The (Andrew Hunter) Book draft, that never got published from seven years ago...

[gringo]

I also found Andrew Hunter compelling reading on the ballistics evidence.  He left me in no doubt that the ballistics is bogus.  The only conclusions I drew from it were:

A) Something went wrong with the raid which may have even resulted in weapons discharge

and/or

B) Bamber was framed

In respect of (B).  I can think of no possible explanation for tampering with ballistics evidence, if Bamber is/was guilty.

Or even both A and B in your above, either or scenario, Roch . The evidence points in those directions . There is much evidence well documented by the author of both . Possibly the framing had to take place to cover up whatever it was that went wrong with the raid .
   Do you know when the full book is being published ? There are a number of recent press articles about it but all refer to upcoming or soon to be published . Is this what people , who may have an interest in some things remaining hidden , are suddenly worried about ?
   When this is published I can see the shit hitting the fan

[gringo]

yes very interesting - and detailed. Too much to take in all at once.

There is much to take in jansus but it is worth the effort . Truly eye opening 

[Jan]

trouble is I am getting drawn into it all - and then I cant sleep. But that is nothing compared to what Jeremy is going through.

[Jan]

ok a couple of questions.

If the police moved the body and the wounds in Sheilas neck were disturbed - could that explain the fresh blood in the photos and counter the argument about the photos being proof of Jeremys innocence?

The reports of possible other sightings of a man possibly leaving the farmhouse- could put the idea in peoples mind that Jeremy had paid someone to do the murders.

How on earth did the fact that initially only one wound was seen in Sheilas neck  ever get missed / hidden.

I am coming to the conclusion that if Jeremy gets released on the fact that the verdict was "unsafe" his life outside would still be hell. The campaign need Julie to admit she lied or some of the first police on the scene to admit what happened - and even if they were offered immunity I cant see that happening.

Proof is needed that Jeremy is totally innocent - not just a victim of the way the case was handled. And that info is out there somewhere. But will it ever come to light.

[gringo]

ok a couple of questions.

If the police moved the body and the wounds in Sheilas neck were disturbed - could that explain the fresh blood in the photos and counter the argument about the photos being proof of Jeremys innocence?

The reports of possible other sightings of a man possibly leaving the farmhouse- could put the idea in peoples mind that Jeremy had paid someone to do the murders.

How on earth did the fact that initially only one wound was seen in Sheilas neck  ever get missed / hidden.

I am coming to the conclusion that if Jeremy gets released on the fact that the verdict was "unsafe" his life outside would still be hell. The campaign need Julie to admit she lied or some of the first police on the scene to admit what happened - and even if they were offered immunity I cant see that happening.

Proof is needed that Jeremy is totally innocent - not just a victim of the way the case was handled. And that info is out there somewhere. But will it ever come to light.

the questions about the fresh blood and the two wounds are dealt with in fine detail in Andrew Hunters book and there is little doubt that the scene was staged by EP to cover up their earlier bungling which includes the discharge of police firearms and the later fixing of the ballistics reports to cover up this fact .
   It is not just that there are so many unanswered questions but the police refusal to help answer them that is troubling . Their obstruction in these matters leads you to the conclusion that they have much to hide which would prove fatal to the prosecution case .
   When the truth finally emerges there are many witnesses and police officers who will have to face serious criminal charges . This is probably a reason why so much more effort is spent by certain people on obstructing attempts to disclose evidence rather than facilitating the exposure of all of the evidence .

[Roch]

It's one of the best documents available to read. None of the main faces among the guilters ever comment on it. They don't care to go there.

[Steve_uk]

It's one of the best documents available to read. None of the main faces among the guilters ever comment on it. They don't care to go there.

If we're talking about the Andrew Hunter book draft I have commented on it many times. His method is flawed because he doesn't follow through on much which reminds me of Scott Lomax. To name but a few instances: the silencer mark on Sheila is spotted but not explained,there is no mention of Jeremy having admitted to gaining entry to the White House by means of the bathroom window on several occasions,no mention of the James Richards or Charles Marsden evidence,not to mention the latest from Barbara..

