What makes Bamber innocent?

[David1819]

Where would we be without our sharp-eyed scrutineers?

Oh Dear...

[sami]

The above means nothing to you because of your zealotry and stonewalling

Hartley posted that form to try and prove they never found prints on the bible because it its not listed on there even tho we now know they did check it later.


As for prints on the bible I think Sheila may have been caught 'red handed' 

zealotry n stonewalling,WHERE'david david david i believe your getting a bit hot under the collar

[David1819]

Is this where your argument comes from David? 

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7266.msg343547.html#msg343547

Wrong (Again)

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2546

[David1819]

From Wikipedia.


The Police Complaints Authority (PCA), was an independent body in the United Kingdom with the power to investigate public complaints against the Police in England and Wales as well as related matters of public concern. It was formed in 1985, replacing the Police Complaints Board and was then itself replaced by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) in April 2004.


Get you're facts right. Or did you think I wouldn't check ?

Anyway Bamber made his 'dirty protest' after not getting what he wanted. Which Bamber has admitted to.

Independent Police Complaints Commission still did not exist until 2004. Whatever existed before then is not the IPCC

[Caroline]

Independent Police Complaints Commission still did not exist until 2004. Whatever existed before then is not the IPCC

Adam wasn't talking about IPCC - YOU mentioned them when you tried to ridicule his post with your laughing Ricky Gif (which is getting a bit old now).

When in August 1992 the Police Complaints Authority dismissed Jeremy's concerns over the way the original investigation was handled by Essex Constabulary, he joined five other inmates in Franklin, Durham in wrecking their cells and pasting the words “FREE BAMBER HE IS INNOCENT” in excrement on the walls.

It seems that the 'independent' Police Complaints Authority, 7 years later, thought the police handled the investigation correctly

[Caroline]

The above means nothing to you because of your zealotry and stonewalling

Hartley posted that form to try and prove they never found prints on the bible because it its not listed on there even tho we now know they did check it later.


As for prints on the bible I think Sheila may have been caught 'red handed' 

Ha, ha!! You're the zealot!! Desperate to find ANYTHING which might show Bamber to be innocent - you have no proof that police denied they tested the bullets for fingerprints. In fact, you have posted documents in which they have admitted they DID. They simply found no identifiable prints either on the casings or the bible. However, the prints on the bible mean nothing so your report (for all your boasting) means nothing.

[Caroline]

Wrong (Again)

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2546

Given that Holly (on the red forum) has been discussing this in some depth, I'd say you got it from her - you're good at doing that. Oh don't tell me - you didn't know she had discussed it? 

[David1819]

Given that Holly (on the red forum) has been discussing this in some depth, I'd say you got it from her - you're good at doing that. Oh don't tell me - you didn't know she had discussed it? 

Nope new to me. Id say your losing your marbles tho 

[David1819]

have no proof that police denied they tested the bullets for fingerprints.

DS Gilbert report on Bamber enquiry  2000
"On the 24th March 2000, I attended HQ fingerprints and looked through the file kept there that relates to the BAMBER enquiry. I was able to ascertain the full extent of the fingerprint search at various scenes that were relevant to this enquiry. What was clear was that there was no record of the spent cartridges that had been seized from White house farm, Tolleshunt D'Arcy having been searched for fingerprints"



I'm going round in circles with a xxxxxxx

[guest2181]

Hartley posted that form to try and prove they never found prints on the bible because it its not listed on there even tho we now know they did check it later.

Oy!!!! Xxx xxxx xxx xxxxxx!!

I didn't try to prove anything one way or the other, merely showed you that there were alternative possibilities when you claimed something was a fact.

[David1819]

Oy!!!! xx xxx xxx xxxxxx!!!

I didn't try to prove anything one way or the other, merely showed you that there were alternative possibilities when you claimed something was a fact.

You said it was not on the results list therefore not checked.. (A reasonable assumption).   And I replied not necessarily

[guest2181]

You said it was not on the results list therefore not checked.. (A reasonable assumption).   And I replied not necessarily

No David. You posted this image:



Claiming it to be evidence that Sheila's fingerprints were found on the bible.

Like Sheila's fingerprints found on the bible?

I then posted this document:



Which is the same type of form, listing a number of items, however, not all items listed were found to have fingerprints.

My reasoning was that what you posted, could simply have referred to a form which listed a number of items, one of them being the bible. The bible then may or may not have been found to have contained relevant fingerprints.

I am not trying to prove one thing or another, merely suggested that the evidence you were using to reinforce your assertions, was at best, a bit flimsy.

......................................................................

Feel free to name drop me if you think it adds weight to your posts, but please quote me accurately. 

[Caroline]

DS Gilbert report on Bamber enquiry  2000
"On the 24th March 2000, I attended HQ fingerprints and looked through the file kept there that relates to the BAMBER enquiry. I was able to ascertain the full extent of the fingerprint search at various scenes that were relevant to this enquiry. What was clear was that there was no record of the spent cartridges that had been seized from White house farm, Tolleshunt D'Arcy having been searched for fingerprints"



I'm going round in circles with a xxxxxxx 

I'm going round in circles with a x xxxx xxxxx.

You have posted documents that show they admit to testing for prints! What you haven't been able to show, is that they got identifiable prints.

By the way, post the document that the above quote you keep posting, comes from.

[Caroline]

No David. You posted this image:



Claiming it to be evidence that Sheila's fingerprints were found on the bible.
I then posted this document:



Which is the same type of form, listing a number of items, however, not all items listed were found to have fingerprints.

My reasoning was that what you posted, could simply have referred to a form which listed a number of items, one of them being the bible. The bible then may or may not have been found to have contained relevant fingerprints.

I am not trying to prove one thing or another, merely suggested that the evidence you were using to reinforce your assertions, was at best, a bit flimsy.

......................................................................

Feel free to name drop me if you think it adds weight to your posts, but please quote me accurately. 

David makes a lot of claims and assumptions none of them have any weight!

[David1819]

David makes a lot of claims and assumptions none of them have any weight!

Your getting me mixed up with yourself