Phone call to police

[Roch]

CALLING ROCHFORD

Hi, posting the above reminded me that I asked you a while ago if you cld help me retrieve the medi records for June and JB from the above site.  I probably wrongly assume that every man has innate it skills but I will not think any less of you if this is not the case.  You will still be my fave poster boy.  If you are unable to help who shall I ask?  I think Reader has good it skills?

Reader is certainly more adept than me at IT  :D  I will contact the site owner to ask them though.

[susan]

Morning egap1 So glad you took time out from your studies I have been asking all day if the Eatons were educated privately and I had no response so I thank you very much for the link.  It has certainly answered so many questions I have been asking myself regarding the dislike the extended family had for Jeremy and Sheila I could not understand why but I can now.

[susan]

Hi Mike  many thanks for your email you must have been very busy.  Jeremy is lucky to have you.

[Jane]

Hi Susan

I still haven't managed to wean myself totally off the forum yet.  Lucky you as hopefully this is the info you're looking for :

http://jeremybamber.org/robert-boutflour/

It appears that AE and DB attended local state schools.  RB obviously didn't have the same concerns that the Bambers had about JB mixing with local children that he might one day have to employ.  Or perhaps RB simply didn't have the means to pay the fees.

I have also read the above elsewhere but I'm always a bit wary of relying on info that lacks authenticity.

Morning egap. Many thanks for the illuminating link. With reference to RB, "nasty piece of work" comes to mind, IMO.

Hope your studies are going well, but perhaps rather selfishly, it's good to know you haven't left the forum entirely.

[lookout]

Morning egap. Many thanks for the illuminating link. With reference to RB, "nasty piece of work" comes to mind, IMO.

Hope your studies are going well, but perhaps rather selfishly, it's good to know you haven't left the forum entirely.

Morning April. Reading about the " pedigree " of RB doesn't make for pleasant reading at all,,,and I wholeheartedly agree with your description of this odious character.

[vidvic]

Morning April. Reading about the " pedigree " of RB doesn't make for pleasant reading at all,,,and I wholeheartedly agree with your description of this odious character.

Quite an odious post from yourself.

[vidvic]

Morning egap. Many thanks for the illuminating link. With reference to RB, "nasty piece of work" comes to mind, IMO.

Hope your studies are going well, but perhaps rather selfishly, it's good to know you haven't left the forum entirely.

If you choose to believe this particular work of fiction on Jeremybamber.org, particularly the robbing of the caravan park to test security crap, then more fool you!

[-Harters-]

It's also worth considering where things are being scrutinised, by whom and why?

[-Harters-]

Well actually it does and it did. The tactic of embellishing or rubbishing an appellants or witnesses character, played a large part in how they came across to the Jury.

But I was referring to the fact that the only reason these small things are being scrutinised today, are because Jeremys supporters are providing opposition, it is natural that other people with opposing views would appear. I'm not sure there's much to complain about.

[-Harters-]

It looks like I've jumped in and taken your post out of context to an extent. 

JB has 'come clean' with his involvement in the caravan break-in, hence his insistence that he did it to prove security was lax.

Anyway the point is, that it's absolutely obvious that the prosecution would highlight anything unsavoury in Jeremys past, likewise the defence obviously attempted to undermine Julies character.

Why the jury believed Julie and didn't believe Jeremy, I have no idea. The arrogance Jeremy apparently displayed in court surely didn't do him any favours.

Other evidence such as the ability for Jeremy to enter and exit the house, must also have strengthened Julies testimony. That's all without mentioning the silencer evidence of course.

[Patti]

It looks like I've jumped in and taken your post out of context to an extent. 

JB has 'come clean' with his involvement in the caravan break-in, hence his insistence that he did it to prove security was lax.

Anyway the point is, that it's absolutely obvious that the prosecution would highlight anything unsavoury in Jeremys past, likewise the defence obviously attempted to undermine Julies character.

Why the jury believed Julie and didn't believe Jeremy, I have no idea. The arrogance Jeremy apparently displayed in court surely didn't do him any favours.

