Truth serum

[David1819]

I dont think Adam wants an answer Ngb,its his idea of humour!
Quite amusing really,if you take it the right way!
Dont you think?

No he is trolling.

I made a cartoon of him a while ago that captures the essence of his contributions.

[snow66!]

Current & former supporters obviously know Bamber is guilty. But have reasons to support.

Mike, ILB & Guest29835 have beefs with the police. He told Mike & ILB he is innocent.

Roch has a beef with the justice system.

NGB worked for Jeremy. So can't now say he believes him guilty.

Jeremy sent Lookout Xmas cards.

Jane didn't like Julie's court dress.

Caroline saw the CTSB doc and received letters from Jeremy.

David wants to be part of a purpose.

BuboBubo likes creating scenarios.

Bill likes writing articles.

Dave says you are trolling Adam!

[BarefootDanC]

So according to the prosecution they didn't tell the defence about the existence of two silencers, which kind of refutes your original statement? and this was not until 2020? I think that you have to concede that there is no accuracy in what you said, "the prosecution barristers told the defence barristers about the existence of a second sound moderator". I'm only asking because I'm not aware of any time when the prosecution has admitted there was a second silencer.

Let me rephrase on this point: in 2020 at Bamber's (second) Judicial Review application against the Crown Prosecution Service (seeking access to original documents as they only had copies), the defence alleged that they had been told by the prosecution at the 2002 appeal that there were two silencers.

Effectively, Bamber's lawyers were claiming in 2020 that the prosecution had taken "truth serum" and blabbed to the defence (in 2002) about there being two silencers.

I think we both agree this didn't happen.

P.S. the 2020 judgment is worth reading in full, I guess you have probably already read it.

[BarefootDanC]

Certainly, ACC Simpson mentioned in a press conference that a silencer was found on 7 August and it was reported in the local press, but the Essex Police tape recording of the press conference is 'missing' the section where he discussed it and EP now deny that he said anything about the silencer.

Are you sure he said on the day of the killings rather than "early in the investigation" ??

Why would he admit "on the day of the killings" unless he had been given a very strong dose of truth serum?

[David1819]

Are you sure he said on the day of the killings rather than "early in the investigation" ??

Why would he admit "on the day of the killings" unless he had been given a very strong dose of truth serum?

The full press transcript is here

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1920.msg59631.html#msg59631

Simpson never mentioned a silencer being found on the day, a local newspaper simply mis-quoted him.

[BarefootDanC]

The full press transcript is here

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1920.msg59631.html#msg59631

Simpson never mentioned a silencer being found on the day, a local newspaper simply mis-quoted him.

Thanks David. I'll look at this later.

Some other newspapers have "early on in the investigation" so I thought it was a mis-quotation.

As I said, why would ACC Simpson have said that to the press? It would require a big dose of "truth serum".

[ILB]

Sorry if this appears rude to Aunty, but that is a very silly thing to say. The police did not blab to anyone outside of the the immediate police circle and that ensured that nobody else knew what was divulged.

Certainly, ACC Simpson mentioned in a press conference that a silencer was found on 7 August and it was reported in the local press, but the Essex Police tape recording of the press conference is 'missing' the section where he discussed it and EP now deny that he said anything about the silencer.

The Stokenchurch enquiry was not made available to the CT until 2011 and Stan Jones would never have expected the public to know anything about what he discussed with the Met. Likewise with the high definition digital crime scene photographs, none of the police would have anticipated those becoming available to the CT.

Milbank has revealed some information nearly 40 years after the event, his excuse for remaining silent is that nobody asked him previously (which is not true).

So how does the CT get access to information that has either been deleted, withheld or kept secret?

A pretty heavy burden if what you say is true for a PC to carry over a forty year period who did not have direct involvement in the case on a grand scale.

[Cambridgecutie]

According to many Bamber supporters, this is a case where nearly everyone lied to frame Bamber, either because they had something to gain (Julie Mugford and the extended family) or because they were under pressure (although why would they police frame Bamber when they thought (or knew ?) it was Sheila and why would the expert witnesses come in on the conspiracy?).

Anyway, all these people lied at the trial, but for some reason on other occasions, such as the police enquiries (COLP etc) they were given "truth serum". For example, allegedly:

(1) the prosecution barristers told the defence barristers about the existence of a second sound moderator (although the defence didn't do anything about it at the time).
(2) DS Stan Jones talked about the "note" (the suicide note) at the 2002 Stokenhurst enquiry.
(3) ACC Simpson said in the press about a sound moderator recorded on the day of the killings but this not necessarily being suspicious.
(4) PC Milbank and others told Heidi Blake of the New York Times all the information the supporters need to know and information which they have been after for nearly 40 years.

