Rifle flush with body, gun barrel under chin, clue...

[Roch]

You're crediting me with views and intentions that I do not have.

Hunter, like Shaw, is not a reliable source of information, just because you agree with their claims, it doesn't make them any more real. The same logic should be equally applied to people making claims in support of the prosecutions case.

I'm not putting a missing front page of a log down to some minor irrelevance, I'm questioning whether a first page of a log even existed, you on the other hand are quick to simply accept that it did without any actual indication that it did. You try and suggest that such an item was withheld to try and hide the "trick of light" incident, yet you fail to accept that Jeremy was there in person, or was his memory also erased in an attempt to hide this?

Again, with editing of statements, where is the evidence that statements were edited in an attempt to mislead the defence? Surely the inconsistancies between statements clearly show that no straightening out of stories took place, or at least not in the sinister manner that you allege. I'd suggest that it is your own, unsupported views on this which are more predictable than me merely questioning these accusations. I'm not simply dismissing them without a second thought, I am asking for proof.

Obtuse?

I think it's unduly dismissive to suggest that Hunter is not a reliable source.   I don't think do your self much credit on this forum when you take such an approach.  You seem to be inferring that he invented an official response from EP regarding the front page of that document. 

If no editing of statements has taken place, how have excerpts come to light many years after the event, such as the ones on here:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1916.0.html

I cant access this site from the computer I'm on today. 

When police or DPP edit statements, do you think they annotate them Look!... this is where we removed a chunk... because it wasn't helpful to our case?  You keep banging on about unsupported this or supported that.  I will never rate anything that has been in any way edited, no matter who swore it, in whatever court room.  Edited means bits left out as well as something being potentially rewritten.

If I shoot a dog in a street but then sign a sworn testimony that I didn't, which a court / jury then accepts, does that mean I didn't shoot the dog?

[-Harters-]

I think it's unduly dismissive to suggest that Hunter is not a reliable source.   I don't think do your self much credit on this forum when you take such an approach.  You seem to be inferring that he invented an official response from EP regarding the front page of that document. 

If no editing of statements has taken place, how have excerpts come to light many years after the event, such as the ones on here:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1916.0.html

I cant access this site from the computer I'm on today. 

When police or DPP edit statements, do you think they annotate them Look!... this is where we removed a chunk... because it wasn't helpful to our case?  You keep banging on about unsupported this or supported that.  I will never rate anything that has been in any way edited, no matter who swore it, in whatever court room.  Edited means bits left out as well as something being potentially rewritten.

If I shoot a dog in a street but then sign a sworn testimony that I didn't, which a court / jury then accepts, does that mean I didn't shoot the dog?

I'm not doing myself any favours by questioning the uncorroberated, unsupported, second hand word of a supporter of a convicted multiple murderer?

On the contrary, I'd suggest that your willingness to blindly swallow anything put before you as long as it fits your views about the case, actually does yourself no favours.

I don't doubt that Hunter believes what he's written, but I question the source and the interpretation and implications of any information he has used to come the the conclusions that he has.

Again, returning to edited statements, there is no evidence that anything untowards has taken place, it is in my opinion nothing more than a bout of defence propaganda, however I am happy and open to being shown actual evidence which shows my opinion to be incorrect.

Just like the erasing of Jeremys memory, you seem to be selectively ignoring the original signed statements which should have accompanied any abridged unsigned statements.

There is no justification for the accusations, that is all I am asking for.

Also, another attempt to pre-empt the predictable response that I am being hypocritical by following the official prosecution version of events, well that simply isn't the case at all, I'm not blindly following anything, I'm not trying to prove guilt or even change anybodies mind from innocent to guilty, what I am trying to do, is see if there is any truth to the various accusations put foward, either officially or just theories voiced on this forum. There is an overwhelming pattern forming, and that is that when I look into any of these theories/allegations/accusations in detail, it quickly becomes apparent that they are more often than not, unjustified and infused with premeditated attempts of deception, this is not only irritating but also reflects very, very badly on those who put the theory/allegation/accusation forward.

