Police V family

[guest7363]

Do you mean the football?     Better not go off topic.

[maggie]

Do you mean the football?     Better not go off topic.

[JackiePreece]

Hi Jane - you are forgiven 

Honestly - I can say hand on heart - with regard to the case itself I have had no involvement with the CT or from the CT.  I signed up to the Change.Org campaign about disclosure and that's as far as it goes. 

I think Lorna Lake is genuine and nice person and Trudi has been friendly in the past - for example acknowledging if I have signed up to a campaign or shared something on social media etc.  But that's as far as it goes.  If members find it difficult to trust what I'm saying regarding physical evidence that was recorded but concealed then fair enough.  Perhaps all I can urge is that they at least consider a position of neutrality on the case 50/50 until such time as disclosures can be made.

I do feel that a desperate need to dismiss the significance of evidence not yet made public, is the wrong motivation for wanting it to be made public!  People / members should approach this issue with an open mind.

I think you are way off the mark when you comment on the official campaign team. You have obviously not had the same bad experience as Ngb and myself.  I would go so far as to say JB might have had his conviction overturned by now if the campaign was led by a legal expert.  The video by the graveside was unforgiveable

[Adam]

The family had so much to gain from a JB conviction.
Not least the land that Neville had bought for JB.

And a lot to lose. Such as being put in prison & knowing they framed an innocent relative. Bamber would have sued them as well.

The relatives were already rich and had no criminal record. To suggest they tried and succeeded in framing an innocent man of killing five people is disgraceful.

[Adam]

To be fair it's was a no win question for any supporter.

Either Bamber lied in court in agreeing with MM's lies.

Or Bamber told the truth in court in agreeing with MM's truthful & damning testimony.


So the only option is to say the 11 pages on MM's & Bambers testimonies in Wilkes's book is not a good enough source. Although the person I asked the question to considered the book worthy of reading.

It seems no one is going to answer the straight forward question on why Bamber agreed with MM in court. Despite Lucy today saying MM lied.

The only explanation is MM told the truth and Bamber agreed. Although Bamber contradicted himself somewhat by saying James Richards lied when testifying that Bamber had told him two or three times he "hated his parents".

I must admit if I was a juror & heard MM's testimony which wasn't challenged, it would influence me.

[lookout]

I think you are way off the mark when you comment on the official campaign team. You have obviously not had the same bad experience as Ngb and myself.  I would go so far as to say JB might have had his conviction overturned by now if the campaign was led by a legal expert.  The video by the graveside was unforgiveable

I admit they all need a good kick up the backside,Jackie.

[David1819]

I posted letters here a short time ago that PROVES what I said about my attempt to find out how Jeremy knew what was in his fathers wallet. The evidence was there to read and yet STILL a few have used it to try and discredit me. An open mind? People are defending their stance NOT trying to get to the truth. If you are right, I would be the first to admit being wrong - I really don't care one way or the other.

No. You decided his original answer was not good enough. After some mental gymnastics and hamstering you decided this didn't count as an answer at all. This was then stretched to him avoiding the question. Then further stretched and twisted into him knowing the contents of Nevills wallet and then used to insinuate to members on the forum that he murdered his family. Its a myth.

A myth just like that allusive and mysterious "other Mcdoanld" who is just a fictional entity you created. To avoid linking MM to RWB before Julie 'came forward'



Seriously Caroline. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Caroline]

No. You decided his original answer was not good enough. After some mental gymnastics and hamstering you decided this didn't count as an answer at all. This was then stretched to him avoiding the question. Then further stretched and twisted into him knowing the contents of Nevills wallet and then used to insinuate to members on the forum that he murdered his family. Its a myth.

A myth just like that allusive and mysterious "other Mcdoanld" who is just a fictional entity you created. To avoid linking MM to RWB before Julie 'came forward'



Seriously Caroline. You should be ashamed of yourself.

