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

[Roch]

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?

Who has said that 'all those' police officers and scientists have covered something up?  It's hardly likely that scientists would be made aware of a Sheila receiving one shot during the raid is it?  If you look at the posts from what you might view as the 'conspiracy perspective' it is only handful of officers who are aware of what took place, at least initially, with some officers actually being kept in the dark.  Now whether any scientists assisted the police further down the line, in accordance with information they received or requests of any sort, is another matter.  That does not make such scientists 'in on' any conspiracy involving Sheila Caffell having died later than the prosecution case asserts does it?

[mertol22]

Time is one issue that keeps the verdict upheld till this day, part of the work jackie does is to bring this case to the present day part of the reason i joined the forum was because of the things i had seen online , i later found out itwas jackie i think the football ground ones and big poster ones said words , many people today have never heard of jeremy bamber and the reasons are very nearby they are often very simple reasons like they were not born then bridget is in denial like some members who refuses to believe that someone has made a very bad miatake , open up these gates and the evidence will flood in  its all there.

[JackiePreece]

Bridget explain your problem with Simon McKay who is just doing his job and working on something he is passionate about.
Do you think people should be laughing at something that been written about him that has no bearing on this case or Jeremys innocence or guilt

Us members on this forum do not find that behaviour acceptable and I do not believe anyone responsible  for trying to belittle someone like that is responsible enough to take part in debate in public forums

This is a place for serious debate

Bridget you can keep replying to me on the dirty tricks brigade and I will keep asking the question until I get an answer that I find acceptable

I make no apology for standing up for Simon and his capability as Jeremys lawyer

[Bridget]

Rejecting the swabs is not a conspiracy theory! Changing documentation is not a conspiracy theory!

No, but saying that different swabs were used in the resubmision without the lab's knowledge is.

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.....

Presenting a case is not evidence at all, let alone hearsay evidence. Good arguments based on evidence are not conspiracy theories I agree, and as I have said, you have made good arguments doing just that.

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 in their right mind would falsify evidence to frame a live person who can speak up for themselves and spend the next 27 years examining that evidence, when they could have just framed a dead one?

Who is to say they were right?

The jury?

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.

They didn't have to show that he did, it was good enough that he could, and admitted that he could.

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?   

Why would they be liars? If they were out to frame Jeremy they would surely have stated that they did find evidence wouldn't they? The fact is that they didn't, and that fact could have been used by the defence if they had wanted to.

[Bridget]

Who has said that 'all those' police officers and scientists have covered something up?  It's hardly likely that scientists would be made aware of a Sheila receiving one shot during the raid is it?  If you look at the posts from what you might view as the 'conspiracy perspective' it is only handful of officers who are aware of what took place, at least initially, with some officers actually being kept in the dark.  Now whether any scientists assisted the police further down the line, in accordance with information they received or requests of any sort, is another matter.  That does not make such scientists 'in on' any conspiracy involving Sheila Caffell having died later than the prosecution case asserts does it?

You are avoiding the question, whether it's a handful of officers or the entire Essex Police force, what are they covering up?

[Bridget]

Bridget explain your problem with Simon McKay who is just doing his job and working on something he is passionate about.
Do you think people should be laughing at something that been written about him that has no bearing on this case or Jeremys innocence or guilt

Us members on this forum do not find that behaviour acceptable and I do not believe anyone responsible  for trying to belittle someone like that is responsible enough to take part in debate in public forums

This is a place for serious debate

Bridget you can keep replying to me on the dirty tricks brigade and I will keep asking the question until I get an answer that I find acceptable

I make no apology for standing up for Simon and his capability as Jeremys lawyer

I have already answered this question twice, I do not intend to do so again.

[JackiePreece]

Bridget
Please point me in the direction of where these answers are and I will let you know if they are acceptable to me.

[maggie]

Bridget explain your problem with Simon McKay who is just doing his job and working on something he is passionate about.
Do you think people should be laughing at something that been written about him that has no bearing on this case or Jeremys innocence or guilt

Us members on this forum do not find that behaviour acceptable and I do not believe anyone responsible  for trying to belittle someone like that is responsible enough to take part in debate in public forums

This is a place for serious debate

Bridget you can keep replying to me on the dirty tricks brigade and I will keep asking the question until I get an answer that I find acceptable

I make no apology for standing up for Simon and his capability as Jeremys lawyer

Jackie, many of us are so pleased that at last Jeremy has a lawyer like Simon McKay, also that he is determined to stick with Jeremy giving him support in this ongoing battle.   Jeremy has had such a dreadful time with disappointment after disappoinment and many times when he was totally alone except for Mike. It must be a great boost to him to have such a person of influence so completely on his side. IMHO

[Roch]

You are avoiding the question, whether it's a handful of officers or the entire Essex Police force, what are they covering up?

I'm not avoiding any question at all.  I'm simply not prepared to oversimplify the raid down to the level that you are attempting to, in order to argue that the circs of Sheila's death  / gunshot wounds did not require police to come up with an alternative / sanitised version of events. 

[Roch]

Who in their right mind would falsify evidence to frame a live person who can speak up for themselves and spend the next 27 years examining that evidence

They hid the evidence, covering their tracks.  They even destroyed evidence.

[Bridget]

Bridget
Please point me in the direction of where these answers are and I will let you know if they are acceptable to me.

Sorry, I'm off out for a bit so you'll have to find them for yourself.

[Bridget]

They hid the evidence, covering their tracks.  They even destroyed evidence.

Covering their tracks for what? And what about the rest of that sentance you quoted - the part where I suggested it would have been easier to frame Sheila?

[JackiePreece]

Jackie, many of us are so pleased that at last Jeremy has a lawyer like Simon McKay, also that he is determined to stick with Jeremy giving him support in this ongoing battle.   Jeremy has had such a dreadful time with disappointment after disappoinment and many times when he was totally alone except for Mike. It must be a great boost to him to have such a person of influence so completely on his side. IMHO

Yes I am pleased too but I was worried at one time because certain anti Bamber/troublemakers were worried Jeremy could be getting close to having his case referred because of Simons input they decided to publish personal attacks on Simon with much glee.
Not one of those people are the slightest bit interested in justice.
Simon walking out on Jeremy would have had DEVASTATING consequences

[Neil]

I think it is ludicrous to think that Sheila could not use a rifle. Folk say she was too small...She was 5ft 7"...small is about 5ft. A child could have used that rifle, it was light, had a very small recoil and easy to load.

In court they tried to establish that she could not have loaded the rifle for the third time and that the 10th bullet was difficult to load in the magazine....This is not so. The German company tests these rifles and they had never had one complaint about their guns being hard to load. This was never discussed at the trial, so the jury again was not aware of it....So many things the jury were not made aware of....

The appeal judgement in 2002 stated that the jury themselves were given the opportunity to load the rifle and some had difficulty in doing so.  Has anyone here loaded this, or any similar rifle?

[Patti]

No, but saying that different swabs were used in the resubmision without the lab's knowledge is.

Could be likely...The lab did not know they had been resubmitted and the police did not put on the new submission that they were a resubmission.  In my opinion they were trying to fool the lab


Presenting a case is not evidence at all, let alone hearsay evidence. Good arguments based on evidence are not conspiracy theories I agree, and as I have said, you have made good arguments doing just that.

Thank you