you should all know this?

[andrea]

I think z should stop his whining and winging about his fellow officers and do something useful for a change. His first port of call should not have been Mike. It should have been Jeremy's defence team. That would immediately take it out of the hands of the police and also the CCRC. It would in fact be to use Hartley's word, Dynamite. Come on then mr z cough up and prove yourself.

i agree Grahame. Though i still think he doesnt exist

[mertol22]

mike could have taken a picture when he saw him, i had my picture taken by my friend and i never saw him do it, he can put a camera in a coat button.

[andrea]

I would have ripped that pic straight out of his hands and ran like the clappers. the pic of sheila i mean.

[grahameb]

I would have ripped that pic straight out of his hands and ran like the clappers. the pic of sheila i mean.

Yes and you get 100 yards down the road before you realise you only got half the picture. The only one in existance as well.

[mertol22]

makes you wonder why mike did not! i get the feeling the z guy knew the meet place blindfolded, i take it mike was not frisked!

[Hartley]

Hartley I think I agree with what you are trying to say. If the Commission know of the existence of such a photo or indeed have been shown it as part of their investigation, then they would have to refer to the COP but can you also see the point that I am making? All such a photo would prove is that Essex police made a big f**k up of the investigation. It does not prove JB innocent but it would make his conviction unsafe therefore *justify* his release.

Oh I very much agree with you, but it's all if's and but's.

Personally I don't believe any of it exists, it's just all too convenient, it's a modern day remake of the seeing the photo at Ewens office.

I also think it would very much depend on what such a photo (if it exist) actually showed, if she's on the bed next to a body bag for example. We can't all agree on what is indicated in photographs that we have seen, so I don't really see how I can subscribe to somebody elses view on a photo that I haven't seen and don't believe exists.

[Janet (Formerly known as Takeshi)]

I wish you would all step back and look at the big picture. Don't get caught up in irrelevant things like whether Sheila was on a period. LOOK AT THE FACTS. The original ones. Why would Sheila kill her family? Why would Jeremy? Lets face it in a court of law today he would probably walk. Lack of physical evidence. Doesn't mean it wasn't there but the police weren't looking for it. BUT THINK why on that day did the police need to make the scene look anything other than a murder-suicide? That is what they reported. What were they basing that on?

[curiousessex]

1Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: you should all know this?
« on: December 05, 2011, 06:54:PM »
Quote from: Buddy on December 05, 2011, 06:45:PM
Quote from: curiousessex on December 05, 2011, 06:26:PM
Quote from: Buddy on December 05, 2011, 06:16:PM
We are left in wonderland as regards the photograph of Sheila on the bed with one wound.
I do not believe this photograph exist, but I would be very happy to be proved wrong.
I would have Zs goolies in my hand to give me the photograph.

Maybe 'Z' should just become a member of the forum and post it into a locked thread.
He may already be a member curious.

Buddy

Maybe he is.......... I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens.
ReplyQuoteNotify

2Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: you should all know this?
« on: December 05, 2011, 06:26:PM »
Quote from: Buddy on December 05, 2011, 06:16:PM
We are left in wonderland as regards the photograph of Sheila on the bed with one wound.
I do not believe this photograph exist, but I would be very happy to be proved wrong.
I would have Zs goolies in my hand to give me the photograph.

Maybe 'Z' should just become a member of the forum and post it into a locked thread.
ReplyQuoteNotify

3Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: you should all know this?
« on: December 05, 2011, 05:52:PM »
Quote from: Grahame on December 05, 2011, 05:38:PM
As I mentioned before this one photograph would secure JB's immediate release. Z could easily copy it and send it anonymously to JB's team.

Grahame

I would tend to agree with you................
As I have stated above................. Even I, given my posted / detailed concerns regarding the sequence and timing of telephone calls on the morning of 7th August 1985, would regard this as compelling.

ReplyQuoteNotify

4Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: you should all know this?
« on: December 05, 2011, 05:04:PM »
Well if it is a 'carrot', in my opinion, it would be a make or break 'carrot'.

The 'carrot' if true would, as I have stated, be compelling.

If not true, then, for me, the 'carrot' would destroy the credibility of 'Z' coming forward because of a moral conscience whilst also undermining any claims that are being made in the name of Jeremy's support.
ReplyQuoteNotify

5Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: you should all know this?
« on: December 05, 2011, 04:41:PM »
I have not contributed to the forum much recently as I have been away due to family commitments. However, I have recently been reading some of the latest posts from the sidelines.

