David Boutflour WS's.

[snow66!]

Even if Julie mugford did indeed lie. It's all about self protection at this stage of her life.

Her coming forward saying she lied and she is effectively going to put herself in prison for a significant period

Yes,thats all very true ILB.

[Adam]

Why dont you send them all your evidence Bubo,let them check it out.
Couldn't do any harm,the team have all the available documentation to study.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11893.msg546176.html#msg546176

I said this yesterday to him.

Very surprsing he limits himself to here after studying the case for 14 years and deciding there was an industrial stage, frame and 38 year cover up.

Guilters and other posters such as David will think it's crazy. Supporters will automatically support a fellow supporter but won't read his posts.

So no benefit to Bamber.

[Adam]

I just wish they would get a blood stains expert to look into the Crown's case in relation to June being shot 5 times in bed. A blood version of Boyce. I do not know how this would look but sure as hell, what I see, does not look to me what I would expect. It just does not look right all those droplets on the pillow. It looks more like someone has lifted her onto the bed.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=40856;image

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=39404;image

Maybe they have.

As you said you are not a blood expert 

June was shot in bed 5 times. As the crime scene evidence shows.

Supporters are entitled to attempt a Sheila scenario matching this evidence.

June going around WHF bare footed holding a shot gun for 4+ hours, after being shot 4 times by Sheila, then being shot 3 times by the police out of bed, is not matching the crime scene evidence.

[ILB]

In an appeal you have a number of grounds which you put forward to challenge the original verdict.

Even if all goes past the CCRC. The respondent the crown, at a COA hearing will just bring up Julie mugford, James Richard, the remark to Robert Boutflour and any other evidence that remains unchallenged ( the original verdict )


The three judges will dismiss the appeal

[ILB]

It will be a Carbon copy of the 2002 appeal

[ILB]

Have to agree with the KC in the Louie theroux documentary to be honest.

" It will need to be something compelling, something of a slam dunk nature "

To me Jeremy's best bets have always been establishing a phonecall from nevill or undermining Julie Mugford.

[Bubo bubo]

Have to agree with the KC in the Louie theroux documentary to be honest.

" It will need to be something compelling, something of a slam dunk nature "

To me Jeremy's best bets have always been establishing a phonecall from nevill or undermining Julie Mugford.

Another way round this is to produce so many smaller but telling arguments that despite what JM says prove that the case against him was manufactured. That is he was framed. In that way if he had say five or six 'corkers' it would shed doubt on other more contested issues like the call from NB. Arguments can be made for this but there is no proof but if he has strong evidence of malfeasance Although the call is disputed it might suggest that it too was crafted in a way that made it disappear.

[Steve_uk]

Another way round this is to produce so many smaller but telling arguments that despite what JM says prove that the case against him was manufactured. That is he was framed. In that way if he had say five or six 'corkers' it would shed doubt on other more contested issues like the call from NB. Arguments can be made for this but there is no proof but if he has strong evidence of malfeasance Although the call is disputed it might suggest that it too was crafted in a way that made it disappear.

These old chestnuts have been discredited a long time since.

[ILB]

Another way round this is to produce so many smaller but telling arguments that despite what JM says prove that the case against him was manufactured. That is he was framed. In that way if he had say five or six 'corkers' it would shed doubt on other more contested issues like the call from NB. Arguments can be made for this but there is no proof but if he has strong evidence of malfeasance Although the call is disputed it might suggest that it too was crafted in a way that made it disappear.

The problem and this is just my opinion. With the framing concept is that originally Jeremy Bamber was believed and taken at face value. It was Shelia what done it. This was the initial accepted view.

Framing to me would have been more likely if from the initial outset. If we are talking an Essex police scenario

[Bubo bubo]

The problem and this is just my opinion. With the framing concept is that originally Jeremy Bamber was believed and taken at face value. It was Shelia what done it. This was the initial accepted view.

Framing to me would have been more likely if from the initial outset. If we are talking an Essex police scenario

To some extent I agree but at the outset the prevailing thinking would not be that the police are a a bunch of criminals and why would they wish to spend time and energy constructing an elaborate frame up of a 24 year old farmers son from a little village in a remote part of Essex. I believe it was only when the family got stuck in that the frame became necessary to stop their mistake becoming exposed. They had already lied to the coroner if my suggestion as to why they framed him is correct

[David1819]

The problem and this is just my opinion. With the framing concept is that originally Jeremy Bamber was believed and taken at face value. It was Shelia what done it. This was the initial accepted view.

Framing to me would have been more likely if from the initial outset. If we are talking an Essex police scenario

There is no evidence whatsoever that the police framed JB or shot anyone. Its all wild conjecture and fan fiction.

If someone argues along the lines of all evidence contrary to their outlandish theories is fabricated by the police and the only evidence that will prove their outlandish idea is kept hidden by the police. Then you cannot really debate with such a person on that particular topic.

[ILB]

To some extent I agree but at the outset the prevailing thinking would not be that the police are a a bunch of criminals and why would they wish to spend time and energy constructing an elaborate frame up of a 24 year old farmers son from a little village in a remote part of Essex. I believe it was only when the family got stuck in that the frame became necessary to stop their mistake becoming exposed. They had already lied to the coroner if my suggestion as to why they framed him correct

I don't think the family got stuck in the frame as such. They are kind of the orchestra. In so for which they basically got the second investigation going.

I actually think even if we take the scenario of finding the silencer out of the equation and julie mugford. And hypothetically Jeremy Bamber remained a free man with his inheritance. They would have ostracized Jeremy and tried to bring proceedings against him through a civil claim private prosecution.

There seems to be a strong dislike of Jeremy

[ILB]

There is no evidence whatsoever that the police framed JB or shot anyone. Its all wild conjecture and fan fiction.

If someone argues along the lines of all evidence contrary to their outlandish theories is fabricated by the police and the only evidence that will prove their outlandish idea is kept hidden by the police. Then you cannot really debate with such a person on that particular topic.

I know there isn't a police conspiracy against Jeremy Bamber Dave. I am not championing the theory.

Police corruption did exist in the 1970s and 1980s. ( Still does today ) However I don't believe it did in this case  And have stated my reason why above

[Roch]

There is no evidence whatsoever that the police framed JB or shot anyone. Its all wild conjecture and fan fiction.

If someone argues along the lines of all evidence contrary to their outlandish theories is fabricated by the police and the only evidence that will prove their outlandish idea is kept hidden by the police. Then you cannot really debate with such a person on that particular topic.

It's reassuring to know that authorities go out of their way to place evidence at Kew, sealed or decades, but which has no evidential value to the defence. Likewise, presumably the destroyed nightdress would have yielded nothing useful to the defence. I could go on.

[ILB]

It's reassuring to know that authorities go out of their way to place evidence at Kew, sealed or decades, but which has no evidential value to the defence. Likewise, presumably the destroyed nightdress would have yielded nothing useful to the defence. I could go on.

The nightdress is interesting.

Destroyed in 1996 I believe ?

Interestingly in the case is Stefan kiszko the garment which contained another man's semen was kept for over 30 years which eventually caught the real culprit