Author Topic: The last ultimate test of gun, to prove sound moderator was not used in shooting  (Read 49722 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Now, how could Jeremy have been responsible for shooting his sister dead with two bullet wounds to her neck whilst she was in the main bedroom at the farm house, if she was only shot once there?

You took a whole lot of leaps to get to this conclusion. You heaped unsupported claim upon unsupported claim to arrive at it.

I woudl have to ignore a large quantity of evidence that proves she was shot 2 times in the bedroom seconds apart to agree with your claims and I am not willing to ignore evidence just because you would liek me to do so.  You need evidence to refute that evidence in order to get me to discount it.

Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Here, we have the hand written instruction from the OM, requesting DS Hammersley to change exhibits DRH/1 to DRH/50, change DRH/2 to DRH/51, change DRH/3 to DRH/52, and for him to change exhibit DRH/4 to DRH/53, in his second witness statement, page 2:-
« Last Edit: July 02, 2014, 01:55:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
So, here are the original DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3, and DRH/4 items, alongside their altered exhibit refrences of DRH/50, DRH/51, DRH/52 and DRH/53:-
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Lets approach this little mystery from a different angle...

We have only 9 bullet cases present in the main bedroom right up until 11th November 1985, when the Operations Manager (OM), decides to vacate four exhibit references relating to four items of evidential value, namely by altering items DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH,3, and DRH/4, into DRH/50, DRH/51, DRH/52 and DRH/53, so that the Operations manager can introduce four additional bullet cases into slots left vacated by the switch aforementioned...

It's not a different angle. You want us to just assume that these claims are true wihtout requiring you ro provide any proof and to just jump to the question below pretending that these claims are definitely  true.  In the meantime you ignore that if your claims were true then there would have been more casings found in the kitchen and they would be near the kitchen exhibits.

How was it possible for Ralph Bamber to have been shot four times whist he was present in the bedroom, if June Bamber had been shot seven times there, and there were only 9 bullet cases originally found in that vicinity?

 
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
I am interested in the original four items bearing the identifying marks of DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3 and DRH/4, from the beginning of the police investigation which commenced on 7th August 1985, and remained so until on or after the 11th November 1985, when these became altered and changed into DRH/50, DRH/51, DRH/52 and DRH/53, respectively, so as to allow introduction of four additional bullet cases into the main bedroom scenario, altering the original total of bullet cases found in the main bedroom from 9 to 13...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Why would police be seeking to add four bullet cases to the main bedroom scenario, on or after 11th November 1985, so that instead of 9 bullet cases found there, there were now 13?
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Why would police be seeking to add four bullet cases to the main bedroom scenario, on or after 11th November 1985, so that instead of 9 bullet cases found there, there were now 13?

A part from trying to show Jeremy in a poor light by introducing the argument that Ralph had been shot four times in the bedroom before going downstairs and that in such a state he could not possibly have been in any fit state to speak to anyone on the phone?
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Here, we have the hand written instruction from the OM, requesting DS Hammersley to change exhibits DRH/1 to DRH/50, change DRH/2 to DRH/51, change DRH/3 to DRH/52, and for him to change exhibit DRH/4 to DRH/53, in his second witness statement, page 2:-

The exhibit numbers were not changed.  His statement incorrectly recorded DRH 1-4 twice in it.  It listed DRH-1-4 for the bullets and then again for the four items taken from Colchester.  The note was to correct the error.

How could the first items that were collected from WHF on 8/7 have been items that were actually taken from Cochester?   

Not only does this not make sense you are intentionally twisting again.  You have to be aware that this was correcting a typo because I have only studied this case for months not years and even I am aware of that. You are lucky Harters is asleep or he would say shame on you again.

 
« Last Edit: July 02, 2014, 02:09:AM by scipio_usmc »
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Four additional bullet cases added into the main bedroom scenario, as DRH/1, DRH/2, DRH/3, and DRH/4, yet for what reason?

To help disprove Jeremys claim that he received a call from his father in the middle of the night?

Or:-
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
A part from trying to show Jeremy in a poor light by introducing the argument that Ralph had been shot four times in the bedroom before going downstairs and that in such a state he could not possibly have been in any fit state to speak to anyone on the phone?

Clearly he was shot in the bedroom before he went downstairs.  The bullet that grazed him was found in the bed.  You do not deny this bullet was not found on 8/7/85.  He also left blood in various places on his way to the kitchen.  Nevill being shot period ends the chance he made the alleged call after that point.  There was no need to pretend he had been shot more times than one in the bedroom. With June shot and himself also shot he would have called 999 requesting medical help not have asked Jeremy to come over.  If he did decide to call Jeremy in that situation he certainly would have noted he and June had been shot and needed medical help so send an ambulance.  But Jeremy makes no mention at all of him saying anyone had been shot yet.

