HOLD THE FRONT PAGE HEADLINE - Bamber was definitely framed. ..

[scipio_usmc]

You cannot be trusted, not when you attribute what you said as though I said it, and worse still you then set o only out to try abd onlyut to reply to yourself in the pretence you are replying to me. That really is a despicable deception which paints a clear picture of what you are about. You are unreliable and only out to disrupt the forum...

My intention is for accurate things to be posted on the forum.  Your intention is to post false propaganda.  So my presence disrupts your intentions not the forum itself.

[mike tesko]

My intention is for accurate things to be posted on the forum.  Your intention is to post false propaganda.  So my presence disrupts your intentions not the forum itself.

So much for you intending to be accurate, yet you then go out of your way to fool people into believing that some of the things you have dishonestly said was what I had said, when all along the only person being dishonest was you...

[mike tesko]

The fingerprint document posted up, defo' shows that at the beggining of the investigation, police did have possession of a silencer, a silencer used to shoot Sheila with, as confirmed in police reports...

[Jane]

So much for you intending to be accurate, yet you then go out of your way to fool people into believing that some of the things you have dishonestly said was what I had said, when all along the only person being dishonest was you...

Mike, that's a very interesting, but sadly, less than generous comment. You have sworn to us that you believe everything you tell us to be the truth and that you never lie. I think highly likely -and reasonable- that Scipio will say the same. It's up to the individual who they believe.

[scipio_usmc]

So much for you intending to be accurate, yet you then go out of your way to fool people into believing that some of the things you have dishonestly said was what I had said, when all along the only person being dishonest was you...

How about producing proof of your claims instead of this pointless tit for tat.

you are the one not discussing the substance at this point.  Show us proof that Davidson fingerprinted the Aug 9 and did so again in September. The fingerprint form you posted simply says it was filed Aug 16 meaning they were fingerprinted by this time.

You produced nothing else though you refenced a receipt document you claim proves the items were all taken into evidence on Aug 7 but have not produeced tha teither to see what it actually says.  You produced nothing at all in support of your September claims.

Talk is cheap we want evidence.

You said you don't have to produce anything you don't want to.  Well if you are unwilling or unable  to produce evidence then there is no reason to pay attention to your claims it is that simple.

[mike tesko]

How about producing proof of your claims instead of this pointless tit for tat.

you are the one not discussing the substance at this point.  Show us proof that Davidson fingerprinted the Aug 9 and did so again in September. The fingerprint form you posted simply says it was filed Aug 16 meaning they were fingerprinted by this time.

You produced nothing else though you refenced a receipt document you claim proves the items were all taken into evidence on Aug 7 but have not produeced tha teither to see what it actually says.  You produced nothing at all in support of your September claims.

Talk is cheap we want evidence.

You said you don't have to produce anything you don't want to.  Well if you are unwilling or unable  to produce evidence then there is no reason to pay attention to your claims it is that simple.

You still have not addressed why you attributed your words to me, as though I said what you said...

[Steve_uk]

It's nigh on impossible to prove anything connected with Establishment malpractice unless the Establishment rats on itself. Just look at the shocking story of how former Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath raped a 12 year-old boy,disclosed by the Establishment judiciary in August when many people are away on holiday.

[mike tesko]

Not only did DS Jones take possession of a silencer from the scene on 7th August 1985, which was fingerprinted by DS Davidson on the 9th August 1985, handed back to DS Jones that same day, who in turn handed it over to Peter Eaton at whf that evening when the keys to the farmhouse were handed over to the Eatons. Peter Eaton returned that silencer to the gun cupboard in the downstairs office (thereby the return of the silencer by the police being fulfilled)...

[mike tesko]

Not only did DS Jones seize à silencer from the scene on that first morning, but it was booked into the property book, along with the rifle, Its ammunion
magazine, and cartridge cases. When these were fingerprinted on the 9th August 1985, they were all booked out of the police property book under the same receipt / disposal reference no. 5620 (this being the next available reference in the grand sequence of events...

