the raid team enter whf 2 hours after daylight.

[nugnug]

1) so she would not know he was so coldblooded that he killed the kids himeslf

2) so that she would be scared to say anything because she had to fear a hitman getting her

3) if she did talk the hitman story woudl be proved false and he could get  agood laugh

In contrast what did she get if she made up a hitman story?  Nothing.  If she were making up a story then she woudl have balemed him alone, you make up a histman when the person you want to blame had a solid alibi and coudl not personally have done it.  Jeremy had no such alibi and she well knew that.  If she were going to just invent a tale out of thin air she would have said he admitted he killed eveyrone himself.

hiring a hitman to kill your family would make you know less cold blooded than if you done it yourself.

[scipio_usmc]

if the phone call happened it would have to be a hitman thats why i think MacDonald was named in the first place.

He simply could have phoned his answering machine and that woudl show up as a phone call from WHF to him.

Another alternative would have been to leave it ringing as he went hom eand pic it up when he rrived home.

But there was no evidence to establish any call was actually made and no reason to believe such a call was ever made.

They had no need to make up a co-conspirator to call to Jeremy.

In the meantime to make up a co-conspirator who coudl be proved innocent would be STUPID.  You claim he never identified the hitman in that case.  You don't finger an innocent man who can then establish the claim is false.  That makes no sense at all.

[scipio_usmc]

hiring a hitman to kill your family would make you know less cold blooded than if you done it yourself.

If you hire someone to kill someone because you personally can't do it then you are less scary then if you did it yourself especially if you coudl kill small children like that. 

[nugnug]

they did if they knew the phonecall happend.

the faact the tried to time how long it took to get there means in opinion that they must of done.

[scipio_usmc]

they did if they knew the phonecall happend.

the faact the tried to time how long it took to get there means in opinion that they must of done.

Knew how?  Jermey can't prove it happened.  Only if Jeremy could prove it happened would they need to prove how though they had the 2 mothods I posted at their disposal if it could be proven.

You are demosntrating you are a foll for 2 different reaosns:

1) the bogus claim they knew the call happened

2) the ABSURD claim that a hitman lie would help where the alleged hitman coudl prove he was not involved.

How does a man proving he was not invovled and thus that th ehitman story was false help prove he made the pheon call to Jeremy?  How coudl he make the phoen call if he wasn't invovled?

DO you even try to think before you post?

[grahameb]

Knew how?  Jermey can't prove it happened.  Only if Jeremy could prove it happened would they need to prove how though they had the 2 mothods I posted at their disposal if it could be proven.

You are demosntrating you are a foll for 2 different reaosns:

1) the bogus claim they knew the call happened

2) the ABSURD claim that a hitman lie would help where the alleged hitman coudl prove he was not involved.

How does a man proving he was not invovled and thus that th ehitman story was false help prove he made the pheon call to Jeremy?  How coudl he make the phoen call if he wasn't invovled?

DO you even try to think before you post?

Please do not call nugnug a fool. I hope guilty supporter Caroline will pick you up on this.
The very fact that he can't prove the telephone call actually happened is probably proof in and of itself that it did happen? If he had been prepared for a year to do this thing he would have made sure he could prove it.

[guest154]

The very fact that he can't prove the telephone call actually happened is probably proof in and of itself that it did happen?

 

Grahame.... There are no words for that.

[No-Bits]

The very fact that he can't prove the telephone call actually happened is probably proof in and of itself that it did happen? If he had been prepared for a year to do this thing he would have made sure he could prove it.

Huh? 

[grahameb]

Stop talking about Macdonalds. You're making me hungry.

[scipio_usmc]

Please do not call nugnug a fool. I hope guilty supporter Caroline will pick you up on this.
The very fact that he can't prove the telephone call actually happened is probably proof in and of itself that it did happen? If he had been prepared for a year to do this thing he would have made sure he could prove it.

