anyone believe we are not being watched?

[susan]

Grahame very well said some posters on this forum have not made up their minds whether Jeremy is guilty or not some suffer from tunnel vision I for one don't and am always prepared to have evidence presented to me proving he is guilty and so far Mr Scipio has not done that neither as Adam so I will hang in there with an open mind till somebody does convince one way or another. I aint no coward (well maybe a little one)

[lookout]

 Better a live coward than a dead hero,Susan.

[susan]

lookout 

[Caroline]

Your positions are contradictory not clear and you have presented no basis to support these views.

What evidence do you think was planted and why?  What evidence do you rely on to establsh that such things were planted and he was framed?

What evidence makes you think he is guilty when you remove the evidnece that you say was planted?

You never layed out any of this since I have been here and looking at your older posts I have found nothing of the sort either.

I have repeatedly summarized the basis for my views including in this thread.  I never see you do the same.

I have no idea if you think Jeremy is guilty for a valid reason or not. I have no idea if you have a valid reaosn for believing Jeremy was framed.  Since you won't provide your basis there is no way to assess it which seems to be the way you want things to stay.

Mike is out there trying to prove Sheila had only 1 wound as of Dr Craig's visit and thus the second shot had to be fired after.  His supposed proof is falling apart under scrutiny but at least there is an actual debate going on because he is putting his views out there and evidence is being debated.

Errr, I think I have mentioned more times then I care to remember that the silencer was faked and you know it or is your memory that bad? You aren't interested in anyone's opinion, only your own. You don't read what people have to say properly and when you're proven WRONG (remember the lock on the gun cupboard?), you don't even have the grace to admit it unless pushed.

I don't need to defend my position to you, my reasoning to me is valid so your opinion on my opinion is worth Jack.

[scipio_usmc]

Errr, I think I have mentioned more times then I care to remember that the silencer was faked and you know it or is your memory that bad? You aren't interested in anyone's opinion, only your own. You don't read what people have to say properly and when you're proven WRONG (remember the lock on the gun cupboard?), you don't even have the grace to admit it unless pushed.

I don't need to defend my position to you, my reasoning to me is valid so your opinion on my opinion is worth Jack.

Well that just means that you are unable to support your opinion that the suppressor was faked and don't have a vlaid basis becuase if you did then you owuld present your case.

Mike's evidence falls apart but at leas the tries, that is more than most here do.

[Caroline]

Well that just means that you are unable to support your opinion that the suppressor was faked and don't have a vlaid basis becuase if you did then you owuld present your case.

Mike's evidence falls apart but at leas the tries, that is more than most here do.

Ha, ha!! It doesn't mean that at all - I have presented my case (as you pompously put it) MANY TIMES!!!! I can once again list why I think it was faked, thn you'll blather on about how ordinary police officers and the family couldn't fake the fine spray found inside the silencer (although only you have described it in that way) and I will tell you once again that EP had their own SOCO lab with police who were trained in scenes of crime - then you will ignore that point and the fact that 3 samples were taken from Sheila but only two were used. 

[scipio_usmc]

Ha, ha!! It doesn't mean that at all - I have presented my case (as you pompously put it) MANY TIMES!!!! I can once again list why I think it was faked, thn you'll blather on about how ordinary police officers and the family couldn't fake the fine spray found inside the silencer (although only you have described it in that way) and I will tell you once again that EP had their own SOCO lab with police who were trained in scenes of crime - then you will ignore that point and the fact that 3 samples were taken from Sheila but only two were used.

You haven't provided a complete list so the "again" is is nonsense. But it is plainly obvious yo uwon't list it because yo uare admitting I alreadd shredded the points you would try to present and will do so in detail in one post if you list your basis so you are not going to put yorself through the humilation.

I didn't ignore your nonsense about the samples.  I addressed it and you ran away from the debate.  Your simplistic argument is that there was a source of blood that COULD potentially be available for use to have been planted by police before the moderator was sent to the lab.

