The silencer, hand swab, and scratch marks on the aga, Conspiracy...

[JackiePreece]

So Bridget how do you feel about the dirty tricks campaigns against genuine legal people fighting to get this conviction overturned
Your stance is Jeremy is definitely guilty, no question and is in the right place for the rest of his life.
You must be disgusted with the antics of these anti Bamber people and no need for it as you think the evidence speaks for itself
I believe the only reason these dirty tricks are being played against the legal people giving up their time to help Jeremy is because these people fear Jeremys case will be referred to the court
Of Appeal

Would you agree Bridget?

[JackiePreece]

Your use of the generic term 'conspiracy theories' denigrates what is actually being argued by your fellow forum members on the opposite side of the fence to you.  Sorry Bridget but I feel it is disrespectful of you.  You've also just confirmed the mould I have set for you with your comment about the police above.  Do you not think you are undermining the credibility of your own rigorous approach, by effectively only applying it to one side in this case?  You cant swallow what the police say like mother's milk, simply because it's the police who have said it?  Furthermore, how would the scientists know whether the same swabs had been submitted anyway?

Excellent post just what I would like to have said

[Roch]

In other words, you will not be happy that I am 'genuinely taking matters seriously' until I agree with you.

I have always agreed that the investigation was flawed in many many ways. I have also said that the silencer evidence is unlikely to be admissable now because of the chance of innocent contamination. But the more I look into the various defence claims the more I see mountains made out of molehills, baseless theorising and never ending spin. I do not include the Arizona tests in this because I don't yet know enough about them to be able to decide.

Of course you don't have to agree with me.  There's fat chance of that is there?  :D  How many flaws in a case do you want?  20?  50? 100?  At which point does the number of flaws become suggestive that the anomalies in the case are in fact not flaws at all?

[Roch]

So Bridget how do you feel about the dirty tricks campaigns against genuine legal people fighting to get this conviction overturned
Your stance is Jeremy is definitely guilty, no question and is in the right place for the rest of his life.
You must be disgusted with the antics of these anti Bamber people and no need for it as you think the evidence speaks for itself
I believe the only reason these dirty tricks are being played against the legal people giving up their time to help Jeremy is because these people fear Jeremys case will be referred to the court
Of Appeal

Would you agree Bridget?

I hope we can stay on a friendly footing but I believe there is some merit in what Jackie is saying.  It should be for a court of appeal to review the evidence that has come to light since the last appeal.  From the wet blood photos, through to the logs, the truth about how Mugford was brought in to play, managed and handled, the silencer anomalies and the arizona tests.  There should be no fear on the part of other people about such a review, to the extent where they feel the need to stick their oar in.  I don't know 100% for certain but I suspect there was background interference as recently as the MWT documentary.

[Bridget]

Your use of the generic term 'conspiracy theories' denigrates what is actually being argued by your fellow forum members on the opposite side of the fence to you.  Sorry Bridget but I feel it is disrespectful of you.  You've also just confirmed the mould I have set for you with your comment about the police above.  Do you not think you are undermining the credibility of your own rigorous approach, by effectively only applying it to one side in this case?  You cant swallow what the police say like mother's milk, simply because it's the police who have said it?  Furthermore, how would the scientists know whether the same swabs had been submitted anyway?

Whatever way you look at it Roch, most of the defence theories rely at some point on the police falsifying evidence. What would you call it? And it is disingenuous of you to say that I apply it to the theories of all members. It applies to most of Mike's theories, but Patti for one seems to be able to make a good argument without everyone needing to be corrupt.

[Bridget]

I hope we can stay on a friendly footing but I believe there is some merit in what Jackie is saying.  It should be for a court of appeal to review the evidence that has come to light since the last appeal.  From the wet blood photos, through to the logs, the truth about how Mugford was brought in to play, managed and handled, the silencer anomalies and the arizona tests.  There should be no fear on the part of other people about such a review, to the extent where they feel the need to stick their oar in.  I don't know 100% for certain but I suspect there was background interference as recently as the MWT documentary.

I think I have already stated my opinion on what Jackie calls the 'dirty tricks campaign' on at least two occasions.

I agree that the court of appeal should look at those things, if any of them have any merit. There has to be system which filters unmeritous claims otherwise the courts would grind to a halt. I think NGB is right when he says that the CCRC decision has been influenced by the comments of the Appeal court judges in 2002, and I assume that's something which will be dealt with at the JR.

