What makes Bamber innocent?

[guest2181]

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

That's true.

He never did comment on this either:

The 2002 appeal judgement states the following:

52. The Bible found by Sheila Caffell's body, belonged to her mother and was normally kept in a cupboard to the right of her bed. It was examined for fingerprints. Many belonged to June Bamber and there were a small number of insufficient detail for comparison, save for one which appeared to have been made by a small child.

[sami]

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

yes i can agree with that

[David1819]

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.

If they were not identifiable why hide them? 

I'm going round in circles with a lying idiot.

A x xxxx xxxxx would be someone who tells the forum that photos of Sheila's feet are not Sheila's feet.... OH WAIT!

A x xxxx xxxxx would be someone who tells the forum that Julie is a credible witness when they are on record proving she is not a credible witness at all


http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4226.msg174907.html#msg174907

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3878.msg159566.html#msg159566

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4226.msg174658.html#msg174658
Fantastic post Neil - I think it speak volumes that even the most ardent guilty supporters can't bring themselves to defend the actions of Julie Mugford - Your own words


Caroline you are a xxxx!

[sami]

If they were not identifiable why hide them? 

A x xxxx xxxxx would be someone who tells the forum that photos of Sheila's feet are not Sheila's feet.... OH WAIT!

A x xxxx xxxxx would be someone who tells the forum that Julie is a credible witness when they are on record proving she is not a credible witness at all


http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4226.msg174907.html#msg174907

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3878.msg159566.html#msg159566

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4226.msg174658.html#msg174658
Fantastic post Neil - I think it speak volumes that even the most ardent guilty supporters can't bring themselves to defend the actions of Julie Mugford - Your own words


Caroline you are a xxxx!

i think the xxxxx is you david ,you dwell on peoples past ,the thing is they have cleared the wool from their eyes ,you havnt

[Caroline]

If they were not identifiable why hide them? 

A x xxxx xxxxx would be someone who tells the forum that photos of Sheila's feet are not Sheila's feet.... OH WAIT!

A xxx xxx xxxxx would be someone who tells the forum that Julie is a credible witness when they are on record proving she is not a credible witness at all


http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4226.msg174907.html#msg174907

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3878.msg159566.html#msg159566

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4226.msg174658.html#msg174658
Fantastic post Neil - I think it speak volumes that even the most ardent guilty supporters can't bring themselves to defend the actions of Julie Mugford - Your own words


Caroline you are a xxxx!

You're the xxxx! The documents you posted make your own argument null and void but you keep repeating them!

You posted a misquote of RWB's words to support your argument even thought you MUST have read what he actually said and chose to ignore it - that makes you dishonest and someone who is dishonest is a xxxx.

What is the point in posting stuff I wrote when I thought Bamber was innocent? I haven't denied I once thought that - everyone here knows that. You're just desperate because your argument SUCKS and you can't back it up!

By the way, I'm no fan of Julie Mugford, nor do I think she was 100% truthful and clearly what she said about the visit to the bank isn't the full truth. However, most of what she said was stuff she was told by Jeremy, so that can hardly be truthful but that's not down to her. He didn't tell her the full truth either. If you have to bend the truth to make a point, you have no point to make and you do that frequently. If you want to search through my posts, feel free - you never know, you might get enough to write another report! 

You're the one who got personal David - if you can't take it, don't dish it out. 

[Steve_uk]

That's true.

He never did comment on this either:

How heartbreaking that those little boys put their trust in God as they went to sleep that night..

[sami]

How heartbreaking that those little boys put their trust in God as they went to sleep that night..

very true steve,did he ever say words to the effect,i love my nephews and could never harm them

[Steve_uk]

very true steve,did he ever say words to the effect,i love my nephews and could never harm them

I can't remember him ever talking about them..

[sami]

I can't remember him ever talking about them..

just as i thought,innocent children used in a evil game of GREED

[sami]

PURE EVIL TO SHOOT 2 KIDS IN THE HEAD WHILE THEY SLEPT.I CANT THINK OF A WORSE CRIME

[David1819]

You're the xxxx! The documents you posted make your own argument null and void but you keep repeating them!

You posted a misquote of RWB's words to support your argument even thought you MUST have read what he actually said and chose to ignore it - that makes you xxxxxxxxx and someone who is xxxxxxxxx is a xxxx.

I am not misquoting anything. You are simply making up excuses to avoid finding a plausible alternative answer because you cant find one. You say I am a xxxx xxxx xxx xxx xxxxx simply to manipulate the forum members in the hope they wont listen to me. You cant debate me so you resort to tenuous smear xxxx xxxx xxxxxx against me instead.

What is the point in posting stuff I wrote when I thought Bamber was innocent? I haven't denied I once thought that - everyone here knows that. You're just desperate because your argument SUCKS and you can't back it up!

Oh no Caroline  The significance of posting what you have written in the past shows everyone here that you KNOW Julie Mugford has no credibility and you KNOW and FULLY UNDERSTAND in great detail why her testimony does not add up. Thus you KNOW the case against Jeremy is bogus  it is you that is the insidious one.

