Latest TikTok: The police went into White House Farm with a video recorder!

[BarefootDanC]

https://www.tiktok.com/@justice4jeremybamber/video/7478803571614420246?_r=1&_t=ZN-8uTIIqIRyWU

According to the Campaign Team, the police went into White House Farm with a video recorder!

[Roch]

MT always claimed there was a video recording of the scene.

[Cambridgecutie]

MT always claimed there was a video recording of the scene.

MT claimed lots of things.  Nuff said 

[Cambridgecutie]

https://www.tiktok.com/@justice4jeremybamber/video/7478803571614420246?_r=1&_t=ZN-8uTIIqIRyWU

According to the Campaign Team, the police went into White House Farm with a video recorder!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrZRrzfMF3o

[David1819]

MT always claimed there was a video recording of the scene.

And he was correct

[Roch]

MT claimed lots of things.  Nuff said 

.
Do you think the police officer has made up his statement?

[Adam]

Was it was police protocol to bring a video recorder to a crime scene in 85?

Doubtful in sleepy Tolleshunt D'arcy.

A photographer would be called once determined it was a murder scene. Lots of crime scene WS's would also be submitted.

Navy Seals may have had head video camera's when raiding Bin Laden's pad in 2011. The WHF raid team in 85 were not Navy Seals.

[Zoso]

.
Do you think the police officer has made up his statement?

Well you think some of them did 

[Cambridgecutie]

.
Do you think the police officer has made up his statement?

This is the snippet of statement that appears in the TikTok vid which makes reference to video cassettes (note plural).  If so:

- we are only seeing a snippet
- no idea who the author of the doc was
- it is documented elsewhere video cassettes, along with other personal items, were taken from Bourtree cottage.  Are these what the snippet of statement refer to?
- soc officers do not refer taking video images nor do any other officers
- no reference of video images at trial
- if video images formed part of soc protocol at the time then the defence would know about it and request such.  Ditto pathologists and other defence experts.
- why plural?  if the soc was video recorded, and there's not a scintilla of evidence it was, then why would more than one tape be required?

[Cambridgecutie]

And he was correct

On what basis?

[Roch]

On what basis?

It's in the public domain that a former police officer has signed testimony relating to his own partial viewing of the video in question. Are you implying that he is an invented witness and/or no such signed testimony is with the CCRC?

If you are not implying this, then I'm not sure this is resolvable?   Can't the CCRC just deny it the existence of the statement?

[Cambridgecutie]

It's in the public domain that a former police officer has signed testimony relating to his own partial viewing of the video in question. Are you implying that he is an invented witness and/or no such signed testimony is with the CCRC?

If you are not implying this, then I'm not sure this is resolvable?   Can't the CCRC just deny it the existence of the statement?

If it's in the public domain then why not upload?

I have given my reasons why I am sceptical about the TikTok vid:

- we are only seeing a snippet
- no idea who the author of the doc was
- it is documented elsewhere video cassettes, along with other personal items, were taken from Bourtree cottage.  Are these what the snippet of statement refer to?
- soc officers do not refer taking video images nor do any other officers
- no reference of video images at trial
- if video images formed part of soc protocol at the time then the defence would know about it and request such.  Ditto pathologists and other defence experts.
- why plural?  if the soc was video recorded, and there's not a scintilla of evidence it was, then why would more than one tape be required?

In terms of body cameras they were not introduced until 2005:

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

Are you proprosing tactical firearms videoed the soc or soc officers eg DC Bird or both?

[Bubo bubo]

If it's in the public domain then why not upload?

I have given my reasons why I am sceptical about the TikTok vid:

- we are only seeing a snippet
- no idea who the author of the doc was
- it is documented elsewhere video cassettes, along with other personal items, were taken from Bourtree cottage.  Are these what the snippet of statement refer to?
- soc officers do not refer taking video images nor do any other officers
- no reference of video images at trial
- if video images formed part of soc protocol at the time then the defence would know about it and request such.  Ditto pathologists and other defence experts.
- why plural?  if the soc was video recorded, and there's not a scintilla of evidence it was, then why would more than one tape be required?

In terms of body cameras they were not introduced until 2005:

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

Are you proprosing tactical firearms videoed the soc or soc officers eg DC Bird or both?

This is a suggestion as to why there may have been videos recorded either before or after any restaging , maybe both.
The videographer may well have been DB.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10702.msg493916.html#msg493916

[Cambridgecutie]

This is a suggestion as to why there may have been videos recorded either before or after any restaging , maybe both.
The videographer may well have been DB.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10702.msg493916.html#msg493916

Please stop being cryptic. 

If you have any evidence then please upload.  Otherwise please desist with fanciful notions.

[Roch]

If it's in the public domain then why not upload?

I have given my reasons why I am sceptical about the TikTok vid:

- we are only seeing a snippet
- no idea who the author of the doc was
- it is documented elsewhere video cassettes, along with other personal items, were taken from Bourtree cottage.  Are these what the snippet of statement refer to?
- soc officers do not refer taking video images nor do any other officers
- no reference of video images at trial
- if video images formed part of soc protocol at the time then the defence would know about it and request such.  Ditto pathologists and other defence experts.
- why plural?  if the soc was video recorded, and there's not a scintilla of evidence it was, then why would more than one tape be required?

In terms of body cameras they were not introduced until 2005:

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

Are you proprosing tactical firearms videoed the soc or soc officers eg DC Bird or both?

There was a casefile for Sheila. We don't know if all exhibits transferred over to the casefile for Jeremy.