Author Topic: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber  (Read 18590 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber
« Reply #90 on: July 12, 2014, 11:00:AM »
Martin old chap could I suggest that you cease this campaign of yours against Caroline and concentrate on the campaign for Jeremy? She's not your enemy the guilty party in their ivory towers are. They are all slinging excrement at us and you are having a go at Caroline, who dispite your suspicions is not some kind of 5th columnist. She is like a lot of us, we haven't made our mind up either way. Just because there are a few numb skull guilters who have no power of reason to be able to think for both sides of the case it doesn't mean that Caroline is a quary to be hunted down as an individual.

Thanks Grahame, I'm not even reading Martin's latest and won't be reading any of his posts in future,  :)
Few people have the imagination for reality

John

  • Guest
Re: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber
« Reply #91 on: July 12, 2014, 11:40:AM »
The point is Jansus, you don't have to agree with me and I don't have to agree with you but we  BOTH have a right to believe what we like without being hounded by someone like Martin. I really don't care if anyone takes on board what I said about the wallet or anything else for that matter and people can brush it away if they wish. However, I know he evaded answering and so that's enough for me - there was no reason not to answer and THAT put 'more' doubt in my mind given that I was never sure about the way the phone was found (conveniently the handset is off the cradle to support the notion of a phone call). Like I said, you don't have to agree with me but I have a right to my opinion the same as the rest of you. I don't have a campaign against Jeremy Bamber (I'd prefer to believe he was innocent) and the suggestion is bloody ridiculous but I expect nothing more from Martin these days! I'm not going to lie about what I think, not for anyone!

Well said Caroline and good point about the telephone handset.  No blood on it or anywhere else on the kitchen counter tells its own tale.  Deffo a false trail left by Jerry.


Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber
« Reply #92 on: July 12, 2014, 11:47:AM »
Well said Caroline and good point about the telephone handset.  No blood on it or anywhere else on the kitchen counter tells its own tale.  Deffo a false trail left by Jerry.

Thanks John :)
Few people have the imagination for reality

John

  • Guest
Re: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber
« Reply #93 on: July 12, 2014, 11:48:AM »
That is incorrect Grahame, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish guilt.

If the evidence on which the conviction was based is accepted by the  Court of Appeal as unreliable that will lead to the conviction being quashed.

The point is simply that the defence at appeal is not required to prove actual innocence, but only to discredit  the basis of the conviction.

Bamber was convicted on the basis of the silencer evidence so, if it is accepted by the Court that it was fabricated, the conviction should be overturned. Julie Mugford's testimony is easy to expose as full of lies. That does not mean it would be overturned, but it is what should happen according to the law.

Codswallop!  There is a hell of a lot more to the case than a silencer and Miss Mugford.  The case against Bamber is overwhelming, not a single shred of anything resembling evidence has ever been produced which can show the contrary. Better luck next time...oh I forgot...there wont be a next time.

ETA  How would you know what Mugford's testimony was, were you in court?
« Last Edit: July 12, 2014, 11:53:AM by John »

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber
« Reply #94 on: July 12, 2014, 11:53:AM »
 Where's this " overwhelming " evidence ?

John

  • Guest
Re: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber
« Reply #95 on: July 12, 2014, 11:57:AM »
Where's this " overwhelming " evidence ?

Caffell innocent ergo Bamber guilty...simples!  QED

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber
« Reply #96 on: July 12, 2014, 12:10:PM »
Caffell innocent ergo Bamber guilty...simples!  QED




And that's the overwhelming evidence ? Just like that ?

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber
« Reply #97 on: July 12, 2014, 12:12:PM »
Oh not you again. Go back to your own nest.





Don't chase him back yet,Grahame,,I want to see this overwhelming evidence that he's got.

John

  • Guest
Re: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber
« Reply #98 on: July 12, 2014, 12:37:PM »
Scipio has done an excellent job over the last few weeks of detailing precisely what the evidence is which keeps Bamber inside.  All we see in response are wild theories and hearsays and attempts to discredit former detectives and forensic specialists.  Tesko's long lauded photo of Sheila on the bed claim and his claims of secret rendezvous with informers are nothing more than tantalisers aimed solely at keeping this ridiculous farce of a case in the public eye.  The public are no longer interested, the CCRC are no longer interested and the Court of Appeal is most certainly never going to entertain any more ludicrous appeals.

Bamber should grow a pair, admit his lurid crimes and maybe some day he will get parole because as it stands he will come out in a box imo.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2014, 12:38:PM by John »

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber
« Reply #99 on: July 12, 2014, 02:17:PM »
Scipio has done an excellent job over the last few weeks of detailing precisely what the evidence is which keeps Bamber inside.  All we see in response are wild theories and hearsays and attempts to discredit former detectives and forensic specialists.  Tesko's long lauded photo of Sheila on the bed claim and his claims of secret rendezvous with informers are nothing more than tantalisers aimed solely at keeping this ridiculous farce of a case in the public eye.  The public are no longer interested, the CCRC are no longer interested and the Court of Appeal is most certainly never going to entertain any more ludicrous appeals.

