Sheila's neck wound and the blood on her arm

[JackieD]

You're entitled to your opinion but I don't know why you're so eager to destroy the reputations of the 80's Essex Police and Vanezis? You have consistently posted on this forum peddled versions of events which blur the truth and effectively insult the victims who experienced the truth of the situation at first hand. The least that can be done for them is to preserve that truth, NOT distort it by 'bending' the evidence to suit JB's innocence. If you have to bend the evidence in order to get someone released, how is that preserving the truth of what happened?

In your opinion. Personally I have never seen Roch eager to destroy the reputations of the 80's Essex Police and Vanezis?  He is just stating facts and I have never seen Roch consistently posted on this forum peddled versions of events which blur the truth and effectively insult the victims who experienced the truth of the situation at first hand.

What ridiculous statements from someone who consistently has posts removed because of personal attacks on posters who believe Jeremy is innocent

Your posts are full of maybe's, if's or you 'think'

Fact is Jane you just don't know do you even though you spend your life on this forum

Try reading Roch's posts carefully and you might learn something one day.  I am beginning to think you and Adam are the same person because you are so similar

you really are a disgrace

[JackieD]

Hmmmm. 

There is a long list of previous attempts to mislead people in to believing that JB is innocent, the majority of which have been carried out intentionally with that agenda in mind. The perpetrators of such actions vary from the the Campaign Team, previous Legal Representatives, the founder of this forum and numerous members of this and other forums.

There are of course some assertions which are put forward with genuine belief, which may or may not be found wanting.

Legal Representatives


maybe you should name and shame these Legal Representatives as you know so much about them

Facts are David Boutflour proved he was a liar on the stand at trial and Julie Mugford was a prolific liar

Still I am sure David Boutflour had his Karma for telling such vile lies


That is the simple historic truth of the matter.

Maggie seemed to be a little spiky when I mentioned that she had made three attempts at replying to a post, she had replied twice before and then deleted them before rewording a third reply. Nothing else was meant by it.

With regards to the blood staining on Sheila's hands, it is simply the case that a member of this forum has given an opinion that they are actually injuries, this is based on nothing more than a visual inspection of poor quality manipulated photographs.
There is no other evidence suggesting that the marks are injuries, in fact the opposite is true, given the pathologist's reports and photographs previously available since trial. The blood stains were SPECIFICALLY mentioned in court and discussed. There are no other accounts from any other witness that Sheila's hand were injured. Whilst there is the old adage that the absence of evidence is not an indication of evidence of absence, it is hardly a compelling argument in this instance.

People may choose to accept the claims, or not, it doesn't really matter, however if we are being even handed in portraying forum members behaviour, then Maggie certainly does appear blind to Roch's antics.

[JackieD]

What facts?

You read them and didn't disagree as you know they are all true

[JackieD]

A little more for you to laugh at Roch.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5817.0;attach=37839

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5817.0;attach=37846


Now post your evidence Roch.

maybe when you try to contact people by pm you should stick to the same forum name or are you deliberately trying to mislead forum members

[guest7363]

You read them and didn't disagree as you know they are all true

Oh Sorry Jackie is it my turn, no I don't read fiction, anyway to play your little game I will hazard a guess, was it Proffessor Plum, with a Dagger in the Kitchen?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5817.0;attach=37846

Or Jeremy Bamber with a rifle in the Kitchen/Bedroom?

[guest2181]

As for theories.... any luck finding that ladder? 

Why have you quoted part of a post from a year ago which doesn't appear to relate to the subject? 

There was some discussion about access/egress to the house and musings about an the open upstairs window in the main bedroom.

If it's really that interesting (I'm not sure that it is) then people can read it here:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7940.msg376939.html#msg376939

[guest2181]

Legal Representatives

maybe you should name and shame these Legal Representatives as you know so much about them

I suspect it is quite obvious that the prime suspect here, would be the character currently serving time in prison for fraud.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Di_Stefano_(fraudster)

[Jane]

In your opinion. Personally I have never seen Roch eager to destroy the reputations of the 80's Essex Police and Vanezis?  He is just stating facts and I have never seen Roch consistently posted on this forum peddled versions of events which blur the truth and effectively insult the victims who experienced the truth of the situation at first hand.

What ridiculous statements from someone who consistently has posts removed because of personal attacks on posters who believe Jeremy is innocent

Your posts are full of maybe's, if's or you 'think'

Fact is Jane you just don't know do you even though you spend your life on this forum

Try reading Roch's posts carefully and you might learn something one day.  I am beginning to think you and Adam are the same person because you are so similar

you really are a disgrace

I'll tell you what, Jackie. If you have within you the grace and courtesy to leave me alone, ie ignore my posts or put me on ignore if you so choose, I'll pay you the same courtesy, primarily because it's beneath my dignity to even acknowledge you're existence, let alone your pathetic posts. You've maybe, probably chosen to ignore that, whilst you weren't posting, the forum ran much more smoothly without your inane interruptions and constant accusations of me causing trouble, in vain attempt to cover up that it's YOU who intentionally seek to cause trouble each time you address me. This forum isn't about you OR me. It's about Jeremy Bamber. From which ever side of the divide we sit.

[Jane]

Why have you quoted part of a post from a year ago which doesn't appear to relate to the subject? 

There was some discussion about access/egress to the house and musings about an the open upstairs window in the main bedroom.

If it's really that interesting (I'm not sure that it is) then people can read it here:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7940.msg376939.html#msg376939

You're lucky it's only from one year ago. He's been know to drag out posts from 4 or 5 years back.

[Caroline]

A little more for you to laugh at Roch.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5817.0;attach=37839

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5817.0;attach=37846


Now post your evidence Roch.

This page is even more interesting, Hammersley is being asked about a 'smudge' on the back of Sheila's middle finger from a close up of a post mortem photograph and no one sees any marks like those described here. The smudge isn't even on the CS photograph.

[Roch]

This page is even more interesting, Hammersley is being asked about a 'smudge' on the back of Sheila's middle finger from a close up of a post mortem photograph and no one sees any marks like those described here. The smudge isn't even on the CS photograph.

I've never mentioned Sheila's middle finger.  Nor any ring that she did or did not wear.

[guest7363]

This page is even more interesting, Hammersley is being asked about a 'smudge' on the back of Sheila's middle finger from a close up of a post mortem photograph and no one sees any marks like those described here. The smudge isn't even on the CS photograph.

I posted this some while back Caroline, Roch didn't find it funny then, he became Rattled with it?

Reply 315 in this thread if anyone would like to have a look.

[guest2181]

This page is even more interesting, Hammersley is being asked about a 'smudge' on the back of Sheila's middle finger from a close up of a post mortem photograph and no one sees any marks like those described here. The smudge isn't even on the CS photograph.

I think this argument about cuts could only happen on the forum. Clearly there are photographs which show that no cuts are present (MacDonnell refers to these also).

It may even be the case that NGB has seen these photographs.

[Roch]

I posted this some while back Caroline, Roch didn't find it funny then, he became Rattled with it?

Reply 315 in this thread if anyone would like to have a look.

I didn't become rattled with what you posted.  I just couldn't understand why didn't want to use your own eyes when given the opportunity.

[mike tesko]

I posted this some while back Caroline, Roch didn't find it funny then, he became Rattled with it?

Reply 315 in this thread if anyone would like to have a look.

DC Hammersley has got a lot of explaining to do, because exhibit DRH/33 was also the bible!!

The bible later became DRH/44..

Cops destroyed one bible, and handed the other back to the relatives!