Jeremy's court testimony:

[scipio_usmc]

Can you explain again when Junes DNA could have got into the moderator?  You said by contamination ?

At what stage ? Because it would have not have been in the lab because of the forensic conditions?

Her DNA could have gotten in before the murders or after as a result of contamination.  Someone cleaning the moderator prior to the murders such as Nevill coudl have contaminated it.  The jury or others who were allowed to examine the moderator after could have contaminated it.  There is no way to know.

It owuld be like examining property of mine using LCN DNA methods to look for DNA of my relatives.  Ther eis no way to say when such contamination occurred. A speck of DNA and a lot fo DNA are different things.  A speck can be transferred by far too many methods.  The only time it is truly reliable is if cross contmaination is not possible liek with a total strange rin which case it means the stranger was at the scene.

[Adam]

Well as has been said many times before Jeremy has pushed for every test possible on that moderator .

Which according to you is the one tangible thing that proves his guilt


so either he is innocent and he has come to the same conclusion that Sheila would not use the silencer take it off and put it is a box before shooting her self ( this is extremely unlikely but not impossible because in a delusional state she could have done anything )  but that would mean the blood would have been a mixture of blood and not hers


OR he is guilty and he did not use the silencer - in which case would indicate it was deliberately contaminated .

There is a lot more than one thing that proves his guilt.

A mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence. The fact that there were only two suspects in the first place but him in a precarious position to start with.

A thread has already been created called 'Was there enough evidence without the silencer'.

Agree that the silencer is a big piece of evidence. I mean it had Sheila's, Neville's and June's blood in. Together with June's DNA.

[lookout]

 It was decided back in 2002 ? after the Stokenchurch investigation that the silencer WASN'T used,so you can discount that as being an " integral " part of Jeremys' guilt. Also,the burn marks on Neville were made by the barrel of the rifle-----------------so the silencer can be put to bed,except for the fact that there happened to be ANOTHER silencer on ANOTHER rifle which was found in ANOTHER room ?
But what about the " phantom " one in the cupboard in which 3 officers missed,but DB found ??

So what else is there within this pack of lies that proves his guilt ?

List this " mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence ". Jeremy WASN'T even a suspect !!

[Adam]

It was decided back in 2002 ? after the Stokenchurch investigation that the silencer WASN'T used,so you can discount that as being an " integral " part of Jeremys' guilt. Also,the burn marks on Neville were made by the barrel of the rifle-----------------so the silencer can be put to bed,except for the fact that there happened to be ANOTHER silencer on ANOTHER rifle which was found in ANOTHER room ?
But what about the " phantom " one in the cupboard in which 3 officers missed,but DB found ??

So what else is there within this pack of lies that proves his guilt ?

List this " mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence ". Jeremy WASN'T even a suspect !!

Yes Jeremy has campaigned for more tests on the silencer. He had no choice as it is a big piece of evidence.

However the further tests just proved more convincingly it was used.

There was a thread last week about the Arizona tests and burn marks.

You know what the mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence is. I have created lots of threads for you.

Lookout. It's time.

[lookout]

Yes Jeremy has campaigned for more tests on the silencer. He had no choice as it is a big piece of evidence.

However the further tests just proved more convincingly it was used.

There was a thread last week about the Arizona tests and burn marks.

You know what the mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence is. I have created lots of threads for you.

Lookout. It's time.

Time for what ?? What are you on about ? There is NO evidence whatsoever.

[Adam]

Regards.

[Adam]

Re, the police interviews. I could not find the thread. But have posted this -

Over 30 'No comments' & 'can't remembers'. Over 10 don't knows' & 'can't say'. Answers to simple questions about the massacre night and his family.

Several one word answers as well as vague answers such as 'not really', 'I think so'  & 'less than 40 but more than 10 !'

Answers often said in a singing tone while chewing a strand of his expensive jumper. So not exactly outraged and angry at being arrested. Or trying hard to assist the police in confirming it is Sheila.

The police had to often ask the same simple questions several times in order to get a straight answer.

He initially said he phoned Julie before the police & could not remember what they spoke about at 3am. He eventually said Julie was phoned after the police phone call. Asked why he phoned Julie, he said 'no comment'.

Now knowing Julie had spoken to the police he said she did it due to 'jilted love'. But did not elaborate.

He even suggested the dog fired the second shot at Sheila ! Interestingly after they suggested Sheila could not have shot herself twice. Something he did not argue with or demand proof for. Perhaps because he knew she had not shot herself twice.

When struggling further he suggested Neville may have said 'she' rather than 'Sheila'. Suggesting a random women broke in, killed everyone and left the gun on Sheila !

He also admitted he knew lots of ways into WHF through locked or unlocked windows. Something he did not tell the police on the massacre night, or afterwards.

Sadly it seems we will never know about the last conversation between him & Sheila in the fields. He was asked this simple question but said 'no comment'.

His frostiness with the police after becoming a suspect was in stark contrast to the previous few weeks.  After first ringing the police at 3.10am/3.26am/3.36am you could hardly stop him talking, as he insinuated Sheila and made them nice cups of tea.

These interviews were several weeks after the deaths. Jeremy seemed to be recovering well & enjoying himself, telling the police how lovely the weather was in St Tropez.  So he could not use grief/shock as a reason for his evasiveness.

Stan Jones said having to write questions and answers down, (rather than taped interviews) meant Bamber had time to anticipate the next question and prepare his answer. He believed a taped interview would have got a confession. This I do not believe. Bamber was much too determined.

