What makes Bamber innocent?

[mike tesko]

According to the ballistic expert, 'Malcolm Fletcher', he did not receive or have contact with the batch of crime scene ammunition, (25 bullets and 25 cartridge cases), until on and after the 20th September, 1985, but his (dated) signatures which are present on the lab' records, 'tells a completely different story'...

[mike tesko]

According to the ballistic expert, 'Malcolm Fletcher', he did not receive or have contact with the batch of crime scene ammunition, (25 bullets and 25 cartridge cases), until on and after the 20th September, 1985, but his (dated) signatures which are present on the lab' records, 'tells a completely different story'...

Lets deal with the 'GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS' of all the spent cartridge cases, that 'Fletcher' has put his name against by 'signing' the relevant lab' records, on each occasion, clearly dated...

DRH/1 - none residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 20th September, 1985 (good so far)

DRH/2 - none residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 20th September, 1985 (good so far)

DRH/3 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 20th September, 1985, (good so far)

(1) - DRH/4 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 13th September, 1985, (Oh, dear, Something went seriously wrong, here)...

(2) - DRH/6 - none residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 19th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...

(3) - DRH/7 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 19th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...

(4) - DRH/8 - none residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 18th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...

DRH/10 - none residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 20th September, 1985, (good)...

DRH/11 - none residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 20th September, 1985, (good)...

(5) - DRH/12 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 19th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...

(6) - DRH/16 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 19th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...

(7) - DRH/17 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 19th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...

(8) - DRH/18 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 19th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...

(9) - DRH/19 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 18th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...

(10) - DRH/20 - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 18th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...

(11) - DRH/39 (1) - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 13th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...

(12) - DRH/39 (2) - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 13th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...

(13) - DRH/37 - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 18th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...

(14) - DRH/38 - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 18th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...

(15) - DRH/36 - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 13th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...

(16) - DRH/41 - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 13th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...

(17) - DRH/43 - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 13th September, 1985...


What more can anybody say, other than, Jeremy Bamber is the victim of 'arguably' one of the worst 'miscarriages of justice' in the history of the 'Criminal Justice System...

[David1819]

It seems to me, that there are strong grounds for believing that there were 'two shooters' involved in these killings...

Don't make life harder for yourself Mike. 

[Caroline]

I am not misquoting anyone. You are nitpicking the semantics of what I post because you have no legitimate argument to put forward

Lets revise things (again)
Police discuss the importance of finding prints and discuss glue fumigation on the shell casings
https://s32.postimg.org/m0elnbuhh/fing1_001.jpg

Police find positive fingerprint results on the casings
https://s31.postimg.org/565oiymi3/fingerprintform.png

Police then denied ever doing this and never disclosed the information. why?

No you nitpick a sentence or two then bury your head in the sand. Now and then you pop your head out the sand to call me a pigeon or something, that's about it 

Semantics? It is NOTHING to do with semantics, RB said June told him that SHEILA WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH LOADING THE RIFLE. You suggesting she did is just dishonest and people will see that!

They discuss the importance of finding prints that's all! Had they been IDENTIFIED, they would have said so. Finding prints and identifying them are two VERY different things AND if they had identified them, they would be less likely to allow Cook to use superglue - they clearly did this to see if they could be enhanced for identification!

Positive prints (again) doesn't mean 'identifiable'

Police denied they were able to IDENTIFY the prints.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3782.msg152739.html#msg152739

You twist the sentences to suit your own ends - which makes you dishonest. I don't think you're in denial about Bambers guilt, I just don't think you care if he's guilty or not - David is working for David!

[mike tesko]

I have 'targeted' the evidence, which 'proves' that Jeremy 'was framed', in relation to these murders...

[mike tesko]

Lets deal with the 'GENERAL EXAMINATION RECORDS' of all the spent cartridge cases, that 'Fletcher' has put his name against by 'signing' the relevant lab' records, on each occasion, clearly dated...

DRH/1 - none residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 20th September, 1985 (good so far)

DRH/2 - none residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 20th September, 1985 (good so far)

DRH/3 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 20th September, 1985, (good so far)

(1) - DRH/4 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 13th September, 1985, (Oh, dear, Something went seriously wrong, here)...

(2) - DRH/6 - none residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 19th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...

(3) - DRH/7 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 19th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...

(4) - DRH/8 - none residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 18th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...

DRH/10 - none residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 20th September, 1985, (good)...

DRH/11 - none residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 20th September, 1985, (good)...

(5) - DRH/12 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 19th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...

(6) - DRH/16 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 19th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...

(7) - DRH/17 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 19th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...

(8) - DRH/18 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 19th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...

(9) - DRH/19 - positive residue - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 18th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...

(10) - DRH/20 - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 18th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...

(11) - DRH/39 (1) - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 13th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...


(12) - DRH/39 (2) - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 13th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...

(13) - DRH/37 - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 18th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...

(14) - DRH/38 - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 18th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...

(15) - DRH/36 - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 13th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...

(16) - DRH/41 - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 13th September, 1985, (Oh, dear), something went wrong, here)...

(17) - DRH/43 - Fletcher, signed this official document, on the 13th September, 1985...


