Police log contents, and position of bodies in photographs don't add up, CRIKEY.

[mike tesko]

The facts speak for themselves, the silencer, key blood and paint attributed to it, has to be thrown out on the basis of its unreliability. This is because the police and prosecutors have failed to prove inside which silencer the key evidence was recovered from. The integrity of the silencer, blood and paint evidence has clearly once and for all been called into question, something that the jury were never made aware of, or even knew about...

[mike tesko]

What court in the world would turn a blind eye to practices of exhibit reference and exhibit label interference, without carrying out it's own investigation into whether or not the exhibit or evidence ought to be admitted?   

Altering exhibit references, and exhibit labels, of key pieces of evidence without it being clearly explained as to the reason, or reaaons for its alteration, must render such inadmidsible by virtue of the fact that its integrit has been called inti doubt. ..

[mike tesko]

We can't ever allow anyone to be able to alter and tamper with exhibit references and labels willy nilly, and carry on as if nobody had altered or tampered with them at all. Its all well and good for PC Whiddon to make a witness statement in 1991 trying his best to give some sort of an explanation (which he makes a complete pigs ear of by the way), but the the time for explaining all of this was at the trial not 5  years afterwards...

[mike tesko]

It can't be right or proper, it can't be legal, to allow anyone to change the exhibit reference of an item into something which it could not possibly have been at that time...

[mike tesko]

I could secure that these convictions of Bambers will be quashed with the benefit of what I know. But, there is a reason why until now, that I have not done so...

[lookout]

His conviction is getting more and more absurd.

[Caroline]

I could secure that these convictions of Bambers will be quashed with the benefit of what I know. But, there is a reason why until now, that I have not done so...

I can't think of one single reason why you wouldn't reveal something that would release someone you believed innocent. Not one!

[Jane]

I could secure that these convictions of Bambers will be quashed with the benefit of what I know. But, there is a reason why until now, that I have not done so...

Mike, when I first joined the forum you were saying that you held the means by which Jeremy could be released -hugely exciting as, at the time, I believed him innocent- what I couldn't get my head round was why you hadn't. When I put this to you, you said the time wasn't right. It seems it still isn't. Will you forgive me if I say that from where I'm sitting, if Jeremy is, as you believe, innocent, this would seem to be playing mind-games of the cruellest kind and I can think of NO (good) reason why you're choosing to withhold information which would release him.

[scipio_usmc]

The facts speak for themselves, the silencer, key blood and paint attributed to it, has to be thrown out on the basis of its unreliability. This is because the police and prosecutors have failed to prove inside which silencer the key evidence was recovered from. The integrity of the silencer, blood and paint evidence has clearly once and for all been called into question, something that the jury were never made aware of, or even knew about...

The fundamental problem Jeremy faces is that he can't demonstrate any of the evidence used to convict him was unreliable or objectively wrong. Since he can't neither can you or any of his other supporters.  Just saying you personally feel it is unreliable doesn't mean squat it needs to be demonstrated so.

You have never produced any evidence to establish the family or police planted blood in the moderator or paint on it.  You made allegations simply. 

You make allegations that Jones took a moderator from WHF on August 7 but offer no evidence. 

You claim police took paint samples from WHF on August 8 because paint was found on a rifle and cite Davidson's COLP testimony and yet his COLP testimony establishes no such thing. His COLP testimony established he was not personally involved in taking the samples and simply wrote they had been taken on August 8 because he assumed everything on forms 6.10 and 6.11 were taken the same day but that is not the case his assumption was wrong.  Furthermore he eavesdropped when Cook and Elliott were discussing the paint and had no idea the moderator had been found.  He thus assumed they were talking about pain found on a rifle.  He knew there was no paint on the murder weapon because he helped collect it so he assumed they were discussing some other rifle that had been at the scene.  Jeremy used such errors to make allegations to COLP which were investigated and proven false.  You take the same allegations and falsely claim the COLP investigation confirmed such allegations were true.

You make allegations that spent bullet cases from the murders were replaced and fragments from bullets used to commit the murders replaced but have produced no evidence to establish this. 

At the end of the day Jeremy and his supporters are long on allegations but short on evidence to prove any of them.   Declaring evidence has been rendered unreliable doesn't make it so, it has to be demonstrated using credible evidence.  If Jeremy could do that then he could get his convicition vacated but there are few ways he can do so.

Short of someone coming forward who was involved in the case intimately asserting evidence was tampered with and having credible accounts of who did so when and how there it little hope of undermining the main evidence in the case. You have made up someone coming forward but if he actually had he would be dealing with lawyers and trying to negotiate a way to avoid facing punishment himself he would not be dealing with you and a fictional group.

[Reader]

. . . do you think they kept hold of the statement, deliberately keeping their hand over what they wished to conceal?

Did you read the interviews of JB? Ds Jones: I will let you read the part I have marked 'A' to the end of the page. (In the presence of the solicitor, Ds Jones marked 'A' on the statement.) It's likely that this 'A' was placed against "After a few seconds the phone went dead." (which is shortly after where 3.10 a.m. appears).

You are clearly privy to some kind of inside information as you seem to know that "earlier, they'd referred to the time of that call from his father as "some time after 3".

Did you read the interviews of JB?
DCI Jones: You received a phone call from your father sometime after three.
Jeremy Bamber: Yes, I can't remember the exact time now, but I put it in my original statement.

[scipio_usmc]

Did you read the interviews of JB? Ds Jones: I will let you read the part I have marked 'A' to the end of the page. (In the presence of the solicitor, Ds Jones marked 'A' on the statement.) It's likely that this 'A' was placed against "After a few seconds the phone went dead." (which is shortly after where 3.10 a.m. appears).
Did you read the interviews of JB?
DCI Jones: You received a phone call from your father sometime after three.
Jeremy Bamber: Yes, I can't remember the exact time now, but I put it in my original statement.

Jeremy made up the call from Nevill and could not remember when he initially told police the call came.  He wanted to see his statement so he could remain consistent with it.  Since he wasn't allowed to see it he wasn't able to do that so said he could not remember anymore and simply deferred to his statement.

[Caroline]

Did you read the interviews of JB? Ds Jones: I will let you read the part I have marked 'A' to the end of the page. (In the presence of the solicitor, Ds Jones marked 'A' on the statement.) It's likely that this 'A' was placed against "After a few seconds the phone went dead." (which is shortly after where 3.10 a.m. appears).
Did you read the interviews of JB?
DCI Jones: You received a phone call from your father sometime after three.
Jeremy Bamber: Yes, I can't remember the exact time now, but I put it in my original statement.

In his original statement he said about 03:10.

[Patti]

Jeremy made up the call from his father it never existed he made up this call because he wanted to make up an alibi.

Where is the proof? Where is the proof that a call did not exist? Where is the proof it did?

It can't be proved either way and that is a fact an arguable fact that will go on and on....but what would a jury of today think? 

[Caroline]

Jeremy made up the call from his father it never existed he made up this call because he wanted to make up an alibi.

Where is the proof? Where is the proof that a call did not exist? Where is the proof it did?

It can't be proved either way and that is a fact an arguable fact that will go on and on....but what would a jury of today think? 

That he made it up! 

[Patti]

That he made it up! 

We can't assume what a jury might think, can we? A jury with no knowledge about the case might think the call existed, or may not?

It would be interesting to see a mock case, with names changed but with all the evidence presented, and have an outcome?

In fact I think it would be cheaper to reenact the case with a jury using any new evidence rather that use the CCRC. Maybe the latter will be more efficient in the future....Ok Maybe I know something!