Author Topic: David1819 - forensic breakthrough claim  (Read 68684 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: David1819 - forensic breakthrough claim
« Reply #300 on: April 07, 2016, 09:44:AM »
Maggie
I posted yesterdayabout Adam he has to be sarcastic all the time instead of being gracious and giving David a chance and waiting to see what this evidence is. He seems to be annoyed that he has nothing to post different :))

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: David1819 - forensic breakthrough claim
« Reply #301 on: April 07, 2016, 10:04:AM »
Maggie
I posted yesterdayabout Adam he has to be sarcastic all the time instead of being gracious and giving David a chance and waiting to see what this evidence is. He seems to be annoyed that he has nothing to post different :))
I am surprised at some people's attitude, this is a debating forum, surely we should be objective in our thoughts about this case. Some seem to take David's discovery personally.
I do understand to the family and friends of the victims, it will always be personal which is why the legal system exists.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2016, 10:12:AM by maggie »

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: David1819 - forensic breakthrough claim
« Reply #302 on: April 07, 2016, 10:10:AM »
I am surprised at some people's attitude, this is a debating forum, surely we should be objective in our thoughts about this case. Some seem to take David's discovery personally.
I do understand to the family and friends of the victims, it is very personal.

Maggie I agree lets not knock David as being an attention seeker lets wait and see what he has found after reading NGB's post again I would be inclined to think David's find has some credibility.  We shall see.

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: David1819 - forensic breakthrough claim
« Reply #303 on: April 07, 2016, 10:11:AM »
I sense a whiff of sour grapes in some posts.
As far as I can see, David has found something which caught his attention. On further investigation it turned out to be something of interest which may go towards proving or casting doubt on JB's innocence/guilt or may not .
Sensibly he consulted with ngb to confirm he has something of value which needs to be looked at.
I cannot understand what the problem is, was he supposed to ignore what he found because it may not agree with his or others point of view?
I say good for David, surely all avenues should be explored, accepted or dismissed.

Maggie
I posted yesterdayabout Adam he has to be sarcastic all the time instead of being gracious and giving David a chance and waiting to see what this evidence is. He seems to be annoyed that he has nothing to post different :))

I am surprised at some people's attitude, surely we should be objective in our thoughts about this case. Some seem to take it as a personal insult.

I'm unsure why Adam is being singled out?

David's claims, although supported by NGB to a degree, are not claims of innocence nor are they yet to be put to the test by experts in the field.

The CCRC made it clear that they would not be entertaining future submissions from Bamber or as NGB states; they have set the bar high. I believe they may know more than we do.

http://www.ccrc.gov.uk/ccrc-statement-on-the-provisonal-decision-in-the-case-of-jeremy-bamber/

We should indeed by objective in our thoughts about the case and rightly so IMO that many do not believe David has looked at the bigger picture.


« Last Edit: April 07, 2016, 10:23:AM by Stephanie »
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: David1819 - forensic breakthrough claim
« Reply #304 on: April 07, 2016, 10:16:AM »
Maggie I agree lets not knock David as being an attention seeker lets wait and see what he has found after reading NGB's post again I would be inclined to think David's find has some credibility.  We shall see.

I do not believe posters are knocking David when they suggest he may be an attention seeker. Let's face it, he won't be the first to have made claims he had found something to clear Bambers name. I cannot see what the problem is if posters think this. That is their right surely? Especially those posters who have a lot of knowledge in relation to the case.

I don't agree with you Susan. I'm not a lawyer but I do have experience and know the lengths some appellants will go to con people.
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: David1819 - forensic breakthrough claim
« Reply #305 on: April 07, 2016, 10:17:AM »
Jeremy does not know what happened that night inside the farmhouse, he only knows that his dad called him, and had time to inform him, then the line went dead. He knows that at the time of this call, that his father was still alive. He knows because he has no reason to disbelieve what his dad said to him, that somewhere in the farmhouse, Sheila had gone berserk with a gun. He did not know if by that stage his sister had shot anybody. He was asked to come to the farm quickly, but chose not too. If Jeremy had made the story up about the phone call, why would he introduce that line, ' come, quickly', and then deliberately choose not to attend immediately?  Instead, he tried to phone his dad back, but got the engaged tone. He tried again, and again, but still kept getting the engaged tone. So, because Jeremy knew that his dad was the Chairman of the With am Magistrates Bench, Jeremy tried to phone With am police station, but got no response. He then called his girlfriend Julie Mugford, to tell her that there was something wrong at the farm. Then he looked up the telephone number for Chelmsford police station, and called them, and repeated to them what his dad had told him. There was some sort of a delay which gave the impression that the police at Chelmsford already knew that something was amiss at the farmhouse. Unbeknown to Jeremy his dad had already telephoned the police at 3.26am, to tell them that ' my daughter has got hold of one of my guns', etc. This had the further effect (unbeknown to Jeremy at that stage) of the occupants of CA07 being despatched to the scene before Jeremy had made his own call to the police at 3.36am. At the end of Jeremy's call to Chelmsford police station, which ended at 3.45am, or there about, the police told Jeremy to make his way to the farmhouse. Jeremy enquired of PC West whether or not the police would pick him up from his cottage and take him to the farmhouse, but he was told to make his own way there in his own car, because police had already been dispatched to the incident and were effectively minutes away from arriving there. Rather reluctantly, Jeremy was forced to attend the scene by his own motion. He left his cottage at 9 Head Street, Goldhanger, Tollershunt D'Arcy, at just after 3.45am and arrived at the scene at 3.52am. On the route to the farmhouse a police car with flashing blue lights overtook him on the way to the farmhouse. These were the occupants of CA07 who had been despatched 10 minutes or slightly more, earlier. The police inside this patrol car arrived in pages lane at around 3.48am, it had taken them 13 minutes to get from With am police station, to the farmhouse. In comparison, it had taken Jeremy around 7 minutes to get from his cottage in Head Street, Goldhanger, to the farmhouse. One thing of note, which needs to be mentioned, and that is before police told Jeremy to make his own way to the farmhouse, they advised Jeremy not to approach the farmhouse alone, should he arrive there ahead of the police, but to wait nearby until police get there...