[grahameb]

If we're talking about the Andrew Hunter book draft I have commented on it many times. His method is flawed because he doesn't follow through on much which reminds me of Scott Lomax. To name but a few instances: the silencer mark on Sheila is spotted but not explained,there is no mention of Jeremy having admitted to gaining entry to the White House by means of the bathroom window on several occasions,no mention of the James Richards or Charles Marsden evidence,not to mention the latest from Barbara..

The so called "documentary" last night was far behind I'm afraid. Because of the comment that Sheila's feet were "spotlessly" clean. The recent picture of one of her feet proves that they weren't.

[nugnug]

If we're talking about the Andrew Hunter book draft I have commented on it many times. His method is flawed because he doesn't follow through on much which reminds me of Scott Lomax. To name but a few instances: the silencer mark on Sheila is spotted but not explained,there is no mention of Jeremy having admitted to gaining entry to the White House by means of the bathroom window on several occasions,no mention of the James Richards or Charles Marsden evidence,not to mention the latest from Barbara..

theres probebly no mention of him admiting it becouse he never admited it.

[maggie]

If we're talking about the Andrew Hunter book draft I have commented on it many times. His method is flawed because he doesn't follow through on much which reminds me of Scott Lomax. To name but a few instances: the silencer mark on Sheila is spotted but not explained,there is no mention of Jeremy having admitted to gaining entry to the White House by means of the bathroom window on several occasions,no mention of the James Richards or Charles Marsden evidence,not to mention the latest from Barbara..

Hi Steve as the Andrew Hunter draft stands it is just that, a draft. I would expect it to be edited and it will follow through on what is necessary before it is published as a finished book.

[gringo]

If we're talking about the Andrew Hunter book draft I have commented on it many times. His method is flawed because he doesn't follow through on much which reminds me of Scott Lomax. To name but a few instances: the silencer mark on Sheila is spotted but not explained,there is no mention of Jeremy having admitted to gaining entry to the White House by means of the bathroom window on several occasions,no mention of the James Richards or Charles Marsden evidence,not to mention the latest from Barbara..

Steve you deal with trivial issues and fail to address the more substantive problems .
    How , for instance , do you explain the "difficulties" with the ballistics evidence . There is clear evidence of fabrication and outright lies in the manipulation of this evidence(out of sequence exhibit references for bullets , as an example , which along with the logs of when evidence was gathered clearly and demonstrably show that the official version cannot possibly be true and that manipulation has taken place to cover up the truth ) .
         Anyone who reads this cannot escape the conclusion that the police substituted bullets to make it a "one gun crime" . The trail of evidence is expertly laid out in the Hunter manuscript which leaves no doubt to anyone reasonable that the ballistics evidence is false .
    When this book is published and becomes public I think the guilters game is up .
   
   

[lookout]

What about the small matter of perverting the course of justice ?

[Steve_uk]

theres probebly no mention of him admiting it becouse he never admited it.

I had something in my mind beyond the occasion of him returning via a window for the passport:http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=801.0

Of course the above is suspicious in itself. But I was referring to the interrogation in September 1985(it's either 9,10 or 11 but there's no date on it). Jeremy is asked about the windows:

Q. When Julie and you have gone to the house have you got into the house other than through doors?

A. I can't remember doing so with Julie.

Q. Did you know a way of getting in and out of the house other than by the door?

A. There are many ways to get into the house,ie.windows..

Q. What do you mean..insecure windows?

A. Insecure windows,secure windows..it makes no difference.

Q. Would Julie know about these windows?

A. Don't know.

Q. Would she know how to get into the house without a key?

A. I would think so.

Q. Why do you say that?

A. I would imagine she could get into any house without a key.

Q. How would she get into the house without a key?

A. You must ask her.

Q. Why do you refuse to answer that question?

A. If you ask me how I would get into a house without a key I would explain..a car or padlocks.

With sash windows you can flick the catch with any thin metal object and open the window but you can't close them from the outside.