Another common pattern is that unsubtantiated theories are often used to try and support another unsubstantiated theory, an example of this is the use of an alleged sighting of a figure to support the alleged withholding of a page of a log which may not exist and if it does, may or may not have any reference to the incident. I'd suggest that Myalls and Bews statements  would be a more readily available source of information, the information was clearly documented somewhere as Rivlin questioned Myall about it at the original trial.

[mike tesko]

I'm not doing myself any favours by questioning the uncorroberated, unsupported, second hand word of a supporter of a convicted multiple murderer?

On the contrary, I'd suggest that your willingness to blindly swallow anything put before you as long as it fits your views about the case, actually does yourself no favours.

I don't doubt that Hunter believes what he's written, but I question the source and the interpretation and implications of any information he has used to come the the conclusions that he has.

Again, returning to edited statements, there is no evidence that anything untowards has taken place, it is in my opinion nothing more than a bout of defence propaganda, however I am happy and open to being shown actual evidence which shows my opinion to be incorrect.

Just like the erasing of Jeremys memory, you seem to be selectively ignoring the original signed statements which should have accompanied any abridged unsigned statements.

There is no justification for the accusations, that is all I am asking for.

Also, another attempt to pre-empt the predictable response that I am being hypocritical by following the official prosecution version of events, well that simply isn't the case at all, I'm not blindly following anything, I'm not trying to prove guilt or even change anybodies mind from innocent to guilty, what I am trying to do, is see if there is any truth to the various accusations put foward, either officially or just theories voiced on this forum. There is an overwhelming pattern forming, and that is that when I look into any of these theories/allegations/accusations in detail, it quickly becomes apparent that they are more often than not, unjustified and infused with premeditated attempts of deception, this is not only irritating but also reflects very, very badly on those who put the theory/allegation/accusation forward.

Another common pattern is that unsubtantiated theories are often used to try and support another unsubstantiated theory, an example of this is the use of an alleged sighting of a figure to support the alleged withholding of a page of a log which may not exist and if it does, may or may not have any reference to the incident. I'd suggest that Myalls and Bews statements  would be a more readily available source of information, the information was clearly documented somewhere as Rivlin questioned Myall about it at the original trial.

According to PS Adams, when he visited the main bedroom scene at about 9am, he saw Sheila's body with no rifle upon it, or near to it? Wonder where the rifle was at this stage? Could it have still been resting up against the bedroom window where WPC Julia Jeapes saw it at 7:15am? If so, then how did it end up on Sheila's body in time for it to be photographed there from about 9:30am, onwards? Somebody obviously moved the rifle from the bedroom window onto Sheila's body, and that somebody could only have been a police officer - I wonder which one?

The only persons responsible for trying to deceive anyone was / is the police / relatives, and those who we have labelled BIGB - they don't want anyone to get any ideas that this is a MOJ. They are very selective about evidence they choose to rely upon, yet argue that anything else which others might seek to rely upon to support counter arguments is not evidence. It does not seem to matter that police officers did not make their own statements, and that these were either edited or edited and retyped by a representative of the DPP. It does not seem to matter that police are responsible for stage managing the scene. It does not seem to matter that one of the relatives has deliberately interfered with and tampered with an exhibit (silencer) in the case. It does not seem to matter that police created a false photographic schedule suggesting that police only took 223 pictures as part of the investigation when all along they took 581. It does not seem to matter that police substituted an original fragmented (PV/20) bullet and replaced it with a whole one from the batch of control ammunition, so that a false scenario could be presented suggesting that the same rifle) was used to fire both bullets? On and on the list of irregularities, and inconsistencies, and ambiguities go, none of it is evidence say those from the BIGB, but the truth is that police shot and killed Sheila in the bedroom, not Jeremy or any as yet unidentified killer or hitman...

She was not shot under the chin by members of the raidf team during the first phase of the operation inside the farmhouse, she was shot by a police officer during the crucial second phase, which commenced from 9am, onwards...

