Disturbing Evidence, which confirms that cops handed back silencer to the family

[mike tesko]

Then again, what if the metal end cap that might have been attached to the end of the guns barrel which made the burn mark on the back of Nevill Bambers neck, might also have been of the same dimensions as the end of the guns barrel upon which DS Davidson had told the COLP investigators that red paint had been found (admitted to COLP in 1991 police interviews)...

Maybe that gun was Anthony Pargeters gun? But according to the cops and Pargeter himself, it wasn't and couldn't have been...

Somebody is not telling the truth about the gun barrel with paint on it, somebody has not told the truth about the gun barrel that made at least one of the burn marks on the back of Nevill Bambers neck! Somebody has been doctoring the ballistics evidence! Somebody has been tampering with the exhibit references of different silencers and made it look like all these different exhibit references related to only one silencer! Sheila's body was found here, there, and almost everywhere, she was dead downstairs in the kitchen at 7.35am, she was dead upstairs on top of the bed at 8.44am, and she ended up dead on the bedroom floor in time for PC Bird to photograph her body there by 10.00 am...

[mike tesko]

Somebody is not telling the truth about the gun barrel with paint on it, somebody has not told the truth about the gun barrel that made at least one of the burn marks on the back of Nevill Bambers neck! Somebody has been doctoring the ballistics evidence! Somebody has been tampering with the exhibit references of different silencers and made it look like all these different exhibit references related to only one silencer! Sheila's body was found here, there, and almost everywhere, she was dead downstairs in the kitchen at 7.35am, she was dead upstairs on top of the bed at 8.44am, and she ended up dead on the bedroom floor in time for PC Bird to photograph her body there by 10.00 am...

And all of this makes Jeremy Bamber the killer!

[Caroline]

And all of this makes Jeremy Bamber the killer!

Yep!

[mike tesko]

Yep!

There is clear evidence of wrong doing oñ the part of prosecution witnesses, left, right, and centre, who should all be locked away behind bars! Tampering with the bodies of the deceased, moving the gun, altering exhibit references to key exhibits, creating fake composite witness statements full of nonsense to portray Jeremy in a poor light, these convictions are unsafe, and that is an understatement!

[mike tesko]

There is clear evidence of wrong doing oñ the part of prosecution witnesses, left, right, and centre, who should all be locked away behind bars! Tampering with the bodies of the deceased, moving the gun, altering exhibit references to key exhibits, creating fake composite witness statements full of nonsense to portray Jeremy in a poor light, these convictions are unsafe, and that is an understatement!

Not to mention the miracle bullet, (PV/20) of which not all the pieces were recovered by the pathologist during autopsy and was a fragmented piece of bullet on the 7th August 1985, but by the 20th September 1985, this had manifested itself and had grown in to a WHOLE BULLET, without any interference by any Prosecution witnesses involvement in its transformation...

[Jane]

You DID say that - nothing out of context here!

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6697.msg305181.html#msg305181

The use of "safely" nicely suggesting that view is unequivocal!

It occurs to me that much of what's being presented now -as evidence of innocence- is only a rehash of what was being presented when I first joined. Indeed, there's nothing new -proven or of consequence- to present.

 Back in the day, I'm sure many were aghast that statements weren't necessarily written in the witness's exact words -until it was pointed out that such is some people's pattern of speech that it might be unintelligible or full of unnecessary blaspheming/expletives- they weren't told that precising has been a long accepted method of presenting words said by others. Also omitted was that the now precised witness statement is returned to the witness to corroborate and sign, the implication being that until the witness hears it read back in court they have no idea of any alterations. I'm sure many of us learned a lot. I had no idea that A witness statement is a composite of numerous statements given. Whilst it was initially suggested that this made the statement illegal, it's not something that I, or others who have had to present copious factual, as opposed to fictional, essays, would have a problem with. Facts, not frills, are what counts.....................
................Anyway, having cleared up that little problem, it's NOW being suggested that whilst it was previously believed WS's were illegal because they weren't exact replications of what had been said, it's now accepted that WS's are composites, but now we're given to understand it's the composites themselves which have been faked. Of course, this would seem to imply one of two things A) the witness isn't given access to what they've -allegedly- said, (thus they have to take their chance in court that whoever was responsible for transcribing their words, was well enough educated to accomplish it correctly) OR, having once obtained the witness's signature, the WS is transcribed in a way the police want it to read and the signature is cleverly reapplied in such a way as to make it appear original. IF this  practice is accepted and ubiquitous throughout the entire police force, not ONE case, ever heard, has come to a legal and just conclusion.

Back to the case in hand. Can we really believe that Jeremy Bamber -the same guy who told counsel "that is for you to prove"- wasn't capable of denying having said things that police are alleging him to have said?  Or are we being asked to believe he was so convinced he'd walk, that he didn't care about any alleged duplicity in the presentation of his statement?

