And I suggest that there was no error. It was for some reason deliberately changed. I must again remind you that it was a log FROM the raid team to headquarters and not the other way round. I suggest you get a bit more curious instead of towing the accepted line. The so called "errors" have not been explained away to my satisfaction I'm afraid. It appears that I am more suspicious of these cops than you are? For there are plenty and even an abundance of crooked cop investigations these days.
What was deliberately changed? The body was deliberately changed from the kitchen to the bedroom?
The log wasn't from the raid team to HQ, the log was relayed from the raid team to police outside and then relayed from police outside to HQ. SO the police outside had a chance to misinterpret the raid team claims OR be less than clear to HQ and for HQ to misinterpret what was conveyed to them. A historian and court would consider the best evidence ot be the claims of the raid team members and to ask them precisely what they saw and what they saw is contained in their noteebooks and statements.
What they say in their statements is the same:
1) prior to entry only 1 body seen in the kitchen bent over the chair (oh yeah you forgot that they looked in the kitchen before brekaing in and didn't see 2 bodies)
2) upon entry only 1 body in the kitchen, the same one bent over the chair
3) 2 bodies in the master bedroom on the floor each body on opposite sides of the bed
4) 2 chidlren in a different bedroom
There was a dried pool of blood in the bedroom near Sheila's body that formed from the blood that leaked down the side of her neck and though June would not have been able to make it to the kitchen she was lucky to make it from the bed to the doorway. This confirms the bedroom is where both women died.
Why would police move a female body formt he kitchen to the bedroom? There is no possible reason to move a upstairs ven if there was not such strong evidence that the females had been killed in the bedroom.
So let's recap, you choose to believe there were 2 bodies in the kitchen even though: 1) only 1 body was in the kitchen prior to entry, 2) all the police who went in insist there was only one upon entry, 3) the mixup in the log clearly was because because Nevill was initially thought female but discovered to be male close up, 4) though there would be no reaosn for police to relocate a body to the bedroom, and 5) though the physcial evidence makes clear both females died in the master bedroom where they were found.
Worse you decide this female moved was Sheila not June just because that is more convientie to yuor conspiracy claims. In the meantime the reality is that there would not have been a dried pool of blood in the bedroom by her body had they moved her there from somewhere else.
The evidence is clear you have no leg to stand on you constantly assert stupid things that ar enot credible, and which you have no evidentiary basis to assert.
Your opinion is not one any objective person or rational person could hold. It is a baseless, unsupportable irraitonal opinion.
There is definitely something wrong with this case. You cannot simply sweep it aside as being a few gullible Bamber supporters. NGB is a former top criminal barrister and has sat on some leading criminal cases. He believes this case to be a miscarriage of justice and he is not alone in the criminal law profession in thinking so. What, do you think that we would defend Bamber if we knew he was a murderer. What kind of people do you think we are? I suggest you begin to get curious and start to look into these things much more deeply instead of towing the party line. Prove that you are a real investigator and not just a bullying numpty like the rest of the guilters.
1) I don't know what NGB's belief is wih respect to this allegation because I have not seen him address it. However if NGB supports the alelgation then that simply would be a black eye for him because it doesn't matter who makes the allegation it is baseless and totally invalid.
2) as for NGB believing it is a MOJ big deal. His credentials do not impress me. I care about the strenth of one's arguments and the basis for their opinions. I never subsribe to an unsupported opinion just because of the person making the claim is supposedly an authority. in court lawyers don't present their credientials and try to win based on who went to the better law school or who has a mor eimpressive case record. Cases turn on the weight of the evidence that can be brought to bear.
I have not seen NGB's basis for beliving that a MOJ occurred or evidence he has put forth if any to back up his beliefs.
Someone else posted an argument he made in a debate against me but NGB's argument did not impress me. He suggested that the defense has the duty to call out police and accuse them of planting evidence even if there is no evidentiary basis to suggest it and that such is proper not a ethical violation as someone named Bridget was claiming. A case he tried to hold up to support his claims didn't fit though. In that case the defense did not accuse the police of planting evidence. The defense simply presented a scientist who explained it is possible to plant fingerprints and explained the scientific mechanics of how they are able to be transferred. The main evidence in the case was fingerprints. The defense suggested someone could have planted the prints and thus that there was reasonable doubt. He did not suggest police planted the prints but simply that someone potentially could have planted them including the real cuplrets.
NGB admitted this was a futile effort as simply making the claim that evidence could theoretically be planted doesn't establish reasonable doubt. So in effect he argued a wasted effort should have been made in this case to argue planting.
But he ignored that in that case the defense did not simply make a claim evidence could be planted they had an expert establish such was theoretically possible. The defense here did not find any experts who would testify like the expert in the failed fingerprinting challenge. They found no expert who can explain a procedure by which blood could be planted in a manner which would result in blood being distributed in a manner found by the prosecution and defense experts. If they can't find that they they cna' even get as far as the claim made in the fingerprint case. The defense would have needed to find someone who would testify as to a device that coudl be used to spyay blood inside the moderator so that it would deposit a good amount of blood on the first 8 baffles with the volume on each baffle decreasing the further away from the opening. That still wound not have amounted to reaosnable doubt even if they could haved found someone to testify to such.
To establish reasonable doubt requires establishing that such method could be used to plant blood and then establishing someone used such method to plant it. That reuires estbalishing what blood was used and who did it and when and why.
That is what a skilled lawyer would set out to try to prove but if no evidence is found then the argument can't be made.
Jeremy supporters don't even get over the threshold issue of establishing how the blood could have been planted let alone provide any evidence of who did such, when and using what blood. There are unsupported allegations nothing more.
This is endemic of all Jeremy supporter claims. Always claims that are outright bogus like the claim about 2 bodies in the kitchen othersie just unfounded allegations that could not sway anyone who was actually thinking raitonally and objectively.