You post extremely illogical points always.  The fact there was no way to prove the call was made is why he would no bother because it would be a wasted effort.  There thus is no reason at all to believe the call was made and if he was actually going to make a call he would simply call his answering machine.  But why would he bother doing that in light of the fact no one would know?

His call to Julie was his "proof" that a call was made the same way a rape victim says ".  I told a friend I was raped".  HIs plan was for her to say he called to tell her he received a call from Nevill and this was supposed to help prove he did receive it.

The problems with this are multiple:

1) why would he call her at all let alone before police simply to wake her up and say there is trouble at WHF?  Unless he expected her to go with him or to comfort him or something there is no reason at all to wake her.  So it clearly was for an ulterior motive. 

2) He testifed that at first he was not worried and did not think there was any urgency but after he thought about it he realized it was serious.  Why would he wake Julie when he supposedly did not think it was serious? 

3) He revealed that ulterior motive when he called her again at 6AM (well before the bodies were found) to tell her not to go to work so she could be picked up by police and corroborate his tale about Nevill phoning.

[Jan]

Grahame.... There are no words for that.

I get exactly what he means

[grahameb]

Grahame.... There are no words for that.

Let me explain it to you. If Jeremy had been planning this thing for a year, then why couldn't he make up a more convincing alibi or story?
The fact that he claimed that his father had phoned him that night would be more of an indication that he was innocent than if he were guilty. Why? Because obviously he wasn't believed. If he had a year thinking around this thing, then surely if he's done the crime he would have thought he would have invented a better "alibi" than this?
I conclude from that, that probably the phone call was true? It is only my own opinion. But unless he was an incredibly stupid man (one of scipios favourite expressions there) some people think he was, then this phone call seems to ring true if you are of an unbiased mind?

PS: Let me put this in whilst I have the chance. I can see quite clearly other things that militate against Bamber being innocent. But (I don't know why I have to try and justify myself like this?) at this very moment in time I am looking at the question of the phone call. Instead of Bamber trying to prove it in court it appears because of the guilty leanings from the judge in that he referred to it as "mysterious" thus planting boubts in the jury's minds, Bamber found himself in the position of having to prove that the phone call actually happened instead of the prosecution proving that it didn't happen. Which was round the wrong way as it it always up to the prosecution to prove that it didn't happen.
This they failed to do. Instead the judge insinuated that it didn't happen thereby planting the doubt in the jury's mind.
Get it now?

[No-Bits]

Let me explain it to you. If Jeremy had been planning this thing for a year, then why couldn't he make up a more convincing alibi or story?
The fact that he claimed that his father had phoned him that night would be more of an indication that he was innocent than if he were guilty. Why? Because obviously he wasn't believed. If he had a year thinking around this thing, then surely if he's done the crime he would have thought he would have invented a better "alibi" than this?
I conclude from that, that probably the phone call was true? It is only my own opinion. But unless he was an incredibly stupid man (one of scipios favourite expressions there) some people think he was, then this phone call seems to ring true if you are of an unbiased mind?

PS: Let me put this in whilst I have the chance. I can see quite clearly other things that militate against Bamber being innocent. But (I don't know why I have to try and justify myself like this?) at this very moment in time I am looking at the question of the phone call. Instead of Bamber trying to prove it in court it appears because of the guilty leanings from the judge in that he referred to it as "mysterious" thus planting boubts in the jury's minds, Bamber found himself in the position of having to prove that the phone call actually happened instead of the prosecution proving that it didn't happen. Which was round the wrong way as it it always up to the prosecution to prove that it didn't happen.
This they failed to do. Instead the judge insinuated that it didn't happen thereby planting the doubt in the jury's mind.
Get it now?

What an incredibly biased post.   

[lookout]

If Jeremy had planned this,there'd have been NO mention of any phone calls.

[No-Bits]

If Jeremy had planned this,there'd have been NO mention of any phone calls.

Why?