Author Topic: What makes Bamber innocent?  (Read 348309 times)

0 Members and 84 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13705
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #3060 on: June 28, 2016, 11:34:PM »

It appears to be the Campaign Teams postulation based on fictitious claims.  ::)

You simply saying it is fictitious does not make it so.  8)

The former chairman of BAR Association who happens to be currently working on the case would not allow JB to publicly make such false claims in his name.

 

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13705
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #3061 on: June 29, 2016, 12:02:AM »
You are misquoting, RB said that SHEILA WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH LOADING THE RIFLE. You're dishonest David - completely dishonest. Instead of quoting what he actually said, you chose to post an inaccurate account, even though you must have seen his actual words but chose to post what suited your agender.

You have become obsessed but not because you think Jeremy is innocent, but because you think you might get something out of it. You're not even a supporter!!

Telling me what I think makes you look like an idiot, you can keep saying there is no evidence and misquote things to serve that purpose but your arguments fall flat every time and your dishonesty becomes more and more obvious which makes your comment about 'genuine evidence' laughable. You bend the truth to defend Jeremy but have nothing to support that Sheila was responsible - if you think her palm print on the bible makes her look guilty, then you are more deluded than I thought you were. Stain Jeremy's character? I think a lot of people got there before me on that one - he's a convicted murderer for gods sake and one that EVEN YOU can't say is innocent!  ::) ;D ;D

Let me make this plain for you and draw you a picture so that you can understand once and for all and that other members will be clear also - I first brought up the notion of the palm print, you cottoned onto it and thought you could use it to your OWN advantage. You quizzed me about it and used what I said (implications for the hand swabs etc.) as a BASIS for your report - you even included the dimensions of the bible from one of my posts. I made a guess when you asked me that question and the dimensions in your report are incorrect! I have PM's where you admitted "There is some truth to my accusations", even going so far as to suggest we collaborate! Like that would EVER be an option when I believe Jeremy is guilty!

I'm laughing at your last sentence - 'what you bring to the forum' you mean misquotes and twisting of the truth? And I'm not the only one who had noticed! If EVER you are called to be a witness at any appeal (like that's going to happen!) - your behaviour here will be brought into question and you will be discredited. I'd have thought you would have wanted to keep a low profile, given what you were 'supposedly' told but you have done nothing but brag and become ever more obsessed as the days go on.


Caroline you KNOW Mugford's testimony is false and you have demonstrated you UNDERSTAND why Mugfords testimony does not add up. Sure you now concede that not everything she sais is true, but only in order for you to appear somewhat honest and reasonable.

So this brings me to one very important question and its the one question you refuse to give a straight answer to because you know the true answer directly threatens the coherency and validity of the position you currently hold. Question - What is it that makes you believe Jeremy is guilty?


Since you have dedicated yourself so much in time and effort trying to persuade people that Jeremy is guilty. The forum is anticipating an enthralling answer  ::) its ok Caroline don't be shy  ;D



« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 12:03:AM by David1819 »

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33764
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #3062 on: June 29, 2016, 09:11:AM »
You simply saying it is fictitious does not make it so.  8)

The former chairman of BAR Association who happens to be currently working on the case would not allow JB to publicly make such false claims in his name.


As it must surely follow that you saying something is fact does not make it so.

It's incredibly naive and trusting of you to accept that all those working on Jeremy's team are real, authentic -and have control of Jeremy's actions- whilst holding the belief that all those against him are liars.

Offline sami

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #3063 on: June 29, 2016, 10:25:AM »

As it must surely follow that you saying something is fact does not make it so.

It's incredibly naive and trusting of you to accept that all those working on Jeremy's team are real, authentic -and have control of Jeremy's actions- whilst holding the belief that all those against him are liars.
here here well said jane :)

Offline sami

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #3064 on: June 29, 2016, 10:30:AM »

Caroline you KNOW Mugford's testimony is false and you have demonstrated you UNDERSTAND why Mugfords testimony does not add up. Sure you now concede that not everything she sais is true, but only in order for you to appear somewhat honest and reasonable.

