Phone call to police

[grahameb]

It still remains fact Grahame that JB had a month to dispose of any evidence connecting him to the crime.

Sheila was murdered, like the others.

Not so. The police searched his house after the crime and checked out his story. Even if he did have a month that still means there was no forensic evidence to connect him to the crimes. I would have thought that even if there was an inch of doubt that you would not rest until that doubt was erased?

[lookout]

It still remains fact Grahame that JB had a month to dispose of any evidence connecting him to the crime.

Sheila was murdered, like the others.

No,,,Sheila had only one bullet for starters when she was first found.   Unlike " the others ",,who were peppered. Strange,that.

JM was Jeremys' constant companion after the murders,,,and if she'd seen anything untoward after she was dumped,,,to be sure that would have gone into the police's little black book,pronto.Everything else did.

[mike tesko]

It still remains fact Grahame that JB had a month to dispose of any evidence connecting him to the crime.

Sheila was murdered, like the others.

She was, thrre is no doubt whatsoever about it, the police shot sheila ubder the chin, they then tried to play her death off as a one shot suicide. Then when things started to vo pearshaped they were prepared to let Jeremy be thrown to the wolves, rather than them take the blame for killing Sheila...

[maggie]

No,,,Sheila had only one bullet for starters when she was first found.   Unlike " the others ",,who were peppered. Strange,that.

JM was Jeremys' constant companion after the murders,,,and if she'd seen anything untoward after she was dumped,,,to be sure that would have gone into the police's little black book,pronto.Everything else did.

How do the anti Bambers explain the fact that Sheila only had 1/2 carefully placed bullets while the others had obviously been under attack?  That alone sets Sheila apart from the others and she doesnt fit the rest of the pattern.

[Neil]

Bizarrely, Mike won't post the witness statements of PC Myall, PS Bews and PC Saxby, the first officers on the scene.

I'd suggest that their account of the incident is of utmost importance if people are actually interested in seeking the truth.

In fact, the reluctance to post them becomes increasingly strange when they become central characters in several of Mikes conspiracy theories.

Are you sure that Mike has these?  They would be very interesting to read.

[tonyb]

Brilliant Andrea !! Never read an explanation like that on here before !!
When you get a chance remind us all , about your views regarding LD tests
when you believed JB innocent !!

not actually true Jon.
ive said that in the past. Not that im a guilty camper,more i think you have to accept hes been found guilty,and now prove hes innocent. For 27 years peole have failed convince the powers that be his trial was flawed,so i dont expect they will change their minds now.
the photo on the bed or the itemissed bill can prove his innocence but they are not forthcoming

[tonyb]

She was, thrre is no doubt whatsoever about it, the police shot sheila ubder the chin, they then tried to play her death off as a one shot suicide. Then when things started to vo pearshaped they were prepared to let Jeremy be thrown to the wolves, rather than them take the blame for killing Sheila...

yet you chose not to prove it Mike with the "photo on the bed" you have

[lebaleb]

It still remains fact Grahame that JB had a month to dispose of any evidence connecting him to the crime.

Sheila was murdered, like the others.

That being the case why on earth didn't he dispose of the silencer that he supposedly hid in the gun cupboard.

[Neil]

Hi Neil  when marie27 was on the forum he said Sheila lay on top of the bed as it was a very humid night
but when it was mentioned 15minutes later that Ralph and June had quite alot of covers on their bed he said it was a very cool night for the time of year. The weather changed from room to room

[susan]

Hi lebaleb  my sentiments exactly if you are getting rid of evidence that may connect you to the crime you are not selective you get rid of everything and don't take a chance on leaving anything that can incriminate you.

[-Harters-]

Are you sure that Mike has these?  They would be very interesting to read.

He has confirmed that he does have them, yes.

He won't post them because he claims they have been edited and therefore we don't need to see them. Whereas I believe he won't post them because they will undermine his theories.

I would suggest that for people looking into this case constructively, they would be required to see the witness statements of the first people to attend the scene.

[Roch]

It is sometimes hard to not get drawn in to all these evidence vs no evidence arguments for Sheila Caffell & Jeremy Bamber.   At times they seem to be condutced on a peurile level and serve only to rub people up the wrong way. 

My own opinion is that it is highly unlikely that no evidence ever existed to implicate Sheila Caffell.  It is far more likely that the evidence which did exist, was subsequently concealed when the decision was made to create a new case against Jeremy Bamber.  The police are hardly going to all out gun for Bamber, while simultaneouslly allowing the original case file evidence to undermine the entire aim of the second case file.  We know that the original case file existed and we know that highly experienced detectives both ran with it / believed in it and reviewed it, reporting to top brass.

[Neil]

He has confirmed that he does have them, yes.

He won't post them because he claims they have been edited and therefore we don't need to see them. Whereas I believe he won't post them because they will undermine his theories.

I would suggest that for people looking into this case constructively, they would be required to see the witness statements of the first people to attend the scene.

So are these statements that Mike has copies of, the ones that were presented in court during the original trial?

[-Harters-]

So are these statements that Mike has copies of, the ones that were presented in court during the original trial?

You would need to ask Mike I guess.

[Jane]

Can't help but wonder if that statement applies as equally to the subjective as the objective!!!!