Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: guest29835 on September 17, 2021, 08:18:PM
-
Found this podcast discussing Julie Mugford. Make of it what you will:
https://www.spreaker.com/user/13722089/julie-mugford
-
What a pair of misguided idiots !
-
Cutting threw the lewdness (N.B.start at 11 minutes in) I agree with the two women that Jeremy is a psycho and Julie was the victim.
-
Cutting threw the lewdness (N.B.start at 11 minutes in) I agree with the two women that Jeremy is a psycho and Julie was the victim.
When did the age of criminal responsibility become 10?
1963
The current age of criminal responsibility was established in 1963 but, until 1998, the common law principle of doli incapax had afforded a degree of protection to children aged 10 to 14 years, by requiring the prosecution to show not only that the child had committed the act alleged, but also that he or she knew that ...
Julie Mugford Crimes
Perverting the course of justice
Attempted murder
Drug trafficking
Cheque book fraud
Robbery
-
When did the age of criminal responsibility become 10?
1963
The current age of criminal responsibility was established in 1963 but, until 1998, the common law principle of doli incapax had afforded a degree of protection to children aged 10 to 14 years, by requiring the prosecution to show not only that the child had committed the act alleged, but also that he or she knew that ...
Julie Mugford Crimes
Perverting the course of justice
Attempted murder
Drug trafficking
Cheque book fraud
Robbery
The prosecution star witness
-
How would the case have gone without her ?? Answers on a postage stamp.
-
How would the case have gone without her ?? Answers on a postage stamp.
Exactly Lookout. If Mugford was an honest person you would think she would fight to have all the evidence regarding her released for the record to prove there was no deal with the police.
The last docu drama showed her in a bad light so she must be worried what’s next
-
How someone can spend their whole life in jail based on the words of a extremely unreliable witness is beyond me.
Also there is no direct evidence proving guilt, and the police's actions have been appalling, trying to cover up their extreme bad handling of the case or worse.
-
How someone can spend their whole life in jail based on the words of a extremely unreliable witness is beyond me.
Also there is no direct evidence proving guilt, and the police's actions have been appalling, trying to cover up their extreme bad handling of the case or worse.
There is a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence.
But appreciate supporters have to ignore it. Which is a bit weird.
Julie giving a 32 page WS & testifying, Bamber being the only alive suspect with motives, an opportunity & no alibi doesn't help him either.
-
There is a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence.
But appreciate supporters have to ignore it. Which is a bit weird.
Julie giving a 32 page WS & testifying, Bamber being the only alive suspect with motives, an opportunity & no alibi doesn't help him either.
I am not ignoring anything I am trying to be unbiased but "mountain of forensic evidence"?? if the withheld documents could be released there might be a mountain of evidence!
-
I am not ignoring anything I am trying to be unbiased but "mountain of forensic evidence"?? if the withheld documents could be released there might be a mountain of evidence!
Lookout, JackieD & David support for non evidence reasons. Hopefully you will follow the evidence.
-
Lookout, JackieD & David support for non evidence reasons. Hopefully you will follow the evidence.
Thanks Adam. I can't blame Lookout, JackieD and David really, as Jeremy does have excellent dress sense and conveys that Je ne sais quoi. I do agree with you that he needs to sort out some industrial frames. He can't be turning at his appeal in those scruffy glasses he normally wears.
-
There is a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence.
But appreciate supporters have to ignore it. Which is a bit weird.
Julie giving a 32 page WS & testifying, Bamber being the only alive suspect with motives, an opportunity & no alibi doesn't help him either.
Nil---forensic evidence.
Circumstantial evidence >>>>>>>>evidence that is NOT directly related to a fact in question.
Excuse Adam's psittacosis ( parrot disease ) he was given the wrong vaccine and repeats everything.
-
The two women in the podcast sound fun. They're the type I would gladly meet because they turn everything into a laugh.
They have one of the key facts wrong: Julie didn't take months and months to go to the police, it was more like three or so weeks after the event (though she did also claim that Jeremy had been indicating for months that he might kill his family).
I find myself agreeing with the main thrust of what they say. Julie Mugford was a 'Ghastly Woman' (though I disagree that this judgement should now apply to Julie Smerchanski - the very different, mature adult she has become).
