What Happened To The Soil Samples?

[guest2181]

That is what has been claimed, but if we haven't seen the statement then how do we know it is being quoted accurately.

This is from the Campaign Website:
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/alibis-1


Statement of PC Brown (after 7am)

He also details what he believed to be a gun in the window of the small room off the master bedroom, supporting the evidence of WPC Jeapes. How could sightings by two firearms officers, who were located separately and both watching the house using the telescopic sight of a firearm be mistaken about seeing the gun in the window?

[Caroline]

I've looked through the statements and logs in the archives but there's nothing there,and yes,he's the one with Jeapes who sighted the rifle as well as curtains opening and closing and lights going on and off.

Jeapes doesn't say she saw curtains opening and closing or lights going on and off.

[Caroline]

This must be what Roch was talking about - not exactly very compelling!

https://www.change.org/p/rt-hon-amber-rudd-mp-home-secretary-essex-police-release-all-documents-withheld-under-pii-to-jeremy-bamber-s-legal-defence/u/20645797?j=92436&sfmc_sub=151895444&l=32_HTML&u=17241305&mid=7259882&jb=3&utm_medium=email&utm_source=92436&utm_campaign=petition_update&sfmc_tk=oqv5kBQKHkcVcy61WhACsAU8fbVS0vLZbD9Za11PPBlcLXFX%2f62XFGetfHtRaXjg

[lookout]

Jeapes doesn't say she saw curtains opening and closing or lights going on and off.

I didn't say she did. I was referring to the rifle in the window which they both saw.

[Caroline]

This is from the Campaign Website:
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/alibis-1


Statement of PC Brown (after 7am)

He also details what he believed to be a gun in the window of the small room off the master bedroom, supporting the evidence of WPC Jeapes. How could sightings by two firearms officers, who were located separately and both watching the house using the telescopic sight of a firearm be mistaken about seeing the gun in the window?

There is no way that this holds water, Jeapes simply said she saw something that 'appeared' to be a rifle. Given that they were just told that fire arms were on the premises and that someone had gone berserk with a gun, they would be honed to look out for anything which might be a threat.

[lookout]

This is from the Campaign Website:
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/alibis-1


Statement of PC Brown (after 7am)

He also details what he believed to be a gun in the window of the small room off the master bedroom, supporting the evidence of WPC Jeapes. How could sightings by two firearms officers, who were located separately and both watching the house using the telescopic sight of a firearm be mistaken about seeing the gun in the window?

Thanks for that,it's much more understandable than most of the written logs. It'd take a year just deciphering those alone.

[maggie]

This must be what Roch was talking about - not exactly very compelling!

https://www.change.org/p/rt-hon-amber-rudd-mp-home-secretary-essex-police-release-all-documents-withheld-under-pii-to-jeremy-bamber-s-legal-defence/u/20645797?j=92436&sfmc_sub=151895444&l=32_HTML&u=17241305&mid=7259882&jb=3&utm_medium=email&utm_source=92436&utm_campaign=petition_update&sfmc_tk=oqv5kBQKHkcVcy61WhACsAU8fbVS0vLZbD9Za11PPBlcLXFX%2f62XFGetfHtRaXjg

Hi Caroline, don't think that was what Roch was talking about.
Roch said he has personally seen what has convinced him that Sheila was involved and it is not in the public arena as a fact....

Don't believe the above is convincing as it cannot be proven one way or the other.

[Caroline]

Hi Caroline, don't think that was what Roch was talking about.
Roch said he has personally seen what has convinced him that Sheila was involved and it is not in the public arena as a fact....

Don't believe the above is convincing as it cannot be proven one way or the other.

He said the information which confirmed to him that Sheila was the killer is in the public domain and indeed on this forum. He also said it had been argued on here between Hartley and Mike. See the various quotes below.

Not sure what you mean about Jeremy but yes, in a way you are right, with regard to me basing my conclusion on Sheila having what could be termed a 'psychotic episode'.  This is simply because that is exactly what took place (whether it is termed a psychotic episode or termed 'daughter gone berserk').  Personally, it's a considerable relief to finally have confirmation that I have been on the right side all along (despite some wavering).

On what evidence are you basing your conclusion that you've been right all along?

It would be counter-productive to point to any aspects which are already in the public domain.  I wouldn't expect any fellow members on here to change their opinion purely because of some vain declaration on my part.  That's not how this forum works - I have no argument with that.

The police were fully aware of who had committed the massacre from day one.  Any officers who looked closely at the crime scene would have recognised with immediate effect that Sheila was the killer.

This is probably the reason why Bob Miller later expressed 'disgust' at the relatives' insinuations.  Why would Bob Miller inspect the scene, complete with two gunshot wounds to a 'suicide' victim, then come away convinced that Sheila was the killer?  Was he also stubborn like Taff? 

Clearly, the evidence that Sheila was the killer was present within the crime scene, where it was witnessed by many police officers.

Everything else is a red herring I'm afraid.  Jeremy's hair dye, his trip to Amsterdam or St. Tropez or Burnham on Crouch. etc.  Meaningless.

Where is it?

To some extent it is right in front of you (within this forum).  I have suggested that I pack-in posting. However, I was pm'd by several members and asked not to pack-in.  Believe me, it is as frustrating for me on here as it is for you.  I am reading total bullshit on here about how it must be Jeremy -  because of blah blah this or blah blah that. 

What evidence are you referring to? Your post is very unspecific Roch.

Yes and I'm conscious that I'm going to piss people off - which is really not what I want.  I'm pretty sure it's evidence that Mike and Hartley have argued hammer and tongs about quite some time ago.

[guest7363]

Hi Caroline, don't think that was what Roch was talking about.
Roch said he has personally seen what has convinced him that Sheila was involved and it is not in the public arena as a fact....

Don't believe the above is convincing as it cannot be proven one way or the other.

Thats how I understood it Caroline, he also stated he would not be relaying this information to the legal team or AH

[Jane]

Thats how I understood it Caroline, he also stated he would not be relaying this information to the legal team or AH

Odd, isn't it, that these people have information which allegedly proves that Jeremy is innocent, but have not done anything about it!!!!!

[guest7363]

Odd, isn't it, that these people have information which allegedly proves that Jeremy is innocent, but have not done anything about it!!!!!

So true Jane, all these police and supporters that have evidence, yet zilch to back it up.

[lookout]

There is evidence.We just haven't got to hear/see it yet.

[lookout]

 I'm in no hurry.Are you ?

[guest7363]

There is evidence.We just haven't got to hear/see it yet.

So you admit the evidence seen doesn't prove innocence?

[David1819]

So true Jane, all these police and supporters that have evidence, yet zilch to back it up.

Got anymore leads from your mysterious wedding tipster?