Photograph of Shiela on the bed

[mike tesko]

My claims have got evidence to back them up - you don't appear to have any...

Your attempts at trying to ridicule anything that is being said, is a joke, and disrespectful...

If anyone was starting to get personal, it was you - and you don't like it when anyone starts to give it back - tough..

----------------------

You're not showing that evidence though, and yet you expect everyone to just believe what you claim, no matter how far fetched it is.

I'm not ridiculing anything, and quite frankly your attitude is starting to annoy me. I've conceded many points to you because I'm not biased and I'm looking at the evidence which has been presented, whether it supports guilt or innocence. Your bias, on the other hand, stands out like a neon sign. You refuse to accept any kind of logic and you refuse to answer questions which don't fit in with your theories.

....

I have already provided enough evidence for there to be sufficient doubt in this case - although much more does exist. Witness statement contents, police radio message log contents and other Lab' and police records, is evidence for the purposes of any proceedings in court, in pursuance of this matter...

No matter how may times you try to say or suggest that such material is not evidence, it will alway be evidence...

Doubt, yes, but that's not evidence of the kind which enables anyone to state something happened as a fact. You've stated so many "facts" which turned out not to be facts at all, so obviously I'm not taking your word at face value for anything.

Of course I have doubt. If I was convinced Jeremy had done it I wouldn't be here - there would be nothing to say as he's in prison and he's likely to stay there for some time.

----------------------

I don't honestly think you live in the real world, sometimes with some of the comments you keep coming out with - something is a fact if it is documented in witness statements, or police radio messages, or lab' documents, or any other document, linked to the police investigation, into these five deaths - it does not only become a fact, if and when it suits your purpose...

Details contained in witness statements, police radio message logs, and other records, are (unfortunately for you) facts, upon which arguments can and may be based, in law...

Each side, in any legal proceedings is entitled to rely upon any fact, in existence, contained in such material, outlined...

So, there is absolutely no basis or foundation to the arguments you appear to be putting forward...

[TheBrilliantMistake]

Now now, I think it's my fault this has all kicked off with my Martian's quip.

Why did I write that? because sometimes, it really does feel that SOME of the defence arguments are at the more eccentric end of interpretation.

Sometimes, there's some 'evidence' and I might see it one way and someone else another way, but even though they are opposing views, they still are loosely in the 'middle' of possible interpretations.

But there seem to be more and more extreme interpretations, that in themselves aren't wrong, but there's a lot of them, and they all have to happen in order to support the defence.

I totally believe the police match a botch up of the job
I could even go so far as to say Sheila might have been alive and ended up being shot, or shot herself with the police supposedly 'securing' the place.

But the number of body moves, log tampering, family collusion with police officers etc starts to sound far fetched.

I really don't want to discount something JUST because it's far fetched... far fetched doesn't mean didn't happen... but it's becoming incessant, and there's no 'give' from the defence.

If once in a while someone said "Yep, have to admit, THAT bit doesn't look good for Jeremy" then that would be something. But it (seemingly) never arrives.

The thing is, I think there IS plenty enough credible doubt to explore without the quite remarkable claims needing to be raised, and I think those remarkable claims might be doing an injustice to JB.

I've tried to be honest and say I'm usually 80% Bamber did it... wavering as far as 60% to 90% (if you can possibly quantify such feelings).

I apologise if the Martians crack upset anybody... it really was meant to be lighthearted (BUT yes, it was a dig at 'wild' (in my eyes) claims).

It's certainly not personal, and I don't see it as being on the 'side' of JB or Sheila...

[mike tesko]

The problem is that those who are convinced of Jeremy's innocence pick and choose which bits of the police evidence to believe. They also disbelieve Julie Mugford and the other relatives one minute, and then suddenly believe them if it suits them to do so.

------------------

Aah, selective evidence, its the way of the world, and why there are trials, where one side chooses to rely upon certain facts, in support of their arguments, whilst the other party choose to rely on opposing facts...

The purpose of having a trial, is to weigh up arguments based upon evidence from one party, against the other, to arrive at a conclusion...

In this respect, facts may exist, which appear to contradict one parties view, as opposed to the view relied upon by the other party...

Why shouldn't I seek to rely upon a fact which supports my point of view?