None of these vital details were recorded in Jeremy's 3.36am call log...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: David1819 - forensic breakthrough claim
« Reply #306 on: April 07, 2016, 10:26:AM »
I'm unsure why Adam is being singled out?

David's claims, although supported by NGB to a degree, are not claims of innocence nor are they yet to be put to the test by experts in the field.

The CCRC made it clear that they would not be entertaining future submissions from Bamber or as NGB states; they have set the bar high. I believe they may know more than we do.

We should indeed by objective in our thoughts about the case and rightly so IMO,  many do not believe David has looked at the bigger picture.
I am not aware I have singled Adam out by name I used his quote because I felt it was a good example.
If Susan has singled out Adam it is her prerogative on this occasion.
Adam is well known for singling posters out in his posts on the forum, he is far from a victim.
Many can believe what they like but it is my opinion that 'many' have no idea what size picture David has or hasn't looked at.
While it is fair enough to voice concern Imo some are overreacting but that is just my opinion.
I am well aware of the CCRC's position on this case and have no fixed thoughts either way. It is highly likely they do know far more than we know.


Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: David1819 - forensic breakthrough claim
« Reply #307 on: April 07, 2016, 10:28:AM »
I do understand to the family and friends of the victims, it will always be personal which is why the legal system exists.

And as it stands today the legal process is that Bambers conviction stands. There have only been claims made in relation to future submissions, that's not the same as the CCRC saying they are once again looking into the case.

I cannot speak for the victims family members but can speak from my own experiences and how claims of innocence made by the guilty damages not only genuine cases but the legal system as a whole and all those who represent it.
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: David1819 - forensic breakthrough claim
« Reply #308 on: April 07, 2016, 10:33:AM »
Jeremy does not know what happened that night inside the farmhouse, he only knows that his dad called him, and had time to inform him, then the line went dead. He knows that at the time of this call, that his father was still alive. He knows because he has no reason to disbelieve what his dad said to him, that somewhere in the farmhouse, Sheila had gone berserk with a gun. He did not know if by that stage his sister had shot anybody. He was asked to come to the farm quickly, but chose not too. If Jeremy had made the story up about the phone call, why would he introduce that line, ' come, quickly', and then deliberately choose not to attend immediately?  Instead, he tried to phone his dad back, but got the engaged tone. He tried again, and again, but still kept getting the engaged tone. So, because Jeremy knew that his dad was the Chairman of the With am Magistrates Bench, Jeremy tried to phone With am police station, but got no response. He then called his girlfriend Julie Mugford, to tell her that there was something wrong at the farm. Then he looked up the telephone number for Chelmsford police station, and called them, and repeated to them what his dad had told him. There was some sort of a delay which gave the impression that the police at Chelmsford already knew that something was amiss at the farmhouse. Unbeknown to Jeremy his dad had already telephoned the police at 3.26am, to tell them that ' my daughter has got hold of one of my guns', etc. This had the further effect (unbeknown to Jeremy at that stage) of the occupants of CA07 being despatched to the scene before Jeremy had made his own call to the police at 3.36am. At the end of Jeremy's call to Chelmsford police station, which ended at 3.45am, or there about, the police told Jeremy to make his way to the farmhouse. Jeremy enquired of PC West whether or not the police would pick him up from his cottage and take him to the farmhouse, but he was told to make his own way there in his own car, because police had already been dispatched to the incident and were effectively minutes away from arriving there. Rather reluctantly, Jeremy was forced to attend the scene by his own motion. He left his cottage at 9 Head Street, Goldhanger, Tollershunt D'Arcy, at just after 3.45am and arrived at the scene at 3.52am. On the route to the farmhouse a police car with flashing blue lights overtook him on the way to the farmhouse. These were the occupants of CA07 who had been despatched 10 minutes or slightly more, earlier. The police inside this patrol car arrived in pages lane at around 3.48am, it had taken them 13 minutes to get from With am police station, to the farmhouse. In comparison, it had taken Jeremy around 7 minutes to get from his cottage in Head Street, Goldhanger, to the farmhouse. One thing of note, which needs to be mentioned, and that is before police told Jeremy to make his own way to the farmhouse, they advised Jeremy not to approach the farmhouse alone, should he arrive there ahead of the police, but to wait nearby until police get there...

