What makes Bamber innocent?

[Caroline]

Hope an idiot can see that in his own phone log, PC West does not make any mention of J's dad having a collection of shotguns and .410's, but that information appears as 'if' spontaneously noted in Bonnets log. Now can any idiot explain to me how such a 'glaring' inconsistency could have arisen?

Unless you can explain why West didn't tell Jeremy his father had just called, the whole thing falls flat. Your informant argument doesn't work Mike. John, who is an ex cop is saying the same thing and he would know. Jeremy wasn't an informant, he would be a concerned citizen and worried about his dad. However, in the end game, West would have known Jeremy was innocent and so would the others - to suggest they framed an innocent man - when they had the perfect suspect - is ridiculous.

[mike tesko]

He was questioned at trial. People can argue that he called but it would never stand up to scrutiny. I told Jeremy this in my last reply to him, he wrote back saying that the logs we have seen, aren't the real logs. You couldn't make this up!

Neither PC West, nor Malcolm Bonnet were questioned about the entirely different contents in the two logs, on the footing that they were supposed to be the same log, albeit timed differently. The fact that these two different versions of phone log exist has nothing whatsoever to do with J being responsible for at least one version (3.26am) of them, so what he says about the contents of the 3.26am log contents, is no more the truth than anybody else can say about it. J is not god, and he does not know everything about his own case. In fact some of the things posted on his official site are ludicrous, such as that Sheila shot herself downstairs in the kitchen - what with? A broom handle?

[Caroline]

Neither PC West, nor Malcolm Bonnet were questioned about the entirely different contents in the two logs, on the footing that they were supposed to be the same log, albeit timed differently. The fact that these two different versions of phone log exist has nothing whatsoever to do with J being responsible for at least one version (3.26am) of them, so what he says about the contents of the 3.26am log contents, is no more the truth than anybody else can say about it. J is not god, and he does not know everything about his own case. In fact some of the things posted on his official site are ludicrous, such as that Sheila shot herself downstairs in the kitchen - what with? A broom handle?

No J isn't god, quite the opposite but I have to agree with at LEAST the above comment!!

[mike tesko]

Unless you can explain why West didn't tell Jeremy his father had just called, the whole thing falls flat. Your informant argument doesn't work Mike. John, who is an ex cop is saying the same thing and he would know. Jeremy wasn't an informant, he would be a concerned citizen and worried about his dad. However, in the end game, West would have known Jeremy was innocent and so would the others - to suggest they framed an innocent man - when they had the perfect suspect - is ridiculous.

First of all, any person providing information to the police, is regarded as an ' informant', whether it be by telephone, in writing, or in person face to face. OK, I will humour you, 'a witness'. Cops don't tell witnesses, what other witnesses have told them', its unethical for obvious reasons...

[mike tesko]

No J isn't god, quite the opposite but I have to agree with at LEAST the above comment!!

Well, its the truth, Sheila 'did not' shoot herself downstairs in the kitchen. But if he wants to pursue that further let him, because it won't get himn anywhere. The anshuzt rifle was at the bedroom window from 7.15am, and still there when cops entered the kitchen. So, how did she manage to shoot herself with 'that' gun?

[Caroline]

First of all, any person providing information to the police, is regarded as an ' informant', whether it be by telephone, in writing, or in person face to face. OK, I will humour you, 'a witness'. Cops don't tell witnesses, what other witnesses have told them', it unethical for obvious reasons...

I once reported a break in, the cop told me it had already been reported. Telling someone that the incident is being 'dealt with' isn't giving any thng away - however, I maintain that West would have told Jeremy his father had JUST called and there was no reason to knowingly frame an innocent man.

[mike tesko]

First of all, any person providing information to the police, is regarded as an ' informant', whether it be by telephone, in writing, or in person face to face. OK, I will humour you, 'a witness'. Cops don't tell witnesses, what other witnesses have told them', it unethical for obvious reasons...

As you can see, by reference to the last entry on PC Wests 3.36am message log, he refers to 'J' as the 'INFORMANT'...

'Informant requested to attend the scene'...

[Jane]

As you can see, by reference to the last entry on PC Wests 3.36am message log, he refers to 'J' as the 'INFORMANT'...

'Informant requested to attend the scene'...

Hardly surprising given that at that stage he'd had no other contact with Jeremy. "Informant" is simply  generic.

[Steve_uk]

He was questioned at trial. People can argue that he called but it would never stand up to scrutiny. I told Jeremy this in my last reply to him, he wrote back saying that the logs we have seen, aren't the real logs. You couldn't make this up!

Where are the real logs?

[Caroline]

Where are the real logs?

Never never land?

[John]

Yes, I might be a Muppet, but at least I am not an idiot like you...

You're so transparent. 

[John]

He was questioned at trial. People can argue that he called but it would never stand up to scrutiny. I told Jeremy this in my last reply to him, he wrote back saying that the logs we have seen, aren't the real logs. You couldn't make this up!

They all make it up as they go along Caroline but not a single scrap of any proof that Bamber could be innocent.  Just myths and innuendos.

[John]

Unless you can explain why West didn't tell Jeremy his father had just called, the whole thing falls flat. Your informant argument doesn't work Mike. John, who is an ex cop is saying the same thing and he would know. Jeremy wasn't an informant, he would be a concerned citizen and worried about his dad. However, in the end game, West would have known Jeremy was innocent and so would the others - to suggest they framed an innocent man - when they had the perfect suspect - is ridiculous.

Totally!

[John]

Neither PC West, nor Malcolm Bonnet were questioned about the entirely different contents in the two logs, on the footing that they were supposed to be the same log, albeit timed differently. The fact that these two different versions of phone log exist has nothing whatsoever to do with J being responsible for at least one version (3.26am) of them, so what he says about the contents of the 3.26am log contents, is no more the truth than anybody else can say about it. J is not god, and he does not know everything about his own case. In fact some of the things posted on his official site are ludicrous, such as that Sheila shot herself downstairs in the kitchen - what with? A broom handle?

OMG...I actually agree with you on that one.  Nice to see you are beginning to see the light.

[John]

First of all, any person providing information to the police, is regarded as an ' informant', whether it be by telephone, in writing, or in person face to face. OK, I will humour you, 'a witness'. Cops don't tell witnesses, what other witnesses have told them', it unethical for obvious reasons...

Don't be a silly Billy or should that be Mikey.  The police use that tactic all the time to extract information.