Is there a law against this approach?

[Kaldin]

I don't honestly think you live in the real world, sometimes with some of the comments you keep coming out with - something is a fact if it is documented in witness statements, or police radio messages, or lab' documents, or any other document, linked to the police investigation, into these five deaths - it does not only become a fact, if and when it suits your purpose...

Details contained in witness statements, police radio message logs, and other records, are (unfortunately for you) facts, upon which arguments can and may be based, in law...

Each side, in any legal proceedings is entitled to rely upon any fact, in existence, contained in such material, outlined...

So, there is absolutely no basis or foundation to the arguments you appear to be putting forward...

I'm not the one claiming there was a massive stitch up involving a lot of police officers, several relatives, a doctor, and an ex girlfriend.. I'm not the one claiming that Robert Boutflour blackmailed the police. I'm not the one claiming that a rug was moved just because there's a photo of one on June's side of the bed. I'm not the one claiming that David Boutflour found a silencer in the garage when it's clear he might not have meant that.

I don't think you have any grounds for saying that I'm not in the real world.

David Boutflour said in statements that he found the silencer in the gun cupboard in August, so according to your logic, that is a fact, and yet you say it's not a fact.

Dr Craig made a statement to say that the blood on Sheila's face was dried, and yet you say that's not a fact.

I don't think I need to give any more examples.

You need to make up your mind what a "fact" consists of.

[Kaldin]

Now now, I think it's my fault this has all kicked off with my Martian's quip.

Why did I write that? because sometimes, it really does feel that SOME of the defence arguments are at the more eccentric end of interpretation.

Sometimes, there's some 'evidence' and I might see it one way and someone else another way, but even though they are opposing views, they still are loosely in the 'middle' of possible interpretations.

But there seem to be more and more extreme interpretations, that in themselves aren't wrong, but there's a lot of them, and they all have to happen in order to support the defence.

I totally believe the police match a botch up of the job
I could even go so far as to say Sheila might have been alive and ended up being shot, or shot herself with the police supposedly 'securing' the place.

But the number of body moves, log tampering, family collusion with police officers etc starts to sound far fetched.

I really don't want to discount something JUST because it's far fetched... far fetched doesn't mean didn't happen... but it's becoming incessant, and there's no 'give' from the defence.

If once in a while someone said "Yep, have to admit, THAT bit doesn't look good for Jeremy" then that would be something. But it (seemingly) never arrives.

The thing is, I think there IS plenty enough credible doubt to explore without the quite remarkable claims needing to be raised, and I think those remarkable claims might be doing an injustice to JB.

I've tried to be honest and say I'm usually 80% Bamber did it... wavering as far as 60% to 90% (if you can possibly quantify such feelings).

I apologise if the Martians crack upset anybody... it really was meant to be lighthearted (BUT yes, it was a dig at 'wild' (in my eyes) claims).

It's certainly not personal, and I don't see it as being on the 'side' of JB or Sheila...

I couldn't have put it better myself, especially about the lack of "give" from the defence - ie, Mike.

Any evidence which does point to Jeremy as the culprit is either ignored by the defence or it's explained away in a series of bizarre and totally incomprehensible theories.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

I don't want to free Jeremy
I don't want to clear Sheila's name once and for all

I'd just like to help work out what might have happened and contribute if only in a miniscule manner to the 'thought tank', in the hope that from some miracle a team effort sparks something never considered before and is then taken up by those with the means necessary to further establish truth.

All of that said, I cannot deny forming opinion at a given moment in time and say "so far, Jeremy's looking the likely culprit". I think that's honest (honest in terms of how I'm seeing things)

I really does just feel though, that sometimes, someone mentions a body, and we all speculate as to 'how it was done', then just as we get closer... someone says "but yes, the body was moved before then"... so ok, we go along with that and eventually say "the body moved theory's not holding up too well because of the bullet found here...", then the response feels like "ah but that's because the pathologist was useless"... so we go along with that, and say "but the second pathologist confirmed it"... and the response is "the pathologist was the son in law of the chief constable who'd had a word with him..." etc

after three or four rounds of this... it does feel like it's pointless arguing, because there's another plot that's just come to light.

I know this isn't REALLY what happens, but it damn well feels like all too often... and in particularly in favour of JB innocence.

