Ending the SJ/1 nonsense once and for all

[maggie]

I studied memory at uni and although much of what you said is true, for big events people tend to remember the details quite well. DB seems to be trying too hard to convince the viewer, not only describing in detail but also using action to support his claim!

There are too many inconsistencies between individual statements and accounts vary between the three main witnesses, who seem unable to remember who was there and who did what. I understand that at the time they weren't supposed to know that the moderator was important, but that's NOT the way they tell it, it's like they knew from the start. RWB was supposed to have stated at the time 'the police better have that, put it in a bag' etc. David said he saw blood and paint at he scene in one statement but not in others and Ann, that it wasn't until they were around the table at the Eaton's farm. Ann said she didn't look at the silencer until they were back at her house but RWB mentions that she and DB had a good look at it at WHF. 

I think if we're going to question Jeremy's inconsistencies, (and there are lots), we should also consider the same of others. I will try and list these examples at some point this week to clarify.

Excellent post Caroline, I totally agree with you.

[Adam]

I studied memory at uni and although much of what you said is true, for big events people tend to remember the details quite well. DB seems to be trying too hard to convince the viewer, not only describing in detail but also using action to support his claim!

There are too many inconsistencies between individual statements and accounts vary between the three main witnesses, who seem unable to remember who was there and who did what. I understand that at the time they weren't supposed to know that the moderator was important, but that's NOT the way they tell it, it's like they knew from the start. RWB was supposed to have stated at the time 'the police better have that, put it in a bag' etc. David said he saw blood and paint at he scene in one statement but not in others and Ann, that it wasn't until they were around the table at the Eaton's farm. Ann said she didn't look at the silencer until they were back at her house but RWB mentions that she and DB had a good look at it at WHF. 

I think if we're going to question Jeremy's inconsistencies, (and there are lots), we should also consider the same of others. I will try and list these examples at some point this week to clarify.

It is well known who was there. BW and Basil Cock, together with AE, DB & PE. Probably some other relatives who I have forgotten.

They freely say they were looking for incriminating evidence. PE found the silencer for the murder weapon hidden away, which they noticed had blood, paint and a hair attached to it. It would not take a genius to work out it could be an important discovery.

[Caroline]

It is well known who was there. BW and Basil Cock, together with AE, DB & PE. Probably some other relatives who I have forgotten.

They freely say they were looking for incriminating evidence. PE found the silencer for the murder weapon hidden away, which they noticed had blood, paint and a hair attached to it. It would not take a genius to work out it could be an important discovery.

I'm not talking about who was in the house at the time! I'm talking about who was there IN THE ROOM when the silencer was ACTUALLY found!

[Adam]

I'm not talking about who was in the house at the time! I'm talking about who was there IN THE ROOM when the silencer was ACTUALLY found!

Why is that important ? 

[guest154]

Dont you know mat? I suggest you read the statements of the extended family. That should answer your question.

Of course I know, or else I would of asked Caroline. I was asking you because you quoted Carolines post to say you agree it is odd the officer said he didn't know who was there when the silencer was found. I was asking you because I was wondering if you knew why it was odd that officer said he didn't know, and who he should of said to see if you knew WHY Caroline finds it odd (since you said you agree with her post) or if you were just agreeing with it because it makes the silencer sound dodgy.

[maggie]

Of course I know, or else I would of asked Caroline. I was asking you because you quoted Carolines post to say you agree it is odd the officer said he didn't know who was there when the silencer was found. I was asking you because I was wondering if you knew why it was odd that officer said he didn't know, and who he should of said to see if you knew WHY Caroline finds it odd (since you said you agree with her post) or if you were just agreeing with it because it makes the silencer sound dodgy.

Of course you know, why would I not know? You were just trying to show me up but I'm not in the habit of trying to make things look dodgy. I may not be posting but I am on reading and thinking and my mind is open.
I discussed the silencer with CAroline over a year ago.

[Jane]

I studied memory at uni and although much of what you said is true, for big events people tend to remember the details quite well. DB seems to be trying too hard to convince the viewer, not only describing in detail but also using action to support his claim!

There are too many inconsistencies between individual statements and accounts vary between the three main witnesses, who seem unable to remember who was there and who did what. I understand that at the time they weren't supposed to know that the moderator was important, but that's NOT the way they tell it, it's like they knew from the start. RWB was supposed to have stated at the time 'the police better have that, put it in a bag' etc. David said he saw blood and paint at he scene in one statement but not in others and Ann, that it wasn't until they were around the table at the Eaton's farm. Ann said she didn't look at the silencer until they were back at her house but RWB mentions that she and DB had a good look at it at WHF. 

