"I didn't mean to be horrible to Jeremy.."

[David1819]

Impressive.  It's somewhat eerie to see the killer in this manner.

Thanks. Its a project I started back in late December last year. Rather rewarding to learn. The program is free BTW if your interested.

https://www.blender.org

[Adam]

Thanks. Its a project I started back in late December last year. Rather rewarding to learn. The program is free BTW if your interested.

https://www.blender.org

Since December. I suppose there is no point in rushing things.

Roch has already said Sheila 'definately' committed the massacre. By 'shooting them'. And will supply a water tight scenario soon, which may not include the phone calls, which he can't explain.

[Roch]

Since December. I suppose there is no point in rushing things.

Roch has already said Sheila 'definately' committed the massacre. By 'shooting them'. And will supply a water tight scenario soon, which may not include the phone calls, which he can't explain.

Why do you worry so much about the phone calls?  Ask your self - if a sufficient amount of guilters personally find the silencer suspect as an exhibit... and the police are able to blatantly cover and lie about the evidence within the farmhouse... what makes you think you can't trust their version of events about the calls?

If they have to twist or bend two or three circumstances in order to have a chance at convicting Bamber, how do you know they didn't have to twist or bend nine or ten... or 20 or 30?

[Adam]

Why do you worry so much about the phone calls?  Ask your self - if a sufficient amount of guilters personally find the silencer suspect as an exhibit... and the police are able to blatantly cover and lie about the evidence within the farmhouse... what makes you think you can't trust their version of events about the calls?

If they have to twist or bend two or three circumstances in order to have a chance at convicting Bamber, how do you know they didn't have to twist or bend nine or ten... or 20 or 30?

The only guilter who questions the silencer never defends this stance.

Anyway, can you supply the Sheila scenario today. To match the crime scene & two phone calls.

That is not an unreasonable request. My Bamber scenario took 10 minutes to complete.

If you can't, you will have to change stance.

[Roch]

The only guilter who questions the silencer never defends this stance.

Anyway, can you supply the Sheila scenario today. To match the crime scene & two phone calls.

That is not an unreasonable request. My Bamber scenario took 10 minutes to complete.

If you can't, you will have to change stance.

ha ha... there's absolutely no chance of me changing stance now.  That's why i think it's a waste of time me being on here any longer.  I haven't stated that some wow factor news is just around the corner.  I've stated that Jeremy Bamber might die in prison.  Regardless of what happen's - I know Sheila killed everyone.  I don't need to provide you with a scenario of what really happened in the farmhouse that fits in with what the police are saying happened with the phone calls.  Wouldn't that be like trying two fit two uneven parts together?   

[Adam]

ha ha... there's absolutely no chance of me changing stance now.  That's why i think it's a waste of time me being on here any longer.  I haven't stated that some wow factor news is just around the corner.  I've stated that Jeremy Bamber might die in prison.  Regardless of what happen's - I know Sheila killed everyone.  I don't need to provide you with a scenario of what really happened in the farmhouse that fits in with what the police are saying happened with the phone calls.  Wouldn't that be like trying two fit two uneven parts together?   

Several other long term supporters have changed stance. Lookout being the exception saying 'hell would freeze over' before that happens.

Agree Bamber might die in prison.

It's Bamber who is saying the two phone calls happened. Not the police.

If you know Sheila killed everyone, just say how. Other supporters have. The crime scene body locations, bullet allocation, kitchen fight & phone call/s are common knowledge & not disputed.

[Caroline]

Why do you worry so much about the phone calls?  Ask your self - if a sufficient amount of guilters personally find the silencer suspect as an exhibit... and the police are able to blatantly cover and lie about the evidence within the farmhouse... what makes you think you can't trust their version of events about the calls?

If they have to twist or bend two or three circumstances in order to have a chance at convicting Bamber, how do you know they didn't have to twist or bend nine or ten... or 20 or 30?

The phone calls are important because that's where it all started, no phone call and Bamber is guilty (regardless of the silencer), if the phone call happened, he's innocent. No one has yet been able to give a decent explanation as to why the police would frame an innocent Jeremy when they had a ready made suspect in Sheila. It's not like he was an important figure who could damage their reputation, he was just a farmers son who had lost his family. Who would frame such an innocent man given his circumstances? There is no evidence that the family had any pull with the police so I just don't get it.