Mugford was Ghastly, but not because of her failure to tell the police immediately. This is the usual basis for criticising her, and I don't agree with that particular criticism. On the basis of her own story, she wasn't completely sure about her suspicions and one thing led to another and so on. Suspicion can build up in one's mind before forming into something one is sure of. We can argue back and forth about whether this is what really happened. It seems plausible on its face, but in the context of Jeremy's relationship with her, you have to question why Jeremy would be making these disclosures to a mere girlfriend. Maybe he loved her and that's why. Yet he was sleeping with and expressing romantic interest in others, and he then broke up with her. Furthermore, the defence are now saying it wasn't Julie who went to the police, but someone else who was reporting her suspicions.
I think, if we're honest, we would have to admit that for Julie to stand up in court and lie and accuse Jeremy of mass murder and condemn him to imprisonment, would be a lie of such proportions that it almost boggles the mind, but at the same time we know from common and shared human experience that people do lie, and we also know that witnesses do tell outright lies in murder trials. I gather that at least two of the witnesses in the first trial of Michael Stone admitted immediately after he was sentenced they had lied and he had not confessed to them. Stone was then re-tried and re-convicted on the basis of the one witness, a prisoner, who claimed Stone had confessed to him through the inter-cell drainage after Stone had been put there in isolation because he was worried that another prisoner would lie and make up a confession by him. Are we to conclude that this witness alone is telling the truth, or shall we conclude that this witness has just not yet confessed his lie? As time goes on, it becomes harder and harder to own up and tell the truth because the consequences of the lie become greater as each year passes, indeed as each moment passes. If a lie is too much, then the truth is too much sometimes too.
My main criticism of Julie is on the ground of what one of the women in the podcast mentions: her interview with The News of the World, which was offensive and insensitive. She allowed herself to be photographed provocatively, which seems very inappropriate and hypocritical immediately after the conclusion of the trial. She also allowed the court to be misled about her dealings with that newspaper and was not forthcoming on the issue in 2002, when I think she should have been - for one thing, it would have assisted the prosecution had she been more honest by allowing that particular point to be laid to rest for good.
-
Nil---forensic evidence.
Circumstantial evidence >>>>>>>>evidence that is NOT directly related to a fact in question.
Excuse Adam's psittacosis ( parrot disease ) he was given the wrong vaccine and repeats everything.
To be fair, there was plenty of forensic evidence that Sheila was not the killer. (Whether you agree with this accepted interpretation of the evidence is another matter). However, it would be true to say that there is no direct forensic evidence against Jeremy. The case against him is circumstantial, including the forensic evidence I mention.
To be clear: I consider Julie Mugford's evidence to be circumstantial rather than direct evidence, though some would dispute this. Hence, my view is that the case against Jeremy is circumstantial in its entirety.
-
To be fair, there was plenty of forensic evidence that Sheila was not the killer. (Whether you agree with this accepted interpretation of the evidence is another matter). However, it would be true to say that there is no direct forensic evidence against Jeremy. The case against him is circumstantial, including the forensic evidence I mention.
To be clear: I consider Julie Mugford's evidence to be circumstantial rather than direct evidence, though some would dispute this. Hence, my view is that the case against Jeremy is circumstantial in its entirety.
'To be fair, there was plenty of forensic evidence that Sheila was not the killer.'
----------
Which is direct forensic evidence against Bamber. As he is the only alive suspect.
-
Should this case have had a unanimous verdict ? Why didn't it have when such cases require unanimity ?
-
'To be fair, there was plenty of forensic evidence that Sheila was not the killer.'
----------
Which is direct forensic evidence against Bamber. As he is the only alive suspect.
In technical language, I would say it is not direct evidence. The evidence builds up a circumstantial case against Bamber - for the reason you say.
-
Should this case have had a unanimous verdict ? Why didn't it have when such cases require unanimity ?
The unanimity requirement was abolished by statute some time before the Bamber case: section 13 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/80/section/13/enacted
Not a good idea.
I would agree that the failure of the Crown to secure a unanimous verdict does add a shade of doubt to the case.
-
The two women in the podcast sound fun. They're the type I would gladly meet because they turn everything into a laugh.
