could jermy have walked to whf.

[David1819]

There were over 200 pieces of incriminating forensic & circumstantial evidence. You, Roch, Mike & David agree. Saying the evidence was obtained by forgery & perjury.

But appreciate supporters will try to keep to Julie lying because she was apparently jilted & the relatives working with the police to fabricate the silencer.

Here we go again.

Last month it was 50 pieces. Now this month you are back to having 200 pieces.
 
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8440.msg402400.html#msg402400

What number will you be pulling out your backside for next month I wonder?

[Jane]

The reason Bamber committed the massacre was because he was lazy. Not wanting to spend the rest of his life working on the farm. As it turned out, he didn't.

Hmm. Sounds like good advice would be; Careful what you wish for?

[Jane]

Here we go again.

Last month it was 50 pieces. Now this month you are back to having 200 pieces.
 
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8440.msg402400.html#msg402400

What number will you be pulling out your backside for next month I wonder?

David, you seem to have an obsession with other people's arses. Who's been up yours recently?

[Adam]

Here we go again.

Last month it was 50 pieces. Now this month you are back to having 200 pieces.
 
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8440.msg402400.html#msg402400

What number will you be pulling out your backside for next month I wonder?

200 pieces of both forensic & circumstantial. I have been saying 200+  for several weeks.

You are on board with Mike & Roch that the evidence was created through police corruption.

I agree that is the best approach as disputing every piece of incriminating evidence is impossible.

[susan]

What criminal record did Julie have prior to the massacre ?

Sorry Adam she did not have one as such but she did commit criminal offences i.e. the caravan park robbery and the cheque book fraud that is quite a serious offence but she was never charged I wonder why

[Adam]

Sorry Adam she did not have one as such but she did commit criminal offences i.e. the caravan park robbery and the cheque book fraud that is quite a serious offence but she was never charged I wonder why

Bamber carried out the caravan robbery. Julie whisked along without warning. A bit like on the massacre morning.

[Steve_uk]

Bamber carried out the caravan robbery. Julie whisked along without warning. A bit like on the massacre morning.

She shouldn't have gone along with him in the robbery. She shouldn't have sold cannabis at Goldsmiths. Maybe had she not done these things Jeremy might have had second thoughts on the real tragedy.

[Jan]

There were over 200 pieces of incriminating forensic & circumstantial evidence. You, Roch, Mike & David agree. Saying the evidence was obtained by forgery & perjury.

But appreciate supporters will try to keep to Julie lying because she was apparently jilted & the relatives working with the police to fabricate the silencer.

No there were not .

End of .

Just one example  , if you are going to accept that Jeremy cycled to and from the crime scene where there's is not one piece of evidence to prove that , then you in turn have to accept that in the many hours that the police were outside it was possible that Sheila was the one who used the shower head ?

Do you get it now?


You have to accept that Julie lied in either her first statements or her second  because she relayed conversations and times and then completely changed her mind ?

We all have to accept that , and if you think it is acceptable for a person to be convicted on a piece of evidence that was reomoved from the crime scene , handled by others , then not handled in a forensic manner by the officer who collected it then I despair.

If the silencer evidence is "dodgy" then what have you got left?
 

[Steve_uk]

No there were not .

End of .

Just one example  , if you are going to accept that Jeremy cycled to and from the crime scene where there's is not one piece of evidence to prove that , then you in turn have to accept that in the many hours that the police were outside it was possible that Sheila was the one who used the shower head ?

Do you get it now?


You have to accept that Julie lied in either her first statements or her second  because she relayed conversations and times and then completely changed her mind ?

We all have to accept that , and if you think it is acceptable for a person to be convicted on a piece of evidence that was reomoved from the crime scene , handled by others , then not handled in a forensic manner by the officer who collected it then I despair.

If the silencer evidence is "dodgy" then what have you got left?

I'm not sure she changed times. She was certainly economical with the truth in her first statement.

[Jan]

There were over 200 pieces of incriminating forensic & circumstantial evidence. You, Roch, Mike & David agree. Saying the evidence was obtained by forgery & perjury.

But appreciate supporters will try to keep to Julie lying because she was apparently jilted & the relatives working with the police to fabricate the silencer.

Where have I said there was forgery and perjury ? I don't know because I am still asking questions of the case , I am quite envious of those that now have seen evidence to show that is the case and now know 100% he is innocent . But I would never assume in my mind that it is true until I saw the same things.

I have suspicions of things that might have happened , but I don't know for sure .

The raid team statements are quite interesting to revisit by the way and I do wonder what happened to all the originals that were made in the august .

[Jan]

I'm not sure she changed times. She was certainly economical with the truth in her first statement.

I thought she did , but might be wrong , but she definitely changed the words that Jeremy used in the calls in the evening .

[Jan]

Bamber carried out the caravan robbery. Julie whisked along without warning. A bit like on the massacre morning.

And so you omit the fraud for convenience .

[Jan]

And so you omit the fraud for convenience .

Oh and drug involvement

[Adam]

Where have I said there was forgery and perjury ? I don't know because I am still asking questions of the case , I am quite envious of those that now have seen evidence to show that is the case and now know 100% he is innocent . But I would never assume in my mind that it is true until I saw the same things.

I have suspicions of things that might have happened , but I don't know for sure .

The raid team statements are quite interesting to revisit by the way and I do wonder what happened to all the originals that were made in the august .

You have been posting about Sheila's alledged injuries & police corruption with Roch & Mike.

As I said to David. That is the correct approach as to say over 200 pieces of incriminating evidence is wrong due to innocent mistakes is not feasible.

[Adam]

Oh and drug involvement

Did she do some deals with Tony 'scarface' Montana ?