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

[mike tesko]

I never did understand why there would be heavier bullets at 2.4+g when Mike says the bullets weighed 2.29g to start with. 

2.26 grams, I think...

[Bridget]

2.26 grams, I think...

So why are some heavier?

[-Harters-]

2.26 grams, I think...

Sorry, I stand corrected. 

[Patti]

Lol, I don't have the xray in front of me so sorry if I'm a bit off! PV19 was 2.16 grams, other bullets were 2.4+, do all of these things weigh the same when intact or not? If there's bits missing from PV19, where are they? You'd expect them to break off as it hit the base of the skull.

I know folk will think this does not matter and has no baring, but I feel anything that is or not been examined carefully and destroys what the CPS presented is relevant and. can be shown to be positive for JB......

I suspect that all x-ray's were available, but not used or not thought to have any importance by either side at trial. Now, though it could only be undermine the CPS.

I'd have thought that  PV19 would have had slight fragments missing, but I would hardly believe that such fragments would have fell to the neck from the left hand side of the skull....or that it would be possible.... Off to have lunch....I'll be back to torment you later...Ho Ho Ho....  

[Bridget]

I know folk will think this does not matter and has no baring, but I feel anything that is or not been examined carefully and destroys what the CPS presented is relevant and. can be shown to be positive for JB......

I suspect that all x-ray's were available, but not used or not thought to have any importance by either side at trial. Now, though it could only be undermine the CPS.

I'd have thought that  PV19 would have had slight fragments missing, but I would hardly believe that such fragments would have fell to the neck from the left hand side of the skull....or that it would be possible.... Off to have lunch....I'll be back to torment you later...Ho Ho Ho....

 

[Roch]

Bambertwitpics is not evidence

At times your arrogance is breathtaking.  Dismissive sweeping statements like above.

[-Harters-]

At times your arrogance is breathtaking.  Dismissive sweeping statements like above.

Have you stubbed your toe or have a hangover or something?

That isn't a sweeping statement nor is it arrogant, even when you present it out of context.

The link to bambertwitpics that you kindly supplied is not in any way, concrete evidence that witness statements had been edited in order to wrongfully convict Jeremy. The accusation has been made and I'm asking for it to be justified, the only reason I'm asking you personally to justify it is because you rather sweepingly and arrogantly stated that it was a fact when the reality is that it is nothing of the kind.

[Roch]

Have you stubbed your toe or have a hangover or something?

That isn't a sweeping statement nor is it arrogant, even when you present it out of context.

The link to bambertwitpics that you kindly supplied is not in any way, concrete evidence that witness statements had been edited in order to wrongfully convict Jeremy. The accusation has been made and I'm asking for it to be justified, the only reason I'm asking you personally to justify it is because you rather sweepingly and arrogantly stated that it was a fact when the reality is that it is nothing of the kind.

It contains a number of excerpts of statements that never saw the light of day.  It just so happens by some extraordinary complete coincidence, these excerpts were not supportive to the portrayal of Jeremy Bamber to the court, by the prosecution.  The original signed statements were not provided to the defence.  The composite statements were.  The composite statements obviously did not contain the excerpts displayed in Bambertwitpics.   

[-Harters-]

It contains a number of excerpts of statements that never saw the light of day.  It just so happens by some extraordinary complete coincidence, these excerpts were not supportive to the portrayal of Jeremy Bamber to the court, by the prosecution.  The original signed statements were not provided to the defence.  The composite statements were.  The composite statements obviously did not contain the excerpts displayed in Bambertwitpics.

How do you know that original statements were not available to the defence? Or are you just repeating what Bambers supporters are claiming?

Regardless, your answer is unimportant, it is very clear that this is not concrete evidence that witness statements were illegally edited in order to wrongly convict Jeremy Bamber, if it were, then we'd be awaiting a date for a court of appeal hearing, but we are not.

