Author Topic: A question for Jackie:  (Read 29133 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44327
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #270 on: May 18, 2017, 06:44:PM »
Hopefully we will know today if the new information, some of it apparently showing Sheila is the killer, has been passed to Bamber's legal team.

As well as where this new information came from.

All I know is that Mike's photo of Sheila on the bed was passed to Mike's legal advisors several years ago. Mike has not updated further.

It will be very irresponsible if other new major information is just being sat on by posters. At least David hand delivered his palm print/forensic evidence breakthrough to Bamber's legal team a year ago.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2017, 06:57:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17579
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #271 on: May 18, 2017, 06:49:PM »
It's very doubtful there will be another CCRC application. If there is you've said it will be rejected due to bias against Bamber. 

So there is nothing to lose in you & Jackie submitting you're new information on here. And Mike posting his photo. You've all already told the forum you have this.

Where did you get this information from & have you hand delivered it to Bamber's legal team,  as David did with his palm print/forensic evidence breakthrough ?

Last Tuesday I boarded a Leer Jet (paid for by donations made to the CT) and handed the evidence personally to Andrew Hunter.  I was chauffeured from the private airport in question to the residence of AH. The evidence was hand-cuffed to my wrist the whole time in an attache case.  A special key had been forged, with AH retaining one half and my self the other half.  Once the two components were fitted together, the case was opened and the contents contained within a large jiffy bag (marked 'Top Secret') were taken and placed in a safe. Once the safe locking mechanism had been respun, I was dismissed by AH and dropped off by the chauffeur at a railway station with a one-way ticket home.

That's all I know.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44327
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #272 on: May 18, 2017, 06:53:PM »
It will be too optimistic to expect the new information from Jackie & Roch to be revealed. Although my reply 266 says there is nothing to lose.

However the source and where this information has been passed to is a start. If Jackie is holding onto her 'new information' until her 6 part documentary, everyone will have to wait & then watch.

I can only assume Mike's picture of Sheila on the bed has not been forwarded to Bamber.  Upon the advice of Mike's legal advisors. Otherwise it would have been all over the media
 
« Last Edit: May 18, 2017, 06:56:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline notsure

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1684
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #273 on: May 18, 2017, 06:57:PM »
Last Tuesday I boarded a Leer Jet (paid for by donations made to the CT) and handed the evidence personally to Andrew Hunter.  I was chauffeured from the private airport in question to the residence of AH. The evidence was hand-cuffed to my wrist the whole time in an attache case.  A special key had been forged, with AH retaining one half and my self the other half.  Once the two components were fitted together, the case was opened and the contents contained within a large jiffy bag (marked 'Top Secret') were taken and placed in a safe. Once the safe locking mechanism had been respun, I was dismissed by AH and dropped off by the chauffeur at a railway station with a one-way ticket home.

That's all I know.

we need to call you 007 from now on then.😀😀😀😀

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44327
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #274 on: May 18, 2017, 07:03:PM »
Last Tuesday I boarded a Leer Jet (paid for by donations made to the CT) and handed the evidence personally to Andrew Hunter.  I was chauffeured from the private airport in question to the residence of AH. The evidence was hand-cuffed to my wrist the whole time in an attache case.  A special key had been forged, with AH retaining one half and my self the other half.  Once the two components were fitted together, the case was opened and the contents contained within a large jiffy bag (marked 'Top Secret') were taken and placed in a safe. Once the safe locking mechanism had been respun, I was dismissed by AH and dropped off by the chauffeur at a railway station with a one-way ticket home.

That's all I know.

You've been given the VIP treatment. David had to travel 45 minutes himself to hand deliver his palm print/forensic evidence breakthrough.

How long did you have this information for before deciding to pass it on last Tuesday ? It seems like a long time.

It seems it's important information. How did you get this information ?

Do you think there will be an annoncement from the CT about this soon ?
« Last Edit: May 18, 2017, 07:31:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44327
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #275 on: May 18, 2017, 07:09:PM »
Hopefully Jackie will confirm where she got her 'new information' from and if she's passed it on. And whether this involved planes and handcuffs, or similar to David she had to make her own travelling arrangements.

It would make sense for her to pass it on. It might help free Bamber. It can still be included in her 6 part documentary.