[Roch]

Whatever way you look at it Roch, most of the defence theories rely at some point on the police falsifying evidence. What would you call it? And it is disingenuous of you to say that I apply it to the theories of all members. It applies to most of Mike's theories, but Patti for one seems to be able to make a good argument without everyone needing to be corrupt.

But Bridget, are you contesting the fact that police forces from up and down the land have been known on occasion to participate in corruptive practices?  Nobody is saying here that every single criminal case is the result of coppers more bent than a nine pound note, fitting people up.  But surely you cannot be so naive as to discount that should they have wanted to in 1985 (or needed to), the police had the wherewithal, the expertise and the power to manipulate evidence and prosecution witnesses / officials?

It's not in the realms of fantasy that on the day, colleagues decided to cover for each other.  The claims seem to be that what started as covering for each other's backs, then spiraled out of control due to unforeseen events. 

[Roch]

I think I have already stated my opinion on what Jackie calls the 'dirty tricks campaign' on at least two occasions.

I agree that the court of appeal should look at those things, if any of them have any merit. There has to be system which filters unmeritous claims otherwise the courts would grind to a halt. I think NGB is right when he says that the CCRC decision has been influenced by the comments of the Appeal court judges in 2002, and I assume that's something which will be dealt with at the JR.

That's a fair post.

[Roch]

It's not in the realms of fantasy that on the day, colleagues decided to cover for each other.  The claims seem to be that what started as covering for each other's backs, then spiraled out of control due to unforeseen events.

Having said that, I realise you favour official explanations for things like 'female downstairs' etc.

[Roch]

it is disingenuous of you to say that I apply it to the theories of all members.

I meant that you put defence arguments under the microscope but turn a blind eye to glaring inconsistencies in the prosecution case.

[Bridget]

But Bridget, are you contesting the fact that police forces from up and down the land have been known on occasion to participate in corruptive practices?  Nobody is saying here that every single criminal case is the result of coppers more bent than a nine pound note, fitting people up.  But surely you cannot be so naive as to discount that should they have wanted to in 1985 (or needed to), the police had the wherewithal, the expertise and the power to manipulate evidence and prosecution witnesses / officials?

It's not in the realms of fantasy that on the day, colleagues decided to cover for each other.  The claims seem to be that what started as covering for each other's backs, then spiraled out of control due to unforeseen events.

Covering each others backs for what though? If Sheila was indeed, running around the house with a gun killing people I'd probably have shot her too.

[Roch]

Covering each others backs for what though? If Sheila was indeed, running around the house with a gun killing people I'd probably have shot her too.

Now it is you who are being disingenuous.  It is not that simple.

[Bridget]

I meant that you put defence arguments under the microscope but turn a blind eye to glaring inconsistencies in the prosecution case.

No, I look at those too, I just don't see glaring inconsistencies. I see mistakes, misunderstandings, people who have witnessed the same event remembering things differently, even the same person recounting what they saw years later remembering it differently. All of these things are human nature, and I bear that in mind when reading JBs statements, which are also inconsistent in parts.

[Bridget]

Now it is you who are being disingenuous.  It is not that simple.

Explain it then. What were all those police officers and scientists covering up that was so important that they would risk their carreers and possibly their liberty for?

[Patti]

I responded to this but the post seems to have disappeared, or not arrived..

We know that the same swabs were resubmitted because the police said so. Until someone offers a plausible explanation as to why all these police officers and scientists would put their careers, and possibly their freedom on the line in order to convict JB, when they had the perfect suspect in Sheila, I'm not buying any conspiracy theories.

Rejecting the swabs is not a conspiracy theory! Changing documentation is not a conspiracy theory!  Bringing a good argument based on evidence or the lack of, is not a conspiracy theory!....It is a consideration of what could have happened instead of the hearsay arguments from the CPS.....
Who in their right mind would just sit back and let the CPS dictate their so called theories, without an argument of other possibilities, within their theory of what might have happened, without concrete proof.........that they were right in the first place.  Who is to say they were right? Who are they to say that JB had entered a window? When there is documented evidence and, forensic examination of the widows that clearly show the windows had not been used. There is also documented evidence that those said windows were checked by several officers prior to forensic tests on the 8th of September....are they all liars?