So this brings me to one very important question and its the one question you refuse to give a straight answer to because you know the true answer directly threatens the coherency and validity of the position you currently hold. Question - What is it that makes you believe Jeremy is guilty?

thats a silly question,david,youve read enough posts of caroline's and others to know why they think jb is guilty.if not than the people on the forum  that have debated the case with you over months or years have been debating with a brick wall :)
Since you have dedicated yourself so much in time and effort trying to persuade people that Jeremy is guilty. The forum is anticipating an enthralling answer  ::) its ok Caroline don't be shy  ;D

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #3065 on: June 29, 2016, 10:51:AM »
'The mob' claimed Sheila's body was found upstairs in the bedroom, but we now know something the original court which tried this case did not know at the time of trial, 'she was confronted' downstairs in the kitchen, a fact supported by the cops own logs, and radio messages. Not only was it known by those at the scene that Sheila had been reportedly killed downstairs in the kitchen, but a police surgeon, a coroners officer, and high ranking detectives or police officers elsewhere were informed of the presence of a 'dead female' body downstairs in the kitchen. Of course, the prosecution and its witnesses did everything to conceal the truth about this highly important and significant part of the police investigation, because later on Sheila's body had ended up in the bedroom, becoming the fourth body upstairs, after police inside the farmhouse had already confirmed there had only been three bodies upstairs by 8.10am...

Bambers innocence was encapsulated in the outright truth of these circumstances...

Cops don't make such enormous mistakes, and nobody can realistically put the circumstances involving the movement of Sheila Caffells body, down as 'an error'. You can't mistake where five bodies were upon entry, downstairs and upstairs, and then because something went 'pearshaped' in the police operation inside the farmhouse, resulting in the body count becoming different downstairs and upstairs, decide to dismiss 'that' part of the operation which no longer fits where the five bodies ended up...

It was necessary in the circumstances of these events for the defence and for the court to be given access to all the police material gathered during that initial part of the police operation which took place inside the farmhouse between 7.30 and 8.10am. Forget about what took place inside the farmhouse after 'that' time. What we have is, during this period 'two bodies' downstairs in the kitchen, the body of 'one dead male' AND the 'body of one dead female'. One of these two bodies was being described as 'a murder', whilst the second body was described as 'a suicide'...

The smokescreen introduced by PC plod that he had made an error in wrongly identifying the body he had seen from his vantage point outside the kitchen window looking inward of the main kitchen itself, has no bearing whatsoever on the reporting of a second body that was present inside the kitchen once the body of Ralph Bamber  had been reported (the body of one dead male). If such a mistake had been made, cops would not then have gone on to report 'the body of one dead female (7.37am). There were clearly 'two bodies' downstairs in the kitchen by that stage (7.37am). This 'fact' was reaffirmed at 7.38am, by confirmation 'one dead male, one dead female'. So, here again we have admissible evidence that at precisely 7.37am, and 7.38am, that there had indeed been 'two bodies' downstairs in the kitchen, and both of these bodies could not have been a reference to the solitary body of Ralph Bamber because he was 'not a female', and his death could only be described as 'a murder'. By 8.10am, a 'further three bodies' were found 'upstairs', five dead in total, with an accompanying report that ' no police officers had been hurt', at 'that' stage...

Everything reported above was true, was admissible in evidence, but was deliberately withheld and concealed from the defence and the court, because the dastardly prosecution knew full well, that for this information and documentary evidence to have been disclosed, would effectively hand Bamber  the 'perfect alibi', in respect of murdering his sister. This is because the prosecution would then have to rely upon witnesses to give an account for how Sheila's dead body had managed to end up in the upstairs main bedroom with the rifle photographed on her body on the floor by the edge of the bed? Additionally, cops would have had to explain why all of them had made 'false witness statements' declaring that they had all come upon Sheila's body in the bedroom as described, when they hadn't?

Case would have been 'thrown out of court'...
"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 #3066 on: June 29, 2016, 11:19:AM »

Caroline you KNOW Mugford's testimony is false and you have demonstrated you UNDERSTAND why Mugfords testimony does not add up. Sure you now concede that not everything she sais is true, but only in order for you to appear somewhat honest and reasonable.

