Barbara De"ath discussing sea wall

[ILB]

Could you give me the exposure and ISO times you used? I take blue hour photos and the data would be useful.

Thanks.

He doesn't have that information.

Just cartoon drawings and couples posing from Surrey.

[Rob_]

He doesn't have that information.

Just cartoon drawings and couples posing from Surrey.

Yes I know ILB, many of those photos are blue hour shots makes you laugh!

[ILB]

Yes I know ILB, many of those photos are blue hour shots makes you laugh!

Very cringeworthy.

[Cambridgecutie]

Thanks for that.

But I'm expected at the same time to take couples from Surrey and biased pro gulit ( no longer live ) blogs?

No thank you killingeve

But at the same time can you prove the person in the comment is a liar? But my comment was directed at Adam, not you.

I can prove that the person in the comment is wrong by referring them to the previous 40 years since the crime was committed, and the investigations which have proven no corruption. 

That is legally proven.

Whether he/she/it is a liar or not is irrelevant.  It's whether the words in the comment are correct or not, and they are provably incorrect.

And the guilty verdict is the legally correct one.  This isn't a 50/50 thing.  It's a 100/0 thing.

He is guilty.   That is legal fact.  It's not just about believing he's guilty.  He is guilty.

The evidence that he submits, claiming to objectively prove his innocence, is no such thing.  And he knows that it is no such thing.  He makes no effort whatsoever to find new evidence.

He makes a lot of effort creating  lies around existing documentation.  And that documentation, in reality, merely shows the police doing their job properly.

It's like having a receipt for fish fingers from Lidl, and then showing it to someone, bragging to them that it's a receipt for some caviar from Harrods.  And then expecting everyone to actually believe that its a receipt for some caviar from Harrods.

When we can all see that its a receipt for fish fingers from Lidl.

[Cambridgecutie]

Yes I know ILB, many of those photos are blue hour shots makes you laugh!

You do know that  'blue hour' doesn't mean watching porn for an hour don't you?

[Adam]

Could you give me the exposure and ISO times you used? I take blue hour photos and the data would be useful.

Thanks.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.istockphoto.com/photos/farm-field-at-night&ved=2ahUKEwjikprr7suFAxWZW0EAHb3ZAwc4ChAWegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw3jSw19DsSgbkp7zsze9-xP

They are not my photos.

But hundreds of photos of farm land at night. Showing good light.

But you and ILB are entitled to say Bamber also needed a helmet/bike light.

[ILB]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.istockphoto.com/photos/farm-field-at-night&ved=2ahUKEwjikprr7suFAxWZW0EAHb3ZAwc4ChAWegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw3jSw19DsSgbkp7zsze9-xP

They are not my photos.

But hundreds of photos of farm land at night. Showing good light.

But you and ILB are entitled to say Bamber also needed a helmet/bike light.

Cartoon pictures, Surrey couples, Christmas trees.

Whatever next

[ILB]

I can prove that the person in the comment is wrong by referring them to the previous 40 years since the crime was committed, and the investigations which have proven no corruption. 

That is legally proven.

Whether he/she/it is a liar or not is irrelevant.  It's whether the words in the comment are correct or not, and they are provably incorrect.

And the guilty verdict is the legally correct one.  This isn't a 50/50 thing.  It's a 100/0 thing.

He is guilty.   That is legal fact.  It's not just about believing he's guilty.  He is guilty.

The evidence that he submits, claiming to objectively prove his innocence, is no such thing.  And he knows that it is no such thing.  He makes no effort whatsoever to find new evidence.

He makes a lot of effort creating  lies around existing documentation.  And that documentation, in reality, merely shows the police doing their job properly.

It's like having a receipt for fish fingers from Lidl, and then showing it to someone, bragging to them that it's a receipt for some caviar from Harrods.  And then expecting everyone to actually believe that its a receipt for some caviar from Harrods.

When we can all see that its a receipt for fish fingers from Lidl.

