Author Topic: ECHR 17/01/12 Judgment  (Read 3383 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: ECHR 17/01/12 Judgment
« Reply #15 on: May 10, 2012, 09:55:PM »
I can't actually disagree with much of that Maggie, but even Jeremy has never tried to say that the voice he heard might not have been his father.
No I know and I'm not saying it as a fact, it is merely a thought, thinking out the box. However, Jeremy may very well be quite certain it was his Dad, but as I say we hear what we expect to hear sometimes. Just chucking it into the pile of theory!!  The phone call is often used as the stumbling block for any consideration of a third person, that is all.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2012, 09:57:PM by maggie »

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: ECHR 17/01/12 Judgment
« Reply #16 on: May 10, 2012, 09:59:PM »
I'm assuming that a swab was taken/collected from the mouthpiece of the phone that Nevill was alleged to have made that call.?

Offline Patti

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13193
Re: ECHR 17/01/12 Judgment
« Reply #17 on: May 10, 2012, 10:01:PM »
I'm assuming that a swab was taken/collected from the mouthpiece of the phone that Nevill was alleged to have made that call.?

I don't think they did lookout, hardly any forensic tests were done at all....:) No finger prints....if only eh?

Offline Bridget

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5065
Re: ECHR 17/01/12 Judgment
« Reply #18 on: May 10, 2012, 10:16:PM »
No I know and I'm not saying it as a fact, it is merely a thought, thinking out the box. However, Jeremy may very well be quite certain it was his Dad, but as I say we hear what we expect to hear sometimes. Just chucking it into the pile of theory!!  The phone call is often used as the stumbling block for any consideration of a third person, that is all.

Nothing wrong wwith thinking outside of the box  :)
....just cos I eat worms...

Offline boheme

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 264
Re: ECHR 17/01/12 Judgment
« Reply #19 on: May 11, 2012, 01:36:PM »
Unless the thid person had agreed in advance to call JB at his home..... We only have JB's word for what was said... maybe the actual call was along the lines of 'Job done you can call the Police now' .... Maybe JB did not give this 3rd party enough time to escape - was this the person seen by Bews et al in the window or the scruffy guy seen leaving the scene.....

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17579
Re: ECHR 17/01/12 Judgment
« Reply #20 on: May 11, 2012, 01:59:PM »
Quote
Maybe JB did not give this 3rd party enough time to escape - was this the person seen by Bews et al in the window (?)

If it was, do you think the police would simply stop looking for him/her, merely because prosecution of McDonald was unfeasible?  As if to say, we'll at least we've got Bamber.  We'll just let the other fella go

A similar question arises re Julie Mugford. She knew about something before, during and after... but we've let her off the hook anyway... coz we've got Bamber

No offence but...Pull the other one.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 02:00:PM by rochford »