Other evidence such as the ability for Jeremy to enter and exit the house, must also have strengthened Julies testimony. That's all without mentioning the silencer evidence of course.

Hi Hartley. Sorry, but I refuse to call you Jam.

Can I just say that the evidence against JB has weakened over the years thanks to modern day science.

There is not evidence to support the fact anyone, let alone JB got in and out of the windows on the evening of the murders. They had been forensically tested and they found nothing.

The silencer evidence would not hold in a court of today...The DNA evidence would never stick.  Just saying by the way! 

[lookout]

It was a conviction based on assumptions and lies from JM. Nothing else.  No wonder June didn't like her.

[-Harters-]

Hi Hartley. Sorry, but I refuse to call you Jam.

Can I just say that the evidence against JB has weakened over the years thanks to modern day science.

There is not evidence to support the fact anyone, let alone JB got in and out of the windows on the evening of the murders. They had been forensically tested and they found nothing.

The silencer evidence would not hold in a court of today...The DNA evidence would never stick.  Just saying by the way! 

I understand what you are suggesting, but that is simply not the case at all.

The evidence against JB has not been weakened at all, it might be a fun thing for somebody protesting his innocence to cling to, but the reality is very different.

Take the window entry for example, the prosecution do not claim that they knew how Jeremy entered and exited the house, they simply demonstrated that he could have.

The silencer evidence most certainly would be admissible in court today, the crime scene would have been locked down and investigated more thoroughly (in my opinion) before it was handed over to Basil. The police would have found the sound moderator themselves, they would also have been able to carry out DNA tests using Sheila's DNA as a comparison rather than her biological mothers.

If anything, I'd say that the case against Jeremy has been reinforced considerably over the years, Jeremys defence teams opportunities have diminished a little more each time the CCRC responded to an application for leave to appeal and each time a Court of Appeal dismissed his case.

That's without mentioning all of the exhibits which have degraded due to the passage of time or been destroyed, which are no longer available to the defence, which makes questioning the original findings rather difficult.

Just saying Patti.   

[grahameb]

It was a conviction based on assumptions and lies from JM. Nothing else.  No wonder June didn't like her.

You are absolutely correct lookout. The prosecution case relied mostly upon a lier and a corrupted silencer evidence. Which would most definely be thrown out of court these days. Of course if the police had release ALL  the evidence in their possession instead of hiding it up all these years Jeremy would probably had been proved innocent years ago. But of course we still have this issue of police corruption to look into. The deliberate witholding of vital evidence.

[Patti]

I understand what you are suggesting, but that is simply not the case at all.

The evidence against JB has not been weakened at all, it might be a fun thing for somebody protesting his innocence to cling to, but the reality is very different.

Take the window entry for example, the prosecution do not claim that they knew how Jeremy entered and exited the house, they simply demonstrated that he could have.

The silencer evidence most certainly would be admissible in court today, the crime scene would have been locked down and investigated more thoroughly (in my opinion) before it was handed over to Basil. The police would have found the sound moderator themselves, they would also have been able to carry out DNA tests using Sheila's DNA as a comparison rather than her biological mothers.

If anything, I'd say that the case against Jeremy has been reinforced considerably over the years, Jeremys defence teams opportunities have diminished a little more each time the CCRC responded to an application for leave to appeal and each time a Court of Appeal dismissed his case.

That's without mentioning all of the exhibits which have degraded due to the passage of time or been destroyed, which are no longer available to the defence, which makes questioning the original findings rather difficult.

Just saying Patti.   

I disagree Hartley. The argument over the windows could win a jury of today.  The silencer evidence can throw doubts to a jury...for it is not 100% certain that Shelia's DNA is on there; plus it might be proved that a silencer was not on the rifle during the murders. It's not a safe bet anymore Hartley...

I know JB was found guilty in 1986, but...and a big but...and in all fairness, the evidence was rather thin......

I agree the mere fact they destroyed the majority of the evidence when told not too...makes it very difficult....I suppose one might have to ask why so much evidence was destroyed when EP knew JB was intent of fighting for his innocence...