They have one of the key facts wrong: Julie didn't take months and months to go to the police, it was more like three or so weeks after the event (though she did also claim that Jeremy had been indicating for months that he might kill his family).
I find myself agreeing with the main thrust of what they say. Julie Mugford was a 'Ghastly Woman' (though I disagree that this judgement should now apply to Julie Smerchanski - the very different, mature adult she has become).
Mugford was Ghastly, but not because of her failure to tell the police immediately. This is the usual basis for criticising her, and I don't agree with that particular criticism. On the basis of her own story, she wasn't completely sure about her suspicions and one thing led to another and so on. Suspicion can build up in one's mind before forming into something one is sure of. We can argue back and forth about whether this is what really happened. It seems plausible on its face, but in the context of Jeremy's relationship with her, you have to question why Jeremy would be making these disclosures to a mere girlfriend. Maybe he loved her and that's why. Yet he was sleeping with and expressing romantic interest in others, and he then broke up with her. Furthermore, the defence are now saying it wasn't Julie who went to the police, but someone else who was reporting her suspicions.
I think, if we're honest, we would have to admit that for Julie to stand up in court and lie and accuse Jeremy of mass murder and condemn him to imprisonment, would be a lie of such proportions that it almost boggles the mind, but at the same time we know from common and shared human experience that people do lie, and we also know that witnesses do tell outright lies in murder trials. I gather that at least two of the witnesses in the first trial of Michael Stone admitted immediately after he was sentenced they had lied and he had not confessed to them. Stone was then re-tried and re-convicted on the basis of the one witness, a prisoner, who claimed Stone had confessed to him through the inter-cell drainage after Stone had been put there in isolation because he was worried that another prisoner would lie and make up a confession by him. Are we to conclude that this witness alone is telling the truth, or shall we conclude that this witness has just not yet confessed his lie? As time goes on, it becomes harder and harder to own up and tell the truth because the consequences of the lie become greater as each year passes, indeed as each moment passes. If a lie is too much, then the truth is too much sometimes too.
My main criticism of Julie is on the ground of what one of the women in the podcast mentions: her interview with The News of the World, which was offensive and insensitive. She allowed herself to be photographed provocatively, which seems very inappropriate and hypocritical immediately after the conclusion of the trial. She also allowed the court to be misled about her dealings with that newspaper and was not forthcoming on the issue in 2002, when I think she should have been - for one thing, it would have assisted the prosecution had she been more honest by allowing that particular point to be laid to rest for good.
Your judgement of Julie is made from a male perspective. From my perspective none of the women I know would dream of trying to smother a partner with a pillow.
That is not normal behaviour and I am 99% sure Julie would never have been allowed to teach children if her history was known.
Women do lie though. Julie Mugford is no different than Maxine Carr and it’s abundantly clear why she told the police her story and the timing of her story
Do you really consider Julie Mugford to be any different to Maxine Carr
-
The unanimity requirement was abolished by statute some time before the Bamber case: section 13 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/80/section/13/enacted
Not a good idea.
I would agree that the failure of the Crown to secure a unanimous verdict does add a shade of doubt to the case.
The Crown could not secure a unanimous verdict even after the jury were given misleading evidence. A shade of doubt? I would say a lot of doubt.
-
The Crown could not secure a unanimous verdict even after the jury were given misleading evidence. A shade of doubt? I would say a lot of doubt.
I say a shade of doubt because the lack of unanimity amongst the jury is not in itself ground for reasonable doubt about the case they considered. It does put a shady complexion on the case, but the law allows majority verdicts - unfortunately.
-
I don't know the law but how can someone be locked away for a whole life term when a lot of possible evidence that may help the defence is withheld?
The final straw for me perhaps I am totally wrong is SC's nightdress going missing.
-
I don't know the law but how can someone be locked away for a whole life term when a lot of possible evidence that may help the defence is withheld?
The final straw for me perhaps I am totally wrong is SC's nightdress going missing.
Who says it's withheld. The CT?
-
Who says it's withheld. The CT?
Where are the photographs showing the office with maybe the phone in that the jury was told was hidden by JB, every room was photographed we know that.
-
Who says it's withheld. The CT?
Where are the logs calling in armed police I want to see them.
-
Who says it's withheld. The CT?
I could go on all night but I won't, show me the pictures of the office please.