You ignored:

1) that to your knowledge only 2 were used and all you are going by is that 2 had designated purposes listed as to why they were taken the 3rd didn't so you presume it was never used but have no idea

2) the evidence available estbalishes all 3 were transferred to the lab without any of the seals having been tampered with so you have no basis at all to suggest police siphoned any blood from any of the samples before they reached the lab

that's as far as your argument gets.  That you suspect they coudl have potentially siphoned blood, no evidence at all they did and your claim they coudl have is not even supportable because you have no idea if the sample was even used.

That argument would be worthless and flunk if attmepted ot be used in the legla arena and fares no better in informal debates.

[Caroline]

You haven't provided a complete list so the "again" is is nonsense. But it is plainly obvious yo uwon't list it because yo uare admitting I alreadd shredded the points you would try to present and will do so in detail in one post if you list your basis so you are not going to put yorself through the humilation.

I didn't ignore your nonsense about the samples.  I addressed it and you ran away from the debate.  Your simplistic argument is that there was a source of blood that COULD potentially be available for use to have been planted by police before the moderator was sent to the lab.

You ignored:

1) that to your knowledge only 2 were used and all you are going by is that 2 had designated purposes listed as to why they were taken the 3rd didn't so you presume it was never used but have no idea

2) the evidence available estbalishes all 3 were transferred to the lab without any of the seals having been tampered with so you have no basis at all to suggest police siphoned any blood from any of the samples before they reached the lab

that's as far as your argument gets.  That you suspect they coudl have potentially siphoned blood, no evidence at all they did and your claim they coudl have is not even supportable because you have no idea if the sample was even used.

That argument would be worthless and flunk if attmepted ot be used in the legla arena and fares no better in informal debates.

You haven't shredded anything, not in the entire time you have been here. There is no evidence to show that ALL 3 samples were sent to the lab - quantity isn't mentioned. I would never run away from a debate with you, only you rate yourself so highly most don't bother to read your long winded self absorbed posts. You don't answer when you get stuck or are proven wrong, like with the lock and the telephone call.

Someone should actually tell you that we're not in a legal arena so you can stop playing to the gallery - most of them are asleep!   

[scipio_usmc]

You haven't shredded anything, not in the entire time you have been here. There is no evidence to show that ALL 3 samples were sent to the lab - quantity isn't mentioned. I would never run away from a debate with you, only you rate yourself so highly most don't bother to read your long winded self absorbed posts. You don't answer when you get stuck or are proven wrong, like with the lock and the telephone call.

Someone should actually tell you that we're not in a legal arena so you can stop playing to the gallery - most of them are asleep!   

The bottles were all sealed in the same bag and were recorded by the lab as being received without anyone noting any tampering. The burden rests on you to demonstrate otherwise.  You can't though. You need evidence from thoe lab stating there is evidence of misisng samples, doctored samples or the like.  You have no such evidence you thus don't even have a basis to be suspicious let alone a basis to say in a court of law that police could have taken blood fromt he samples and planted it.  You need documentary or testimonial evidence that suggests blood wa sin fact missing or tampered with to make such charges.  In the real world you also need such evidence to have a reasonable basis to suggest blood was diverted from a sample.  Otherwise all you have is wild unsupported speculation and tha tin fact is the basis of your positoon- wild unsupported speculation. 

You can deny reality all you like and try pretending your claims have not been shredded but you couldn't win a debate with me on your best day and my worst.  Stop being a coward and go toe to toe with me.  Post in full your complete claims about the supposed planting- present your full case including the basis of each and every claim with all your supporting evidence and let's see how it holds up to scrutiny.

I have never seen you even try to explain why you think Jeremy is guilty.  Surely you would be able to explain the various reasons why and a basis for each of the things that convince you.  Some I might agree with.  But alas, your friends here will see on which issues you disagree and might not like you anymore and might attack you if you did that so you won't do it.