[mike tesko]

According to PS Adams, when he visited the main bedroom scene at about 9am, he saw Sheila's body with no rifle upon it, or near to it? Wonder where the rifle was at this stage? Could it have still been resting up against the bedroom window where WPC Julia Jeapes saw it at 7:15am? If so, then how did it end up on Sheila's body in time for it to be photographed there from about 9:30am, onwards? Somebody obviously moved the rifle from the bedroom window onto Sheila's body, and that somebody could only have been a police officer - I wonder which one?

Those from the Bamber is guilty brigade (BIGB) are very selective about what they want to talk about, and rely upon - but the sad truth is that there was no rifle at all on Sheila's body when the commander of the firearms operation (PS Adams) viewed Sheila's body (9;am) in the bedroom, yet by 9:30am the rifle (Y) was photographed in different positions upon Sheila's body, so work that out for yourselves and ask yourself why did the police feel it was necessary to move the rifle from the bedroom window (after 7:15am) onto Sheila's body?

[mike tesko]

Those from the Bamber is guilty brigade (BIGB) are very selective about what they want to talk about, and rely upon - but the sad truth is that there was no rifle at all on Sheila's body when the commander of the firearms operation (PS Adams) viewed Sheila's body (9;am) in the bedroom, yet by 9:30am the rifle (Y) was photographed in different positions upon Sheila's body, so work that out for yourselves and ask yourself why did the police feel it was necessary to move the rifle from the bedroom window (after 7:15am) onto Sheila's body?

Worse still...

Lets give the BIGB a swift kick between the legs and ask them why photographs which show rifle (Y) on Sheila's body in various positions, on the bedroom floor, after 9am, do  the police insist that they found Sheila's body like that, when they could not have done so? How can rifle "Y" be on the body when police first enter the bedroom, and then not be on the body when PS Adams sees the body at about 9am, and then PC Bird photographed rifle "Y" on Sheila's body from 9:30am, onward, when all along rifle "Y" was leaning up against the bedroom window at about 7:15am? If nobody touched or moved anything at all, as insisted by the police, how did rifle "Y" get from the window onto the body after PS Adams visited the main bedroom at about 9am?

[Steve_uk]

Worse still...

Lets give the BIGB a swift kick between the legs and ask them why photographs which show rifle (Y) on Sheila's body in various positions, on the bedroom floor, after 9am, do  the police insist that they found Sheila's body like that, when they could not have done so? How can rifle "Y" be on the body when police first enter the bedroom, and then not be on the body when PS Adams sees the body at about 9am, and then PC Bird photographed rifle "Y" on Sheila's body from 9:30am, onward, when all along rifle "Y" was leaning up against the bedroom window at about 7:15am? If nobody touched or moved anything at all, as insisted by the police, how did rifle "Y" get from the window onto the body after PS Adams visited the main bedroom at about 9am?

Does the moving of the gun,which many now accept may well have taken place affect materially this case?

[Roch]

I'm not doing myself any favours by questioning the uncorroberated, unsupported, second hand word of a supporter of a convicted multiple murderer?

If you want to pretend that only Bamber works on his case and that no others linked to the defence are capable of an indpendent, rational consideration of facts / evidence / information... there's not a lot I can do about it.   He may be a supporter of a convicted multiple murderer (a phrase you seem to be over using as some kind of attempt to goad?) but at least he's a supporter of a polygraphed convicted multiple murderer who has never given up fighting against underhand tactics, for the right to clear his own name.  The bunch of people who years after the event were squabbling over the estate they grabbed, will never be voluntarily polygraphed.  Ever. 

On the contrary, I'd suggest that your willingness to blindly swallow anything put before you as long as it fits your views about the case, actually does yourself no favours.

That is a gross misrepresentation of my posting record on this forum, which questions both sides, roughly accordance with my stance on guilt / innocence. 

I don't doubt that Hunter believes what he's written, but I question the source and the interpretation and implications of any information he has used to come the the conclusions that he has.

