Author Topic: What makes Bamber innocent?  (Read 348295 times)

0 Members and 35 Guests are viewing this topic.

John

  • Guest
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #405 on: May 04, 2016, 07:30:PM »
It cannot bleed for a day from the upper most part of the body from the floor. You really are 'idiotic'. Stop, for a moment and think about what your saying. It's bonkers like your forum. What I will say in response to your nonsense is that I am 100% certain that any expert will back me up on this point. Now, if the wounds had been at the back of her neck, closest to the ground, that would be another matter. Your a complete fool for saying what your saying. How come, less than 10 minutes after 'that' image was taken, all the blood had 'coagulated, and turned 'dark looking'? Are you saying that its just a coincidence that she bled like that for over seven hours, and that 10 minutes after 'that' photograph was taken, that the blood suddenly decided to coagulate, all by itself, and the fact it did is just a remarkable coincidence? You forget - what about the female body downstairs, as per the police message log contents? A female which cannot have been dead, unless cops carried her body upstairs after they shot her, and plonked her body on the bed. A female, who supposedly committed suicide before 7.45am. Are you saying that cops made all this up for no particular reason? The problem the cops and brain dead people like you have got, is that by 8.10am, the body count downstairs and upstairs was two down, three up. Cops state that, not me. By the time PC Bird starts to take photographs at ten, the body count downstairs has changed to one, and changed to four upstairs. That is the problem the cops and people like you have got to come up with a legitimate explanation for. You are stuck in the myre of a fabricated account that cops only have themselves to blame for, and you are basically as thick as pig shit for believing the witness accounts, rather than the police message log accounts...

I stated A BODY can bleed of its own volition even after death has occurred for a period of 24 hours.  Sheila was dead for several hours before being photographed.  All victims would still have been bleeding to some degree by the time police broke in. According to your logic maybe the police shot everybody?  :)
« Last Edit: May 04, 2016, 08:40:PM by John »

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #406 on: May 04, 2016, 07:31:PM »
deffo la la land.  :)

...and as for communications from Bamber or his lawyers, Tesko stopped getting them a long time ago.

You fool...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

John

  • Guest
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #407 on: May 04, 2016, 08:37:PM »
You fool...

Its true but isn't it?   Your days of speaking for Bamber are long gone.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2016, 08:37:PM by John »

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #408 on: May 04, 2016, 08:48:PM »
I stated A BODY can bleed of its own volition even after death has occurred for a period of 24 hours.  Sheila was dead for several hours before being photographed.  All victims would still have been bleeding to some degree by the time police broke in.

Not Sheila's body, in that same position for over seven hours. The bullet wounds are situated as far as possible from the bedroom floor to where they are placed on her neck. Nobody could bleed for very long laid in the position cops put her in, that PC Bird photographed her in. Blood would settle at the lowest part of the body in relation to how the body is laid upon the floor. I don't believe that Sheila's neck was 'topped up' with blood for over seven hours to enable her to be bleeding like 'that' after 10 O'clock from wounds at the top surface of her neck (when compared against and in relation to the floor)...
« Last Edit: May 04, 2016, 09:28:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #409 on: May 04, 2016, 09:08:PM »
Its true but isn't it?   Your days of speaking for Bamber are long gone.

I can speak for myself, I will leave him to believe that Sheila shot herself downstairs with the gun from the bedroom window, whilst it was still resting at the window. That, could not have happened. Why would I want to speak on behalf of somebody who has set his mind on something that could not possibly have occurred?  Sheila was shot downstairs but not by the anshuzt rifle. So, which gun fired 'that' first shot across her neck, which caused cops to report her death as a suicide before 7.45am? To make matters worse, the ballistic expert, then grows a whole bullet from a badly fragmented bullet, and then finds that this miraculous bullet 'had' been fired from the anshuzt rifle, after all. The mans a crackpot, since how could a rifle that appears at the bedroom window by 7.15am, have fired any shot downstairs that wounded Sheila, if it was always at the bedroom window when cops reported Sheila as being dead downstairs in the kitchen at 7.37am, and 7.38am? On both of these occasions, cops reported having found Sheila dead in the kitchen after they had already reported dad being dead. So, don't hit me with the PC Collins garbage. What he says about mistaking dads body for Sheila', and how he realised his mistake when he entered the kitchen only accounts for one body, there were two bodies in the kitchen, and the second body was clearly described as a dead female, after the body of a dead male had been mentioned. Oh, I don't mind not having to speak for J, but he can't stop me talking about the injustices in his case, neither can you, or anybody else, providing that I believe what I have said, and what I am saying to be true. So, put that in your pipe and smoke it. Don't you worry about me, concentrate on yourself and your own ideas and beliefs. I know exactly what happened inside whf which is something which you obviously do not...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #410 on: May 04, 2016, 09:27:PM »
I stated A BODY can bleed of its own volition even after death has occurred for a period of 24 hours.  Sheila was dead for several hours before being photographed.  All victims would still have been bleeding to some degree by the time police broke in. According to your logic maybe the police shot everybody?  :)

