Jeremy disposing his massacre clothes: A time for closure ?

[tyler]

Ah,bless you Alias. I feel same about you,always have x

[maggie]

There was no blood found in Jeremy's car.
Always trust Tyler.

A fantastic person.

Of course Tyler/Alias you are correct there was no blood in Jeremy's car! My cold has deffo muddled my head, there was a trace found in Nevill's which could have been from any person or animal and meant nothing.
You're both really knowledgeable, would always trust both of you   

[Mr. Gee]

Of course Tyler/Alias you are correct there was no blood in Jeremy's car! My cold has deffo muddled my head, there was a trace found in Nevill's which could have been from any person or animal and meant nothing.
You're both really knowledgeable, would always trust both of you   

The guilters like to think they have nothing but concrete evidence for Jeremy being guilty. But if there really was concrete evidence then I personally would believe the same as they do.
But all they really have amounts to whistling in the dark. Everything they have stated has been manufactured long after the original verdict.

They in fact have nothing but self built scenarios. There was no testing of the so called silencer as to whether drawback would have taken place. That is just an assumption by those who believe it did. But neither the silencer, nor the rifle itself was ever tested for drawback.

It has also been assumed that Sheila would have been covered with backspatter from her victims. That has also something that has never been tested. Just something that has just been accepted as fact without anyone every proving that it would have taken place. Remember that Sheila was holding a "long" gun. She was never ever standing that close to her victims. If the gun was too long for her to shoot herself as some assert, then it would also be too long for backspatter to affect her to any degree.
 
Again so called GSR would not have affected Sheila to any degree either. Remember the gun was a rifle. It was also a .22 calibre. The amount of GSR would have been negligible anyway. But not only that, the GRS would be (as I have asserted many times, don't be fooled by scipios "expert" opinion) expelled mostly through the end of the barrel and not to the side as is often asserted.

Just remember mostly all the arguments put forward here concerning and presuming to prove Jeremy's guilt were never a factor that was considered in the original trial. But since been concocted by those who think through their own prejudiced minds. What man invents man understands. Just rember those words when reading their assertive over confident posts.

[lookout]

There was no blood found in Jeremy's car.
Always trust Tyler.

A fantastic person.

I agree,Alias. Straight and to the point and a reliable poster. Jan too,who is always down to earth. My kind of people.

[Patti]

Jeremy's supporters are often claiming he would not have the opportunity to dispose of his massacre night clothes. Am I missing something ?

The clothes may not have ended up with much blood anyway. June, Sheila and the twins were shot without resistance. By a long rifle. So unlikely that any back splatter would hit Jeremy.

Neville also received his first four shots from a distance. There was a kitchen fight, but unless they were rolling around on the floor, Jeremy would have remained virtually blood free. Certainly most of it would go after a washing machine spin. He may have even met the police without changing. Just putting extra layers on. He was well clothed for August.

Anyway if he was covered in blood, he had a month to dispose of the evidence. During this time he went on several jolly ups with Brett, Julie and other buddies. To London, Eastbourne, Amsterdam & St Tropez. So could have disposed of clothes anywhere in England, or in two other countries.

Or he could even dispose of the clothes on the night. He knew the farm land very well.

Claiming Jeremy could not have got clothes which may have had a few spots of blood on through customs, is also weak. Customs only check the inside of very few suitcases. They are looking for drugs, not blood. The London/Amsterdam customs were pretty weak as Jeremy smuggled a lot of cannabis through, just after the massacre.

Do other people think Jeremy did or did not have plenty of time to dispose of clothes ?

Hi Adam

If you are implying that Jeremy was kinda blood free then you must also apply this to Sheila; using the long range of the rifle as an excuse that there would be no blood spatter.

Why would he dispose of any clothing if he was wearing a wetsuit? 

[scipio_usmc]

Jeremy's supporters are often claiming he would not have the opportunity to dispose of his massacre night clothes. Am I missing something ?

The clothes may not have ended up with much blood anyway. June, Sheila and the twins were shot without resistance. By a long rifle. So unlikely that any back splatter would hit Jeremy.

Neville also received his first four shots from a distance. There was a kitchen fight, but unless they were rolling around on the floor, Jeremy would have remained virtually blood free. Certainly most of it would go after a washing machine spin. He may have even met the police without changing. Just putting extra layers on. He was well clothed for August.