Hunter is obviously a thicko, like everyone else linked to the defence?  Perhaps he blindly swallows also?
You question any source if it's linked to the defence or has helped the defence.  Question away... If somebody wants to provide info, I very much doubt they care whether you would potentially 'question' their validity.   Perhaps Hunter has just invented his sources because he is fond of a shaggy dog story? 

Again, returning to edited statements, there is no evidence that anything untowards has taken place, it is in my opinion nothing more than a bout of defence propaganda, however I am happy and open to being shown actual evidence which shows my opinion to be incorrect.

That might require original statements for forensics?  Just a thought.  There is never any evidence of anything untoward having taken place in your stance on the case.  For exactly the same reasons as you accuse me of.  Untowardness on the part of police or prosecution doesn't fit in with your stance, so you reject it.  I provided you with a link to Bambertwitpics in the archive.  There may some excerpts of statements in there that did not previously come to light. 

Just like the erasing of Jeremys memory, you seem to be selectively ignoring the original signed statements which should have accompanied any abridged unsigned statements.

I've questioned why Jeremy Bamber did not make more of the alleged sighting during his trial, so you cant pin that one on me.  Rivlin must have questioned the window incident at trial for a reason.  You've been informed a number of times by ngb that original signed statements were not made available to the defence.

There is no justification for the accusations, that is all I am asking for.

I think it's more the case that any justification simply isn't good enough for you.

Also, another attempt to pre-empt the predictable response that I am being hypocritical by following the official prosecution version of events, well that simply isn't the case at all, I'm not blindly following anything, I'm not trying to prove guilt or even change anybodies mind from innocent to guilty, what I am trying to do, is see if there is any truth to the various accusations put foward, either officially or just theories voiced on this forum. There is an overwhelming pattern forming, and that is that when I look into any of these theories/allegations/accusations in detail, it quickly becomes apparent that they are more often than not, unjustified and infused with premeditated attempts of deception, this is not only irritating but also reflects very, very badly on those who put the theory/allegation/accusation forward.

Another common pattern is that unsubtantiated theories are often used to try and support another unsubstantiated theory, an example of this is the use of an alleged sighting of a figure to support the alleged withholding of a page of a log which may not exist and if it does, may or may not have any reference to the incident. I'd suggest that Myalls and Bews statements  would be a more readily available source of information, the information was clearly documented somewhere as Rivlin questioned Myall about it at the original trial.

By the time Bamber realised that a page was missing from the logs, it had been many years since he discussed with Mike Tesko in prison about the alleged window sighting.  I doubt this was an attempt on his part to pre-arrange a future defence argument, for when the logs finally came to light, that a page was missing relating to incident he was questioned about in his polygraph.  What price at Ladbrokes, for Bews & co to take a similar test about the same incident?

[mike tesko]

Does the moving of the gun,which many now accept may well have taken place affect materially this case?

Yes, I think it does. Movement of rifle "Y" from the bedroom window where it was spotted, by WPC Julia Jeapes, before the raid team entered the farmhouse, at about 7:30am, gives an enormous clue regarding Jeremy Bambers purported guilt or innocence in this case. This sighting by Jeapes of rifle "Y" leaning up against the bedroom window, affords Bamber the perfect alibi that / which should serve to render his convictions unsafe. The key evidence concerns how and under what circumstances could / did rifle "Y" become displaced onto Sheila's body in the interim period between when WPC jeapes first saw rifle "Y" leaning against the bedroom window, and its arrival on the body at around 9:30am, when PC Bird took pictures of it there, in many different positions? Jeremy did not move rifle "Y" from the bedroom window onto the body, and what we have to remember is that at 9am, when PS Adams visited the bedroom there was no rifle atop Sheila's body at that stage, and no rifle (Y) anywhere near to her body at that time, so where was the rifle (Y) at that stage? Surely police inside the farmhouse must have known where rifle "Y" was?

Of course, we now know where it was, and where it had been from as early as about 7:15am, that same morning - it had been resting against the window...

Now...

If it had been leaning up against the bedroom window when WPC jeapes spotted it there, how could it have by that stage fired the fatal bullet (PV/19) under the chin which killed her instantaneously, so that Sheila ended up on the bedroom floor next to the bed, and the rifle was yards away stood leaning up against the bedroom window? None of this makes any sense whatsoever...