If I understand this thread correctly Mike has been meeting with an informant 'Z' via a convoluted method involving mobile phone swaps / loans etc.

Again, if I have understood some of this thread correctly Mike has been advised that 'Z' has access to a photograph of Sheila lying on the bed with a single gunshot wound to her neck. This would corroborate what Mike has previously detailed in other threads regarding such a photograph that Mike says he has seen in the office of Ewen Smith (Jeremy's former solicitor).

If Mike was able to take a picture of the photograph that ‘Z’ has access then such a photograph would certainly be new evidence relating to the case.

As such, a photograph of a photograph, if made available to the CCRC, would have to be considered by the CCRC in relation to Jeremy’s claims for an appeal. Most particularly, if the original photograph / negative is, as alleged, being withheld under PII. By definition the withholding of such evidence would mean by definition that the ‘evidence’ as previously existed cannot have been available at the original trial.

Even I, given my posted / detailed concerns regarding the sequence and timing of telephone calls on the morning of 7th August 1985, would regard this as compelling.

If it can be proven, by such a photograph of a photograph, that Sheila is lying on the bed with a single gun shot wound to the neck and is then later to be shown, by photographs that are in the public domain, with two gun shot wounds to the neck, I would agree that it could not have been Jeremy who inflicted a second wound to Sheila’s neck.

I have mentioned before I did not understand why Mike did not take the opportunity of taking a picture of the photograph he was shown and then left alone with in the office of Ewen Smith. I seem to remember desribing this as a missed opportunity.

Maybe such an opportunity is presenting itself again............... ??

As posted previously............... maybe a second opportunity has been lost?

[mertol22]

Hartley I think I agree with what you are trying to say. If the Commission know of the existence of such a photo or indeed have been shown it as part of their investigation, then they would have to refer to the COP but can you also see the point that I am making? All such a photo would prove is that Essex police made a big f**k up of the investigation. It does not prove JB innocent but it would make his conviction unsafe therefore *justify* his release.

Oh I very much agree with you, but it's all if's and but's.

Personally I don't believe any of it exists, it's just all too convenient, it's a modern day remake of the seeing the photo at Ewens office.

I also think it would very much depend on what such a photo (if it exist) actually showed, if she's on the bed next to a body bag for example. We can't all agree on what is indicated in photographs that we have seen, so I don't really see how I can subscribe to somebody elses view on a photo that I haven't seen and don't believe exists.

It would explain what they are witholding though do you not think  so ?

[Hartley]

Hartley I think I agree with what you are trying to say. If the Commission know of the existence of such a photo or indeed have been shown it as part of their investigation, then they would have to refer to the COP but can you also see the point that I am making? All such a photo would prove is that Essex police made a big f**k up of the investigation. It does not prove JB innocent but it would make his conviction unsafe therefore *justify* his release.

Oh I very much agree with you, but it's all if's and but's.

Personally I don't believe any of it exists, it's just all too convenient, it's a modern day remake of the seeing the photo at Ewens office.

I also think it would very much depend on what such a photo (if it exist) actually showed, if she's on the bed next to a body bag for example. We can't all agree on what is indicated in photographs that we have seen, so I don't really see how I can subscribe to somebody elses view on a photo that I haven't seen and don't believe exists.

It would explain what they are witholding though do you not think  so ?

Well no, because I don't believe it exists.

I'm not sure how else to answer that.

[Janet (Formerly known as Takeshi)]

If there is an epiphany in the post above please just put it in plain English.

[mertol22]

i have perhaps moved 50 people who have taken their own life  some days ago some within the hour, some still warm, most if not all those deceased have been in a position of relaxation including a bed, lied down on a floor i do not think i ever came across such a time.

[andrea]

Dont you think sheila committed suicide mertol?

[Hartley]

i have perhaps moved 50 people who have taken their own life  some days ago some within the hour, some still warm, most if not all those deceased have been in a position of relaxation including a bed, lied down on a floor i do not think i ever came across such a time.

Yes, but what does that mean? Does that mean she was on the bed or does it mean she didn't take her own life, she was murdered?

[Janet (Formerly known as Takeshi)]

 So you are saying that it is impossible that someone would commit suicide on the floor because you have not seen it?