So this brings me to one very important question and its the one question you refuse to give a straight answer to because you know the true answer directly threatens the coherency and validity of the position you currently hold. Question - What is it that makes you believe Jeremy is guilty?


Since you have dedicated yourself so much in time and effort trying to persuade people that Jeremy is guilty. The forum is anticipating an enthralling answer  ::) its ok Caroline don't be shy  ;D

Oh come on!  ::) Don't try this BS on me. You are quite laughable. You don't have the first clue about what I know or think!

Get one thing straight! I'm not trying to persuade anyone of anything, I couldn't give a flying F what you or anyone else thinks. I'm not dedicated and spend far less time on here than you and a few others try to suggest because you think it would belittle me. Do your own time management and understand that I am less bothered about convincing anyone of anything than I am about people posting lies and misquotes and I hate people with an agender.

Why do I believe Jeremy is guilty? Too much circumstantial evidence against him, no evidence against Sheila (unless you would like to post some). He's guilty - end of!
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #3067 on: June 29, 2016, 11:22:AM »
You simply saying it is fictitious does not make it so.  8)

The former chairman of BAR Association who happens to be currently working on the case would not allow JB to publicly make such false claims in his name.

You really have sunk to the depths if you're posting stuff from the OS. I asked you were you were getting this stuff from and you didn't reply. I guess you were embarrassed! Take your own advice, you saying something, doesn't make it so!
Few people have the imagination for reality

guest2181

  • Guest
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #3068 on: June 29, 2016, 11:26:AM »
You posted some text from the Campaign Teams website (written by them) and presented it as being a direct quote from "Michael Turner appeal notes 2002".

You then used the "quoted" text to attempt to reinforce your arguments.

Whether the above was unintentional or not, I felt it important to correct your misjudgement.

You simply saying it is fictitious does not make it so.  8)

I didn't say it 'is' fictitious. I said (and you even quoted my post):

It appears to be the Campaign Teams postulation based on fictitious claims.  ::)

Which is an opinion, based largely on what has gone before. I did not suggest that you were required to subscribe to such an opinion.

The former chairman of BAR Association who happens to be currently working on the case would not allow JB to publicly make such false claims in his name.

Well that's an assumption on a number of different levels. The campaign team haven't actually  quoted Michael Turner QC at all, they simply added a reference suggesting that some information came from his notes, which particular bit of information, is however a mystery.

Michael Turner QC put forward a number of utterly ludicrous grounds in the 2002 appeal, which in the end he couldn't even continue to argue himself, as can be seen from the following extract from the 2002 appeal judgement:

Quote
170. As observed by Mr Temple, QC, who has represented the prosecution at this appeal, there was a stark contrast between the allegations made on behalf of the appellant in the opening of this appeal in the full glare of media publicity, and the case that Mr Turner, QC, on behalf of the appellant felt able to advance when the evidence had been examined. It should be understood, particularly since his closing remarks did not attract the same degree of media coverage, that the appeal in this regard is a very different one that we now have to consider than might have been anticipated from the opening. Some of the very serious allegations made against police officers were manifestly wrong, and Mr Turner has recognised that position by not pursuing such matters once the fact became apparent.

You no doubt think that Mr Turner's involvement in the case (if that is the case) somehow adds weight or reinforces an 'innocent Bamber' view, hence your reference to one of his former roles. It doesn't 'in my opinion' add or detract from either a guilty or innocent view.

The article linked below is worth a read. The following extracts seem to sum it up quite well:

Quote
Doesn’t he feel just as sick when he has helped a guilty man go free? “Of course I do. There are people who I’ve got off murder who have gone on to murder again. I feel s--- about that.

Quote
What if he realises halfway through a trial that his client is evil? “Whether I think my client is an evil individual or not is neither here nor there.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9716069/Devils-advocate-Michael-Turner-prepares-for-his-toughest-case.html

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13705
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #3069 on: June 29, 2016, 11:33:AM »
Oh come on!  ::) Don't try this BS on me. You are quite laughable. You don't have the first clue about what I know or think!

Get one thing straight! I'm not trying to persuade anyone of anything, I couldn't give a flying F what you or anyone else thinks. I'm not dedicated and spend far less time on here than you and a few others try to suggest because you think it would belittle me. Do your own time management and understand that I am less bothered about convincing anyone of anything than I am about people posting lies and misquotes and I hate people with an agender.