Anyway if he was covered in blood, he had a month to dispose of the evidence. During this time he went on several jolly ups with Brett, Julie and other buddies. To London, Eastbourne, Amsterdam & St Tropez. So could have disposed of clothes anywhere in England, or in two other countries.

Or he could even dispose of the clothes on the night. He knew the farm land very well.

Claiming Jeremy could not have got clothes which may have had a few spots of blood on through customs, is also weak. Customs only check the inside of very few suitcases. They are looking for drugs, not blood. The London/Amsterdam customs were pretty weak as Jeremy smuggled a lot of cannabis through, just after the massacre.

Do other people think Jeremy did or did not have plenty of time to dispose of clothes ?

The rifle ended up with spatter on it. The notion the spatter would travel in a narrow path hitting the rifle but not the person holding it is fantasy.  The close tange shots to Nevill and June would have resulted in high velocity spatter from both.  Moreover, the beating Nevill took would have resulted in medium velocity spatter.  It is the wounds to the kids heads which woudl be unlikely to result in spatter because shots by .22s to the head rarely result in spatter.  It takes a larger caliber to be able to do enough damage to a head to cause spatter.

You should have stuck with your second argument which is that he had time to change his clothing before ever seeing police and police didn't examine his clothing until weeks after the murders so he had plenty to time to dispose of same.

[Mr. Gee]

The rifle ended up with spatter on it. The notion the spatter would travel in a narrow path hitting the rifle but not the person holding it is fantasy.  The close tange shots to Nevill and June would have resulted in high velocity spatter from both.  Moreover, the beating Nevill took would have resulted in medium velocity spatter.  It is the wounds to the kids heads which woudl be unlikely to result in spatter because shots by .22s to the head rarely result in spatter.  It takes a larger caliber to be able to do enough damage to a head to cause spatter.

You should have stuck with your second argument which is that he had time to change his clothing before ever seeing police and police didn't examine his clothing until weeks after the murders so he had plenty to time to dispose of same.

I've been saying that all the time but your keep on dismissing it.

[scipio_usmc]

I've been saying that all the time but your keep on dismissing it.

I keep dismissing what?  All I did was dismiss the absurd claim that the killer would not have gotten high velocity spatter from the parents and medium veloicty spatter from Nevill on his/her clothing and body.

It was dismissed because it is absurd.  The only claims of yours I dismiss are ridiculous ones that are borne out of your bias in favor of Bamber instead of being raitonal and objective. 

[scipio_usmc]

The guilters like to think they have nothing but concrete evidence for Jeremy being guilty. But if there really was concrete evidence then I personally would believe the same as they do.
But all they really have amounts to whistling in the dark. Everything they have stated has been manufactured long after the original verdict.

They in fact have nothing but self built scenarios. There was no testing of the so called silencer as to whether drawback would have taken place. That is just an assumption by those who believe it did. But neither the silencer, nor the rifle itself was ever tested for drawback.

It has also been assumed that Sheila would have been covered with backspatter from her victims. That has also something that has never been tested. Just something that has just been accepted as fact without anyone every proving that it would have taken place. Remember that Sheila was holding a "long" gun. She was never ever standing that close to her victims. If the gun was too long for her to shoot herself as some assert, then it would also be too long for backspatter to affect her to any degree.
 
Again so called GSR would not have affected Sheila to any degree either. Remember the gun was a rifle. It was also a .22 calibre. The amount of GSR would have been negligible anyway. But not only that, the GRS would be (as I have asserted many times, don't be fooled by scipios "expert" opinion) expelled mostly through the end of the barrel and not to the side as is often asserted.

Just remember mostly all the arguments put forward here concerning and presuming to prove Jeremy's guilt were never a factor that was considered in the original trial. But since been concocted by those who think through their own prejudiced minds. What man invents man understands. Just rember those words when reading their assertive over confident posts.

There is a considerable body of evidence regarding spatter.  .22 routinely result in backspatter when hitting locations where many of the victims were shot.  There was no need to do the same tests over again to prove the doctors were right about the various locations causing spatter. Indeed we had somethign better- the gun was covered in spatter which means for sure there was spatte rit is absolute proof.

As for the GSR, you again demonstrate you know nothing about the subject.  Despite countless spoonfeeding to you about the difference between PGSR and unburned gunpowder you still don't understand the concepts.