Bamber should grow a pair, admit his lurid crimes and maybe some day he will get parole because as it stands he will come out in a box imo.






I asked you for YOUR overwhelming evidence------not Scipio,who I take with a LARGE pinch of salt.

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber
« Reply #100 on: July 12, 2014, 06:16:PM »
That is incorrect Grahame, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish guilt.

If the evidence on which the conviction was based is accepted by the  Court of Appeal as unreliable that will lead to the conviction being quashed.

The point is simply that the defence at appeal is not required to prove actual innocence, but only to discredit  the basis of the conviction.

Bamber was convicted on the basis of the silencer evidence so, if it is accepted by the Court that it was fabricated, the conviction should be overturned. Julie Mugford's testimony is easy to expose as full of lies. That does not mean it would be overturned, but it is what should happen according to the law.

There is a whole lot of evidence to convict Jeremy, finding that the moderator was tampered with would result in a retrial merely.  At any rate substantial evidence is necessary to establish the moderator was tampered with but no Jeremy supporter can come up with any. Not one person who believes the moderator was tampered with can even posit who did it, when and how let alone has a signles shred of evidence to base their beliefs on.  thus there is a snowball's chance in hell of the Coart of Appeals ever being convinced of such.

Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber
« Reply #101 on: July 12, 2014, 06:24:PM »
 There must be something new contained in the latest submissions otherwise it wouldn't have been accepted.  There'll be no need for any Court of Appeal if the new documents can prove that something has been overlooked,as hopefully the sentence will be quashed.

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber
« Reply #102 on: July 12, 2014, 06:48:PM »
Thanks John :)

Blood not being on the phone makes sense.  The call was allegedly made before Sheila ever started shooting.  There is no way for Jeremy supporters to claim the call was made after any shooting had occurred because if that had been the case then:

1) Nevill would have called 999 requesting medical help for his family

2) If he called Jeremy instead then in that case he would have stated SHeila had opened fire not merely that she had a gun and requested Jeremy to call for medical help not just to come over because Jeremy could not heal wounds.

Even the staunchest Jeremy supporter is forced to operate from the position that Nevill's alleged call predated any shooting.

The phone being located in the kitchen and not the bedroom means that Sheila had to have the gun and somehow give the opportunity for Nevill to go alone into the kitchen to dial and wait for Jeremy to answer, which would not be fast. This would require Nevill to leave his family at the mercy of an armed Sheila. 

It makes no sense to leave an armed Sheila roaming around to harm his fmaily but even less sense in such circulstances to call Jeremy to come try to stop her.  Why would you wait at least 20 minutes for Jeremy to come try to disarm her instead of doing it yourself?  You are going to just do nothing for 20 plus minutes hoping and praying she doesn't shoot and hoping Jeremy could somehow disarm her without her opening fire at everyone upon seeing him?  If you are truly worried you grab a weapon of some sort to try to disarm her with even if a broom to try to knocke the gun away.  As a practical matter a rifle is easier to push away than a handgun.  A handgun can be fired at you while wresting over it a long gun cannot. But he also could have stabbed her arm to make her drop it or confronted her with a shotgun.  Physically there is nothing Jeremy coudl have done to disarm her that Nevill could not have done.  Nevill was on the scene with the need to act while Jeremy was not.  So the call itself makes no sense.

Why would June remain in bed throughout this commotion?  She only got out of bed after being shot. So a lot of things make no sense. 

The problem posed by the call being allegedly disonnected but the phone being left off the hook is that it means Nevill can't have simply panicked and dropped the phone.  Nor would he have any reason to hang up the phone and then immediately take it back off the hook.  The only 2 explanations for this that Jeremy supporters cna come up with to try to account for the phone being off the hook and yet the call disconnected is:

A) Sheila walked over to the phone and pushed the buttons down to disconnect the call then made Nevill drop the phone

or

B) Sheila grabbed the phone from Nevill, hung it up and then took it off the hook

In either event Sheila had to be there causing the phone to be disconnected and left off the hook.

This presents 2 giant questions:

1) Why would Nevill not have disarmed her because in order to do either of these things she would have to be extremely close and yet have only one hand on the gun.  Being so close and yet with only 1 hand on the gun it would be easy for Nevill to grab the gun in a manner that prevented her from shooting him with it and then to yank it from her control.

2)) why would someone in a crazy rage having delusions not shoot him upon seeing him on the phone but instead make sure the phone is hung up, then take it off the hook again so no one can call the house (why would she be worried about preventing someone from calling the house?)  and then march him up to the bedroom to shoot him and June together?  It makes no sense at all for someone in her alleged position to want to march him upstairs to shoot them together.

There are just so amny things that make no sense about this alleged call that make it implausible and not credible.   