[notsure]

I remain firmly convinced that there was a genuine mix up with the calls i.e. Each didn't know which bamber they had spoken to or some such
. It's imperative we have all she original logs etc so we can fully understand what's happened.

It's just a simple case of them handing it all over and the only way that's going to happen is if police are prosecuted or a tv exposes ep and too much pressure is put on them they have no choice.

TBH I can't see what their blooming problem is if they believe they got it right then hand it all over and prove it

[lookout]

I so agree about the mix-up in the phone-calls,notsure. Two " Mr. Bamber's must have thrown them completely  !

[Caroline]

I remain firmly convinced that there was a genuine mix up with the calls i.e. Each didn't know which bamber they had spoken to or some such
. It's imperative we have all she original logs etc so we can fully understand what's happened.

It's just a simple case of them handing it all over and the only way that's going to happen is if police are prosecuted or a tv exposes ep and too much pressure is put on them they have no choice.

TBH I can't see what their blooming problem is if they believe they got it right then hand it all over and prove it

How can there have been a mix-up? West said he only received one call and that was from Jeremy. Bonnett said he only received one call and that was from West. Either both Bonnett and West are lying OR there is an attempt to muddy the water. I do however, agree that EP (if they haven't already) should hand over the original logs so this can be put to bed.

[Adam]

I remain firmly convinced that there was a genuine mix up with the calls i.e. Each didn't know which bamber they had spoken to or some such
. It's imperative we have all she original logs etc so we can fully understand what's happened.

It's just a simple case of them handing it all over and the only way that's going to happen is if police are prosecuted or a tv exposes ep and too much pressure is put on them they have no choice.

TBH I can't see what their blooming problem is if they believe they got it right then hand it all over and prove it

The CT have the phone logs.

They have spent the last 7 years saying it shows Nevill called the police. Although did not include this in the 2012 CCRC submission.

Now Bamber wants the original to check if it's been edited. Not sure why the police would edit logs to enable Bamber to claim Nevill also called the 5th furthest away police station.

[Roch]

The phone calls are important because that's where it all started, no phone call and Bamber is guilty (regardless of the silencer), if the phone call happened, he's innocent. No one has yet been able to give a decent explanation as to why the police would frame an innocent Jeremy when they had a ready made suspect in Sheila. It's not like he was an important figure who could damage their reputation, he was just a farmers son who had lost his family. Who would frame such an innocent man given his circumstances? There is no evidence that the family had any pull with the police so I just don't get it.

It shouldn't be up to 'anyone' to explain why the cops would do it.  It should be up to the cops to fess up and explain why they did it.

What evidence would suffice, in terms of the relatives having enough pull with police - and in what format should we expect to find it in? 
 

[Steve_uk]

Why do you worry so much about the phone calls?  Ask your self - if a sufficient amount of guilters personally find the silencer suspect as an exhibit... and the police are able to blatantly cover and lie about the evidence within the farmhouse... what makes you think you can't trust their version of events about the calls?

If they have to twist or bend two or three circumstances in order to have a chance at convicting Bamber, how do you know they didn't have to twist or bend nine or ten... or 20 or 30?

It doesn't make sense for Nevill to have consulted someone whom Sheila didn't particularly like and could not have ameliorated the situation in any way. He was only going through the motions of farming anyway upon return from his jaunts abroad until his murderous scheme had been refined and the details perfected. The telephone call is the greatest weakness in Jeremy's case: it all starts from there, giving him knowledge of the crime at this early stage, and if it didn't happen then he couldn't possibly have known about the crime unless he perpetrated it himself.

[lookout]

Jeremy didn't murder anyone Steve.

[Steve_uk]

Jeremy didn't murder anyone Steve.

I don't see any reason to conceal a call from Nevill at that early stage when it would confirm their boss Taff Jones's view that Sheila was responsible and put them all in a good light. I concede that Nevill's call to Jeremy cannot be proved either way, it seems.