Firing the weapon would for sure have resulted in visible deposits on her gown not just PGSR. The vent is right near her gown and would have been even closer to her gown as she shot herself. You don't want to accept facts because you want Jeremy to be innocent.  The defense can' even come up with an expert to dispute the fact her gown would have had GSR.  No problem you will just make it up because you don't want to accept it.

The evidence against Jeremy is indeed ironclad and substantial.  People here complain when I list the evidence against him because the summary alone is so long.  You complain it is the longests posts on the board.  That tells how much evidence there is.  Because his supporters can't refute that evidence instead the coput that it is too long to respond to is made and the claim that the evidence I list proves nothing.  Saying it proves nothing doesn't establish tha tit means nothing it just establishes that Jeremy supporters don't really want a detailed accurate discussion.

Your dismissal of the lack of GSR and claiming it would not be likely to be on the shooter has no foundation at all. You run to a site that claims there is less GSR from a rifle than from a pistol (which is referring to PGSR) and claim this prooves there woudl be no powder burns on the killer.

Your bias and dishonesty fgo hand in hand.  Those who defend your integrity choose to close their eyes to it and often have the same problem. As I wrote before birds of a feather... 

[Jan]

There is a considerable body of evidence regarding spatter.  .22 routinely result in backspatter when hitting locations where many of the victims were shot.  There was no need to do the same tests over again to prove the doctors were right about the various locations causing spatter. Indeed we had somethign better- the gun was covered in spatter which means for sure there was spatte rit is absolute proof.

As for the GSR, you again demonstrate you know nothing about the subject.  Despite countless spoonfeeding to you about the difference between PGSR and unburned gunpowder you still don't understand the concepts.

Firing the weapon would for sure have resulted in visible deposits on her gown not just PGSR. The vent is right near her gown and would have been even closer to her gown as she shot herself. You don't want to accept facts because you want Jeremy to be innocent.  The defense can' even come up with an expert to dispute the fact her gown would have had GSR.  No problem you will just make it up because you don't want to accept it.

The evidence against Jeremy is indeed ironclad and substantial.  People here complain when I list the evidence against him because the summary alone is so long.  You complain it is the longests posts on the board.  That tells how much evidence there is.  Because his supporters can't refute that evidence instead the coput that it is too long to respond to is made and the claim that the evidence I list proves nothing.  Saying it proves nothing doesn't establish tha tit means nothing it just establishes that Jeremy supporters don't really want a detailed accurate discussion.

Your dismissal of the lack of GSR and claiming it would not be likely to be on the shooter has no foundation at all. You run to a site that claims there is less GSR from a rifle than from a pistol (which is referring to PGSR) and claim this prooves there woudl be no powder burns on the killer.

Your bias and dishonesty fgo hand in hand.  Those who defend your integrity choose to close their eyes to it and often have the same problem. As I wrote before birds of a feather...

it is not dishonest to have opinions or to research "expert" statements regarding aspects of the case . So stop calling posters dishonest or biased.

You are biased against Jeremy and that is bourne out by your inability to even consider that some people in this case were not honest in their evidence or statements. Stop being personal in your posts because we are all sick to the teeth of your repetitive negativity against this forum.

[Mr. Gee]

I keep dismissing what?  All I did was dismiss the absurd claim that the killer would not have gotten high velocity spatter from the parents and medium veloicty spatter from Nevill on his/her clothing and body.

It was dismissed because it is absurd.  The only claims of yours I dismiss are ridiculous ones that are borne out of your bias in favor of Bamber instead of being raitonal and objective.

Why do you constantly refer to it as HIGH velocity spatter? It was subsonic ammunition. I still contend that blood spatter existed with all those shots. There was blood on the gun because Sheila's hands had blood on them. It is quite a simple deduction and very logical.

[scipio_usmc]

it is not dishonest to have opinions or to research "expert" statements regarding aspects of the case . So stop calling posters dishonest or biased.

You are biased against Jeremy and that is bourne out by your inability to even consider that some people in this case were not honest in their evidence or statements. Stop being personal in your posts because we are all sick to the teeth of your repetitive negativity against this forum.