-
I could go on all night but I won't, show me the pictures of the office please.
What office?
-
What office?
The office that a police officer made a phone call from, if as claimed the phone in the kitchen was not used.
-
The office that a police officer made a phone call from, if as claimed the phone in the kitchen was not used.
Do you mean this office Rob?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4099
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4548
-
Do you mean this office Rob?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4099
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4548
I don’t know if you’ve seen the plans of the house Rob, but here they are.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=37250
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=37259
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=37701
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=37702
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,887.0.html
-
I don’t know if you’ve seen the plans of the house Rob, but here they are.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=37250
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=37259
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=37701
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=37702
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,887.0.html
Thanks for posting those images is this the downstairs office? I believe it's the upstairs office I was hoping to find images of. There was a working phone that a police officer use to call out on rather that use the phone in the kitchen? though there is doubt over which phone was used.
But its the phone that was hidden under magazines I am interested in, I thought it was at the time when the crime was committed in one of the offices?
-
COA:
There were normally four telephones at White House Farm (although there was only one telephone line).
A cream old-fashioned finger-dial telephone kept in the main bedroom (the bedroom telephone), a blue digital telephone in the first floor office (the office telephone), a cream cordless telephone kept in the kitchen but used around and outside the house (the cordless telephone) and a fawn digital telephone also kept in the kitchen (the kitchen telephone).
The only telephone with a memory recall feature was the cordless telephone but this had been faulty and was collected for repair on the morning of 5 August 1985.
The telephone that had been found with the receiver off its cradle in the kitchen was in fact the bedroom telephone, which had been moved downstairs.
The kitchen telephone had been hidden amongst a pile of magazines in the kitchen.
The office telephone was in its normal place
-
The kitchen phone under a pile of magazines was in working order.
Bamber took the cream phone off the hook to support his claim Nevill was found in the kitchen.
Julie was aware of the cordless phone with a last number dialled facility. She said Bamber had planned to use it to back up his claim that Nevill had called him.
He may not have been aware the cordless phone had been taken away the day before. If he was aware he decided to go ahead anyway due to his short massacre timescale available.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1105.msg34232.html#msg34232
Douglas Pike said he met every family member when he collected the portable phone. Except Jeremy.
Pike confirms the cordless phone has a last number dialled facility.
He also says the phone has a maximum range of 150 yards! If Bamber was not aware of that, it is lucky he didn't have the chance to use it as part of his frame!
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1105.msg34232.html#msg34232
Douglas Pike said he met every family member when he collected the portable phone. Except Jeremy.
Pike confirms the cordless phone has a last number dialled facility.
He also says the phone has a maximum range of 150 yards! If Bamber was not aware of that, it is lucky he didn't have the chance to use it as part of his frame!
Thanks for that Adam but I am hoping you can give me photographs of the offices, should be a minimum of four pointing inwards from the four corners of the room. Surely these can't be withheld??
-
Thanks for that Adam but I am hoping you can give me photographs of the offices, should be a minimum of four pointing inwards from the four corners of the room. Surely these can't be withheld??
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,887.0.html
Might be something here. Otherwise feel free to search in other places.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,887.0.html
Might be something here. Otherwise feel free to search in other places.
Thanks but I have looked through those, perhaps I missed them? I can understand certain sensitive photos being withheld but not rooms with no bodies in!
Its fortunate that the negatives are in strips and numbered so if any go walkies we will know.
-
Thanks but I have looked through those, perhaps I missed them? I can understand certain sensitive photos being withheld but not rooms with no bodies in!
Its fortunate that the negatives are in strips and numbered so if any go walkies we will know.
Some negatives have gone walkies.
-
Some negatives have gone walkies.
Who do you suspect is behind this? and what did the CCRC say?
-
Some negatives have gone walkies.
Well sorry but in my opinion if basic evidence like this has gone missing the Crown's case collapses.
-
Well sorry but in my opinion if basic evidence like this has gone missing the Crown's case collapses.
There is a thread that covers a lot of this here;
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9559.0.html
The video that Roch posted in post 1 of the thread will be of interest to you and gives many more details.
-
There is a thread that covers a lot of this here;
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9559.0.html
The video that Roch posted in post 1 of the thread will be of interest to you and gives many more details.