OK, so if you ask me a question and I provide you with the answer 'I know you asked a particular question but I can't remember it, however, I think the answer was 'I didn't or No' - that should be enough for you? When I could quite simply have re-read your post?

You should have read the letters properly the first time XXXXX! When I first asked the question he didn't answer it at all - he answered ALL questions and left the wallet question out! He initially said he didn't have the letter with him but would answer some of the questions when he got back to his cell - which he did EXCEPT the wallet question. I had to ask again and that is when he said he couldn't remember the question.

In the queue to be ashamed, I'm a LONG way behind you. You really need to quit this obsession - you're making me feel nauseous!

He dodged the question whether you like it or not!

[guest7363]

Who found incriminating evidence against JB?
Police a big fat zero.
The family.
1. The silencer.
2. Scratch marks on the mantle.
3. Blood and hair [missing] on the silencer.
4. Method of entry, and exit from the farm
5. Bicycle.
This list is not exhaustive, and I think others will remember more.
Are we to believe that the family were better than seasoned cops?
                               

Your saying the bycycle was incriminating evidence, I would have thought anyone police/relatives could easily have  planted evidence on the bike i.e. Blood, soil, they could easily say someone spotted him cycling.  As it was they didn't, but they could have if they were dishonest?

The hair on the silencer went missing, again would have been quite easy to replace with one of Sheila's or Nevilles or June's, again they didn't But could have if they were dishonest ?

[guest7363]

My own personal opinion on the evidence, if top ranking officers careers and a lot of reputations were on the line, I honestly think they would have done a better job in planting incriminating evidence, they had the power and means to do this with top brass backing and family assistance according to some?

[JackiePreece]

OK, so if you ask me a question and I provide you with the answer 'I know you asked a particular question but I can't remember it, however, I think the answer was 'I didn't or No' - that should be enough for you? When I could quite simply have re-read your post?

You should have read the letters properly the first time XXXXX! When I first asked the question he didn't answer it at all - he answered ALL questions and left the wallet question out! He initially said he didn't have the letter with him but would answer some of the questions when he got back to his cell - which he did EXCEPT the wallet question. I had to ask again and that is when he said he couldn't remember the question.

In the queue to be ashamed, I'm a LONG way behind you. You really need to quit this obsession - you're making me feel nauseous!

He dodged the question whether you like it or not!

Any posts about the wallet or the phone calls are irrelevant as there is no proof either way

[Caroline]

Any posts about the wallet or the phone calls are irrelevant as there is no proof either way

Ugh huh!

[Roch]

I think you are way off the mark when you comment on the official campaign team. You have obviously not had the same bad experience as Ngb and myself.  I would go so far as to say JB might have had his conviction overturned by now if the campaign was led by a legal expert.  The video by the graveside was unforgiveable

I don't condone all of their activities. 

[Harry]

OK, so if you ask me a question and I provide you with the answer 'I know you asked a particular question but I can't remember it, however, I think the answer was 'I didn't or No' - that should be enough for you? When I could quite simply have re-read your post?

You should have read the letters properly the first time XXXXX! When I first asked the question he didn't answer it at all - he answered ALL questions and left the wallet question out! He initially said he didn't have the letter with him but would answer some of the questions when he got back to his cell - which he did EXCEPT the wallet question. I had to ask again and that is when he said he couldn't remember the question.

In the queue to be ashamed, I'm a LONG way behind you. You really need to quit this obsession - you're making me feel nauseous!

He dodged the question whether you like it or not!

So Jeremy forgot what the question was, but remembered that the answer was "No". His explanation of why he forgot sounds reasonable enough to me.



Hardly damning evidence of guilt!

[Adam]

So Jeremy forgot what the question was, but remembered that the answer was "No". His explanation of why he forgot sounds reasonable enough to me.



Hardly damning evidence of guilt!

Both supporters & guilters have found it puzzling that a 360 degree stance change was made on this basis. But Caroline is not going to budge.

As the 6 posters who changed stance to guilty will tell you, there is no easy way to do it.