98% of the evidence at trial, and appeal, nothing but bullshit...

[mike tesko]

I have identified the 2% of evidence which helps to confirm Jeremy Bambers guilt, or innocent - the other 98% of the evidence and argument are just bullshit that is built into every case that comes to trial, or appeal...

[nugnug]

well an apeal court stating somthing as fact becouse is beyound a joke really.

[mike tesko]

I have argued in favour, or against, the vast majority of points which form 98% of pure bullshit in the Bamber case. Sometimes, I have argued in favour, and against, the same same bullshit, just for the sake of trying to show the extent of the bullshit in the case...

[scipio_usmc]

I have identified the 2% of evidence which helps to confirm o Jeremy Bambers guilt, or innocent - the other 98% of the evidence and argument are just bullshit that is built into every case that comes to trial, or appeal...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4bftQ4xxFc

[nugnug]

I have argued in favour, or against, the vast majority of points which form 98% of pure bullshit in the Bamber case. Sometimes, I have argued in favour, and against, the same same bullshit, just for the sake of trying to show the extent of the bullshit in the case...

are you trying to say its all bullshit then.

[Jan]

I think that was sarcasm .

What a surprise.

[mike tesko]

2% of evidence establishes Bambers guilt, or his innocence...

I know what the key evidence was / is...

That evidence will soon be tested, and the result or outcome of it being scrutinised will either consign Jeremy Bamber to the rest of his life incarcerated, or he will be a free man, who was dramatically wronged, persecuted, and falsely imprisoned...

[mike tesko]

are you trying to say its all bullshit then.

Hi nugnug,

No, it was necessary for everyone to argue and debate the 98% portion of the evidence, which has no bearing upon guilt or innocence, every bodies view was important, but whatever anybody had to say did not prove Bamber to be guilty, or innocent...

That is my point...

[Jan]

I get a feeling it is the evidence that has not been seen which is most important.

[nugnug]

thats probebly why they wont let us see it.

[lookout]

So none of us have been " warm ",Mike ?

[mike tesko]

The real 2% of evidence that mattered, or which matters, is (a) whether or not Jeremy Bamber was present inside the farmhouse when three generations of his own family were shot to death...

As a result of my own painstaking research into this case, I have come to the inevitable conclusion that there was, and is no physical, scientific, or witness evidence to place him at the scene at all, after about 9.30pm on evening of 6th August, and 3.48am, on the morning of 7th August 1985...

Every other bit of the 98% of the evidence is at best only circumstantial, which is insufficient to convict anyone on its own of having committed any crime, least of all, to be the basis upon which a man has been convicted of five murders, and ordered to spend the rest of his natural life in prison...

Nobody and nothing places Jeremy Bamber at the scene of the shootings between 9.30pm on 6th August 1985, and 3.48am, on the 7th August 1985 - the closest any witness places Bamber either leaving the scene or arriving there, which forms part of the other 98% of circumstantial evidence in the case, was a witness who testified to the effect that she heard Jeremys vauxhall astra being driven away from the farmhouse at around 9.30pm on the evening of the 6th August, taking Jeremy away from the scene of the shootings, then three police officers travelling to the incident at the scene, overtook Jeremy's vauxhall astra on the Tollsbury road, identifying Bamber as the driver travelling in the direction of the farmhouse, not travelling away from it...

No other evidence exists in between 9.30pm on one evening, and 3.48am on the following morning to place Jeremy Bamber at the scene...

Additional circumstantial evidence which falls in Bambers favour (from the other 98% of circumstantial evidence), serves to confirm that June Bamber, and her daughter, Sheila, were both very much still alive at around 10pm on the evening of the 6th August, because Junes sister, Pamela Boutflour, spoke to both of them on the telephone, after Jeremy had already left the farm previously, at around 9.30pm, that same evening...

The FACTS are, that none of the five victims from three generations of the same family had been attacked, or shot dead, whilst Jeremy was in attendance himself at the scene, before he left the farm to go home, and the occasion he was told by police to return to the scene on the following morning...

These are the bare facts upon which the jury should have been directed to look at and to consider when deciding their verdict in this case...

Everything else was circumstantial evidence which served to prove nothing at all...

[mike tesko]

Jeremys claim that he received a telephone call from his father in the middle of the night alerting him to problems at the farmhouse involving Jeremys sister, is not something which can be proved not to have happened, based upon the lack of evidence relied upon at his trial, to prove his guilt, although if such a call was made by Ralph to Jeremy, it goes a long way to establishing his innocence, although again his claim about the phone call he received falls within the scope of the 98% of circumstantial evidence...

Simply by claiming that Ralph made no such call to Jeremy, does not prove that such a call was not made, or that Jeremy must be guilty, since the phone call evidence from both sides is only circumstantial evidence, it does not prove that Jeremy was present at the scene at the time of the call, or at any stage between 9.30pm on 6th August, and 3.48am 0n the 7th August 1985, to enable him to kill everyone...

[mike tesko]

Alternatively, the call made to police by Ralph Bamber is not direct evidence that Jeremy was at the scene, whether or not you accept that such a call was made by Ralph, or whether you accept that the phone log details of the 3.26am call, were another version of Jeremys own call to police, as per the contents of the 3.36am, phone log - this is circumstantial evidence, and does not prove that Jeremy was ever present at the scene after 9.30pm, on 6th August, and before 3.48am, on the 7th August 1985, to enable him to kill everyone...

[mike tesko]

Nothing which Julie Mugford had to say, placed Jeremy at the scene between 9.30pm on the 6th August, and 3.48am, on the 7th August 1985, to enable him to shoot three generations of his own family dead - her evidence falls within the 98% of circumstantial evidence gathered by the prosecuting authorities so they could present a load of old codswallop and rely upon it by suggesting that the overall weight of the evidence pointed to Bambers guilt (without producing any evidence at all to place him at the scene at the time of the shootings)...