Thanks I just watched the video, shocking really, it makes me sad this can happen in our country.
-
Thanks I just watched the video, shocking really, it makes me sad this can happen in our country.
The ever reducing amount of negatives and Essex Police "curation" of those negatives is shocking. The following gem from the CCRC cannot be left unremarked.
"As stated above, on the occasions when the negative strips have been cut short the subject matter (with the exception of the gun cupboard) is not of significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction"
The exact protocols used by the CCRC to discern that photographs they hadn't seen from negatives that no longer existed were of no evidential value is something we can only guess at. Even worse though is the admission shoved into brackets as if it doesn't matter.
The tacit admission that the negative strips of the gun cupboard were not only cut short but were of "significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction".
So the CCRC are aware that strips have been cut some time between 2001 and 2012. They apply some mysterious test which shows that the missing negatives are not important, except for the ones that are, but dismiss the ones that are, even though they themselves concede that these missing negatives are of evidential value. No further reasoning is offered.
I am sure that it is all a huge coincidence that the negative strips containing pictures of the gun cupboard have been cut short. I imagine EP and those relatives involved in the "finding of the silencer" ::) must be disappointed that the pictures showing the gun cupboard were cut short. They would be able to prove once and for all that the silencer had been there all along and that it wasn't a fabrication by dishonest and greedy relatives with the connivance of dishonest officers. If only... ;D
The gun cupboard and its contents are clearly of the utmost importance in this case given the dubious and much disputed chain of custody of the contents of said cupboard. That the CCRC dismiss the fact of the missing negatives without explanation, despite recognising the "significance to the safety of the conviction", does nothing to inspire confidence in either their integrity or competence.
-
Who do you suspect is behind this? and what did the CCRC say?
Essex Police carried out the removal of negatives. The CCRC have said nothing about it save to accept implicitly the explanation offered by Essex Police, which was totally unconvincing.
-
The ever reducing amount of negatives and Essex Police "curation" of those negatives is shocking. The following gem from the CCRC cannot be left unremarked.
"As stated above, on the occasions when the negative strips have been cut short the subject matter (with the exception of the gun cupboard) is not of significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction"
The exact protocols used by the CCRC to discern that photographs they hadn't seen from negatives that no longer existed were of no evidential value is something we can only guess at. Even worse though is the admission shoved into brackets as if it doesn't matter.
The tacit admission that the negative strips of the gun cupboard were not only cut short but were of "significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction".
So the CCRC are aware that strips have been cut some time between 2001 and 2012. They apply some mysterious test which shows that the missing negatives are not important, except for the ones that are, but dismiss the ones that are, even though they themselves concede that these missing negatives are of evidential value. No further reasoning is offered.
I am sure that it is all a huge coincidence that the negative strips containing pictures of the gun cupboard have been cut short. I imagine EP and those relatives involved in the "finding of the silencer" ::) must be disappointed that the pictures showing the gun cupboard were cut short. They would be able to prove once and for all that the silencer had been there all along and that it wasn't a fabrication by dishonest and greedy relatives with the connivance of dishonest officers. If only... ;D
The gun cupboard and its contents are clearly of the utmost importance in this case given the dubious and much disputed chain of custody of the contents of said cupboard. That the CCRC dismiss the fact of the missing negatives without explanation, despite recognising the "significance to the safety of the conviction", does nothing to inspire confidence in either their integrity or competence.
No comment Real Justice
-
The ever reducing amount of negatives and Essex Police "curation" of those negatives is shocking. The following gem from the CCRC cannot be left unremarked.
"As stated above, on the occasions when the negative strips have been cut short the subject matter (with the exception of the gun cupboard) is not of significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction"
The exact protocols used by the CCRC to discern that photographs they hadn't seen from negatives that no longer existed were of no evidential value is something we can only guess at. Even worse though is the admission shoved into brackets as if it doesn't matter.
The tacit admission that the negative strips of the gun cupboard were not only cut short but were of "significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction".
So the CCRC are aware that strips have been cut some time between 2001 and 2012. They apply some mysterious test which shows that the missing negatives are not important, except for the ones that are, but dismiss the ones that are, even though they themselves concede that these missing negatives are of evidential value. No further reasoning is offered.