[Kaldin]

The problem is that those who are convinced of Jeremy's innocence pick and choose which bits of the police evidence to believe. They also disbelieve Julie Mugford and the other relatives one minute, and then suddenly believe them if it suits them to do so.

------------------

Aah, selective evidence, its the way of the world, and why there are trials, where one side chooses to rely upon certain facts, in support of their arguments, whilst the other party choose to rely on opposing facts...

The purpose of having a trial, is to weigh up arguments based upon evidence from one party, against the other, to arrive at a conclusion...

In this respect, facts may exist, which appear to contradict one parties view, as opposed to the view relied upon by the other party...

Why shouldn't I seek to rely upon a fact which supports my point of view?

Is there a law against this approach?

You believe Jeremy to be innocent, not because of the evidence but because .. well you just do. You're using the evidence (or lack of it) to fit your belief, but there are those who look at the evidence and then formulate a theory based on it - ie, they do it the other way round.

The trouble with bias is that common sense tends to go out of the window, and any evidence with goes against that bias is disregarded.

[Kaldin]

I don't want to free Jeremy
I don't want to clear Sheila's name once and for all

I'd just like to help work out what might have happened and contribute if only in a miniscule manner to the 'thought tank', in the hope that from some miracle a team effort sparks something never considered before and is then taken up by those with the means necessary to further establish truth.

All of that said, I cannot deny forming opinion at a given moment in time and say "so far, Jeremy's looking the likely culprit". I think that's honest (honest in terms of how I'm seeing things)

I really does just feel though, that sometimes, someone mentions a body, and we all speculate as to 'how it was done', then just as we get closer... someone says "but yes, the body was moved before then"... so ok, we go along with that and eventually say "the body moved theory's not holding up too well because of the bullet found here...", then the response feels like "ah but that's because the pathologist was useless"... so we go along with that, and say "but the second pathologist confirmed it"... and the response is "the pathologist was the son in law of the chief constable who'd had a word with him..." etc

after three or four rounds of this... it does feel like it's pointless arguing, because there's another plot that's just come to light.

I know this isn't REALLY what happens, but it damn well feels like all too often... and in particularly in favour of JB innocence.

Goodness me. If I didn't know better, I'd say you were me. 

I'm also hoping for a "Eureka" moment when someone asks the right question or makes a point which has not been considered before and which puts a whole new complexion on this mysterious crime.

I also agree that whenever people try to discuss a particular point, a whole new scenario is introduced to muddy the waters.

[mike tesko]

Now now, I think it's my fault this has all kicked off with my Martian's quip.

Why did I write that? because sometimes, it really does feel that SOME of the defence arguments are at the more eccentric end of interpretation.

Sometimes, there's some 'evidence' and I might see it one way and someone else another way, but even though they are opposing views, they still are loosely in the 'middle' of possible interpretations.

But there seem to be more and more extreme interpretations, that in themselves aren't wrong, but there's a lot of them, and they all have to happen in order to support the defence.

I totally believe the police match a botch up of the job
I could even go so far as to say Sheila might have been alive and ended up being shot, or shot herself with the police supposedly 'securing' the place.

But the number of body moves, log tampering, family collusion with police officers etc starts to sound far fetched.

I really don't want to discount something JUST because it's far fetched... far fetched doesn't mean didn't happen... but it's becoming incessant, and there's no 'give' from the defence.

If once in a while someone said "Yep, have to admit, THAT bit doesn't look good for Jeremy" then that would be something. But it (seemingly) never arrives.

The thing is, I think there IS plenty enough credible doubt to explore without the quite remarkable claims needing to be raised, and I think those remarkable claims might be doing an injustice to JB.

I've tried to be honest and say I'm usually 80% Bamber did it... wavering as far as 60% to 90% (if you can possibly quantify such feelings).

I apologise if the Martians crack upset anybody... it really was meant to be lighthearted (BUT yes, it was a dig at 'wild' (in my eyes) claims).

It's certainly not personal, and I don't see it as being on the 'side' of JB or Sheila...

I couldn't have put it better myself, especially about the lack of "give" from the defence - ie, Mike.