Look, Sheila could not have been bleeding for over seven hours laid in that position for the whole duration of those seven hours, because when somebody dies all their blood settles at the lowest part of their bodies in relation to the floor, or the ground, because of 'gravitational forces'. We already know, because of the displacement of the plugged clots of blood which appear on different parts of her neck, that she had not been laid in that position she has been photographed in, her head has moved at least twice by reference to the position of the 'detached' clots. Blood in her head would settle at the back of her head closest to the floor. Blood in her torso would settle in the lowest part of her torso. Blood in her legs would settle in the lowest part of her legs. Blood in her arms would settle in the lowest part of her arms, and blood in her neck would settle at the lowest part of her neck. Therefore, I find it hard to imagine why after over seven hours by your estimation of Sheila being laid like 'that', and by that I mean as shown in the image we are talking about, blood should still be running out of a wound at the highest point on her neck? Now if the wound had been almost touching the floor, I could understand blood might still be leaking until a long time afterwards because in that example the exit wound via which the blood would be escaping from the body would be very close to the lowest part of their body against the floor. But your theory that Sheila was laid like that with the wounds at the highest point of her neck in relation to the lowest part of her neck against the floor beggars belief, and logic...
« Last Edit: May 04, 2016, 09:32:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #411 on: May 04, 2016, 09:40:PM »
By heck, not only is the blood inconsistent with somebody having already been dead for over seven hours, bleeding from a wound on the top surface of the neck when logic tells us that all the blood in all parts of a persons dead body sinks to the lowest parts of the body, but hey, this deceased lady ain' even got any signs of 'purplish mottling' anywhere on her neck or face...
« Last Edit: May 04, 2016, 10:17:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 20872
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #412 on: May 04, 2016, 09:53:PM »
By heck, not only is the blood inconsistent with somebody having already been dead for over seven hours,bleeding from a wound on the top surface of the neck when logic tells us that all the blood in all parts of a persons dead body sinks to the lowest parts of the body, but hey, this deceased lady ain' even got any signs of 'purplish mottling' anywhere on her neck or face...
If Caroline were here she would point out the dried blood also present. By the way, where is Caroline?

John

  • Guest
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #413 on: May 04, 2016, 10:38:PM »
Look, Sheila could not have been bleeding for over seven hours laid in that position for the whole duration of those seven hours, because when somebody dies all their blood settles at the lowest part of their bodies in relation to the floor, or the ground, because of 'gravitational forces'. We already know, because of the displacement of the plugged clots of blood which appear on different parts of her neck, that she had not been laid in that position she has been photographed in, her head has moved at least twice by reference to the position of the 'detached' clots. Blood in her head would settle at the back of her head closest to the floor. Blood in her torso would settle in the lowest part of her torso. Blood in her legs would settle in the lowest part of her legs. Blood in her arms would settle in the lowest part of her arms, and blood in her neck would settle at the lowest part of her neck. Therefore, I find it hard to imagine why after over seven hours by your estimation of Sheila being laid like 'that', and by that I mean as shown in the image we are talking about, blood should still be running out of a wound at the highest point on her neck? Now if the wound had been almost touching the floor, I could understand blood might still be leaking until a long time afterwards because in that example the exit wound via which the blood would be escaping from the body would be very close to the lowest part of their body against the floor. But your theory that Sheila was laid like that with the wounds at the highest point of her neck in relation to the lowest part of her neck against the floor beggars belief, and logic...

Do read my post again.  I never said blood would be running out of her wounds.

John

  • Guest
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #414 on: May 04, 2016, 10:44:PM »
By heck, not only is the blood inconsistent with somebody having already been dead for over seven hours, bleeding from a wound on the top surface of the neck when logic tells us that all the blood in all parts of a persons dead body sinks to the lowest parts of the body, but hey, this deceased lady ain' even got any signs of 'purplish mottling' anywhere on her neck or face...