Basically, the police blabbed enough on various occasions after the trial for his supporters to know exactly what happened (although they would still like to see other documents anyway so they can make their submission to the CCRC even longer).

Many Bamber supporters are his achilles heel.  They move from one ill thought out conspiracy to the next.  With everyone from the Bamber's housekeeper to the Direction of Public Prosecutions conspiring to put away a numpty rural Essex farmer.  But if you believe the initial theory of murder/suicide was correct then it stands to reason there must have been some wrongdoing.  For me I believe DS Jones fabricated the silencer in terms of the blood on the outside, paint and hair.  He aslo put the frighteners on JM to secure her testimony.  DCI Ainsley, believing this evidence was legitimate, was then able to get the lab on board.  Much the same way the 4 teenage girls who lied in the Stefan Kiszko case were then able to get the lab on board via the officer in charge of the investigation, Richard Holland, and the forensic scientist, Ronald Outteridge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed

Snowball effect.

[Zoso]

Many Bamber supporters are his achilles heel.  They move from one ill thought out conspiracy to the next.  With everyone from the Bamber's housekeeper to the Direction of Public Prosecutions conspiring to put away a numpty rural Essex farmer.  But if you believe the initial theory of murder/suicide was correct then it stands to reason there must have been some wrongdoing.  For me I believe DS Jones fabricated the silencer in terms of the blood on the outside, paint and hair.  He aslo put the frighteners on JM to secure her testimony.  DCI Ainsley, believing this evidence was legitimate, was then able to get the lab on board.  Much the same way the 4 teenage girls who lied in the Stefan Kiszko case were then able to get the lab on board via the officer in charge of the investigation, Richard Holland, and the forensic scientist, Ronald Outteridge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed

Snowball effect.

So now he's innocent again? 

[Adam]

So now he's innocent again? 

Holly has always been a supporter pretending to be a guilter. Holding back on certain issues.

An attempted disguise of who she was which David spotted instantly.

Is now trying to create theories to sneek her way into being a supporter. They don't come any bigger than accusing SJ of putting hair, blood and paint into the silencer.

[Adam]

Better late than never. Has been a member for over 4 years.

I know the ulterior motives why supporters support Bamber. But never understood CC's reason for doing the opposite.

[Zoso]

Holly has always been a supporter pretending to be a guilter. Holding back on certain issues.

An attempted disguise of who she was which David spotted instantly.

Is now trying to create theories to sneek her way into being a supporter. They don't come any bigger than accusing SJ of putting hair, blood and paint into the silencer.

I honestly don't care  . I think it's funny.

[BarefootDanC]

Many Bamber supporters are his achilles heel.  They move from one ill thought out conspiracy to the next.  With everyone from the Bamber's housekeeper to the Direction of Public Prosecutions conspiring to put away a numpty rural Essex farmer.  But if you believe the initial theory of murder/suicide was correct then it stands to reason there must have been some wrongdoing....

Not necessarily. If Jeremy was innocent, it is possible (remotely) that the blood was a mixture of Nevill and June's, and it was possible (fair to say remotely) that Sheila managed to overpower Nevill and shoot her whole family without getting any blood on her hands and feet, and without getting any bullet residue on her hands (or washing) etc .... If this is the case, the only person necessarily lying is Julie Mugford.

[David1819]

Not necessarily. If Jeremy was innocent, it is possible (remotely) that the blood was a mixture of Nevill and June's, and it was possible (fair to say remotely) that Sheila managed to overpower Nevill and shoot her whole family without getting any blood on her hands and feet, and without getting any bullet residue on her hands (or washing) etc .... If this is the case, the only person necessarily lying is Julie Mugford.

You also have Robert Boutflour saying that Jeremy told him he could easily kill anybody including his parents.

David Boutflour denying under oath that he'd never seen Sheila fire a gun.

Ann Eaton giving conflicting accounts in her statements and trial testimony. And telling the police she heard Jeremy say that Sheila gave June a black eye.

[Cambridgecutie]

Holly has always been a supporter pretending to be a guilter. Holding back on certain issues.

I just wanted to see what it is like on the other side.  Its much easier to argue from a prosecution perspective as its 'official' and you don't need to justify your position.

An attempted disguise of who she was which David spotted instantly.

Not quite instantly.  And I made the mistake of telling Roch in a pm.  He undoubtedly told others.  But Munska and KE are defintely nothing to do with me. 

Is now trying to create theories to sneek her way into being a supporter. They don't come any bigger than accusing SJ of putting hair, blood and paint into the silencer.

Whoa!  No definitely not inside.  Outside only.