[scipio_usmc]

It's nigh on impossible to prove anything connected with Establishment malpractice unless the Establishment rats on itself. Just look at the shocking story of how former Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath raped a 12 year-old boy,disclosed by the Establishment judiciary in August when many people are away on holiday.

On rare occasion there is evidence that can prove something untoward happened but most of the time inconsistencies in paperwork lead to evidence of wrongdoing by virtue of informing who to question and then the people admit wrongdoing occurred.  It is rare for documents themselves to establish such alone.  In this case all paperwork inconsistencies were already explored and ended up going now where.  People were questioned and it just turned out to be typos and the like or a failure to fully understand what happened until police explained.

Short of someone coming forward to admit to lying or planting evidence there is no way a MOJ could be established.

I have handled many document reviews. Most of the documents are not even admissible evidence in court.  We use inadmissible evidence to try to find who to question about what, in an effort to get admissible evidence. That kind of fishing is what the defense engaged in trying to find evidence of who to question about what to try to find evidence to clear Jeremy.  All such provided naught.  It is unrealistic to think there is something out there that will clear him if it is found.  No one created a document staying they planted evidence and stuck it in the file.   

 

[mike tesko]

The police never questioned Jeremy about the discovery of a silencer nor its use in the shooting of Sheila (in one instance), but not in the second instance...

[scipio_usmc]

The police never questioned Jeremy about the discovery of a silencer nor its use in the shooting of Sheila (in one instance), but not in the second instance...

The lab established it was used to kill her subsequent to his interrogation. How could they have asked him about it during his interrogation and why would they?  If the lab told them in time then at best they would say we know you killed her because the moderator was used to kill her then put away so you might as well admit you did it.

[mike tesko]

On the afternoon of 9th August 1985, DCI Jones, and DS Jones, questioned Jeremy at his cottage about the silencer, asking him whether or not the silencer was fitted to the barrel of the gun when he used the anshuzt rifle on the evening prior to the shootings - he told then, "no"...

This proves the silencer was in the minds of the police prior to them handing the keys to whf over to the Eaton's later that date. Jeremy told them that he did not know who had removed it from the gun, but he guessed it had been removed by his father and put away in the gun cupboard...

[Roch]

It's nigh on impossible to prove anything connected with Establishment malpractice unless the Establishment rats on itself. Just look at the shocking story of how former Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath raped a 12 year-old boy,disclosed by the Establishment judiciary in August when many people are away on holiday.

Would be interesting to obtain Scip's view of the alleged establishment cover-up of historic CSA allegations.  Probably best for another thread though.  But from what I can gather re Scip's approach - if the authorities reject something, whatever it is they reject is pretty much worthless  - otherwise it wouldn't have been rejected in the first place?

[scipio_usmc]

On the afternoon of 9th August 1985, DCI Jones, and DS Jones, questioned Jeremy at his cottage about the silencer, asking him whether or not the silencer was fitted to the barrel of the gun when he used the anshuzt rifle on the evening prior to the shootings - he told then, "no"...

This proves the silencer was in the minds of the police prior to them handing the keys to whf over to the Eaton's later that date. Jeremy told them that he did not know who had removed it from the gun, but he guessed it had been removed by his father and put away in the gun cupboard...

This is false. DCI Jones questioned him about how 30 bullets could remain if there 50 or less taken out by Jeremy and 25 used.  Jeremy had no satisfactory answer but DCI Jones ignored it.  Contemporaneous records prove this.  One such record you posted so you know you are lying;

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5671.msg250208.html#msg250208

You ignore those contemporaneous records in favor of a mistake DS Jones made many years later when he erroneously said yes when COLP asked if DCI Jones asked him about the moderator.

DCI Jones own records contain no record of asking anything about the moderator they are in line with other documents.