Any evidence which does point to Jeremy as the culprit is either ignored by the defence or it's explained away in a series of bizarre and totally incomprehensible theories.

-------------------

That is totally uncalled for, and out of order - Jeremy currently stands convicted for these murders and I do not have to justify any of the prosecutions case for getting him convicted, because he is convicted, and I feel that the evidence relied upon was unreliable, and in some instances, falsified...

I will discuss anything about this case, with anyone, but I am not going to be supportive of anything which I feel was wrongly allowed, or introduced with a view to securing a false conviction against Jeremy...

If that comes across as being somewhat biased, then so be it...

I happen to believe that Jeremy Bamber did not kill his sister in the bedroom at whf, and he did not stage manage her body there on the bedroom floor, with a view of trying to make out a false case that she had taken her own life there, and in those circumstances, for all the reasons I have tried to give...

I can't help having those beliefs, and I cannot help holding the view I hold...

There exists evidence, contained in witness statements, and police radio message logs and other police documentation, Lab' documents, and crime scene pictures which tend to support my viewpoints...

as far as I am concerned....

in my opinion...

[mike tesko]

I don't want to free Jeremy
I don't want to clear Sheila's name once and for all

I'd just like to help work out what might have happened and contribute if only in a miniscule manner to the 'thought tank', in the hope that from some miracle a team effort sparks something never considered before and is then taken up by those with the means necessary to further establish truth.

All of that said, I cannot deny forming opinion at a given moment in time and say "so far, Jeremy's looking the likely culprit". I think that's honest (honest in terms of how I'm seeing things)

I really does just feel though, that sometimes, someone mentions a body, and we all speculate as to 'how it was done', then just as we get closer... someone says "but yes, the body was moved before then"... so ok, we go along with that and eventually say "the body moved theory's not holding up too well because of the bullet found here...", then the response feels like "ah but that's because the pathologist was useless"... so we go along with that, and say "but the second pathologist confirmed it"... and the response is "the pathologist was the son in law of the chief constable who'd had a word with him..." etc

after three or four rounds of this... it does feel like it's pointless arguing, because there's another plot that's just come to light.

I know this isn't REALLY what happens, but it damn well feels like all too often... and in particularly in favour of JB innocence.

----------------------

the reason for this, could well be that Jeremy is innocent...

[mike tesko]

The prosecutions  case was biased at the time of Jeremy's trial, because they were very "selective" about what evidence they chose to rely upon to try and get him convicted for the murders, and in addition to this they even deliberately withheld thousands and thousands of documents, and hundreds of crime scene pictures, and anything, and everything, that was gathered by the police, to prove that Sheila killed the others, and that she had then taken her own life (as part of SC/688/85) - so please, I do not need a lecture, or any advise about bias, in this case...

If I am bias, then so be it...

I happen to strongly believe that there has been a very serious miscarriage of justice in this case, which I take to be a very serious matter...

[Kaldin]

Now now, I think it's my fault this has all kicked off with my Martian's quip.

Why did I write that? because sometimes, it really does feel that SOME of the defence arguments are at the more eccentric end of interpretation.

Sometimes, there's some 'evidence' and I might see it one way and someone else another way, but even though they are opposing views, they still are loosely in the 'middle' of possible interpretations.

But there seem to be more and more extreme interpretations, that in themselves aren't wrong, but there's a lot of them, and they all have to happen in order to support the defence.

I totally believe the police match a botch up of the job
I could even go so far as to say Sheila might have been alive and ended up being shot, or shot herself with the police supposedly 'securing' the place.

But the number of body moves, log tampering, family collusion with police officers etc starts to sound far fetched.

I really don't want to discount something JUST because it's far fetched... far fetched doesn't mean didn't happen... but it's becoming incessant, and there's no 'give' from the defence.

If once in a while someone said "Yep, have to admit, THAT bit doesn't look good for Jeremy" then that would be something. But it (seemingly) never arrives.

The thing is, I think there IS plenty enough credible doubt to explore without the quite remarkable claims needing to be raised, and I think those remarkable claims might be doing an injustice to JB.

I've tried to be honest and say I'm usually 80% Bamber did it... wavering as far as 60% to 90% (if you can possibly quantify such feelings).