It is not inconsistent.  Blood will trickle from a wound for quite a while after death.  Any disturbance of the body will have an effect on that flow.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2016, 10:49:PM by John »

Offline Reader

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2456
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #415 on: May 04, 2016, 11:14:PM »
All telephone lines were shared unless . . .
That's incorrect. It's irrelevant anyway, as a telephone line (even a party line) cannot be used for two calls at the same time. This changed slightly with the introduction of digital telephone exchanges, but those exchanges didn't support party lines.

BT had a way of billing for the business calls made to the business run from inside the farmhouse, known as, ' N & J Bamber, Ltd'. The phone located in the 'upstairs office' was for business use, and purposes only.
The exchange couldn't know which telephone was using the line, so the billing included all calls, with no separation of business calls from non-business calls. For tax purposes, non-business usage was estimated.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44120
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #416 on: May 05, 2016, 05:52:AM »
I have received a communication, yes...

https://youtu.be/mmCART1vcCo

Mike who was the communication from ? Is Jeremy's conviction about to be quashed ?
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #417 on: May 05, 2016, 10:42:AM »
That's incorrect. It's irrelevant anyway, as a telephone line (even a party line) cannot be used for two calls at the same time. This changed slightly with the introduction of digital telephone exchanges, but those exchanges didn't support party lines.

Due to the fact that DCI Harris used the kitchen phone, between 8.15am to 8.30am, and 'he' left the handset of 'that' phone off its cradle on the kitchen worktop, it is not certain that dad used 'that' same phone to message J, (3.25am), or to call cops (3.26am). Ralph could have used the upstairs office phone to make those calls. The fact is that the panic button (transponder device) was activated at 3.29am precisely, which eventually caused the occupants of CA07 to be deployed to the incident five to six minutes later. By the time dad activated the panic button, he had already had ample time to pass the details to cops which got wrote into the contents of the 3.26am phone log. Once that information was imparted by dad to cop, he simply put the handset down on its receiver (whichever phone he used) and went about the business of trying to control or to try and prevent what as it turned out was a life or death situation, and it was then that dad activated the transponder device at 3.29am. There is no proof that at the time the panic button got activated at precisely 3.29am, that any handset on any phone inside that house was off its cradle at that time. We can't rely upon the fact that the kitchen phone was off its cradle at that time because of DCI Harris' use of it later. We know that by 3.56am that one of the phones was off it's hook because in dads phone log message account that fact is recorded there towards the foot of the log. Dad did not pass that information recorded there somebody else did. Similarly dad did not pass the information regarding the son contacting cm with a similar message, since that part of the log was passed to Malcolm Bonnet from PC West. For all we know, dad back at the farmhouse cancelled the call (3.26am) to cops. So that he could activate the panic button because once he realised that it would take 45 minutes or so for a response vehicle to get to pages lane, Tolleshunt D'arcy from Chelmsford, he could have thought someone closer might be able to react far more quickly to the activation of the panic alarm, as opposed to the phone call he had just made. This is what transpired as it turned out because the occupants of CA07 were deployed to the scene earlier, before J made his own call to cops, and before Chelmsford deployed the occupants of CA05 in response to J's as it were, follow up call. Once Ralph had activated the panic button (3.29am) he may well have tried to use one of the phones again in a different part of the house but been unable to do so because he had activated the alarm which was still active by 3.56am, and beyond...