[mike tesko]

Yes, I think it does. Movement of rifle "Y" from the bedroom window where it was spotted, by WPC Julia Jeapes, before the raid team entered the farmhouse, at about 7:30am, gives an enormous clue regarding Jeremy Bambers purported guilt or innocence in this case. This sighting by Jeapes of rifle "Y" leaning up against the bedroom window, affords Bamber the perfect alibi that / which should serve to render his convictions unsafe. The key evidence concerns how and under what circumstances could / did rifle "Y" become displaced onto Sheila's body in the interim period between when WPC jeapes first saw rifle "Y" leaning against the bedroom window, and its arrival on the body at around 9:30am, when PC Bird took pictures of it there, in many different positions? Jeremy did not move rifle "Y" from the bedroom window onto the body, and what we have to remember is that at 9am, when PS Adams visited the bedroom there was no rifle atop Sheila's body at that stage, and no rifle (Y) anywhere near to her body at that time, so where was the rifle (Y) at that stage? Surely police inside the farmhouse must have known where rifle "Y" was?

Of course, we now know where it was, and where it had been from as early as about 7:15am, that same morning - it had been resting against the window...

Now...

If it had been leaning up against the bedroom window when WPC jeapes spotted it there, how could it have by that stage fired the fatal bullet (PV/19) under the chin which killed her instantaneously, so that Sheila ended up on the bedroom floor next to the bed, and the rifle was yards away stood leaning up against the bedroom window? None of this makes any sense whatsoever...

Rifle "Y" arrived on Sheila's body after the visit to the bedroom by PS Adams who told COLP in his 1991 interviews that there was no rifle at all on Sheila's body when he saw her at about 9am, that morning - what this establishes is that rifle "Y" was not on the body (undisturbed) when police first entered the main bedroom. How can it have remained there undisturbed if it was not on Sheila's body at around (9am), but there later on to allow PC Bird to take pictures of it there in different positions on the body?

[Roch]

Mike, some of our own forum members do not like the BGB label.  I think some forum members prefer to be thought of as individuals with their own stance on the case / guilt.   Just thought I'd mention it.

[mike tesko]

Mike, some of our own forum members do not like the BGB label.  I think some forum members prefer to be thought of as individuals with their own stance on the case / guilt.   Just thought I'd mention it.

Thank you for pointing this out to me...

[mike tesko]

It should be clear enough to anybody who is remotely interested in finding out the truth of this matter, that the position of Sheila's body on the bedroom floor with the rifle atop it, as photographed by PC Bird as shown in photographs which formed part and parcel of the COURT album relied upon during trial, that the position of her body and the rifle (Y) and the bible was / is not an undisturbed scene, but rather one which was / has been stage managed by the police...

[Roch]

Thank you for pointing this out to me...

No problem.

[Roch]

It should be clear enough to anybody who is remotely interested in finding out the truth of this matter, that the position of Sheila's body on the bedroom floor with the rifle atop it, as photographed by PC Bird as shown in photographs which formed part and parcel of the COURT album relied upon during trial, that the position of her body and the rifle (Y) and the bible was / is not an undisturbed scene, but rather one which was / has been stage managed by the police...

It's certainly clear to me.  But I think a lot of people really struggle with the concept of police behaving in this manner.

[Steve_uk]

Rifle "Y" arrived on Sheila's body after the visit to the bedroom by PS Adams who told COLP in his 1991 interviews that there was no rifle at all on Sheila's body when he saw her at about 9am, that morning - what this establishes is that rifle "Y" was not on the body (undisturbed) when police first entered the main bedroom. How can it have remained there undisturbed if it was not on Sheila's body at around (9am), but there later on to allow PC Bird to take pictures of it there in different positions on the body?

But wasn't there a picture of the rifle taken by the Police photographers of a rifle propped up against the window sill? Could there have been two rifles involved in the crime as has been suggested previously?