I think if we're going to question Jeremy's inconsistencies, (and there are lots), we should also consider the same of others. I will try and list these examples at some point this week to clarify.

Great post Caroline. I agree ENTIRELY that we can't turn a blind eye when others do the same as that which we accuse Jeremy of. Re the interview with DB, I wondered just how much was real clarity of thought compared to what he thought he thought -with the benefit of hindsight- years down the line. I recall thinking that he didn't look entirely comfortable, the arm appeared more draped for effect than a sign of ease.

[Jane]

So the DB/1 which was found to have blood on it was the same as the DRB/1,which was Bambers and checked for DNA in the 2002 appeal,were the same silencers ? No blood in DRB/1.

No wonder " Taff " Jones was disliked when he ordered blood-tests to be carried out by the relatives after the silencer debacle,as his suspicions grew when the bloodied one ( DB/1 ) was handed in AFTER Jeremy was arrested and kept until the end of September before being sent to the lab for blood,fibres and fingerprints. ?

How strange that RWB had EXACTLY the same blood group,etc,as Sheila. I wonder if he knew that beforehand--------A-EAP-BA-AK1-HP-2-1. 

There HAD to be around half a dozen silencers in that gun cupboard,as one size doesn't fit all.

Why would there HAVE to have been around half a dozen silencers in the gun cupboard, Lookout?

[guest154]

Of course you know, why would I not know? You were just trying to show me up but I'm not in the habit of trying to make things look dodgy. I may not be posting but I am on reading and thinking and my mind is open.
I discussed the silencer with CAroline over a year ago.

Not trying to show you up. I was trying to work out if you knew WHY Caroline finds it strange THAT officer didn't know who was there or if you were just agreeing with her.

But I think I got my answer.

Why would there HAVE to have been around half a dozen silencers in the gun cupboard, Lookout?

I think the fact that there wasn't, means that....there wasn't! 

Great post Caroline. I agree ENTIRELY that we can't turn a blind eye when others do the same as that which we accuse Jeremy of. Re the interview with DB, I wondered just how much was real clarity of thought compared to what he thought he thought -with the benefit of hindsight- years down the line. I recall thinking that he didn't look entirely comfortable, the arm appeared more draped for effect than a sign of ease.

Agree completely. We complain that supporters make excuses for Bambers behaviour and comments, so we can't do the same for the police or the relatives and as far as I can see, we don't.

[Adam]

Seems that former guilters are trying to justify their former support for Bamber. Trying to say the finding of the silencer was mysterious.

Not content with knowing who was inside WHF, people want to know who was actually in the room when the silencer was found. Even Bamber has never asked this.

However Bamber does look for any missing 'T' or difference in document numbers, to jump on. Which is what people are doing here by discussing minor changes in what was said in statements over 30 years regarding the silencer.

The judge thought there was only mysterious thing - Neville's phone call.

[guest154]

Seems that former guilters are trying to justify their former support for Bamber. Trying to say the finding of the silencer was mysterious.

Not content with knowing who was inside WHF, people want to know who was actually in the room when the silencer was found. Even Bamber has never asked this.

However Bamber does look for any missing 'T' or difference in document numbers, to jump on. Which is what people are doing here by discussing minor changes in what was said in statements over 30 years regarding the silencer.

The judge thought there was only mysterious thing - Neville's phone call.

To be fair though, Caroline has always had doubts over the silencer, no matter what side she's been on.

[lookout]

Why would there HAVE to have been around half a dozen silencers in the gun cupboard, Lookout?

I'd imagine that just one silencer wouldn't be enough if more than one worker was using a rifle at the same time.

[Caroline]

Seems that former guilters are trying to justify their former support for Bamber. Trying to say the finding of the silencer was mysterious.

Not content with knowing who was inside WHF, people want to know who was actually in the room when the silencer was found. Even Bamber has never asked this.

However Bamber does look for any missing 'T' or difference in document numbers, to jump on. Which is what people are doing here by discussing minor changes in what was said in statements over 30 years regarding the silencer.

The judge thought there was only mysterious thing - Neville's phone call.

Seems like you have to try an ruin any debate with your spiteful, childish BS! If you don't want to debate the point then go play in one of your already created threads and count the number of mysterious coincidences. That should keep you busy for a while! 

[maggie]

Seems like you have to try an ruin any debate with your spiteful, childish BS! If you don't want to debate the point then go play in one of your already created threads and count the number of mysterious coincidences. That should keep you busy for a while! 

 

[susan]

 

Hahahahaha I like it