We know that the operator was able to use an 'emergency' option open to her when checking a telephone line, to eavesdrop the immediate vicinity of the phone in question, and after this option had been exercised she reported to cops that the handset of the phone had been 'left' off its cradle. She wasn't aware how many phones there were inside the farmhouse. She did not know that there were four phones in the farmhouse, or that only two of them were plugged in. The two plugged in, were the one in the kitchen, and the one in the upstairs office. At one stage, she checked the line and reported to cops that she could hear a dog barking in the background. Just as a matter of interest when cops entered the farmhouse they discovered 'Crispy' the pet dog cowling under the parents bed in the upstairs bedroom (closer to the upstairs office phone, than the downstairs kitchen phone). What is a striking feature of the 'open line' status of the phone when being checked by the operator, was that she was 'unable' to confirm that the open line was connected to any other telephone anywhere else. What this suggests is that the phone in question, the one left off the hook, had simply been lifted off its cradle, and then for whatever reason left off the hook, without the caller dialing out. At the earliest stage (around 3.56am) it is not even known which of the two active phones at the farmhouse had its handset off the hook? Somewhere, mid cop operation, the phone line suddenly became 'engaged'. This is significant because up until then when the operator had been carrying out checks on the line, she had reported that the line was 'open' with the phone off the hook and she could hear a dog barking in the background. The fact that the phone line suddenly became 'engaged', tells a story of its own. Somebody who was still alive inside the farmhouse, had done something with the phone that had 'changed' its status. From 'that' point onward, cops got the operator to patch the connection through to them back in the control room. We then find, that the phone line eventually reverts back to an 'open line' status again. From inquiries I have made over the past two and a half decades into this 'mysterious'  change in the phones status, I am led to believe that the 'unplugging' of telephones from the socket can produce this effect. Considering that there were four phones at the farm, with by the end of play only two phones plugged in, and one of these had been potentially plugged in at the kitchen socket, when it seemingly belonged upstairs in the bedroom, it appears to be a good argument for somebody who was alive inside the farmhouse having 'unplugged' all the phones, or alternatively, that 'someone from inside the farmhouse was having a conversation with someone using the phone. It may not be just a coincidence that in one of the police message logs, at an entry timed '5.25am, its states that ' firearm officers are engaged in a conversation with a person from inside the farmhouse'...

Having said all of this, about the different phones that were in the farmhouse, at the end of the day only two phones were plugged in, open line status, engaged tone status, a word now about the use of these 'transponder type' panic button devices being used by the Regional Crime Squads, and the security services back in August 1985, did not require the use of a telephone wire. The signal was transmitted over the air and the 'black box' type control device could either be 'battery powered', or fed from the mains. In the transponders used during the surveillances carried out on me between 1985 and 1991, the tracking devices cops fitted beneath two family cars were 'battery' fed - the signals emitted from these black boxes were picked up by other equipment fitted to three different surveillance vehicles which received the signal from the transponder they had fitted to one of my cars, and by plotting the signal on a map through 'triangulation' they were supposed to be able establish the exact location at all times the operation was ongoing. Panic alarms in use at that time, could be operated by phone line, or by 'transponder' method, where the black control box was simply plugged in at the mains, and communicated 'directly' to the nearest manned police station. The nearest 24 hour manned police station to whf was Witham police station. I just want to say a little bit more about the type of 'transponder' box used at whf at the time of the shootings. Portable panic buttons allowed dad and mum to roam about the house, or outside in the grounds of the farmhouse, which continually updated the transmitter as to their whereabouts providing they were carrying the 'portable devices' with them at all times. What I have found out is 'astonishing' regarding the 'transponder' device panic alarm fitted at the scene of this tragedy. The most important aspect is that it was 'activated' at 3.29am. This convinces me that by that stage, and not a moment sooner, 'did the shooting start'. Nobody knows whether dad or mum activated the portable device. The most likeliest guess would be that dad did it, what with mum shot in bed. But I could be wrong. I believe the shooting started at 3.29am, which means that when dad made the 3.25am call to J, nobody had been shot by that stage or dad would have said something to J regarding that fact. However, by the time dad called cops at 3.26am, things appear to have started to deteriorate...
« Last Edit: May 05, 2016, 11:13:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #418 on: May 05, 2016, 11:17:AM »
When dad was speaking to cops (3.26am) he didn't actually tell cops that his daughter had shot anyone by that stage, but reading between the lines of the content of his message, you can sense a build up with potentially devasting consequences. Within a couple of minutes of dad making 'that' call, the portable alarm was activated. This must surely be linked to the shots starting to get fired...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #419 on: May 05, 2016, 11:23:AM »
When dad was speaking to cops (3.26am) he didn't actually tell cops that his daughter had shot anyone by that stage, but reading between the lines of the content of his message, you can sense a build up with potentially devasting consequences. Within a couple of minutes of dad making 'that' call, the portable alarm was activated. This must surely be linked to the shots starting to get fired...

Witham police station received the activation signal of the panic alarm from the farmhouse, at 3.29am. The reason nobody responded to it immediately was because there was nobody present at that point, the only three cops on duty at that station that night were Saxby, Myall and Bews, who were at that stage out dealing with another job. Their absence from the police station at Witham being confirmed 'independantly' by J who tried contacting them there before 3.29am, he got no response, so he then had called his girlfriend Julie (3.30am), she told him to go back to bed...
« Last Edit: May 05, 2016, 11:25:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...