submit questions for the Essex Police Challenge

[John]

Erm, no. He has just given his opinion of what he thinks the forensic evidence shows. I don't think he is right. Taking also into consideration that there is absolutely no forensic evidence that puts JB at the crime scene at the time of the murders.

Yes and no alibi which put him anywhere else at the time they were committed.

[John]

It would be nice if you would use yours and thus to stop asserting claims already pointed out to you in the past as false.

       

Lookout keeps repeating the same old tired mantra that there is no forensic evidence in the case yet we know very well that the forensic evidence is in fact substantial.

There never could be any forensics connecting Jeremy directly to the murders because his prints and DNA would be all over the house and the rifle in any event.  Wearing gloves during the murders would have prevented any further contamination. The rifle appeared to be wiped clean of fingerprints simply because the killer wore gloves while handling it.

Julie never did do a deal with the newspapers but her lawyer interceded and made an arrangement on her behalf in order to keep the Press at arms length.  Very sensible really.

[scipio_usmc]

Lookout keeps repeating the same old tired mantra that there is no forensic evidence in the case yet we know very well that the forensic evidence is in fact substantial.

Quite true that such is her mantra but when corrected about a specific factual point she still usually ends up repeating the erroneous claim in the future anyway.   In this particular instance the claim that the bullets were "copper coated" (jacketed).  Only 2 days ago I corrected her on that.  It is one of the facts not in dispute so she should not be saying it over and over.   

[lookout]

Lookout keeps repeating the same old tired mantra that there is no forensic evidence in the case yet we know very well that the forensic evidence is in fact substantial.

There never could be any forensics connecting Jeremy directly to the murders because his prints and DNA would be all over the house and the rifle in any event.  Wearing gloves during the murders would have prevented any further contamination. The rifle appeared to be wiped clean of fingerprints simply because the killer wore gloves while handling it.

Julie never did do a deal with the newspapers but her lawyer interceded and made an arrangement on her behalf in order to keep the Press at arms length.  Very sensible really.

Kindly list ALL the forensic evidence involving Jeremy.

[Caroline]

Kindly list ALL the forensic evidence involving Jeremy.

There doesn't have to be any forensic evidence involving Jeremy. Jeremy put himself in the farme when he mentioned the phone call. If Sheila didn't go crazy with a gun, then Nevill didn't call Jeremy and if Nevill didn't call - how did Jeremy know 'there was something wrong at the farm'?

[lookout]

There doesn't have to be any forensic evidence involving Jeremy. Jeremy put himself in the farme when he mentioned the phone call. If Sheila didn't go crazy with a gun, then Nevill didn't call Jeremy and if Nevill didn't call - how did Jeremy know 'there was something wrong at the farm'?

I fully understand that you wish to keep Jeremy locked up,but how do you know that Neville didn't make that call ?

[Jane]

I fully understand that you wish to keep Jeremy locked up,but how do you know that Neville didn't make that call ?

Conversely, would you have Jeremy released purely on the possibility that Neville made the call?

[lookout]

Conversely, would you have Jeremy released purely on the possibility that Neville made the call?

At this point-------------yes,I would.

[Jane]

At this point-------------yes,I would.

So I expect you can understand why some of us are AS vehement when it comes to keeping him locked up.

[lookout]

 It's alright saying " he's guilty " and ending it there,but I'm afraid Jeremy will NEVER give in,nor end his fight for justice,and rightly so.
Two words are all the opposition mutter,but think how many words Jeremy has used over the years in order to prove once and for all that he's an innocent man. Which has been the hardest,those two meaningless words or the millions of words that have kept Jeremy going through the years ?

Would anyone else be as determined as Jeremy has been.? I don't think so. He's not doing it all for the fun of it,or to pass the time. He's doing what we all would " attempt " to do and that's to see justice done.

When you know yourself that you're telling the truth,it's hard when you're just one voice in a crowd. He's got no family to rely on------------nobody,just those who are content to leave him where he is.

[Mr. Gee]

So I expect you can understand why some of us are AS vehement when it comes to keeping him locked up.

Well when you consider that a man who was proved to have killed two police officers has been set free who many think is still a danger to the public, then we do begin to wonder why Bamber is still behind bars just because you changed your mind about him, who was not so long ago vehemently defending him?

[Jane]

Well when you consider that a man who was proved to have killed two police officers has been set free who many think is still a danger to the public, then we do begin to wonder why Bamber is still behind bars just because you changed your mind about him, who was not so long ago vehemently defending him?

.........."We do begin to wonder why Bamber is still behind bars just because you changed your mind about him"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your words imply that it's MY fault he's still behind bars. I wasn't aware that I was so powerful.

[lookout]

 There's more " power " in a NO vote under these circumstances,than a yes one !

[Mr. Gee]

.........."We do begin to wonder why Bamber is still behind bars just because you changed your mind about him"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your words imply that it's MY fault he's still behind bars. I wasn't aware that I was so powerful.

Don't be silly, of course I don't think that. But I was reminding you of your former stance where you vehemently defended him, but now because you have changed your mind you are equally vehement to keep him behind bars. But in reality nothing has changed the evidence has not changed and neither has Bamber. The only thing that has changed is your opinion of him.

[Jane]

Don't be silly, of course I don't think that. But I was reminding you of your former stance where you vehemently defended him, but now because you have changed your mind you are equally vehement to keep him behind bars. But in reality nothing has changed the evidence has not changed and neither has Bamber. The only thing that has changed is your opinion of him.

Yes, it is. My views on all else, rellies, Julie, police, remain very much as they were.