I apologise if the Martians crack upset anybody... it really was meant to be lighthearted (BUT yes, it was a dig at 'wild' (in my eyes) claims).

It's certainly not personal, and I don't see it as being on the 'side' of JB or Sheila...

I couldn't have put it better myself, especially about the lack of "give" from the defence - ie, Mike.

Any evidence which does point to Jeremy as the culprit is either ignored by the defence or it's explained away in a series of bizarre and totally incomprehensible theories.

-------------------

That is totally uncalled for, and out of order - Jeremy currently stands convicted for these murders and I do not have to justify any of the prosecutions case for getting him convicted, because he is convicted, and I feel that the evidence relied upon was unreliable, and in some instances, falsified...

I will discuss anything about this case, with anyone, but I am not going to be supportive of anything which I feel was wrongly allowed, or introduced with a view to securing a false conviction against Jeremy...

If that comes across as being somewhat biased, then so be it...

I happen to believe that Jeremy Bamber did not kill his sister in the bedroom at whf, and he did not stage manage her body there on the bedroom floor, with a view of trying to make out a false case that she had taken her own life there, and in those circumstances, for all the reasons I have tried to give...

I can't help having those beliefs, and I cannot help holding the view I hold...

There exists evidence, contained in witness statements, and police radio message logs and other police documentation, Lab' documents, and crime scene pictures which tend to support my viewpoints...

as far as I am concerned....

in my opinion...

OK, fine. I appreciate that you have that opinion, and I'm not totally opposed to it myself - there are certainly many conflicting statements and some rather strange police logs.

All I'm saying is that there are problems with those theories and ask that you respect the views of those who aren't as convinced as you are.

[mike tesko]

Now now, I think it's my fault this has all kicked off with my Martian's quip.

Why did I write that? because sometimes, it really does feel that SOME of the defence arguments are at the more eccentric end of interpretation.

Sometimes, there's some 'evidence' and I might see it one way and someone else another way, but even though they are opposing views, they still are loosely in the 'middle' of possible interpretations.

But there seem to be more and more extreme interpretations, that in themselves aren't wrong, but there's a lot of them, and they all have to happen in order to support the defence.

I totally believe the police match a botch up of the job
I could even go so far as to say Sheila might have been alive and ended up being shot, or shot herself with the police supposedly 'securing' the place.

But the number of body moves, log tampering, family collusion with police officers etc starts to sound far fetched.

I really don't want to discount something JUST because it's far fetched... far fetched doesn't mean didn't happen... but it's becoming incessant, and there's no 'give' from the defence.

If once in a while someone said "Yep, have to admit, THAT bit doesn't look good for Jeremy" then that would be something. But it (seemingly) never arrives.

The thing is, I think there IS plenty enough credible doubt to explore without the quite remarkable claims needing to be raised, and I think those remarkable claims might be doing an injustice to JB.

I've tried to be honest and say I'm usually 80% Bamber did it... wavering as far as 60% to 90% (if you can possibly quantify such feelings).

I apologise if the Martians crack upset anybody... it really was meant to be lighthearted (BUT yes, it was a dig at 'wild' (in my eyes) claims).

It's certainly not personal, and I don't see it as being on the 'side' of JB or Sheila...

I couldn't have put it better myself, especially about the lack of "give" from the defence - ie, Mike.

Any evidence which does point to Jeremy as the culprit is either ignored by the defence or it's explained away in a series of bizarre and totally incomprehensible theories.

-------------------

That is totally uncalled for, and out of order - Jeremy currently stands convicted for these murders and I do not have to justify any of the prosecutions case for getting him convicted, because he is convicted, and I feel that the evidence relied upon was unreliable, and in some instances, falsified...

I will discuss anything about this case, with anyone, but I am not going to be supportive of anything which I feel was wrongly allowed, or introduced with a view to securing a false conviction against Jeremy...

If that comes across as being somewhat biased, then so be it...

I happen to believe that Jeremy Bamber did not kill his sister in the bedroom at whf, and he did not stage manage her body there on the bedroom floor, with a view of trying to make out a false case that she had taken her own life there, and in those circumstances, for all the reasons I have tried to give...

I can't help having those beliefs, and I cannot help holding the view I hold...