Worse yet, Sheila would still have had bullets in the gun and upon seeing him on the phone waiting for Jeremy to answer she would have opened fire some more not let him make the call and shoot and beat him.

   
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
According to the photographic records, DC Hammersley never took any photographs at the scene on either 7th, 8th or 9th August 1985, so to whom and what are the references of two photographs (DRH/52) after 11th November 1985, which had originally been exhibit DRH/3 from 7th August 1985?
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
According to the photographic records, DC Hammersley never took any photographs at the scene on either 7th, 8th or 9th August 1985, so to whom and what are the references of two photographs (DRH/52) after 11th November 1985, which had originally been exhibit DRH/3 from 7th August 1985?

The photographs were taken from Colchester.  The 4 exhibits in question were not from WHF they were from Colchester.  Your claim these exhibits were originally from WHF on the day of the murders and marked DRH 1-4 is impossible these items were all from Colchester.

 
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Imagine the following scenario<-

Ralph Bamber is sat still barely alive on a large wooden chair behind the internal door which leads from main kitchen to back door area. Police are prevented from making a swift entry into that part of the house because there is something heavy behind the door. Police push hard to try and force the door open and eventually in order to speed things up a police officer pops his weapon around the corner of the door and pumps four bullets into the persons head, which are two bursts of two shots, first couple to the right hand side of the head, second couple of shots to the top / back part of the head - police enter kitchen thereafter...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
According to the photographic records, DC Hammersley never took any photographs at the scene on either 7th, 8th or 9th August 1985, so to whom and what are the references of two photographs (DRH/52) after 11th November 1985, which had originally been exhibit DRH/3 from 7th August 1985?

But DS Jones did, one of which was this...
« Last Edit: July 02, 2014, 02:36:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Evidence

General principles relating to evidence

The first rule of evidence is that it must be relevant to be admissible. For the evidence to be relevant, those facts which are subject to being proved or disproved must amount to:

Facts in issue, i.e. those which need to be proved by one party;
Relevant facts, i.e. those which tend to prove the facts in issue;
Collateral facts which may for example affect the credibility and/or competence of a witness.
Types of evidence

There are a number of different types of evidence:

Testimony - the oral statement of a witness made on oath in open court and put forward as evidence of the truth of what he or she says.
Real evidence - this is usually a material object of some kind, which is produced for inspection, either to prove that it exists, or so that the court can make an inference as to its condition or value, for example ripped clothing, a knife or burnt document.
Hearsay evidence - when a witness, or someone else, makes a statement other than in the course of their testimony, this is referred to as an ‘out of court statement.’ Hearsay evidence is an out of court statement which is being relied upon to prove the truth of its contents.
Original evidence - this is an out of court statement offered for a relevant purpose other than proving the truth of its contents, for example to prove something was said at all.
Documentary evidence - this consists of documents which have been produced for inspection by the court. These may be items of real evidence, original evidence or hearsay.

Real evidence

Real evidence usually takes the form of some kind of material object produced before the court. it is normally produced to show that it exists or so that an inference can be drawn from its physical properties or its condition, or from the fact that it was found at a particular place or in someone’s possession. An example of real evidence would be a knife alleged to have been used in the commission of a murder or faulty goods produced to show evidence of the particular fault in question.

Real evidence includes: material objects; the appearance of people/animals; demeanour of witnesses; views and documents.

Original evidence

Original evidence is defined as an out of court statement tendered for some purpose other than to establish the truth of the facts it contains. The making of the statement will wither itself be a fact in issue, or relevant to a fact in issue.

The statement as a fact in issue:

Where the making of a statement is, itself, a fact in issue, the statement will be admissible to show that it was made, but it will remain inadmissible as to the truth of its contents.
Statements relevant to a fact in issue:

Making of statement relevant to a fact in issue; Statement admitted to show the state of mind of the maker; Statement admitted to show state of mind of person who heard it; Statement admitted to allow tribunal of fact to draw inferences from falsity of statement.

Hearsay evidence

To prove the truth of its content. This includes an out of court statement made by the witness him or herself as well as an out of court statement made to the witness by someone else. The admissibility of hearsay evidence is set out under s 114 of The Criminal Justice Act 2003.  S 115 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 further tightens up the definition by making it clear that you need to consider the purpose of the person making the statement (as well as the purpose of the party relying upon it in court) when deciding whether a piece of evidence is hearsay evidence or not.
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...