Author Topic: What makes Bamber innocent?  (Read 348702 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #480 on: May 07, 2016, 11:01:AM »
But the 'conspiracy of Hillsboro' was immense, not only involving cops themselves, but home secretaries and a Prime Minister, and a Coroners court, the cover up went right through the system from bottom to top, the right honorable gentleman this, and the right honorable gentleman that. The bottom line in the Bamber case, is that when the shit started to hit the fan, with relatives poking their noses into cop affairs helped by PC Robert Carr (Bobbie), cops found themselves in the myre because 'they had tampered with the crime scene', and 'they had moved the bodies of the adult victims about, using them like props in a stage production', and eventually it was 'the cops who staged Sheila's death scene in the bedroom'. The solution was for the cops to 'take the path of least resistance', in the situation they suddenly found themselves in. Relatives were 'baying' for Jeremy's blood, and cops jumped merrily onto the bandwagon. Nothing complicated about any of it. It was a question of switching the responsibility for staging Sheila's body, onto Jeremy's shoulders. Now which part don't you understand?

Yes, it was immense but nothing like this - the amount of people involved (some independently) would have to be far greater and for what? There was far more at stake at Hillsborough, there was nothing at stake i the Bamber case.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48661
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #481 on: May 07, 2016, 11:11:AM »
 " Sheila was scared of her mother ". Since June had put the thought of Sheila being a " Devil's Child ", things went downhill for every member of the Bamber family.
Much has been said and written about Sheila's " psychosis ",but June too had been psychotic and had been taking a myriad of of various medications for her own mental health issues.

Diagnosed psychotics by their nature,are very unpredictable.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #482 on: May 07, 2016, 11:26:AM »
" Sheila was scared of her mother ". Since June had put the thought of Sheila being a " Devil's Child ", things went downhill for every member of the Bamber family.
Much has been said and written about Sheila's " psychosis ",but June too had been psychotic and had been taking a myriad of of various medications for her own mental health issues.

Diagnosed psychotics by their nature,are very unpredictable.

So are psychopaths - especially the ones that have murder in mind.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48661
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #483 on: May 07, 2016, 11:39:AM »
Tsk. MOST Psychopaths aren't murderers and MOST Murderers aren't psychopaths.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #484 on: May 07, 2016, 11:49:AM »
Tsk. MOST Psychopaths aren't murderers and MOST Murderers aren't psychopaths.

Tsk - Do you have a source for this claim Lookout?

Some one who decides to kill 5 members of his family simply to inherit early, is most certainly a psychopath!
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #485 on: May 07, 2016, 12:10:PM »
In a nutshell, basically that's what it would mean for Jeremy to be innocent. The cast involved would be massive in order to maintain 'the secret' and also many police officers would have independently decided to lie, withhold information and frame Jeremy even before the scene was discovered. It would be too far fetched even for a work of fiction and we're being asked to believe it actually happened.

No, it wouldn't...

I myself have been on the receiving end of corruption and dishonesty by a few bad apple cops. It does not involve everybody else being in on it, as you are saying. All it takes is one bent cop, or one group of bent cops, and everybody else who becomes part of the prosecutions case is carried along on the back of the fabrication, or that dishonesty. What you end up with, is the sniggering bad apple cop, or group of cops, chuckling amongst themselves, because all the other cops, and prosecution witnesses really believe that their contribution to the case is 100% genuine, and truthful. I can provide many examples in my own cases spanning six years when I was considered to be a low life career criminal, but instead I will talk in terms of J's case. OK, let's assume, that David Boutflour found a silencer at the scene on Saturday, 10th August, 1985, but instead of Peter Eaton handing it over to DS 'Stan' Jones on the evening of Monday, 12th August, 1985, Boutflour retains possession of it, until Jeremy gets arrested on the first occasion, 7th September, 1985, or there about. Let's assume, that once J is in custody being interviewed by cops, that David and the other relatives have been talking amongst themselves, fuelled by Robert Boutflours hatred of J. What happens is, David gets his sister, 'Annie' to hand over various exhibits that David had removed from the cupboard in the den at the farmhouse on the previous month ( let's say, 10th August, 1985). So amongst these items, is the silencer that David had kept possession of for over a month, before he gets his sister to hand everything of possible interest to DC Oakey, on the 11th September, 1985.  Putting those facts to one side for the moment, imagine that prior to David arranging for his sister, 'Annie' to hand the silencer, and the other stuff over to DC Oakey , that the relatives were aware that J would be appearing in court in a day or so, charged with the burglary at Osea Road, Camp Site, an offence which involved Julie Mugford, as his 'accomplice', and that J would be applying for bail, and was requesting sureties. All the relatives 'turned him down', they weren't about to help J get bail. And, at around this general time, there was a specific conversation that I would like to introduce you all to, between Annie and David. It went along the lines that they weren't going to help him get bail, because they wanted him locked up. It was 'then' that David said to Annie, ' don't worry, I've got something up my sleeve'. I kid you not, this is what David said to his sister. How do I know this? Well, I know this because Annie was always jotting down notes on pieces of card, and guess what? She recorded what her brother had said to her on 'that' occasion. So, what was it, what was 'this something' that David Boutflour had up his sleeve, which would help put or 'keep J locked away in prison' behind bars?