Although he could not remember a lot he testified at court and didn't say the words 'no comment', 'can't say', 'don't remember' & 'don't know' once. Although his answers in court became more vague the more pressure he was under. He didn't sing either but kept smiling at the jury. How nice.

[Mr. Gee]

Re, the police interviews. I could not find the thread. But have posted this -

Over 30 'No comments' & 'can't remembers'. Over 10 don't knows' & 'can't say'. Answers to simple questions about the massacre night and his family.

Several one word answers as well as vague answers such as 'not really', 'I think so'  & 'less than 40 but more than 10 !'

Answers often said in a singing tone while chewing a strand of his expensive jumper. So not exactly outraged and angry at being arrested. Or trying hard to assist the police in confirming it is Sheila.

The police had to often ask the same simple questions several times in order to get a straight answer.

He initially said he phoned Julie before the police & could not remember what they spoke about at 3am. He eventually said Julie was phoned after the police phone call. Asked why he phoned Julie, he said 'no comment'.

Now knowing Julie had spoken to the police he said she did it due to 'jilted love'. But did not elaborate.

He even suggested the dog fired the second shot at Sheila ! Interestingly after they suggested Sheila could not have shot herself twice. Something he did not argue with or demand proof for. Perhaps because he knew she had not shot herself twice.

When struggling further he suggested Neville may have said 'she' rather than 'Sheila'. Suggesting a random women broke in, killed everyone and left the gun on Sheila !

He also admitted he knew lots of ways into WHF through locked or unlocked windows. Something he did not tell the police on the massacre night, or afterwards.

Sadly it seems we will never know about the last conversation between him & Sheila in the fields. He was asked this simple question but said 'no comment'.

His frostiness with the police after becoming a suspect was in stark contrast to the previous few weeks.  After first ringing the police at 3.10am/3.26am/3.36am you could hardly stop him talking, as he insinuated Sheila and made them nice cups of tea.

These interviews were several weeks after the deaths. Jeremy seemed to be recovering well & enjoying himself, telling the police how lovely the weather was in St Tropez.  So he could not use grief/shock as a reason for his evasiveness.

Stan Jones said having to write questions and answers down, (rather than taped interviews) meant Bamber had time to anticipate the next question and prepare his answer. He believed a taped interview would have got a confession. This I do not believe. Bamber was much too determined.

Although he could not remember a lot he testified at court and didn't say the words 'no comment', 'can't say', 'don't remember' & 'don't know' once. Although his answers in court became more vague the more pressure he was under. He didn't sing either but kept smiling at the jury. How nice.

So in short in this interview in so many words he confessed to these officers that he did the murders then?
In all truthfulness Adam what he said in that interview question after question on the same thing I too would be answering them in the same way.
Now if this account was true where his very first interview was concerned, then how on earth did they get all the information from him that they did do. For he gave them a tremendous amount of info. My question is if this was his normal way of answering their questions, then how did they get his testimony, which apparently we have?

[Jan]

Why is Adam so bitter ? As shown by him resorting to sarcasm?

[Jan]

So in short in this interview in so many words he confessed to these officers that he did the murders then?
In all truthfulness Adam what he said in that interview question after question on the same thing I too would be answering them in the same way.
Now if this account was true where his very first interview was concerned, then how on earth did they get all the information from him that they did do. For he gave them a tremendous amount of info. My question is if this was his normal way of answering their questions, then how did they get his testimony, which apparently we have?

I wonder if there are any more of his interviews on any other sites anywhere. I think the ones we have here are the ones where he was not charged at that point? There must have been later ones?

[Alias]

Why is Adam so bitter ? As shown by him resorting to sarcasm?

You are right. The sarcasm makes it seem like a personal matter to him.

[Mr. Gee]

I wonder if there are any more of his interviews on any other sites anywhere. I think the ones we have here are the ones where he was not charged at that point? There must have been later ones?

Indeed Jan this is obviously by its very nature an interview that was published by the police to deliberately turn people's minds against Bamber and was I suggest one of the latest of "many" interviews by them as by this time Bamber was getting really and truly pissed off by their constant intimidating and goading line of questioning.

[Mr. Gee]

You are right. The sarcasm makes it seem like a personal matter to him.

Unfortunately by constantly thinking negative thoughts against Bamber as Adam is doing alas releases a poison that is so potent that it results in that person becoming very bitter in their very being. We have seen this illustrated many times and if you go over to another forum you will find it running as a leaded thread through nearly every poster on that site.

[Jan]

Indeed Jan this is obviously by its very nature an interview that was published by the police to deliberately turn people's minds against Bamber and was I suggest one of the latest of "many" interviews by them as by this time Bamber was getting really and truly pissed off by their constant intimidating and goading line of questioning.

Do they normally at the end actually charge someone at the end of an interview?

The ones on here are about the hitman? And then he was released without charge. Then there must have been others. What date was he actually finally charged with murder?

[Caroline]

So in short in this interview in so many words he confessed to these officers that he did the murders then?
In all truthfulness Adam what he said in that interview question after question on the same thing I too would be answering them in the same way.
Now if this account was true where his very first interview was concerned, then how on earth did they get all the information from him that they did do. For he gave them a tremendous amount of info. My question is if this was his normal way of answering their questions, then how did they get his testimony, which apparently we have?

He also gave a lot of information before being a suspect but I'm surprised there aren't more statements - he must have been officially questioned about the silencer?