I would like to see how one can suggest that Jeremy is guilty and yet he was framed and to have a rational basis for both positions.  To me it seems like a fence sitting non-commital position where one tries to straddle both camps to remain friendly with both- because if one can prove to me Jeremy was framed then much of the evidence used by me against him is gone and there would then be basis to believe he is innocent.

If you are not scared and see me as no threat then try to embarrass me toe to toe prove me wrong and post your full positions and the basis for those positions.

[Caroline]

The bottles were all sealed in the same bag and were recorded by the lab as being received without anyone noting any tampering. The burden rests on you to demonstrate otherwise.  You can't though. You need evidence from thoe lab stating there is evidence of misisng samples, doctored samples or the like.  You have no such evidence you thus don't even have a basis to be suspicious let alone a basis to say in a court of law that police could have taken blood fromt he samples and planted it.  You need documentary or testimonial evidence that suggests blood wa sin fact missing or tampered with to make such charges.  In the real world you also need such evidence to have a reasonable basis to suggest blood was diverted from a sample.  Otherwise all you have is wild unsupported speculation and tha tin fact is the basis of your positoon- wild unsupported speculation. 

You can deny reality all you like and try pretending your claims have not been shredded but you couldn't win a debate with me on your best day and my worst.  Stop being a coward and go toe to toe with me.  Post in full your complete claims about the supposed planting- present your full case including the basis of each and every claim with all your supporting evidence and let's see how it holds up to scrutiny.

I have never seen you even try to explain why you think Jeremy is guilty.  Surely you would be able to explain the various reasons why and a basis for each of the things that convince you.  Some I might agree with.  But alas, your friends here will see on which issues you disagree and might not like you anymore and might attack you if you did that so you won't do it.

I would like to see how one can suggest that Jeremy is guilty and yet he was framed and to have a rational basis for both positions.  To me it seems like a fence sitting non-commital position where one tries to straddle both camps to remain friendly with both- because if one can prove to me Jeremy was framed then much of the evidence used by me against him is gone and there would then be basis to believe he is innocent.

If you are not scared and see me as no threat then try to embarrass me toe to toe prove me wrong and post your full positions and the basis for those positions.

OK Scip, when I have time (sometime this week), I will post my scenario (although I hate scenario's) - including why I believe Jeremy might be guilty but framed.

[scipio_usmc]

OK Scip, when I have time (sometime this week), I will post my scenario (although I hate scenario's) - including why I believe Jeremy might be guilty but framed.

Great.  I am particularly interested in the basis for each point you think to be the case and noting when there are alternative possibilities because the evidence is ambiguous.

By way of example, Nevill was shot first in the bedroom and then later shot in the kitchen after being severely beaten.  He obviously could not have been beaten and killed in the kitchen then shot upstairs later so this proves he was shot first in the bedroom.  Plus there was blood on the walls and drips in the rug that indicate his path to the kitchen. 

It makes no sense for things to have proceeded to the kitchen unless the gun was empty.  Likewise it makes no sense for the struggle to have taken place in the kitchen unless the gun was empty.  The killer had to beat Nevill unconscious to be able to reload in peace and be able to finish him off.  There were 11 bullets fired in the bedroom at June and Nevill which is the maximum load.  With 11 bullets fired the gun would be empty and thus there would be a reason for things to proceed to the kitchen and for there to be a struggle there until Nevill was unconscious, the killer could reload and kill him.

There are 2 possibilities that the evidence doesn't provide any clear answer on.  Nevill could have ran to the kitchen with the killer chasing him or Nevill could have chased his killer. Either way in the kitchen they rumbled so it is not an issue of major importance but one must be clear in admitting when the evidence can't provide a clear answer and there are different possibilities.

To aid you keep these things in mind:

1) Vanezis placed the blood in a bottle that he placed seals on so that one can see if they are tampered with.
2) Each bottle was then place in a bag with a seal and exhibit number.
3) Davidson filled out a CID6 form to record the blood and other evidence taken from Vanezis and personally took possession of the blood from Vanezis and brougth it to the evidence fridge at Chelmsford the police station
4) Davidson filled out 3 Holab3 forms to effect transfer of the 3 blood samples to HQ and they were taken by badge 1038. 
5) A courier brought the blood samples from HQ to the lab.  The lab received the 3 samples and returned a copy of the Holab3 form to Davidson to indicate receipt had occurred.