If Sheila went down to the kitchen then saw the gun and grabbed it and went up to the bedroom to wake her parents to shoot them then she would have shot them there and then.  June staying in bed while Nevill walks around with her and then using the phone when he manages to be alone, and her finding him at the very end after he passes his message on and then her disconnecting the call but leaving the phone off the hook and marching him to the bedroom to kill both together simply makes no sense at all and denies belief.

Worse though she managed to supposedly kill everyone without getting so much as a scratch let alone of bloos spatter from the victims on her destipe a severe struggle that ende dup brekaing the stock of the gun stock in a location that would have resulted in the broken piece striking her hand. 

This is before even looking at the impossiiblity of her having shot herself.
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33782
Re: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber
« Reply #103 on: July 12, 2014, 06:55:PM »
Blood not being on the phone makes sense.  The call was allegedly made before Sheila ever started shooting.  There is no way for Jeremy supporters to claim the call was made after any shooting had occurred because if that had been the case then:

1) Nevill would have called 999 requesting medical help for his family

2) If he called Jeremy instead then in that case he would have stated SHeila had opened fire not merely that she had a gun and requested Jeremy to call for medical help not just to come over because Jeremy could not heal wounds.

Even the staunchest Jeremy supporter is forced to operate from the position that Nevill's alleged call predated any shooting.

The phone being located in the kitchen and not the bedroom means that Sheila had to have the gun and somehow give the opportunity for Nevill to go alone into the kitchen to dial and wait for Jeremy to answer, which would not be fast. This would require Nevill to leave his family at the mercy of an armed Sheila. 

It makes no sense to leave an armed Sheila roaming around to harm his fmaily but even less sense in such circulstances to call Jeremy to come try to stop her.  Why would you wait at least 20 minutes for Jeremy to come try to disarm her instead of doing it yourself?  You are going to just do nothing for 20 plus minutes hoping and praying she doesn't shoot and hoping Jeremy could somehow disarm her without her opening fire at everyone upon seeing him?  If you are truly worried you grab a weapon of some sort to try to disarm her with even if a broom to try to knocke the gun away.  As a practical matter a rifle is easier to push away than a handgun.  A handgun can be fired at you while wresting over it a long gun cannot. But he also could have stabbed her arm to make her drop it or confronted her with a shotgun.  Physically there is nothing Jeremy coudl have done to disarm her that Nevill could not have done.  Nevill was on the scene with the need to act while Jeremy was not.  So the call itself makes no sense.

Why would June remain in bed throughout this commotion?  She only got out of bed after being shot. So a lot of things make no sense. 

The problem posed by the call being allegedly disonnected but the phone being left off the hook is that it means Nevill can't have simply panicked and dropped the phone.  Nor would he have any reason to hang up the phone and then immediately take it back off the hook.  The only 2 explanations for this that Jeremy supporters cna come up with to try to account for the phone being off the hook and yet the call disconnected is:

A) Sheila walked over to the phone and pushed the buttons down to disconnect the call then made Nevill drop the phone

or

B) Sheila grabbed the phone from Nevill, hung it up and then took it off the hook

In either event Sheila had to be there causing the phone to be disconnected and left off the hook.

This presents 2 giant questions:

1) Why would Nevill not have disarmed her because in order to do either of these things she would have to be extremely close and yet have only one hand on the gun.  Being so close and yet with only 1 hand on the gun it would be easy for Nevill to grab the gun in a manner that prevented her from shooting him with it and then to yank it from her control.

2)) why would someone in a crazy rage having delusions not shoot him upon seeing him on the phone but instead make sure the phone is hung up, then take it off the hook again so no one can call the house (why would she be worried about preventing someone from calling the house?)  and then march him up to the bedroom to shoot him and June together?  It makes no sense at all for someone in her alleged position to want to march him upstairs to shoot them together.

There are just so amny things that make no sense about this alleged call that make it implausible and not credible.   

If Sheila went down to the kitchen then saw the gun and grabbed it and went up to the bedroom to wake her parents to shoot them then she would have shot them there and then.  June staying in bed while Nevill walks around with her and then using the phone when he manages to be alone, and her finding him at the very end after he passes his message on and then her disconnecting the call but leaving the phone off the hook and marching him to the bedroom to kill both together simply makes no sense at all and denies belief.

Worse though she managed to supposedly kill everyone without getting so much as a scratch let alone of bloos spatter from the victims on her destipe a severe struggle that ende dup brekaing the stock of the gun stock in a location that would have resulted in the broken piece striking her hand. 

This is before even looking at the impossiiblity of her having shot herself.



The curious thing is that it's YOU who have always claimed what we supposedly have thought. It NEVER made sense to me that shots had been fired PRIOR to a call being made. Hid I not say it loudly enough or did it simply not fit with what you were saying?

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: The campaign against Jeremy Bamber
« Reply #104 on: July 12, 2014, 07:19:PM »
Scipio? I may have dreamt this so I apologise in advance if I have this wrong BUT - did you say there was no flake found in the sound moderator?
Few people have the imagination for reality