Mysterious. Was the judge right ?

[Adam]

'Difficult or impossible to understand, explain or identify'.

This is the Oxford dictionary definition of mysterious. 

The judge certainly did not believe Neville called Bamber. Was he right to believe this ?

Well not even Bamber's supporters can explain what Sheila was doing when Neville phoned. Answers ranging from marching around the house, shooting people upstairs and running upstairs with a loaded rifle.

There are at least 40 reasons why Neville would not call Bamber. Nearly all are facts. Such as Bamber may not answer. Even the assumptions are backed up with facts. Such as Neville may not believe Bamber would rush over. He didn't !

There was a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence highlighting Bamber's guilt. Together with a motive, opportunity and no alibi. My recent thread shows everything fits. A guilty Bamber makes Neville's phone call even more impossible to understand or explain.

The judge in his summing up criticised Bamber over his conflicting accounts of how Neville sounded. Saying Bamber should surely remember.

If the call did happen it is still mysterious/hard to understand why Neville called him at 3.10am/3.26am/3.36am. He was a 6.4 farmer, head of the family and former army officer. He also had another adult available in the house. I do not recall any other instances of early morning phone calls to relatives just before a serious crime.

It seems the judge was correct in calling the call 'mysterious'. It is 'difficult' to understand or explain. Only Neville could do this.  Sadly he was found dead,  slumped over in the kitchen, having been shot and brutally beaten.

But is the 'mysterious' call 'impossible to understand and explain' ? You choose.

[Mr. Gee]

'Difficult or impossible to understand, explain or identify'.

This is the Oxford dictionary definition of mysterious. 

The judge certainly did not believe Neville called Bamber. Was he right to believe this ?

Well not even Bamber's supporters can explain what Sheila was doing when Neville phoned. Answers ranging from marching around the house, shooting people upstairs and running upstairs with a loaded rifle.

There are at least 40 reasons why Neville would not call Bamber. Nearly all are facts. Such as Bamber may not answer. Even the assumptions are backed up with facts. Such as Neville may not believe Bamber would rush over. He didn't !

There was a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence highlighting Bamber's guilt. Together with a motive, opportunity and no alibi. My recent thread shows everything fits. A guilty Bamber makes Neville's phone call even more impossible to understand or explain.

The judge in his summing up criticised Bamber over his conflicting accounts of how Neville sounded. Saying Bamber should surely remember.

If the call did happen it is still mysterious/hard to understand why Neville called him at 3.10am/3.26am/3.36am. He was a 6.4 farmer, head of the family and former army officer. He also had another adult available in the house. I do not recall any other instances of early morning phone calls to relatives just before a serious crime.

It seems the judge was correct in calling the call 'mysterious'. It is 'difficult' to understand or explain. Only Neville could do this.  Sadly he was found dead,  slumped over in the kitchen, having been shot and brutally beaten.

But is the 'mysterious' call 'impossible to understand and explain' ? You choose.

There were explanations, which are quite reasonable. You just chose not to believe it. So what else can be said if you refuse to accept what is said?

[Adam]

The word 'mysterious' has been used a lot recently.

There is the 'mysterious' meeting in the judges chambers. And the 'mysterious' photographs of the police in sexual positions with dead bodies and banners saying 'We were here' ! ?

[Mr. Gee]

The word 'mysterious' has been used a lot recently.

There is the 'mysterious' meeting in the judges chambers. And the 'mysterious' photographs of the police in sexual positions with dead bodies and banners saying 'We were here' ! ?

Yes by you alone I might add. But there is nothing mysterious about the meeting in judges chambers. It happened as verified by ngb. Get used to it.

[Caroline]

Yes by you alone I might add. But there is nothing mysterious about the meeting in judges chambers. It happened as verified by ngb. Get used to it.

Grahame, NGB hasn't verified that the bodies were posed in sexual positions and I haven't seen him verify the banner claim. So far all I have seen is his verification that some 'inappropriate' pictures do exist.

[lookout]

 Maybe a few memories need refreshing by reading Jeremys' blog which he'd written in October 2011,where he states that having obtained " Master Schedules " of documents that were withheld from the defence showed handwritten statements by firearms officers who were first at the scene,including that of seeing a womans' body in the kitchen,and them believing that Sheila had been alive at the time.

Something else which had surfaced was that both the doctor at the scene and the pathologist didn't find it surprising that a woman in a deranged state could have caused the injuries.

The judge,of course,would have been totally unaware of any of this,as the firearms officers hadn't presented their evidence in court.

Unfortunately during the last appeal,CCRC hadn't obtained the original crime scene log which had been requested as it comes under section 17 of the Criminal Appeals Act 1995 ?? The crime happened in 1985.
Continually denying evidence contravenes Human Rights law,but the CCRC don't look at it this way. 

[Adam]

Yes by you alone I might add. But there is nothing mysterious about the meeting in judges chambers. It happened as verified by ngb. Get used to it.

Yes you are right Grahame.

The judge first used the term 'mysterious'.

However recent issues brought up by supporters to discredit both Julie and the police were also mysterious.

Hopefully this will not be for too long.

[Caroline]

Yes you are right Grahame.

The judge first used the term 'mysterious'.

However recent issues brought up by supporters to discredit both Julie and the police were also mysterious.

Hopefully this will not be for too long.

Only to you Adam, but if there is something you don't understand - you should just ask. I am sure you won't be confused for too long. People are here to help you in your confusion!! 

[Adam]

Only to you Adam, but if there is something you don't understand - you should just ask. I am sure you won't be confused for too long. People are here to help you in your confusion!! 

I have asked. Creating a thread on the judges meeting.

[lookout]

Why don't you read up about it ?

[lookout]

Start from the bottom. Because Judge Drake and RWB,were Masons. Did Judge Drake know RWB before the murders happened.?

Isn't it these sort of questions you should be asking yourself,before throwing more mud Jeremys' way ?

[lookout]

Mr Rivlin had wanted the trial in London and not Essex. Why was the trial held in a place which was familiar to those who knew the Bambers/Relatives ?

[nugnug]

we know what the judge said we dont need to be constantly reminded.

[Mr. Gee]

Grahame, NGB hasn't verified that the bodies were posed in sexual positions and I haven't seen him verify the banner claim. So far all I have seen is his verification that some 'inappropriate' pictures do exist.

I was referring to the meeting in the judges chambers.

[Mr. Gee]

Yes you are right Grahame.

The judge first used the term 'mysterious'.

However recent issues brought up by supporters to discredit both Julie and the police were also mysterious.

Hopefully this will not be for too long.

He never used the word "mysterious" in regard to the meeting in his chambers. And yes I have ysed that meeting to "prove" thaqt Mugford was a liar and she was a liar. If you used your common sense instead of implying that I am a liar and that ngb is a liar you would see that the only liar was her.