The main prosecution forensic case

[lookout]

Unless the anwers to your questions are in a book or online,he'll have difficulty answering as they don't include Jeremy,Mr G.

[Caroline]

How can you say that in any definite way?

Easy - the alternative means everyone lied. Which is basically how this whole case seems to pan out. Either Jeremy is lying or everyone else is.

Woodcock said he saw the sugar for himself - AE was just repeating what someone had told her.

[Mr. Gee]

Easy - the alternative means everyone lied. Which is basically how this whole case seems to pan out. Either Jeremy is lying or everyone else is.

Woodcock said he saw the sugar for himself - AE was just repeating what someone had told her.

Not really Caroline? Although I admit there are difficulties with the alternative. Just because AE was repeating what someone else said and is therefore classed as hearsay, it doesn't mean that it was necessarily untrue. In my thinking it must still be considered although to our own reasoning seemingly impossible?

[lookout]

An example of lying was the manipulation by AE of the phone-call times of Jeremy to Julie. Julie had said about 3.30,but AE decided to put the time at 3.15,in her statement,in order up the existing evidence. What right had AE got to change anything that was no concern of hers anyway ?

AP had reported to the police that he'd seen circular scars  Jeremy's hand/s after the murders. False info.

We all know about RWB not letting on about assisting in the changing of grannie Speakman's will,and he didn't say that he'd benefit if there was a guilty verdict.

[Caroline]

Not really Caroline? Although I admit there are difficulties with the alternative. Just because AE was repeating what someone else said and is therefore classed as hearsay, it doesn't mean that it was necessarily untrue. In my thinking it must still be considered although to our own reasoning seemingly impossible?

I did consider it - then dismissed it  . But let me just ask, if Woodcocks comment favoured Sheila being the killer and AE's didn't - I think there would be a shift in emphasis.

[Caroline]

An example of lying was the manipulation by AE of the phone-call times of Jeremy to Julie. Julie had said about 3.30,but AE decided to put the time at 3.15,in her statement,in order up the existing evidence. What right had AE got to change anything that was no concern of hers anyway ?

AP had reported to the police that he'd seen circular scars  Jeremy's hand/s after the murders. False info.

We all know about RWB not letting on about assisting in the changing of grannie Speakman's will,and he didn't say that he'd benefit if there was a guilty verdict.

So AE is lying about the times but could have it spot on with regards to the sugar (even though a member of the raid team said he saw the sugar for himself)?

[lookout]

So AE is lying about the times but could have it spot on with regards to the sugar (even though a member of the raid team said he saw the sugar for himself)?

I was sick of hearing her version about sugar in her ws. If she mentioned it once,she must have mentioned it 50 times.I got so bored that I didn't even read what the outcome of it all was. Too much was made of it to have sounded as " important " as it was supposed to have been.

[Mr. Gee]

I did consider it - then dismissed it  . But let me just ask, if Woodcocks comment favoured Sheila being the killer and AE's didn't - I think there would be a shift in emphasis.

I have always thought that the sugar was knocked over in the raid. It's the kind of thing that happens. In fact I would be very surprised if they didn't do any damage.
I should think from my many comments you will see that I even questioned some of the pro Bamber statements?

[scipio_usmc]

Not really Caroline? Although I admit there are difficulties with the alternative. Just because AE was repeating what someone else said and is therefore classed as hearsay, it doesn't mean that it was necessarily untrue. In my thinking it must still be considered although to our own reasoning seemingly impossible?

She said she was told people who were cleaning up the scene made the sugar mess.  That makes no sense at all if people cleaning up the scene did that by accident they would also clean it up.  Did any of the raid team speak to her?  No, she was speaking to people who had no ability to have firsthand knowledge of what the raid team saw. The defense failed to come up with any witnesses who could establish the sugar was dumped by police. In the meantime there is a lot of other evidence establishing a struggle took place in the kitchen. 

Some Jeremy supporters choose to ignore the evidence and try to pretend there was no struggle and they do so because of bias not because of evidence or reasoning skills.  Some Jeremy supporters choose to ignore evidence and not use reasoning skills in order to make the claims they do.

You are doing that now with the notion that we should ignore the testimony of the raid team who are the only ones in a position to know what they saw and to run with hearsay though we don't even know who the source of the hearsay rumors are.  You and some other supporters are so desperate to defend Jeremy you will entertain any possibility no matter how little evidence there is or how little sense a claim might make.  What determines whether you will support a proposition is whether it helps or hurts Jeremy.  That is operating on the basis of bias.

