Key Evidence which was Kept from Jeremy Bamber, his Legal team, and the court

[scipio_usmc]

Isn't it rather misleading to state that the Police took the moderator right away.. It shows you haven't done as much research or read many of Mike's posts on the subject.

No not misleading at all. Police were notified by the family that they had the items. Police went and got the moderator on August 12 but didn't take the remaining items until September.

[scipio_usmc]

By the way wasn't that rather an exclusive election at the start of this thread? From what I can make out only one person voted..

Mike voted then closed the vote on purposes to prevent us from spoiling his poll.

[lookout]

You have no idea if Sheila actually said that or not it is hearsay only, and whether she said it or not has no bearing on the evidence that proves she didn't commit the murders.

Sheila said it alright. It's just that you and others would rather not admit that it came from the two most truthful women ( guilters words ) involved in the case---------Ann Eaton and Barbara Wilson.

[Jane]

Sheila said it alright. It's just that you and others would rather not admit that it came from the two most truthful women ( guilters words ) involved in the case---------Ann Eaton and Barbara Wilson.

The key to the"mystery" MAY lay in WHEN the words were said, ie: Where they said after her FIRST hospitalization or her SECOND?

[lookout]

The key to the"mystery" MAY lay in WHEN the words were said, ie: Where they said after her FIRST hospitalization or her SECOND?

All the more reason it SHOULD have been given an airing in court,whenever it was said. We at least know it wasn't AFTER the event when diaries were scurriedly written.

[Jane]

All the more reason it SHOULD have been given an airing in court,whenever it was said. We at least know it wasn't AFTER the event when diaries were scurriedly written.

Surely such would be tantamount to the revealing someone's previous crimes in court prior to the jury's decision. It would be thought to be prejudicial.

[lookout]

Surely such would be tantamount to the revealing someone's previous crimes in court prior to the jury's decision. It would be thought to be prejudicial.

So ? It should have been disclosed to the defence and the jury,whether the person was deceased or not.It should have been made part of the case.

[Jane]

So ? It should have been disclosed to the defence and the jury,whether the person was deceased or not.It should have been made part of the case.

As I said, It goes back to WHEN it was said. IF it was said between hospitalizations, it could have been deemed that Sheila was still unwell because ANOTHER hospitalization was required, following which, well OR NOT, she was deemed to be such, and such a remark would have been seen as a throw away remark.

[lookout]

Speaking of prejudice,what about EP going around knocking on doors telling neighbours that Jeremy had murdered 2 little boys ? This was BEFORE the trial ! If this wasn't swaying public support,I don't know what was.
This was all part of EP's way of securing a conviction. Even the judge,Arlidge,used the same tactic to sway the jury.

Character references about Jeremy,were ignored. Prejudiced ? I'd say so.

[Jane]

Speaking of prejudice,what about EP going around knocking on doors telling neighbours that Jeremy had murdered 2 little boys ? This was BEFORE the trial ! If this wasn't swaying public support,I don't know what was.
This was all part of EP's way of securing a conviction. Even the judge,Arlidge,used the same tactic to sway the jury.

Character references about Jeremy,were ignored. Prejudiced ? I'd say so.

Can it be proved? Is it positive fact or hearsay?

[lookout]

Can it be proved? Is it positive fact or hearsay?

I know it's not hearsay,that it is indeed a positive fact which I thought I might find in AE's statements,to which I'm scouring at the moment. I know for certain that both women's names were mentioned when this was mentioned. It's not on BW's statement as I've looked.

What I have noticed,again,is during cross-examination,AE was adamant that both Sheila and June were found on June's bed,gun by Sheila's side and the Bible on her chest.

[lookout]

Can it be proved? Is it positive fact or hearsay?

You repeated these words in 2013 on the thread " All people are bad and should be killed ". Notes written by S Jones,so yes,it would appear to be a positive fact rather than hearsay,coming from AE and BW.

[Jane]

You repeated these words in 2013 on the thread " All people are bad and should be killed ". Notes written by S Jones,so yes,it would appear to be a positive fact rather than hearsay,coming from AE and BW.

Sounds to me as if I may have been guilty of what MANY others have, that is, quoting the words as if they's been said within 24 hours of the murders, NOT, as they MAY have been, two years prior.

[scipio_usmc]

Sheila said it alright. It's just that you and others would rather not admit that it came from the two most truthful women ( guilters words ) involved in the case---------Ann Eaton and Barbara Wilson.

No we don't know that Sheila said such. You have failed to competently respond to the points I made.

1) We have never been shown the document which supposedly is in Jones' handwriting which notes this.  Thus we have no way to know if this document actually does claim what Jeremy supporters claim and no way to assess if it might be a forgery.  It might not exist since it has not been publicly released it could simply be made up.

2) The claim is that AE told Jones that BW told her that Sheila once told her all people are bad and should be killed.  Even if AE did tell Jones this it is possible that AE misunderstood BW.  It is possible that BW misunderstood Sheila as well and incorrectly was recounting what she had been told by Sheila.  Hearsay is not admissible precisely because of all these problems.

3) Even if Sheila did say it we have no idea when or what the context was. Regardless of the context even if she did say it, it has no bearing on the case.  Jeremy was convicted because of evidence that proved Sheila didn't load the gun, fire the gun, beat anyone, or kill anyone but rather that Jeremy did so and tried to frame her.  She could have told people a million people that all people are bad and should be killed and that still would not in any way refute the evidence that proves she didn't kill anyone.

You have decided Sheila definitely said these words because of your bias.  You decided long ago that only a crazy person would kill the victims.  you decided Jeremy so would never harm his family and Sheila was crazy so did it.  You didn't decide the case based on the actual objective evidence of the case rather your own subjective concepts of who did it.  You ignore all evidence that proves your subjective beliefs to be wrong but believe anything you hear (and elevate such claims to the Gospel truth) if you think such points to Sheila's guilt.

This describes you in a nutshell.

[lookout]

Whatever you've regurgitated I won't even bother reading.