I am biased against Jeremy because I follow the evidence?  That is quite a silly statement.  Those who refuse to follow the evidence and ignore it are the ones biased.  Often such peopel demosntrate bias in general against police and the authorities and using that as a basis to ignroe evidence since there is no rational reason to do so.

Graham is wildly inconsistent and constantly inaccurate which he has actually amazingly admitted.  Despite admitting numerous errors he either refuses to change his position though the basis was flawed or he reverts back to claims previously established as wrong.  The GSR issue is just one such issue.  The following deonstrates a lot on many different levels:

"I concede defeat to my betters on the forum and their arguments according to the evidence that we have access to have at last won over me and therefore I have nothing more to argue for.
I bid you all farewell for the final time."

I can pounce on countless posts by others that demonstrate how bias prevents them from ignoring relaity but I have no need to do so. I prefer to point it out in the course of substantive posts where I discuss the exact facts of the case.

That is something always ignored.  I post substnatively in the same exact posts where I point out bias.  I posted substantively about how a MOJ constantly brought up features the complete opposite set of facts as here.  That serves some purpose.  Just criticizing without it being tied to substance is pointless.  That is what many here do. They just launch personal attacks that are not tied to anything.  Attacking Adam for instance and worse such people attack him for doing the same things they do.

It is funny how peopel can't see why this site is known as a Jeremy defender site instead of an objective site.  It is because of the way those who actively control the site post.  WHile NGB defends Jeremy he doesn't do it in a way that tries to stifle honest debate.

At the opposite end we have Jackie who thinks this site should be closed to anythign but pro-Jeremy propaganda.

The remainder largely attack those critical of Jeremy but stop short of debminding such people be banned an dinstead berate them simply and try to cow them.

The treatment of Caroline after she switched and attacks on others perceived to switching is a good example of that.

On boards like this things always go off topic to some degree but I have never been on a site that always goes off topic.  No thread ever stays on topic the goal seems to always be to intentioally divert attention and change when there is something negative to Jeremy's side.

This particular thread should be an issue that both sites are willing to stipulate to and to stop raising .

1) Jeremy had plenty of time to wash and change before calling police

2) Jeremy and the clothes he was wearing at the time he met police were not tested or searched for blood or other foreign matter

3) Jeremy's house was not searched until weeks after the murders so he had plenty of time ot dispose of incriminating evidence.

It makes no difference whether he wors overalls, a wetsuit or some other kind of covering over his regular clothes at the time of the murders but based on the fact he would be able to wash and change before seeing police he had no need to wear any such protective covering over his clothing.  So for that reason it is not likely he did so.  The fact that Boutflour, a journalist or anyone else suspects he did doesn't make it more likely.  Their opinions are not based on anything concrete jus ttheir own personal suspicions which ignore tha the would have no need to wear such.

That should be enough to put this issue to rest.  It is one of no value.  There is no way for Jeremy defenders to say the lack of any evidence found helps prove his innocence when he was never searched and had both the opportunity and motive to wash and change.  What he wore makes no differenc ein light of such.

That is what peopel should be pointing out in order to agree to put this issue to bed.

There are numerous stipulations that could be made so that only the significant issues are debated but that is never done.

The most significcant issues to discuss are the things I have listed time and again that point to Jeremy's guilt.  Those are the things that were raised at trial to prove his guilt and that defenders MUST find a way to refute to establish his wrongful conviction.

The inability to honestly be able to refute such are why peopel play with the fringes instead.  But that doesn't convice anyone objective, rational and knowledgeable about the case of his innocence so actualy doesn't accomplish anything.  Preaching to the choir is a wasted effort.     

   




   

[Mr. Gee]

I am biased against Jeremy because I follow the evidence?  That is quite a silly statement.  Those who refuse to follow the evidence and ignore it are the ones biased.  Often such peopel demosntrate bias in general against police and the authorities and using that as a basis to ignroe evidence since there is no rational reason to do so.

Graham is wildly inconsistent and constantly inaccurate which he has actually amazingly admitted.  Despite admitting numerous errors he either refuses to change his position though the basis was flawed or he reverts back to claims previously established as wrong.  The GSR issue is just one such issue.  The following deonstrates a lot on many different levels:

"I concede defeat to my betters on the forum and their arguments according to the evidence that we have access to have at last won over me and therefore I have nothing more to argue for.
I bid you all farewell for the final time."

