Sheila and one other were responsible......

[David1819]

The source David is going to supply will contradict Dr Craig's WS. As David said -

'Dr Craig was called to attend the scene under the impression he would be needed to help the police subdue Sheila.'

---------

I look forward to seeing David's source.

Here

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3125.msg119799.html#msg119799

[Jane]

At least it's being highlighted--------courtesy of the gullible who see no wrong in how the law works or doesn't as the case may be.
There are others besides JB who hopefully will get to see fair play sooner rather than later though JB has the backing of a legal team why haven't others ?

There are several issues here. That it's been highlighted is probably the most important. It's no more a question of "the gullible who see no wrong in how the law works or doesn't............." than the anti establishments who'll jump on anything they can make noise about. By this, I mean neither the uncaring nor the militant can unhappen what has gone before and there's EVERY chance they won't fully eradicate it in the future. Probably the best that can be hoped for is that it can be stemmed.

We differ in how we believe legal teams work. I'll go no further than saying I think most do the best they can for their client, but I don't believe it's necessary for them to believe in the client's guilt or innocence. You may see what they do as being altruistic. I see it as an exercise. Cases such as Jeremy's, whilst possibly being headed by a legal "name" are a way of giving interns something to grind their legal teeth on. It certainly won't be their only case -it's likely to be a fill in between others- especially if it's pro bono. It MAY be that A team is made up of members from different firms. There is always a chance that the team, whoever they're representing, will win. Another reason why they need to remain ambivalent regarding their client's innocence or guilt. In Jeremy's case, there's NOTHING concrete to suggest his innocence. Training is always good so maybe it will be used as the sort of training exercise we're told took place -using corpse's as props- at WHF.

[Adam]

Here

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3125.msg119799.html#msg119799

Dr Craig was wrong in his assessment of the phone call.

The raid team had already broken into WHF and discovered everyone dead by 8.10am. Dr Craig just had to certify the deaths.

[Jane]

Dr Craig was wrong in his assessment of the phone call.

The raid team had already broken into WHF and discovered everyone dead by 8.10am. Dr Craig just had to certify the deaths.

To clarify. Dr Craig, expecting to be going out to premises at which there was a siege situation, he's greeted by police who tell him everyone is dead in what they believe to be a murder/suicide scenario. It transpires that the information given him regarding the family and Sheila originated from Jeremy.  His only requirement is to certify death, which he does, noting obvious bullet wounds on three bodies. No physical examination of the bodies was required to determine death. He was in the house between 15 and 20 minutes. There appears to have been no reason -given information received and what he'd seen- for him to question murder/suicide.

[Caroline]

A person can't take responsibility for something they didn't do,would you ?

But I (and others) and the state believe he did, so they won't release him unless he can prove he didn't.

[lookout]

But I (and others) and the state believe he did, so they won't release him unless he can prove he didn't.

He'd have been released years ago if that were the point,i.e. confession-release. Isn't that how it works ?

[Caroline]

Here

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3125.msg119799.html#msg119799

So that is what he 'thought'. Clearly they didn't tell him the full situation until he arrived at the scene. He was there to pronounce death and that's what he did.

[Caroline]

He'd have been released years ago if that were the point,i.e. confession-release. Isn't that how it works ?

Not necessarily given that he received a whole life tariff. 

[Adam]

David was trying to create the impression the police knew there was a seige situation at WHF. This attempt was rumbled due to the time Dr Craig received the phone call.

[lookout]

So that is what he 'thought'. Clearly they didn't tell him the full situation until he arrived at the scene. He was there to pronounce death and that's what he did.

He'd gathered it was a murder/suicide by what Harris had told him from his notes. I wonder what Harris wrote to indicate murder/suicide.? I can't seem to find his notes/statement.

[Jane]

He'd gathered it was a murder/suicide by what Harris had told him from his notes. I wonder what Harris wrote to indicate murder/suicide.? I can't seem to find his notes/statement.

I've suggested that the views and subsequent actions of police were informed by what Jeremy had spent ages telling therm. I've been told that this couldn't have been the case. That police would have formed the opinions they'd been trained  in. However, no one seems to have turned a hair over Dr Craig accepting what police told him. It no longer seems important that the information they gave him came from Jeremy.

[lookout]

I've suggested that the views and subsequent actions of police were informed by what Jeremy had spent ages telling therm. I've been told that this couldn't have been the case. That police would have formed the opinions they'd been trained  in. However, no one seems to have turned a hair over Dr Craig accepting what police told him. It no longer seems important that the information they gave him came from Jeremy.

So you're saying police are gullible too ?

[Jane]

So you're saying police are gullible too ?

We can all be gullible if we're being shafted by someone we think we have no reason to distrust.

[lookout]

We can all be gullible if we're being shafted by someone we think we have no reason to distrust.

Some more than others--------yet when JB mentioned foster-care nobody believed him ( which was the truth ) and it was from then on that everyone had made up their minds that everything he said was lies.

There's none so deaf as those who don't want to hear !!

[Jane]

Some more than others--------yet when JB mentioned foster-care nobody believed him ( which was the truth ) and it was from then on that everyone had made up their minds that everything he said was lies.

There's none so deaf as those who don't want to hear !!

Did he not once say it was important to tell as much of the truth as possible? In this, he probably did, albeit there's no way of proving it. It IS possible, given how we're told Sheila was, that fostering -something she was more than used to- was spoken of. What's VERY unlikely is that she was threatened with losing her children/having them taken into care or whatever other sort of fait acomplis Jeremy is hinting took place. The children were in COLIN'S care. The Bambers had no rights over them. However, the police weren't to know that when Jeremy told them.