Well I agree Jeremy Bamber is currently a X5 convicted murderer. Having being convicted by a 10 to 2 majority in 1986.

[Rob_]

You do know that  'blue hour' doesn't mean watching porn for an hour don't you?

Yes I know, but we need to teach Adam that phots taken during the blue hour will appear to show a lot of ambient light.

But now I find out he never even took them!

[Adam]

I can do no more than provide hundreds of photos of night ambient light in farm areas.

Which is better than ILB posting an individual photo of an area with no ambient light. This does not represent an open area.

But ILB & Rob are not going to change there opinion that Bamber needed either a bike or helmet light.

[Adam]

A helmet light would be more beneficial. That follows the movement of your head/eyes.

You can be cycling in a straight line and be able to check what is either side of you 

Bike lights are more so drivers can see you. A front light may only be effective for a few feet in front of you.

[Cambridgecutie]

Well I agree Jeremy Bamber is currently a X5 convicted murderer. Having being convicted by a 10 to 2 majority in 1986.

And the 'new evidence' that he has submitted over the years merely documents normal police processes, nothing more. 

Wrapping a bunch of lies around it doesn't count as evidence.

He's not even trying.

He's just trolling the system and getting as much attention as he can because he loves himself.

[Cambridgecutie]

A helmet light would be more beneficial. That follows the movement of your head/eyes.

You can be cycling in a straight line and be able to check what is either side of you 

Bike lights are more so drivers can see you. A front light may only be effective for a few feet in front of you.

According to CAL's book, the bike was new (although it could have been second hand).  So if brand new, I'd imagine it came with a dynamo or something similar.  Not sure though.

But he could have hand held a conventional torch, or taped it to the bike.  Or the bike may have come with conventional lights already installed.

There was enough moonlight to do the whole thing, and the moonlight would have made things easier, but I'd recommend using a torch.  If you are cycling at night on off road tracks (as I often do), you need a little bit of light just to light up the section of road in front of you.  And I'm talking just 2 or 3 feet.

He would only have needed a trickle of light from a torch in the darkness to allow him to see 5 feet in front of the bike.

However he did it, it was a relatively easy thing to do.   Only a rabid Bamber supporter would falsely claim that it was impossible.

Not that any of this matters.  This is a legally watertight issue, that cannot be legally challenged.   It would never count as new evidence.  Also, to claim that it was impossible to complete in darkness with a bike and a torch, on a sufficiently moonlit night, is not capable of belief.  People cross the channel with less.

Just a quick search on google gave me the link below...but I can confirm, on the night that Jeremy Bamber murdered his entire family, there was enough moonlight to cycle to WHF and back. Fact.

These posts below talk about the full moon giving as much light as a streetlight.  On the night Jeremy Bamber murdered his family, it was something like 68%.  Not the luxury of 100% moon, but good enough.

https://new.reddit.com/r/tolkienfans/comments/4yewtb/does_moonlight_really_give_enough_visibility_to/

The thing is, even when there is no moon, there us still some light around.  It's never pitch black.

[ILB]

Obviously I think the none starter sea wall scenario is an excellent prosecution narrative for pure empathsis in terms of creating the " silent unseen journey bullshit "

Thank god for de'ath RB and Bamber and reality confirming it was a non starter.

It was very admirable of GG to take his blog down after he admitted he had got it wrong.

[ILB]

Jeremy Bamber has been faking evidence for the last 40 years. Easily provable lies, and you post a comment from an unknown person ranting and frothing at the mouth, and you expect people to take that comment seriously.

Stick to the known facts.  Jeremy Bamber has been creating lies for the past 40 years and presenting those lies as new evidence.

Those lies are easily proved as lies, even to a member of the public.  And the CCRC summarized 8 years of submission and subsequent investigations as 'pure speculation and unsubstantiated allegations'

The CCRC basically labelled him a liar.

What evidence has Jeremy Bamber personally faked?