I can pounce on countless posts by others that demonstrate how bias prevents them from ignoring relaity but I have no need to do so. I prefer to point it out in the course of substantive posts where I discuss the exact facts of the case.

That is something always ignored.  I post substnatively in the same exact posts where I point out bias.  I posted substantively about how a MOJ constantly brought up features the complete opposite set of facts as here.  That serves some purpose.  Just criticizing without it being tied to substance is pointless.  That is what many here do. They just launch personal attacks that are not tied to anything.  Attacking Adam for instance and worse such people attack him for doing the same things they do.

It is funny how peopel can't see why this site is known as a Jeremy defender site instead of an objective site.  It is because of the way those who actively control the site post.  WHile NGB defends Jeremy he doesn't do it in a way that tries to stifle honest debate.

At the opposite end we have Jackie who thinks this site should be closed to anythign but pro-Jeremy propaganda.

The remainder largely attack those critical of Jeremy but stop short of debminding such people be banned an dinstead berate them simply and try to cow them.

The treatment of Caroline after she switched and attacks on others perceived to switching is a good example of that.

On boards like this things always go off topic to some degree but I have never been on a site that always goes off topic.  No thread ever stays on topic the goal seems to always be to intentioally divert attention and change when there is something negative to Jeremy's side.

This particular thread should be an issue that both sites are willing to stipulate to and to stop raising .

1) Jeremy had plenty of time to wash and change before calling police

2) Jeremy and the clothes he was wearing at the time he met police were not tested or searched for blood or other foreign matter

3) Jeremy's house was not searched until weeks after the murders so he had plenty of time ot dispose of incriminating evidence.

It makes no difference whether he wors overalls, a wetsuit or some other kind of covering over his regular clothes at the time of the murders but based on the fact he would be able to wash and change before seeing police he had no need to wear any such protective covering over his clothing.  So for that reason it is not likely he did so.  The fact that Boutflour, a journalist or anyone else suspects he did doesn't make it more likely.  Their opinions are not based on anything concrete jus ttheir own personal suspicions which ignore tha the would have no need to wear such.

That should be enough to put this issue to rest.  It is one of no value.  There is no way for Jeremy defenders to say the lack of any evidence found helps prove his innocence when he was never searched and had both the opportunity and motive to wash and change.  What he wore makes no differenc ein light of such.

That is what peopel should be pointing out in order to agree to put this issue to bed.

There are numerous stipulations that could be made so that only the significant issues are debated but that is never done.

The most significcant issues to discuss are the things I have listed time and again that point to Jeremy's guilt.  Those are the things that were raised at trial to prove his guilt and that defenders MUST find a way to refute to establish his wrongful conviction.

The inability to honestly be able to refute such are why peopel play with the fringes instead.  But that doesn't convice anyone objective, rational and knowledgeable about the case of his innocence so actualy doesn't accomplish anything.  Preaching to the choir is a wasted effort.     

   




 

What makes you think that you are my better for goodness sake. This just demonstrates what a high opinion you have of yourself.
I still hold to the FACT (and I have established it as a fact from experts) that GSR is mostly expelled from the barrel of the gun and is negligible from the side where the case is ejected. The facts are that you ae wrong and the experts are right. What you do is to try and pull the wool over people's eyes hoping they wouldn't check up on you. The plain facts are your opinions are driven by prejudice and by prejudice alone.

[nugnug]

yes you have esablished it as a fact graham i did a google searh and everything you say is backed up by all the experts.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDAQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firearmsid.com%2Fa_distancegsr.htm&ei=4mWIVK6qLoP1Uri_gLgN&usg=AFQjCNF06sfYKRi8Awb8UQLZYfAFlNCw4w&sig2=9UZdT-Ut1G0AGiEg5T8LBw&bvm=bv.81456516,d.d24

dispite all his liams skippy clearly knows nothing about the subject.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDAQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firearmsid.com%2Fa_distancegsr.htm&ei=V2aIVOjdLYu3UeTAg4AL&usg=AFQjCNF06sfYKRi8Awb8UQLZYfAFlNCw4w&sig2=m5q9DFEJfy0p3jEXyUT4zA&bvm=bv.81456516,d.d24

[lookout]

Well done nugs for finding,yet again,information that saves further misunderstanding from " he who knows it all ".
Though no doubt he'll find fault over that too.