None of these vital details were recorded in Jeremy's 3.36am call log...

This is merely your opinion Mike.
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: David1819 - forensic breakthrough claim
« Reply #309 on: April 07, 2016, 10:41:AM »
I am well aware of the CCRC's position on this case and have no fixed thoughts either way. It is highly likely they do know far more than we know.

Putting aside what the CCRC may or may not know and indeed presuming they know nothing more than many of us.

Many of us have formed an opinion regarding this case and have stuck by our findings. Then David comes along making claims he's got something big.

Neil is cautious but I am convinced it will get Jeremy back to the court of appeal.

However I can understand why those who have not seen what I have cannot appreciate it.  :-\

Should debate of guilt seize because of David's claims?

David chose to make his claims public, therefore David should IMO have the courage of his convictions.

David chose to ignore many questions posed to him and indeed David seemed concerned when he was criticised? Does this suggest David's belief in his claims aren't very strong?
« Last Edit: April 07, 2016, 11:14:AM by Stephanie »
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6670
Re: David1819 - forensic breakthrough claim
« Reply #310 on: April 07, 2016, 10:48:AM »
Yeah I kinda get all of that, people certainly can't comment on something that they haven't seen, well at least not with any authority.

NGB's view on something is perhaps of interest but hardly anything more, he doesn't have a good track record in this case of his belief of 'grounds for appeal' coming to fruition.

The 2012 submission was a strong case, compelling, almost a dead cert. In fact it wasn't going to go to another appeal, the charges were simply going to be dismissed. The CCRC decided otherwise and NGB then declared that the tests were incomplete. Clearly it was the CCRC's fault for dictating a deadline.

I don't actually believe NGB thinks Jeremy is innocent but rather he thinks there is a legal argument against his convictions.

I'm certainly not calling NGB out in any way or asking him to explain his position, nor indeed do I have any intention of being derisive towards him and I hope this isn't taken as such. We all have our opinions, I'm sure he'd be the first to agree.  :-\

Regarding David's "new" evidence, I'm of the opinion that it's nothing of the sort, it may be another angle or 'Mikeism' theory which hasn't previously been presented, but highly subjective and requires the reader to have a leap of faith in order to entertain.

I don't buy the secrecy for the benefit of reducing the CPS's ability to prepare a rebuttal, that sounds somewhat delusional to me. It also appears to me that David is desperate for recognition and fame, why else boast about something which he has decided not to disclose?

I believe that this will all amount to nothing, time will tell, but how long do we give it.

Can somebody remind me in a years time and we'll reassess.

I am sure I never said the words highlighted in blue Hartley.  I agree that I believed that the submissions made by Simon McKay had a good chance of success but the CCRC decided otherwise.  I am generally cautious in my predictions, particularly in this case. 


Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: David1819 - forensic breakthrough claim
« Reply #311 on: April 07, 2016, 10:53:AM »
This is merely your opinion Mike.

No, its not, this is what Jeremy's evidence was, and is...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: David1819 - forensic breakthrough claim
« Reply #312 on: April 07, 2016, 11:14:AM »
Putting aside what the CCRC may or may not know and indeed presuming they know nothing more than many of us.

Many of us have formed an opinion regarding this case and have stuck by our findings. Then David comes along making claims he's got something big.

Should debate of guilt seize because of David's claims?

David chose to make his claims public, therefore David should IMO have the courage of his convictions.

David chose to ignore many questions posed to him and indeed David seemed concerned when he was criticised? Does this suggest David's belief in his claims aren't very strong?
No reason at all for debate of guilt to cease, I am not aware I have suggested any such thing.
I just find some people's reactions to David's disclosure surprising but that's just my opinion. Maybe I'm not as involved with the case as some, it's an interesting development although at the moment it hasn't developed very far. I am sure we will hear more information some time in the future.
Got loads to do, back later

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: David1819 - forensic breakthrough claim
« Reply #313 on: April 07, 2016, 11:16:AM »
What a horrible nasty thread and to think that those who see JB guilty not long ago said that the likes of myself would be hopping mad and still looking towards innocence if/when found guilty again.
 Well the opposite has happened in that because there's a chance of JB's appeal happening,it's those who say guilty are the ones who are kicking off !!  WHY ??

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: David1819 - forensic breakthrough claim
« Reply #314 on: April 07, 2016, 11:16:AM »
No reason at all for debate of guilt to cease, I am not aware I have suggested any such thing.

lol I realised after I posted I'd made an error. Thanks for pointing it out Maggie  ;D ;D
« Last Edit: April 07, 2016, 11:16:AM by Stephanie »
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"