On an occasion after Annie handed over to DC Oakey, the silencer, and everything else, on the 11th September, 1985, David contacts the police, to tell them that 'he has found the silencer to the gun'...
« Last Edit: May 07, 2016, 12:32: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 #486 on: May 07, 2016, 12:35:PM »
I mean, its a bit late in the day, for David to be phoning cops up, to tell them that he has found 'the silencer to the gun'...

A 'month' after cops are supposed to have 'already had possession of it'...

Oink, oink, oink...
"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 #487 on: May 07, 2016, 12:38:PM »
Let's develop this topic a little further, to demonstrate the 'ramifications' of David Boutflour contacting cops on the 12th September, 1985, to ' inform them that he has found the silencer', to 'the gun'...

Now, where have I heard that term, 'the gun', before?

Oh, yes, in the telephone call dad made to J at 3.25am...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #488 on: May 07, 2016, 12:40:PM »
No, it wouldn't...

I myself have been on the receiving end of corruption and dishonesty by a few bad apple cops.
It does not involve everybody else being in on it, as you are saying. All it takes is one bent cop, or one group of bent cops, and everybody else who becomes part of the prosecutions case is carried along on the back of the fabrication, or that dishonesty. What you end up with, is the sniggering bad apple cop, or group of cops, chuckling amongst themselves, because all the other cops, and prosecution witnesses really believe that their contribution to the case is 100% genuine, and truthful. I can provide many examples in my own cases spanning six years when I was considered to be a low life career criminal, but instead I will talk in terms of J's case. OK, let's assume, that David Boutflour found a silencer at the scene on Saturday, 10th August, 1985, but instead of Peter Eaton handing it over to DS 'Stan' Jones on the evening of Monday, 12th August, 1985, Boutflour retains possession of it, until Jeremy gets arrested on the first occasion, 7th September, 1985, or there about. Let's assume, that once J is in custody being interviewed by cops, that David and the other relatives have been talking amongst themselves, fuelled by Robert Boutflours hatred of J. What happens is, David gets his sister, 'Annie' to hand over various exhibits that David had removed from the cupboard in the den at the farmhouse on the previous month ( let's say, 10th August, 1985). So amongst these items, is the silencer that David had kept possession of for over a month, before he gets his sister to hand everything of possible interest to DC Oakey, on the 11th September, 1985.  Putting those facts to one side for the moment, imagine that prior to David arranging for his sister, 'Annie' to hand the silencer, and the other stuff over to DC Oakey , that the relatives were aware that J would be appearing in court in a day or so, charged with the burglary at Osea Road, Camp Site, an offence which involved Julie Mugford, as his 'accomplice', and that J would be applying for bail, and was requesting sureties. All the relatives 'turned him down', they weren't about to help J get bail. And, at around this general time, there was a specific conversation that I would like to introduce you all to, between Annie and David. It went along the lines that they weren't going to help him get bail, because they wanted him locked up. It was 'then' that David said to Annie, ' don't worry, I've got something up my sleeve'. I kid you not, this is what David said to his sister. How do I know this? Well, I know this because Annie was always jotting down notes on pieces of card, and guess what? She recorded what her brother had said to her on 'that' occasion. So, what was it, what was 'this something' that David Boutflour had up his sleeve, which would help put or 'keep J locked away in prison' behind bars?

On an occasion after Annie handed over to DC Oakey, the silencer, and everything else, on the 11th September, 1985, David contacts the police, to tell them that 'he has found the silencer to the gun'...

Yes, I personally know someone who was fitted up. However, in this instance, we have many people being accused of being part of the conspiracy - to name a few; West, Bonnett, Bews, Jones, Hammersley, Davidson, Cook, Venezis, the family, Ainsley, the raid team who entered WHF ...... and that's just to name a few. Each one of these people have been accused of taking an active role in the conspiracy; some even before the bodies were discovered. Yes, people get fitted up or a conviction might be 'helped along' - however, with someone as cunning as Jeremy it's takes a thief to catch one!
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #489 on: May 07, 2016, 12:57:PM »
Let's develop this topic a little further, to demonstrate the 'ramifications' of David Boutflour contacting cops on the 12th September, 1985, to ' inform them that he has found the silencer', to 'the gun'...

Now, where have I heard that term, 'the gun', before?