[maggie]

I have split the above thread and all the posts arguing about old posts, who changed sides and why etc. are now in Off Topic under a new heading........  'Who changed sides and who cares?'   While it's fine to use old posts to make a point about the subject of the thread arguments about pesonal behavour and changing beliefs are off topic and are getting out of hand.

I decided rather than removing these posts altogether it made some sense to move them to a thread in Off Topic.
Cheers

[Caroline]

I have split the above thread and all the posts arguing about old posts, who changed sides and why etc. are now in Off Topic under a new heading........  'Who changed sides and who cares?'   While it's fine to use old posts to make a point about the subject of the thread arguments about pesonal behavour and changing beliefs are off topic and are getting out of hand.

I decided rather than removing these posts altogether it made some sense to move them to a thread in Off Topic.
Cheers

David uses old posts to goad and the reason he changed the subject, was that he claimed 3SB was Stan Jones's signature and rather than just admit he was wrong (when the real signature was posted), he decided to throw his toys out of the pram and go into full goading mode. His a child and NOT the font of all knowledge that he believes himself to be!

[mike tesko]

David uses old posts to goad and the reason he changed the subject, was that he claimed 3SB was Stan Jones's signature and rather than just admit he was wrong (when the real signature was posted), he decided to throw his toys out of the pram and go into full goading mode. His a child and NOT the font of all knowledge that he believes himself to be!

In Fairness, it is not the signature of Stan Jones, but it is his initials - Jones had the habit of writing, 'J', then, 'S', followed by the 'b' (Jones, Stanley, Brian)...

David was right, Stan Jones put his 'initials' on that 8th September 1985 composite witness statement...

[Caroline]

In Fairness, it is not the signature of Stan Jones, but it is his initials - Jones had the habit of writing, 'J', then, 'S', followed by the 'b' (Jones, Stanley, Brian)...

David was right, Stan Jones put his 'initials' on that 8th September 1985 composite witness statement...

That isn't initials Mike - it'd  3 followed by an S or a 5 and then a B. Stand Jones's initial would SBJ. It doesn't fit because it is clearly something else. David wasn't right and nothing either of you have posted shows that those letters and numbers have ANY connect to Stan Jones whatsoever. 

[maggie]

David uses old posts to goad and the reason he changed the subject, was that he claimed 3SB was Stan Jones's signature and rather than just admit he was wrong (when the real signature was posted), he decided to throw his toys out of the pram and go into full goading mode. His a child and NOT the font of all knowledge that he believes himself to be!

I understand what you are saying however the thread was way off subject and lost in personal accusations.  I had a choice to remove them all to Hidden Threads but as I said I decided to leave them up away from this thread otherwise I would have removed a load of posts which I didn't consider was particularly necessary.  I need to go through the posts again as there are a few which need removing to HT. 
David s not the only one who uses old posts  to goad and is not always the instigator. 

[Jane]

In Fairness, it is not the signature of Stan Jones, but it is his initials - Jones had the habit of writing, 'J', then, 'S', followed by the 'b' (Jones, Stanley, Brian)...

David was right, Stan Jones put his 'initials' on that 8th September 1985 composite witness statement...

Having a name which begins with a J, I have NEVER resorted to using a 3 to define it.

[David1819]

Lookout asks me a question - What if I don't believe there to have been a conspiracy ?
I answer - Then you can safely believe Jeremy is Guilty

I don't think anyone would disagree with my answer (except lookout). However by not showing the actual post and lookouts question not in quotation marks it puts a rather misleading light on my answer.

There is good reason why Adam does not show the actual posts. 

[Caroline]

Lookout asks me a question - What if I don't believe there to have been a conspiracy ?
I answer - Then you can safely believe Jeremy is Guilty

I don't think anyone would disagree with my answer (except lookout). However by not showing the actual post and lookouts question not in quotation marks it puts a rather misleading light on my answer.

There is good reason why Adam does not show the actual posts. 

We've seen the actual post and it makes no difference but what Adam is doing is no different to what you do. Adam is giving you a dose of you own medicine and good on him! You deserve it!

[David1819]

David uses old posts to goad and the reason he changed the subject, was that he claimed 3SB was Stan Jones's signature and rather than just admit he was wrong (when the real signature was posted), he decided to throw his toys out of the pram and go into full goading mode. His a child and NOT the font of all knowledge that he believes himself to be!

That's incorrect. The subject turned to the police searching the gun cupboard because of a theory I came up with to explain the existence of the statement that this entire thread is based upon. Subsequently you and your sidekick then started finding excuses for the police not recovering the moderator. So instead of waisting my time explaining things to you that you already understand yourselves I simply posted your own posts to point out that it's pointless debating with you as you already know the facts of the matter.

Make sense?