DCI 621 Stuart Smith Specsavers Challenge

[JackieD]

 

How nice to see our legal expert giving an opinion

Now where's Jan ?

[guest7363]

Well they look like finger prints to me too

Thats how I see it, nothing more than smearing stains like the pathologist said, palms and finger nails completely free and we can't argue with the man who saw her after the murders who said there was nothing else psychically wrong with her in court.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7638.0;attach=44892

[guest7363]

Hopefully Roch will clear everything up today & tell the forum how he got to see the evidence he can't disclose & if it is now with JB's legal advisors.

He was posting on this thread yesterday & must have fogotten to answer.

Maybe he's done like Mike did and took it to the CCRC, Mike and Z took the photo of Sheila on the bed straight to head quarters?  Maybe Mikes handed over the reins now who knows?

[David1819]

Lets hope so. Obviously if it's been passed to Bamber's legal team, he will be released this year & the industrial 32 year frame will be exposed.

Better late than never.

[susan]

Lets hope so. Obviously if it's been passed to Bamber's legal team, he will be released this year & the industrial 32 year frame will be exposed.

  Adam if you read the posts made by Roch he stated he did not have any evidence never did just had a sighting of it so he will not be giving it to anyone and if you go and read his post not sure which post he did say the evidence will now be with the appropriate quarters.  Hope this helps

[Adam]

Maybe he's done like Mike did and took it to the CCRC, Mike and Z took the photo of Sheila on the bed straight to head quarters?  Maybe Mikes handed over the reins now who knows?

The last thing I read from Mike on this was that he had passed the photo to his legal advisors.

I'm not sure why anything would be passed straight to the CCRC. Surely it's better to pass it to Bamber's legal team. They will use it when the time is right in the best interests of their client.

I'm sure Roch will confirm today whether he or the person/people who showed him this bombshell evidence has passed it to Bamber's legal team.

[Adam]

  Adam if you read the posts made by Roch he stated he did not have any evidence never did just had a sighting of it so he will not be giving it to anyone and if you go and read his post not sure which post he did say the evidence will now be with the appropriate quarters.  Hope this helps

Ok. Hopefully Roch will tonight confirm how he saw this bombshell evidence. Before the person/people who showed him took it away with them.

And also confirm if this person/people have passed the bombshell evidence onto Bamber's legal team.

[Roch]

Thats how I see it, nothing more than smearing stains like the pathologist said, palms and finger nails completely free and we can't argue with the man who saw her after the murders who said there was nothing else psychically wrong with her in court.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7638.0;attach=44892

That's the whole point though. His findings were made to suit, in accordance with the aims of the second investigation.  If you want to find a report that you can't argue with, you need to locate the report he did when Sheila was prime suspect.  Good luck with that.

[susan]

Ok. Hopefully Roch will tonight confirm how he saw this bombshell evidence. Before the person/people who showed him took it away with them.

And also confirm if this person/people have passed the bombshell evidence onto Bamber's legal team.

Adam I am sure Roch will do his best to answer your questions

[Adam]

Adam I am sure Roch will do his best to answer your questions

He's on the thread now, so I'm sure he's now posting his answers.

[Jan]

He's on the thread now, so I'm sure he's now posting his answers.

I don't think that this forum would be the place to release any information. For glaringly obvious reasons.

[susan]

I don't think that this forum would be the place to release any information. For glaringly obvious reasons.

Jan it is a total waste of time.

[guest7363]

So Roch, who said that his new evidence was and always been on the forum, has only had a sighting of it according to Susan?  Plain to see now it's the same old tricks that Mike used to play, Roch has just tried it again with the pathologist having another statement that's hidden, it's the same tricks that's played out over the last six years on here, great to see posters coming back, only hope it's not for more of the same?

[Caroline]

I don't think that this forum would be the place to release any information. For glaringly obvious reasons.

Release? It's already on the forum.

[Adam]

Adam I am sure Roch will do his best to answer your questions

It's looks like Roch is going to ignore our two questions. Which is rather rude & disappointing.

I know he's never going to say what the 'bombshell' evidence he said he saw is. But there is no reason not to say how he got to see the 'bombshell' evidence & whether it has been passed to Bamber's legal team.