evidence.  A DNA or fingerprint expert gives an opinion based upon his examination of material collected by others.  The witness is not giving evidence of facts, he is expressing an opinion based upon his expert knowledge and experience.  You are wrong about the cross examination of expert witnesses.

[Enigma]

Sorry to disappoint you.............but I have none!

I have noticed that some posters are asking to see proof of Jeremy's innocence.
My answer to that,is that it is all around the forum if you care to look and are intelligent enough to understand.

Likewise,I would like to ask,Where is the proof that points to Jeremys guilt?

Please feel free to get stuck in...............

Bamber was innocent until proven guilty. He was PROVED guilty at trial and is one of a select few with a wholelife tarrif. The proof is in the offical transcripts of the trial and in his sentence.

But if that isn't good enough for you I refer you to Bob Woffinden's excellent article on the MailOnLine website: I am sure you know that he is a recognised crime writer who previously had written articles supporting Bamber. Here is the link:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387438/I-wrong-Jeremy-Bamber-says-crime-writer.html

How do I know you will just dismiss this out of hand? Just the same as all Bamber's supporters on here who refer every difficult question to answers 'all around the forum' as you did above!

It seems to me that your posts have been lacking in any real argumentative substance. You let us know what your feelings are, what your attitude is and that’s about it. I admit that, like Rochford, I noticed a great similarity to that Felicity Jane blogger.
I wonder if you could give us an intellectual response to the following quotation from the Wikipedia entry.

“In 2005, the defence obtained reports from two medical experts, a Professor Marco Meloni and a Professor Cavalli, who expressed the view, based on the photographs, that Sheila had died no more than two hours before the time of the photographs or PC Woodcock's description of the leaking blood; this would place her death during the period Bamber was standing outside the house with the police.”

Absolutely. Firstly you stated that the defence obtained these reports; I assume the two doctors were working at the behest of the defence team then as the police were carrying out no investigative work in 2005. As you surely know, most serious cases have experts on both sides, (often saying oppossing things), put up by their side to support their argument. Shall we call them friendly experts who will say what their employers wish to hear.
Which I am sure is the case here.
How can I be so sure I hear you ask?
Well as stated this was in 2005; no doubt this 'evidence' would have been subsequently presented before the CCRC by the defence and as Jeremy is not getting a third appeal this argument cannot have carried any weight at all with the commission.
And lastly I am surprised you asked such a silly question .... as the statement itself says the two doctors quote 'EXPRESSED THE VIEW' that Sheila died no more than two hours before the photos were taken. Any so called expert who walked into court and gave evidence 'expressing a view' would be slaughtered in cross examination and probably laughed out of the court.       
That is my view and I think I expressed it rather well. ;-)

PB  - I am not sure what point you are trying to make here.  All expert witnesses can do is "express a view", i.e. give their opinion, on a specific piece of evidence.  Expert witnesses are by definition not witnesses of fact and therefore what they say in court can only be their own view, i.e. opinion, on the evidence.  I do not see how you can say they would be "slaughtered in cross examination" or "laughed out of court" if they "expressed a view" on Sheila's time of death.  I accept that this is your view but I am afraid it is not based upon reality.

Expert witnesses are often witnesses of fact; for example a DNA or fingerprint expert would be stating facts in court. If an expert witness testified that he was expressing a view on anything he had better expect some serious cross examination and be prepared to defend his testimony with something a lot better than he is 'expressing a view'.

PB   -  I do not propose simply repeating points but I am afraid that you have misunderstood the nature of expert evidence.  A DNA or fingerprint expert gives an opinion based upon his examination of material collected by others.  The witness is not giving evidence of facts, he is expressing an opinion based upon his expert knowledge and experience.  You are wrong about the cross examination of expert witnesses.

The DNA or fingerprint expert will usually state facts. The evidence examined is or is not a match; that is a fact. Obviously in the case of a partial print or partial DNA match they might instead be asked to give their expert opinion. The certainly wouldn't be asked to express a view!
We can agree to differ though.

[Jackiepreece]

Poorbambi theres a great website you might enjoy its set up by a guy called John Lamberton who is trying to get his conviction overturned.  Sounds to me he hasnt got a chance in hell so you might like to point that out to him guillty as charged.  You could split your time between his website and ours.

[andrea]

excellent idea jack 

[chochokeira]

Poorbambi theres a great website you might enjoy its set up by a guy called John Lamberton who is trying to get his conviction overturned.  Sounds to me he hasnt got a chance in hell so you might like to point that out to him guillty as charged.  You could split your time between his website and ours.

Brilliant idea!

[Jackiepreece]

  andy and chocho xxx

I have just found out where i can get the mugford news of the world article but they want £59.00

[grahameb]

Poorbambi theres a great website you might enjoy its set up by a guy called John Lamberton who is trying to get his conviction overturned.  Sounds to me he hasnt got a chance in hell so you might like to point that out to him guillty as charged.  You could split your time between his website and ours.

Great idea Jackie.

[grahameb]

andy and chocho xxx

I have just found out where i can get the mugford news of the world article but they want £59.00

That's a bit steep for old news isn't it?