So the evidence COPL had in it possession was that all 3 samples successfully arrived at the lab.

So all 3 arrived and there was no evidence COLP developed of the lab reporting that any of the seals on these samples had been broken prior to arriving at the lab.   

That prompted the investigators to ask Davidson if he knew of anyone else taking any samples besides these 3 or if he took any samples covertly himself while at the morgue which of course he answered no to. 

I have not seen any COLP interviews where the lab was asked about what happened to 3 blood samples after being placed in their possession.

Unless one subscribes to the view that Davidson illicitly took blood extra blood while at the morgue the lab personnel would be the only ones in the position to illicitly use Sheila's own blood for invalid purposes.

   

[Martin]

What evidence makes you think he is guilty when you remove the evidence that you say was planted?

"Your positions are contradictory not clear and you have presented no basis to support these views.

What evidence do you think was planted and why?  What evidence do you rely on to establsh that such things were planted and he was framed?

What evidence makes you think he is guilty when you remove the evidence that you say was planted?

You never layed out any of this since I have been here and looking at your older posts I have found nothing of the sort either.

I have repeatedly summarized the basis for my views including in this thread.  I never see you do the same.

I have no idea if you think Jeremy is guilty for a valid reason or not. I have no idea if you have a valid reaosn for believing Jeremy was framed.  Since you won't provide your basis there is no way to assess it which seems to be the way you want things to stay.


Scipio
"Mike is out there trying to prove Sheila had only 1 wound as of Dr Craig's visit and thus the second shot had to be fired after.  His supposed proof is falling apart under scrutiny but at least there is an actual debate going on because he is putting his views out there and evidence is being debated."

These are good points and should be properly debated. I did not think Grahame really addressed them in his reply to Scipio.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5524.msg240865.html#msg240865

[lookout]

 I'm of the belief that NO framing took place,but sheer incompetence on the part of EP,who'd made MISTAKES,knew it,and just dug themselves an even deeper hole in trying to justify them. It DOES go on whether people like to believe it or not.

It was,in a way,disbelief on the part of EP as to who DID commit the murders,but however they'd " partly " made up their minds,but it didn't take much to change them once the relatives put their sixpenn'orth in.

My views are controversial,but no way am I going to commit myself on an open forum.   

[maggie]

I'm of the belief that NO framing took place,but sheer incompetence on the part of EP,who'd made MISTAKES,knew it,and just dug themselves an even deeper hole in trying to justify them. It DOES go on whether people like to believe it or not.

It was,in a way,disbelief on the part of EP as to who DID commit the murders,but however they'd " partly " made up their minds,but it didn't take much to change them once the relatives put their sixpenn'orth in.

My views are controversial,but no way am I going to commit myself on an open forum.

I tend to agree that the police made mistakes and the old saying about a tangled web is very apt here. However having dug a great big crater I do suspect it became necessary to add some manipulation into the mix.  I cannot accept that silencer was found the way it was claimed complete with blood, red paint and grey hair, too pat, so gauche. Imo.

[lookout]

I tend to agree that the police made mistakes and the old saying about a tangled web is very apt here. However having dug a great big crater I do suspect it became necessary to add some manipulation into the mix.  I cannot accept that silencer was found the way it was claimed complete with blood, red paint and grey hair, too pat, so gauche. Imo.

Admittedly,Maggie,the " finding " of the silencer was,or appeared to be a ploy,especially the way the exclamation appeared from DB on its discovery.
It was typical of a " clutching at straws " investigation,when things should have been left as they were initially as " Taff " Jones found the scene.
I cannot understand why they made a meal of this case.It doesn't make sense to me at all.