A question for Jackie:

[Adam]

Hi Maggie I agree with you if the tests prove Sheila did not write that letter this does not mean she did not murder her family then kill herself.  The only way the CT can be certain is to get a Graphologist to look at the documents maybe they have done this who knows

If there was anything in the notes that suggested murder/suicide, supporters would say it makes Bamber innocent.

However there isn't anything. So supporters now claim it doesn't make Bamber guilty.

Good approach.

[lookout]

Everyone agrees Sheila wrote the notes, don't they ?

It's weather the notes suggest Sheila was planning to committ suicide & take other people with her.

As there has been no annoncenent in the last 8 months,  It can only assumed they didn't.

I'm not 100% sure that Sheila wrote those notes now.

[susan]

Everyone agrees Sheila wrote the notes, don't they ?

It's weather the notes suggest Sheila was planning to committ suicide & take other people with her.

As there has been no annoncenent in the last 8 months,  It can only assumed they didn't.

Adam none of us know who wrote the notes have you a thread on this subject if so I will go and read

[lookout]

Although a known fact,it has been said that Sheila did express herself more readily by writing,but wasn't known for leaving notes around WHF------June was. So I'm torn between the two women. It depends on the full content of all the letters/notes that have been found before I can honestly commit for sure that it was Sheila's writing.
I find it sad that neither women could confront each other face to face to have aired their differences.Life would have been much easier for them both and it would have cleared the atmosphere between Sheila,Colin and June,for the sake of the children who are the ones that suffer during a rift within the family.

[Caroline]

The simple answer is as follows:  When this particular evidence was noted, it was done so without any attempt to hide Sheila's involvement in the killings.  It is from day 1.  Jeremy was not a suspect.  There was no motive to conceal her involvement. 

What you are suggesting above - is actually the correct situation in reverse.  The 'twisted to fit' was carried out during the second investigation - not the first.

Sorry Roch, but I don't believe there is any  way to know that. I think someone's interpretation has influenced whatever it is you're talking about.

[maggie]

Sorry Roch, but I don't believe there is any  way to know that. I think someone's interpretation has influenced whatever it is you're talking about.

Hi Caroline, I agree we have seen various ambiguous examples of 'evidence' which are always down to an individual's interpretation which for me have never convinced but we know Roch isn't a fool. therefore personally I do tend to believe whatever he has seen must stand as it is without ambiguity.  It's interesting and hope we get to hear more about it before too long. 

[Roch]

Sorry Roch, but I don't believe there is any  way to know that. I think someone's interpretation has influenced whatever it is you're talking about.

It would be foolish for me to think that you could be persuaded on this.  Especially since, as you rightly point out, I have not provided any of the evidence in question. 

I was not persuaded by the wallet situation - and to be fair - you did provide the information in that instance.

Regarding the evidence I am referring to, I personally do not think it is the kind of evidence that is open to interpretation.  This is why I described it using terms such as 'blatant'  and 'obvious'. 

However, I have very little confidence in the CCRC.  My fear is that the authorities are 'trying to keep him in on a technicality'.  Therefore, some way will probably be found to dismiss the evidence anyway.

You'll be kicking yourself when you realise what it is 

[Roch]

Hi Caroline, I agree we have seen various ambiguous examples of 'evidence' which are always down to an individual's interpretation which for me have never convinced but we know Roch isn't a fool. therefore personally I do tend to believe whatever he has seen must stand as it is without ambiguity.  It's interesting and hope we get to hear more about it before too long. 

Thanks for the compliment - but I am actually a fool in real life 

It is a bit much to expect people to reconsider without having been afforded any insight in to this.  I cant speed up the process but if more people are keeping an open mind about the case - then that's great in my opinion.

 

[lookout]

Interesting post Roch with the same thoughts as my own regarding the CCRC,who,in this case have hindered rather than helped in their " supposedly " independent creation keeping it from Government " interference " and also matters in the courtroom. They failed miserably. 

[maggie]

Thanks for the compliment - but I am actually a fool in real life 

It is a bit much to expect people to reconsider without having been afforded any insight in to this.  I cant speed up the process but if more people are keeping an open mind about the case - then that's great in my opinion.

Think we're all fools at times Roch.  

I am a believer in the Open Mind, maybe we should form a club ... The Open Mind Club for all who are of an open mind (obviously  ).

I agree it is hard to reconsider, especially after so many false starts related to this case, think there is a definitely weariness and wariness and for good reason particularly among those who have been members for a long time. 

I am ever an optimist so  shall watch this space. 

[Caroline]

Hi Caroline, I agree we have seen various ambiguous examples of 'evidence' which are always down to an individual's interpretation which for me have never convinced but we know Roch isn't a fool. therefore personally I do tend to believe whatever he has seen must stand as it is without ambiguity.  It's interesting and hope we get to hear more about it before too long. 

No, but we are all influenced by our belief (innocent or guilty) and look for things which confirm those beliefs (concious or unconsciously). It also depends on who and how this 'evidence' was presented - I certainly bought into a LOT of what was said here in the good old days - however 'now' I work very much from a seeing is believing perspective and with all due respect to Roch (and he knows that I don't think he has made this up - I believe he believes it), unless I have seen something for myself, I am 100% sceptical. 

[Adam]

Adam none of us know who wrote the notes have you a thread on this subject if so I will go and read

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/uk/707781/Jeremy-Bamber-supporters-claim-police-ignored-sister-suicide-note-white-farm-essex/amp&ved=0ahUKEwiY-o6v__PTAhXmC8AKHfBGBdEQFggpMAI&usg=AFQjCNGY5aBchNMy3HtKC0qrIrapNJ7y3g

This says it was Sheila's writing.

It would be a bit of a waste of £1,500.00p if it wasn't. Mind you, after 8 months, it seems if it was Sheila's writing it didn't reveal anything.

It would be good if 360 kept people up to date on things they have requested money for. They only mention things like the window & Sheila's notes when they want money. If they have not got anywhere with these, just say.

[JackieD]

I can't help but feel we've heard it all before. Such claims are another on going theme, usually they either don't materialise, or if they do then they don't equate to what is claimed.

I bet thats exactly what the people who thought the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6 were guilty

How many appeals did they have

Its a good job they had such determined, tenacious supporters

[JackieD]

No involvement with CT - but am aware that they are aware of the evidence in question.

It seems ironic that professionals can witness and record evidence, before concealing it, only for it to later be 'demolished' and fail to stand up to scrutiny. We live in a strange world.

What ever this evidence is I am sure it will add to the gathering evidence

[maggie]

No, but we are all influenced by our belief (innocent or guilty) and look for things which confirm those beliefs (concious or unconsciously). It also depends on who and how this 'evidence' was presented - I certainly bought into a LOT of what was said here in the good old days - however 'now' I work very much from a seeing is believing perspective and with all due respect to Roch (and he knows that I don't think he has made this up - I believe he believes it), unless I have seen something for myself, I am 100% sceptical.

I don't blame you Caroline and I feel very much the same, as innocents we were all duped too many times waiting for the great revelation which never came or was at best ambiguous and of little consequence.