You know there is not a shred evidence that's why you post xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx, No substancial evidence worth the time of day. Just xxxxxxxxxx, xxxx and xxxxxxxxx to try and stain Jeremy's character and then diverting attention away from genuine evidence you don't like to discuss. There is certainly an underlying motive here, as you do not produce any valid reason as to why you believe Jeremy is guilty, Then when pressed on it you become evasive.

If you want to search through my posts, feel free - you never know, you might get enough to write another report! 

You're the one who got personal David - if you can't take it, don't dish it out. 

Still accusing me of stealing things you never thought of or never worked out  another xxxxxxxxxxx x xxxx xxxxxxx of yours

Your the one who got personal because what I bring the forum gets in the way of your xxxxxxxxxx xxx you have xxxxxxxxxxxx committed yourself to.

[Adam]

You have xxxx on here several times David. Most recently yesterday when trying to ridicule my post and deflect attention away from Bamber's dirty protest.

Prior to that you created you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough', xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxxxxxx to try to give it a tiny bit of gravitas. Then saying you couldn't disclose what it was because you knew it would be dismissed.

There are over a hundred pieces of forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. Which means it was Bamber as to suggest Neville phoned him is ridiculous. You agreed as you could only answer 6  of my recent 30 questions on Neville's mysterious phone call. Then there is the motives, opportunity and no alibi.

Julie's WS and testimony is 100% solid. To suggest she read AE's and RB's diaries, or colluded with them while also with Bamber for a month is again very weak. Suggesting she should have been wired up after splitting up with Bamber is something Mike or Lookout have not suggested  There is no way she would go as a lone wolf and try to frame an innocent Bamber one month after the massacre, just because she was perhaps jilted.

[David1819]

Julie's WS and testimony is 100% solid.

And the Earth is flat 

[mike tesko]

Fingerprints were found on several of the bullet cases, which were 'not' Jeremy Bambers, but partial fingerprints belonging to Sheila Caffell. The prints that were found did not contain sufficient ridge characteristics to warrant them being used in evidence, but cops were convinced that the results they did obtain had originated from Bambers sister. There still exist 14 original spent cartridge cases (MDF/100) at Huntingdon Lab' which contained these fingerprints. The information about the existence of these 14 cartridges at the Lab' came to light in 2004 when ballistic expert, 'RENSHAW' attended 'Birdwell Armoury', near Barnsley to carry out tests relating to 'expansion rates' of Eley .22 LR bullet cases fired in a series of .22 semi automatic type weapons, both with use of a Sound Moderator, and minus the same. RENSHAW was in charge at the Lab' at Huntingdon when Fletcher took control of the ballistics in 1985. RENSHAW stated in a report that he produced for Jeremy that it may be possible to obtain the required data regarding the expansion rates from 14 of the original cartridge cases still held at the lab'. Now, if this was / is true, it means that 14 cartridge cases in the batch of crime scene ammunition were 'tampered with', and swapped over, and that 'not all' the original cartridge cases from the shootings had in fact been destroyed. In other words, 14 of the original 24 / 25 bullet cases are still in existence, and everybody involved at the lab' with the crime scene ammunition, including cops, knew about 14 cartridge cases that were 'swapped over'...

Now, by anybodies standards, that can't be right, or lawful...

What we then find, after cops staged Sheila's body on the bedroom floor from the bed, is that they 'infer' that the two cartridge cases found alongside her body (DRH/1 and DRH/2) do 'not' have a single grain of 'white residue' upon them, from them having been exposed to 'superglue treatment' on the 23rd August 1985. Now, that is 'astonishing'...

Where are the original two cartridge cases (DRH/1 and DRH/2) which 'Ron' Cook fingerprinted using 'cynoacrylate fumes, on the 23rd August 1985?

[sami]

You have xxxx on here several times David. Most recently yesterday when trying to ridicule my post and deflect attention away from Bamber's dirty protest.

Prior to that you created you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough', xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxxxxxx to try to give it a tiny bit of gravitas. Then saying you couldn't disclose what it was because you knew it would be dismissed.

There are over a hundred pieces of forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. Which means it was Bamber as to suggest Neville phoned him is ridiculous. You agreed as you could only answer 6  of my recent 30 questions on Neville's mysterious phone call. Then there is the motives, opportunity and no alibi.

Julie's WS and testimony is 100% solid. To suggest she read AE's and RB's diaries, or colluded with them while also with Bamber for a month is again very weak. Suggesting she should have been wired up after splitting up with Bamber is something Mike or Lookout have not suggested  There is no way she would go as a lone wolf and try to frame an innocent Bamber one month after the massacre, just because she was perhaps jilted.

youve done tons of excellent posts adam,and made it so much easier for novices like me to find the facts on the case,sad to say as usual when the people cant argue with the facts you provide ,they resort to mockery ,like david's post above,good work keep it up