Q. Has Julie ever got into the White House via a window?

A. I really don't know,but if you remind me of the situation I might be able to explain,but I don't remember..

Q. Do you know a way in and out of the White House which anyone wouldn't discover?

A. No

Q. Are you sure about that?

A. Yes. I know ways in and one can always climb out of the pane window but you can't close catches or lock bolts or turn keys.

Q. Only you see Julie states that there was  a window in the house with a catch on it,you can open the window and close it,bang on the frame from the outside and the catch will close giving the appearance that the window is secure and is in fact secure. Furthermore she states that you told her of such a window. Did you tell her?

A. I don't think so.

Q. Surely the answer should be no, shoudn't it? Because you have just said you don't know of such a window in the White House.

A. I don't think so is another way of saying no.

To my mind it's all rather ambiguous. Jeremy is wondering how much Julie has told the Police and is floundering around,wondering whether even at this stage he can tie Julie in as an accessory. But when he thinks back to DCI Taff Jones' lame questioning effort he decides to go ahead and bluff it out,with consequences we well know.

[gringo]

What about the small matter of perverting the course of justice ?

Possibly shortly to become a rather larger matter ?

[gringo]

I had something in my mind beyond the occasion of him returning via a window for the passport:http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=801.0

Of course the above is suspicious in itself. But I was referring to the interrogation in September 1985(it's either 9,10 or 11 but there's no date on it). Jeremy is asked about the windows:

Q. When Julie and you have gone to the house have you got into the house other than through doors?

A. I can't remember doing so with Julie.

Q. Did you know a way of getting in and out of the house other than by the door?

A. There are many ways to get into the house,ie.windows..

Q. What do you mean..insecure windows?

A. Insecure windows,secure windows..it makes no difference.

Q. Would Julie know about these windows?

A. Don't know.

Q. Would she know how to get into the house without a key?

A. I would think so.

Q. Why do you say that?

A. I would imagine she could get into any house without a key.

Q. How would she get into the house without a key?

A. You must ask her.

Q. Why do you refuse to answer that question?

A. If you ask me how I would get into a house without a key I would explain..a car or padlocks.

With sash windows you can flick the catch with any thin metal object and open the window but you can't close them from the outside.

Q. Has Julie ever got into the White House via a window?

A. I really don't know,but if you remind me of the situation I might be able to explain,but I don't remember..

Q. Do you know a way in and out of the White House which anyone wouldn't discover?

A. No

Q. Are you sure about that?

A. Yes. I know ways in and one can always climb out of the pane window but you can't close catches or lock bolts or turn keys.

Q. Only you see Julie states that there was  a window in the house with a catch on it,you can open the window and close it,bang on the frame from the outside and the catch will close giving the appearance that the window is secure and is in fact secure. Furthermore she states that you told her of such a window. Did you tell her?

A. I don't think so.

Q. Surely the answer should be no, shoudn't it? Because you have just said you don't know of such a window in the White House.

A. I don't think so is another way of saying no.

To my mind it's all rather ambiguous. Jeremy is wondering how much Julie has told the Police and is floundering around,wondering whether even at this stage he can tie Julie in as an accessory. But when he thinks back to DCI Taff Jones' lame questioning effort he decides to go ahead and bluff it out,with consequences we well know.

What in that exchange suggests your conclusion Steve .
     It seems to me that you look only for signs of guilt and ignore anything contrary to that opinion .
    For instance where Jeremy answers "I don't think so " and then says that this" is another way of saying no " when asked again , I don't see this as evasive .
   The questioning was so witless that it would be understandable to answer "I don't think so" in a tone showing contempt for the stupid questions .
   Why ask Jeremy how Julie would do something ?
   And ambiguity is surely a legitimate response to ambiguous questions .
   It can be read anyway you like and is not really suggestive of anything . You cannot really be advancing this as a serious argument towards JB's guilt .