 ;D

You hate people with agenda's but it ok for you to have one?


Why do I believe Jeremy is guilty? Too much circumstantial evidence against him, no evidence against Sheila (unless you would like to post some). He's guilty - end of!

Circumstantial evidence you KNOW does not exist thus you fail to elaborate or explain. So that's it? two sentences is all you have to say? Not very convincing is it Caroline  ::)

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44120
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #3070 on: June 29, 2016, 11:49:AM »
Circumstantial evidence:

1:

Was there a motive - Several.

2:

Was there an opportunity - Yes.

3:

Was there an alibi - No.

4:

Did Bamber ring Julie before the police - Yes.

5:

Have there been other inheritance killers - Yes.

6:

Was there a way to WHF without being seen - Yes.

7:

Was a bike brought over just before the massacre - Yes.

8:

Was there a way into WHF through a window - Yes.

9:

Was there a way out and to lock a window from outside - Yes.

10:

Was 12pm - 2pm the perfect execution time - Yes.

11:

Was there a lethal weapon inside WHF - Yes.

12:

Are there just two suspects - Yes.

13:

Does the forensic evidence show it was not Sheila - Yes.

14:

Does the forensic evidence round the suspects to Jeremy  - Yes.

15:

Is a multiple frame attempt unprecedented - Yes.

16:

Did Bamber have an opportunity to dispose of evidence - Yes.

17:

Are there any reasons why Neville would call Jeremy - No.

18:

Did Bamber have better options, random stranger etc - No.

19:

Would the WHF dogs prevent a massacre or attempt - No.

20:

Did experts believe Sheila capable of such a murderous rage - No.

21:

Could Sheila have committed the massacre - No. 

22:

Have there been several failed appeals - Yes.

23:

Has anyone retracted or been proved to have lied - No.

24:

Was 12 - 2pm the only time scale option for Bamber  - Yes.

25:

Did Bamber party and go on two holidays soon after the massacre - Yes.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 11:59:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44120
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44120
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #3072 on: June 29, 2016, 11:53:AM »
Of course there is also the forensic evidence. A lot in the library.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #3073 on: June 29, 2016, 11:57:AM »
;D

You hate people with agenda's but it ok for you to have one?

Circumstantial evidence you KNOW does not exist thus you fail to elaborate or explain. So that's it? two sentences is all you have to say? Not very convincing is it Caroline  ::)

What agender do I have?

Circumstantial evidence doesn't exist? Now you really are in denial.

Yep only two sentences, what is the point in discussing anything with you? You're hell bent on arguing the case for innocence even though you don't even believe that yourself. You're doing so for your own benefit and to justify yourself.

Oh by the way, can't you read? I'm not interested in convincing anyone of any thing - east of all - YOU! Now perhaps you would like to detail the evidence that points to Sheila, other than her illness?
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: What makes Bamber innocent?
« Reply #3074 on: June 29, 2016, 12:22:PM »
'The mob' claimed Sheila's body was found upstairs in the bedroom, but we now know something the original court which tried this case did not know at the time of trial, 'she was confronted' downstairs in the kitchen, a fact supported by the cops own logs, and radio messages. Not only was it known by those at the scene that Sheila had been reportedly killed downstairs in the kitchen, but a police surgeon, a coroners officer, and high ranking detectives or police officers elsewhere were informed of the presence of a 'dead female' body downstairs in the kitchen. Of course, the prosecution and its witnesses did everything to conceal the truth about this highly important and significant part of the police investigation, because later on Sheila's body had ended up in the bedroom, becoming the fourth body upstairs, after police inside the farmhouse had already confirmed there had only been three bodies upstairs by 8.10am...

Bambers innocence was encapsulated in the outright truth of these circumstances...

The mob deceived the court...

The mob introduced evidence that was not properly documented, or the right precautions taken to guarantee its integrity...

The mob lied about the condition of Sheila' feet, and her hands...

The mob tampered with the original batch of crime scene ammution...

The mob merged different silencers into one...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...