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

[lookout]

I fully endorse everything you've said Mike and I couldn't give a damn what anyone else thinks either.

[mike tesko]

Use of a sound moderator (silencer) in the shootings of one or more of the five victims, is not evidence that Jeremy Bamber must have been present at the scene of these shootings, between 9.30pm on the 6th August 1985, and 3.48am, on the 7th August 1985, there was no evidence at all presented during the trial to link or to associate Jeremy Bamber to that sound moderator. Simply by claiming that this silencer had unique blood on the inside and outside of it belonging to one or more of the victims, and some red paint upon it from the kitchen surround, did not prove or establish that Jeremy Bamber had been present at the scene at any stage between 9.30pm on the 6th August, and 3.48am, on the 7th August 1985 - there was no physical, scientific, or witness evidence introduced during the trial that remotely linked or associated that sound moderator with Jeremy Bamber at the time of the shootings, it was all circumstantial evidence, not direct evidence...

[mike tesko]

Not one police officer, and no scenes of crime officer found anything, nor says anything to remotely link Jeremy Bamber to the scene, at any stage, between 9.30pm, on 6th August, and 3.48am, on the 7th August 1985...

This is the 2% of evidence which helps to establish that Jeremys convictions are unsafe, and that they should be quashed ASAP...

[JackiePreece]

Not one police officer, and no scenes of crime officer found anything, nor says anything to remotely link Jeremy Bamber to the scene, at any stage, between 9.30pm, on 6th August, and 3.48am, on the 7th August 1985...

This is the 2% of evidence which helps to establish that Jeremys convictions are unsafe, and that they should be quashed ASAP...

[/b]


Exactly

[mike tesko]

The fact that there are no times of death for any of the five victims, forms part of the 2% of admissible evidence relied upon during the trial, to help establish Jeremy Bambers innocence, because the prosecuting authorities have failed to provide evidence at all, that the five victims died at the scene between 9.30pm, on the 6th of August, and 3.48am, on the 7th August 1985, or at any other time when Bamber was known to be present at the scene prior to 9.30pm on 6th August, and after 3.48am on the 7th August 1985...

We know that at least two of the victims (June, an Sheila) were still very much alive, after Jeremy Bamber left the scene at 9.30pm on the 6th August 1985...

[nugnug]

are there no times of death though.

offically theres no time of death.

[lookout]

They were indeed,because they shot each other !

[mike tesko]

Nothing said by the pathologist, Peter Venezis, about the five individual or collective deaths, proves that somebody in Jeremy Bambers position, could have killed anyone of them...

[mike tesko]

Nothing said by the pathologist, Peter Venezis, about the five individual or collective deaths, proves that somebody in Jeremy Bambers position, could have killed anyone of them...

This forms part of the 2% of evidence which is capable of establishing Bambers guilt, or innocence...

[mike tesko]

No photographic evidence relied upon during the trial, or subsequent appeal, provides any evidence to suggest that Jeremy Bamber killed any of the five victims - this is part of the 2% of the evidence which helps to confirm, or to disprove, Jeremy Bambers involvment in the shootings...

[mike tesko]

Medical records relating to the mental illness, and odd behaviour of Sheila Caffell at the scene on the eve' of the shootings, as spoken about by June Bamber, in her telephone conversation with her sister Pamela Boutflour, sheds light on the likelihood that the police originally got it right when treating the shootings originally, as a case of 'four murders, and a suicide', believing Sheila to be the shooter...

[mike tesko]

Medical records relating to the mental illness, and odd behaviour of Sheila Caffell at the scene on the eve' of the shootings, as spoken about by June Bamber, in her telephone conversation with her sister Pamela Boutflour, sheds light on the likelihood that the police originally got it right when treating the shootings originally, as a case of 'four murders, and a suicide', believing Sheila to be the shooter...

This is part of the 98% circumstantial evidence in the case...

[mike tesko]

The complete original file (SC/688/85) which was withheld, had gone missing, or was destroyed, forms part of the 2% of evidence, which helps to establish Jeremy Bambers guilt, or innocence - what the prosecuting authorities did, was that they created a new file under a crime reference of SC/786/85, the evidence inside of which they produced during the trial to help to persuade the jury to convict him as the murderer, without any reference by them to the original approach (SC/688/85) when the prosecuting authorities believed Sheila had shot the others, and then (supposedly) shot herself...

Withholding the contents of the original (SC/688/85) file from the jury, was a biased approach which helped to fool the jury into convicting Bamber as the murderer - withholding this evidence during the trial and since, forms part of the case which should have been considered regarding Jeremy Bambers guilt, or innocence...

[nugnug]

dont they know what happend.

[mike tesko]

There is no time of death, for any of the five victims, yet for Bamber to be the killer, he had to have been present inside the farmhouse between 9.30pm on the 6th August, and 3.48am on the following morning, yet because there is no time of death, it creates a contradiction surrounding the legality of the convictions arrived at by way of a 10/2 majority verdict - technically speaking it remains a distinct possibility that one or more of the victims died after Bamber had returned to the scene after 3.48am, on the morning of the 7th August 1985, but how could Jeremy Bamber have got into the farmhouse to kill the victims individually or collectively with a large police presence at the scene alongside him (after 3.48am)?