What a pity Mike's legal advisors told him not to pass on his picture of Sheila on the bed. Surely this would have greatly assisted Bamber.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2017, 07:26:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #276 on: May 18, 2017, 07:38:PM »
Last Tuesday I boarded a Leer Jet (paid for by donations made to the CT) and handed the evidence personally to Andrew Hunter.  I was chauffeured from the private airport in question to the residence of AH. The evidence was hand-cuffed to my wrist the whole time in an attache case.  A special key had been forged, with AH retaining one half and my self the other half.  Once the two components were fitted together, the case was opened and the contents contained within a large jiffy bag (marked 'Top Secret') were taken and placed in a safe. Once the safe locking mechanism had been respun, I was dismissed by AH and dropped off by the chauffeur at a railway station with a one-way ticket home.

That's all I know.
;D ;D ;D ;D 8) 8)

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #277 on: May 18, 2017, 07:40:PM »
Who's paying you Adam ?

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17579
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #278 on: May 18, 2017, 07:48:PM »
You've been given the VIP treatment. David had to travel 45 minutes himself to hand deliver his palm print/forensic evidence breakthrough.

How long did you have this information for before deciding to pass it on last Tuesday ? It seems like a long time.

It seems it's important information. How did you get this information ?

Do you think there will be an annoncement from the CT about this soon ?

I think I spelled Learjet wrong. 

Seriously though - the source of the new/old evidence is Essex Constabulary.  It is their own evidence.  Its original intended use would have been as proof that the case was four murders and one suicude.  It was made to 'disappear' because it could not be used in the case against Jeremy.  It has reappeared as part of the evidence that has been disclosed in more recent years.

Like I say - I wouldn't worry.  I have absolutely no confidence that the CCRC will refer the case.  Your main concern should be the potential impact on public opinion.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44327
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #279 on: May 18, 2017, 07:51:PM »
Who's paying you Adam ?

It's been hard work. But Roch has revealed he has handed in his evidence which shows Sheila was the killer.

What this is & how he got it has not been revealed. Although I suspect the next evidence announcement from the CT will relate to it.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44327
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #280 on: May 18, 2017, 07:59:PM »
I think I spelled Learjet wrong. 

Seriously though - the source of the new/old evidence is Essex Constabulary.  It is their own evidence.  Its original intended use would have been as proof that the case was four murders and one suicude.  It was made to 'disappear' because it could not be used in the case against Jeremy.  It has reappeared as part of the evidence that has been disclosed in more recent years.

Like I say - I wouldn't worry.  I have absolutely no confidence that the CCRC will refer the case.  Your main concern should be the potential impact on public opinion.

How did you manage to obtain it if it had been made to disappear. Do you have contacts in EP ?

Do the CT already have it as well as you. Or are you holding on to it ?
« Last Edit: May 18, 2017, 08:01:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #281 on: May 18, 2017, 08:08:PM »
I think I spelled Learjet wrong. 

Seriously though - the source of the new/old evidence is Essex Constabulary.  It is their own evidence.  Its original intended use would have been as proof that the case was four murders and one suicude.  It was made to 'disappear' because it could not be used in the case against Jeremy.  It has reappeared as part of the evidence that has been disclosed in more recent years.

Like I say - I wouldn't worry.  I have absolutely no confidence that the CCRC will refer the case.  Your main concern should be the potential impact on public opinion.

A secret won't influence public opinion.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17579
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #282 on: May 18, 2017, 08:13:PM »
How did you manage to obtain it if it had been made to disappear. Do you have contacts in EP ?

Do the CT already have it as well as you. Or are you holding on to it ?

Essex Police have had the evidence for 32 years.

The CT and legal etc are aware of it.

I dont have it.  But I have seen it in part.

You and everyone on here will have seen less of it.   You will have misread it for two reasons. 

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17579
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #283 on: May 18, 2017, 08:18:PM »
A secret won't influence public opinion.

I agree.  At some point it will probably be made public though.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44327
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #284 on: May 18, 2017, 08:23:PM »
Essex Police have had the evidence for 32 years.

The CT and legal etc are aware of it.

I dont have it.  But I have seen it in part.

You and everyone on here will have seen less of it.   You will have misread it for two reasons.

Is it what EP are refusing to release  ?
'Only I know what really happened that night'.