[scipio_usmc]

An example of lying was the manipulation by AE of the phone-call times of Jeremy to Julie. Julie had said about 3.30,but AE decided to put the time at 3.15,in her statement,in order up the existing evidence. What right had AE got to change anything that was no concern of hers anyway ?

AP had reported to the police that he'd seen circular scars  Jeremy's hand/s after the murders. False info.

We all know about RWB not letting on about assisting in the changing of grannie Speakman's will,and he didn't say that he'd benefit if there was a guilty verdict.

The 3:15 came from Julie.  Julie said 3:30 when she initially was trying to help Jeremy not get caught.  She said that after speaking to her roomates she said she realized it was 3:15 on the clock but the clock was 10 minutes ahead so it was actually not much past 3.  Another roomate suggested it had not even been 3 yet but rather the hour said 2 something.   

 

[scipio_usmc]

Hahahaha. What a ridiculous bit of supposed reasoning is that? As if Bamber could have had that kind of foresight. Your "reasonings" get more absurd by the day.

You lack of reasoning is what is absurd.  Jeremy clearly staged many thing in support of the narrative he tried to sell regarding Sheila committing the murders.  We have no way to know everything he tried to plant in support of it.  We have no way to know whether the socks were there of Jeremy picked up socks that had been bled on and stuck them right next to Sheila's body in hope that police would think she wore them during the killings.  Mentioning this is a possibility is not absurd but rather using my head.

You choose not to use yours because if you did so you would be forced to admit Jeremy is guilty but your bias prevents you from being rational.

 

[Caroline]

I have always thought that the sugar was knocked over in the raid. It's the kind of thing that happens. In fact I would be very surprised if they didn't do any damage.
I should think from my many comments you will see that I even questioned some of the pro Bamber statements?

But Woodcock stated that he saw it on the floor when they entered which means he would have to be lying. I don't even think the sugar is important because if Sheila should have had sugar on her feet, then so should Nevill. I just see no reason why Woodcock would lie?

[Mr. Gee]

She said she was told people who were cleaning up the scene made the sugar mess.  That makes no sense at all if people cleaning up the scene did that by accident they would also clean it up.  Did any of the raid team speak to her?  No, she was speaking to people who had no ability to have firsthand knowledge of what the raid team saw. The defense failed to come up with any witnesses who could establish the sugar was dumped by police. In the meantime there is a lot of other evidence establishing a struggle took place in the kitchen. 

Some Jeremy supporters choose to ignore the evidence and try to pretend there was no struggle and they do so because of bias not because of evidence or reasoning skills.  Some Jeremy supporters choose to ignore evidence and not use reasoning skills in order to make the claims they do.

You are doing that now with the notion that we should ignore the testimony of the raid team who are the only ones in a position to know what they saw and to run with hearsay though we don't even know who the source of the hearsay rumors are.  You and some other supporters are so desperate to defend Jeremy you will entertain any possibility no matter how little evidence there is or how little sense a claim might make.  What determines whether you will support a proposition is whether it helps or hurts Jeremy.  That is operating on the basis of bias.

Not at all. I just don't think it important enough to consider.
Or should we rather believe your silly scenario that because the sugar was spilt in the fight in the kitchen Jeremy thought of putting socks next to Sheila so as to make people think that she wore socks to protect her feet from blood and sugar so her feet would appear clean and spotless so people would think that because she had clean feet they would come to the conclusion that she couldn't have committed the murders, then look at the socks and change their mind and say oh she must have worn socks whilst she committed the murders that;s why her feet were clean.

But you'd rather think of that far fetched scenario rather than just thinking that if Jeremy wanted to make people think she wore socks he would have just put socks on her feet? And you think that "I" don't use my reason.

[scipio_usmc]

Not the raid team!

What benefit would be served by Jeremy staging an altercation in the kitchen?  If Jeremy simultaneously injured Sheila's body to make it appear she had been involved in an altercation and attempted to plant Nevill's blood on her then in that case it would have a purpose.  Staging it and leaving her body so clean and without injuries she would have incurred would hurt instead of helping because it suggests Sheila wasn't the killer.   

In the meantime it is clear the gun was empty when they entered the kitchen and that Nevill's wounds were not severe enough to knock him out so it is hard to imagine him allowing the killer to reload unmolested.

[Mr. Gee]

So AE is lying about the times but could have it spot on with regards to the sugar (even though a member of the raid team said he saw the sugar for himself)?

I thought he meant he saw sugar on the table? But if there was sugar on the floor why didn't the raid team carry it upstairs like they are supposed to have done the cartridge case? If they ran through the sugar on the floor how indeed could they have avoided carrying it through the house?