There exists evidence, contained in witness statements, and police radio message logs and other police documentation, Lab' documents, and crime scene pictures which tend to support my viewpoints...

as far as I am concerned....

in my opinion...

OK, fine. I appreciate that you have that opinion, and I'm not totally opposed to it myself - there are certainly many conflicting statements and some rather strange police logs.

All I'm saying is that there are problems with those theories and ask that you respect the views of those who aren't as convinced as you are.

-----------------

I think you have got the wrong end of the stick - I do respect other peoples point of view, but that does not mean that I have to subscribe to that point of view. Particularly, where evidence exists which might tend to contradict such views...

I do appreciate, and I understand, why certain people may hold such views, and why they might or could be persuaded to hold differing views, since, I myself have had to alter my position once more information, or evidence, has come to light...

We are all different and we bring our experiences in life to bear when dealing with something of the nature of this case...

I will debate anything about this case, with anybody, but when anybody starts getting personal, or trying to ridicule the evidence which supports one or more of the arguments, then I will take the opportunity to respond in a likewise fashion...

I do not have to agree with anything that was used to convict Jeremy Bamber for these murders - because I truly believe that he was and is wrongfully convicted, and that falsified evidence was used to convict him...

 I am sorry if this approach offends anyone, but there it is...

[Kaldin]

I think you have got the wrong end of the stick - I do respect other peoples point of view, but that does not mean that I have to subscribe to that point of view. Particularly, where evidence exists which might tend to contradict such views...

I do appreciate, and I understand, why certain people may hold such views, and why they might or could be persuaded to hold differing views, since, I myself have had to alter my position once more information, or evidence, has come to light...

We are all different and we bring our experiences in life to bear when dealing with something of the nature of this case...

I will debate anything about this case, with anybody, but when anybody starts getting personal, or trying to ridicule the evidence which supports one or more of the arguments, then I will take the opportunity to respond in a likewise fashion...

I do not have to agree with anything that was used to convict Jeremy Bamber for these murders - because I truly believe that he was and is wrongfully convicted, and that falsified evidence was used to convict him...

 I am sorry if this approach offends anyone, but there it is...

Well you've said that you think I'm not in the "real world", so that was pretty personal, but I think that I discuss things on here with an open mind. If that means I'm not in the "real world" then perhaps the real world it at fault. 

[mike tesko]

I don't honestly think you live in the real world, sometimes with some of the comments you keep coming out with - something is a fact if it is documented in witness statements, or police radio messages, or lab' documents, or any other document, linked to the police investigation, into these five deaths - it does not only become a fact, if and when it suits your purpose...

Details contained in witness statements, police radio message logs, and other records, are (unfortunately for you) facts, upon which arguments can and may be based, in law...

Each side, in any legal proceedings is entitled to rely upon any fact, in existence, contained in such material, outlined...

So, there is absolutely no basis or foundation to the arguments you appear to be putting forward...

I'm not the one claiming there was a massive stitch up involving a lot of police officers, several relatives, a doctor, and an ex girlfriend.. I'm not the one claiming that Robert Boutflour blackmailed the police. I'm not the one claiming that a rug was moved just because there's a photo of one on June's side of the bed. I'm not the one claiming that David Boutflour found a silencer in the garage when it's clear he might not have meant that.

I don't think you have any grounds for saying that I'm not in the real world.

David Boutflour said in statements that he found the silencer in the gun cupboard in August, so according to your logic, that is a fact, and yet you say it's not a fact.

Dr Craig made a statement to say that the blood on Sheila's face was dried, and yet you say that's not a fact.

I don't think I need to give any more examples.

You need to make up your mind what a "fact" consists of.

--------------------

Your examples, only serve to highlight why one party to these proceedings are saying one thing, whilst the other party may be saying something completely the opposite...

Each Party relies or relates, or refers to facts that support their argument. It does not mean that either party has to agree to a fact, which is relied upon by the other party, just because it exists and is referred to in a witness statement, police radio message, or crime scene picture...

When you and others keep saying that there is no evidence to support the things I have been saying, or you imply that what I am saying is speculation, or just a theory, your opinion may not be true, particularly if some evidence is recorded in some witness statement, police radio message log or crime scene photograph, to support the views I hold...

Information contained in such material is open to interpretation...

in my opinion...