Oh, yes, in the telephone call dad made to J at 3.25am...


That matter aside, it quite simply does not make any sense of the known facts relating to the handing over of a silencer by Peter Eaton on the evening of 12th August, 1985, to cops. This being a silencer that was taken to the lab' at Huntingdon on the 13th August, 1985, for the attention of Glynis Howard, who by all accounts found 'human blood' to be present in the vicinity of the silencers aperture. She hands back this silencer to 'Ron' Cook who by his own testimony apparently kept the silencer in question upon his person at all times during the following consecutive 17 days and nights, by carrying it around in his 'grubby' jacket pocket. Still, further, he fingerprints this silencer on the 15th and the 23rd August, 1985. He dismantles the said silencer, photographs what he has done with. Rebuilds it, and then screws the rebuilt silencer, directly onto the thread on the end of the anshuzt rifles barrel, and photographs this also. Cook then submits the rebuilt silencer back to the lab' at Huntingdon on the 30th August, 1985, for the attention of the ballistic expert, Malcolm Fletcher, to examine it. You may well remember that the cops were a bit concerned with the condition of the silencer at that stage, because bullets that were being 'test fired' via it were disintegrating or becoming badly fragmented...

How odd...

So, what I would like to know, is why were experts at the lab' on all the occasions prior to David calling up cops on the phone to tell them that he has found the silencer which belongs to 'the gun' on 12th September, 1985? Seems to be something dodgy been going on there for a start, because lab's are not supposed to accept or receive items which are not properly bagged, and documented. So, for a start we have got Glynis Howard examining a silencer on the 13th August, 1985, that she was 'not entitled' to be examining it, because the finder of it, had not yet contacted the police to tell them that he had found it...
« Last Edit: May 07, 2016, 01:01:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48661
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #490 on: May 07, 2016, 01:25:PM »
Tsk - Do you have a source for this claim Lookout?

Some one who decides to kill 5 members of his family simply to inherit early, is most certainly a psychopath!






 But it WASN'T Jeremy ! He wasn't the psychotic one in the family ! Nor the narcissistic psychopath,nor the one who'd claimed to be a part of the " Devil's child/ren ". Nor the one who was found committing a "deadly sin " in the fields of WHF. Nor the one who was jealous of anyone talking to his father,or Neville's attention being drawn to someone other than himself which was a three-way thing discounting Jeremy.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #491 on: May 07, 2016, 01:28:PM »
We know that on the 11th September, 1985, when Annie Eaton handed everything over to DC Oakey, that these exhibits were all given Annie's exhibit references, ( either AE or CAE) but which were later 'altered' to DRB exhibits (David Robert Boutflour). But the funny thing was, is that when Peter Eaton handed over the silencer to 'Stan' Jones, on the evening of the 12 the August 1985, that that silencer was never given Peter Eaton's exhibit reference...

Have I missed something regarding this?
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #492 on: May 07, 2016, 01:28:PM »





 But it WASN'T Jeremy ! He wasn't the psychotic one in the family ! Nor the narcissistic psychopath,nor the one who'd claimed to be a part of the " Devil's child/ren ". Nor the one who was found committing a "deadly sin " in the fields of WHF. Nor the one who was jealous of anyone talking to his father,or Neville's attention being drawn to someone other than himself which was a three-way thing discounting Jeremy.

I see, so having sex with your future husband in a field is worse than robbing the family business? Strange view of morality. Jeremy has 'form' Sheila didn't. Jeremy showed his disdain for his family when he stole from them, when he said he hated them and finally - when he killed them.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44132
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #493 on: May 07, 2016, 01:33:PM »
https://youtu.be/mmCART1vcCo

Lookout you must come up with something substantive on Jeremy's innocence.

Mike came up with his Youtube video last year about EP framing Jeremy, which he said he has received conmunication about.  And he also said he has passed his picture of Sheila on the bed, to his legal advisors,  around 18 months ago.

David has received a reply from Jeremy on his 'forensic evidence breakthough'.

Trudie is posting weekly vlogs.

Jeremy needs you to step up. Just posting on here does nothing.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2016, 01:42:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48661
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #494 on: May 07, 2016, 01:38:PM »
I see, so having sex with your future husband in a field is worse than robbing the family business? Strange view of morality. Jeremy has 'form' Sheila didn't. Jeremy showed his disdain for his family when he stole from them, when he said he hated them and finally - when he killed them.





C'mon,who,in the family ranted about sex before marriage being a cardinal sin ? Then carrying on preaching about moralities to ONE person for the rest of their short lives ? Sheila was NEVER allowed to forget about the way she'd conducted herself------------she was bound to blow.

This murder WASN'T about money as the media et al would have you believe. If someone got on your nerves so much that you had to kill them--------you would.No question about it if your mind was unbalanced.