I respect the fact that you have a diffferent opinion, but I do not respect your claims that I am being goading, or am playing you, that applies equally to your suggestion that I have a track record for such behaviour, or that I somehow turn victim. Personally I find the claims insulting and quite hypocrotical.

At what stage do the accusations of goading, actually become the act of goading? Just like with Mikes profanities and rudeness, I won't rise to your bait where previously I may have done.

I'm alway up for discussing interesting aspects of the case, but I'm not at all interested in doing so when the other party is being antagonistic and confrontational, that's never been a problem between us before and we've always gotten along despite our very different views, why that has changed I have no idea, either I've hit a nerve or you're simply having a bad day, I don't know, but it's certainly pointless for us to continue to bite chunks out of each other.

You may find my views to be narrow, yet I find yours to be at least as narrow but in the other direction, I'd suggest an agree to disagree position is the order of the day.

[Roch]

How do you know that original statements were not available to the defence? Or are you just repeating what Bambers supporters are claiming?

I forgot, all Bamber's supporters or 'the defence' are liars who are involved in a massive game of spin, (as well as being thick and easily led by Bamber).  Sorry about that.  I will do 100 lines by tomorrow morning, to leave on your desk: only police and relatives tell the truth.

Regardless, your answer is unimportant, it is very clear that this is not concrete evidence that witness statements were illegally edited in order to wrongly convict Jeremy Bamber, if it were, then we'd be awaiting a date for a court of appeal hearing, but we are not.

Again, breathtaking arrogance.  Only your answers are important it seems.  I'd like to revisit this subject once I can garner more information.  For now I will accept that I cannot prove that witness statements have been illegally edited.  I'm still confident that deliberate omissions will have been made on the part of police.

You may find my views to be narrow, yet I find yours to be at least as narrow but in the other direction, I'd suggest an agree to disagree position is the order of the day.

Absolute bollocks.  I''m way more open to guilt and prosecution arguments than you are to defence arguments. 

I agree, we should once more take up positions of agreeing to disagree.

[-Harters-]

I forgot, all Bamber's supporters or 'the defence' are liars who are involved in a massive game of spin, (as well as being thick and easily led by Bamber).  Sorry about that.  I will do 100 lines by tomorrow morning, to leave on your desk: only police and relatives tell the truth.

Again, breathtaking arrogance.  Only your answers are important it seems.  I'd like to revisit this subject once I can garner more information.  For now I will accept that I cannot prove that witness statements have been illegally edited.  I'm still confident that deliberate omissions will have been made on the part of police.

Absolute bollocks.  I''m way more open to guilt and prosecution arguments than you are to defence arguments. 

I agree, we should once more take up positions of agreeing to disagree.

I will refrain from retaliating, I'll leave you with the last response.

Agree to disagree it is.

[Patti]

So why are some heavier?

I think it might depend on what the bullet hit. Lead bullets fragment much easy than copper bullets. The lead can sometimes fragment up to 3 inches from where the bullet stops. 

If you take the 1st bullet it hits the bone at a shorter distance than that of the 2nd shot. Thus meaning the impact was quicker therefore the fragment count was much higher than the 2nd shot...and much heavier. Its worth noting that all lead bullets fragment. 

[Bridget]

I think it might depend on what the bullet hit. Lead bullets fragment much easy than copper bullets. The lead can sometimes fragment up to 3 inches from where the bullet stops. 

If you take the 1st bullet it hits the bone at a shorter distance than that of the 2nd shot. Thus meaning the impact was quicker therefore the fragment count was much higher than the 2nd shot...and much heavier. Its worth noting that all lead bullets fragment. 

Well yes, but they can't end up heavier than they were when they started!

[Patti]

Well yes, but they can't end up heavier than they were when they started!

Who said they were heavier? Not seen that.....Had a fab dinner and watched our Yorkshire lass from Otley win the silver....Well done Lizzie. 

[susan]

Hi Patti  I watched Yokshire take the silver what a race I thought she was going to get gold but a very proud moment.