What more can anybody say, other than, Jeremy Bamber is the victim of 'arguably' one of the worst 'miscarriages of justice' in the history of the 'Criminal Justice System...

The evidence which 'I' have uncovered is 'Overwhelming' - Cops were dishonest in the presentation of the evidence...

'Fletcher' has deceived the courts on '17 counts' relating to his involvement with the spent cartridge cases in this investigation, since he claims not to have received them to enable him to have made 'comparison tests' until on and after the 20th September, 1985, yet he clearly had dealings with 25 cartridge cases beforehand, which were 'all' successfully compared to test cartridges fired and ejected from the 'anshuzt rifle', 17 of which were successfully compared on dates preceding 20th September, 1975, for example, 17 successfully compared on dates ranging between and inclusive of, 13th, 18th and the 19th September, 1985...

[mike tesko]

The prosecutions, 'expert', was/is nothing no more, or no less, than nothing but a ''pathological liar'...

[mike tesko]

The prosecutions, 'expert', was/is nothing no more, or no less, than nothing but a ''pathological liar'...

'HE' has got 'huge secrets' which he is 'afraid', that might be exposed, damaging his reputation...

I am the person, who 'will bring him to his knees'...

[mike tesko]

'HE' has got 'huge secrets' which he is 'afraid', that might be exposed, damaging his reputation...

I am the person, who 'will bring him to his knees'...

I can't stand, 'CORRUPTION' at any level...

[David1819]

Semantics? It is NOTHING to do with semantics, RB said June told him that SHEILA WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH LOADING THE RIFLE. You suggesting she did is just dishonest and people will see that!

No I am not, I am saying such conversation claimed by RWB never took place. Your allegations are once again false! 

They discuss the importance of finding prints that's all! Had they been IDENTIFIED, they would have said so. Finding prints and identifying them are two VERY different things AND if they had identified them, they would be less likely to allow Cook to use superglue - they clearly did this to see if they could be enhanced for identification!

Positive prints (again) doesn't mean 'identifiable'

Police denied they were able to IDENTIFY the prints.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3782.msg152739.html#msg152739

This does not explain why they decided to deny ever finding any prints nor does that COLP document elaborate on the shell casings. Why hide the positive results and why deny ever getting positive results.

Why does RWB try to find ways to explain Sheila's prints on the shell casings

You twist the sentences to suit your own ends - which makes you dishonest. I don't think you're in denial about Bambers guilt, I just don't think you care if he's guilty or not - David is working for David!

Caroline your a very poor Judge of character . But then again if you cant provide adequate answers for the posts I guess all you can do is attack the person posting them, and that's what you are doing now   

[Caroline]

No I am not, I am saying such conversation claimed by RWB never took place. Your allegations are once again false! 



This does not explain why they decided to deny ever finding any prints nor does that COLP document elaborate on the shell casings. Why hide the positive results and why deny ever getting positive results.

Why does RWB try to find ways to explain Sheila's prints on the shell casings

Caroline your a very poor Judge of character . But then again if you cant provide adequate answers for the posts I guess all you can do is attack the person posting them, and that's what you are doing now   

It's only your opinion that the conversation didn't take place!

They didn't find any IDENTIFIABLE prints. Where is it denied that they found prints at all?

RWB said a lot of things, most of them you laugh at, why did he say Jeremy used a bike, wore a wet suit ...... etc? However, it does show that the conversation with June is likely to have happened and he is hedging his bets in case they did find Sheila's prints because of what June told him. If he wanted to make a story up that puts Sheila's prints on the bullets, he wouldn't have said she didn't want anything to do with it and that she did indeed load the magazine as Jeremy requested.

I'm a good judge of character and your posts are easy to rip apart  because you have rubber goal posts.

[David1819]

I'm a good judge of character and your posts are easy to rip apart  because you have rubber goal posts.

Oh Dear...

[Alias]

Oh Dear...

Made me laugh

[mike tesko]

It is important that we get the 'facts' right with regard to the handling of the batch of crime scene ammunition, for example, in 'Fletchers' case. Thus far, I have only dealt with the supposed batch of spent cartridge cases from the crime scene. In due course I will deal with all the 'bullets', and 'Fletchers' involvement with them...

For now though, let us see which particular spent cartridge cases the official lab' documents confirm 'Fletchers' involvement with prior to the 20th September, 1985?

[mike tesko]

It is important that we get the 'facts' right with regard to the handling of the batch of crime scene ammunition, for example, in 'Fletchers' case. Thus far, I have only dealt with the supposed batch of spent cartridge cases from the crime scene. In due course I will deal with all the 'bullets', and 'Fletchers' involvement with them...

For now though, let us see which particular spent cartridge cases the official lab' documents confirm 'Fletchers' involvement with prior to the 20th September, 1985?

He had involvement with 6 cartridge cases at the Lab' on the 13th September 1985, DRH/4, 36, 39(1), 39(2), 41 and 43...

He had involvement with 5 cartridge cases at the lab' on the 18th September 1985, DRH/8, 19, 20, 37 and 38...

He had involvement with 6 cartridge cases at the lab' on the 19th September 1985, DRH/6, 7, 12, 16, 17 and 18...