I am sure that it is all a huge coincidence that the negative strips containing pictures of the gun cupboard have been cut short. I imagine EP and those relatives involved in the "finding of the silencer" ::) must be disappointed that the pictures showing the gun cupboard were cut short. They would be able to prove once and for all that the silencer had been there all along and that it wasn't a fabrication by dishonest and greedy relatives with the connivance of dishonest officers. If only... ;D
The gun cupboard and its contents are clearly of the utmost importance in this case given the dubious and much disputed chain of custody of the contents of said cupboard. That the CCRC dismiss the fact of the missing negatives without explanation, despite recognising the "significance to the safety of the conviction", does nothing to inspire confidence in either their integrity or competence.
Thanks Gringo,
Well I am not sure what to say, if the negatives have been tampered with then nothing else can be trusted either.
SC's feet were spotless the jury were told, what a joke no wonder the photo's were withheld.
We will soon see how much integrity the CCRC have, to me the Crown's case is over.
-
Thanks Gringo,
Well I am not sure what to say, if the negatives have been tampered with then nothing else can be trusted either.
SC's feet were spotless the jury were told, what a joke no wonder the photo's were withheld.
We will soon see how much integrity the CCRC have, to me the Crown's case is over.
The Crown’s case will stand I’m pretty certain of that Rob, don’t get your hopes up. Some photos were put into PII or could have been because they consisted of the children, or they could have showed parts too explicit from the mortuary photos? Police would be very careful about the photos landing in the wrong hands and being published? Just my opinion, NGB has already told us it was the Crowns privilege to use PII back then, probably common practice. I think the problem arises from the fact it was a murder suicide by Sheila investigation at first which then turned into a Jeremy Bamber murder investigation?
-
Some photos were put into PII or could have been because they consisted of the children, or they could have showed parts too explicit from the mortuary photos? Police would be very careful about the photos landing in the wrong hands and being published? Just my opinion, NGB has already told us it was the Crowns privilege to use PII back then, probably common practice.
This is an entirely different issue RJ. The negatives that Essex Police removed from strips prior to inspections, three times between 2001 and 2012, are nothing to do with the PII issue. Neither Essex Police nor the CCRC have suggested that this is the reason for the removed negatives.
-
The Crown’s case will stand I’m pretty certain of that Rob, don’t get your hopes up. Some photos were put into PII or could have been because they consisted of the children, or they could have showed parts too explicit from the mortuary photos? Police would be very careful about the photos landing in the wrong hands and being published? Just my opinion, NGB has already told us it was the Crowns privilege to use PII back then, probably common practice. I think the problem arises from the fact it was a murder suicide by Sheila investigation at first which then turned into a Jeremy Bamber murder investigation?
No not getting my hopes up, I was referring more to images being cut from the rolls and probably being destroyed because they help the defence, rather than images of a sensitive nature being withheld. Sorry if I am being very cynical now!
If images have been cut from the rolls there is no excuse for this, if the police have tampered with the negatives, what else have they fiddled with? A image that happens to show a certain phone that the jury was told was hidden, or a picture of the inside of the gun cabinet could be dynamite to the defence.
There seems to be proof of clear tampers and lying by the police, I just don't understand how the Crown's case can stand?
-
Supporters & Bamber have been claiming stuff is being withheld for years. While simultaneously saying new evidence is going to free him. There is no proof of either.
But no harm in doing both. As all the released evidence shows he is guilty. It will also keep current supporters & may entice new ones.
-
The Crown’s case will stand I’m pretty certain of that Rob, don’t get your hopes up. Some photos were put into PII or could have been because they consisted of the children, or they could have showed parts too explicit from the mortuary photos? Police would be very careful about the photos landing in the wrong hands and being published? Just my opinion, NGB has already told us it was the Crowns privilege to use PII back then, probably common practice. I think the problem arises from the fact it was a murder suicide by Sheila investigation at first which then turned into a Jeremy Bamber murder investigation?
Ridiculous post trying to cover your mates backs
The word COULD stands out from you
Your opinions are totally biased as usual
There is not a single excuse for non disclosure unless it’s to keep an innocent man in prison
You fail to give a single valid reason for evidence from Julie Mugford being witheld
-
Some photos were put into PII or could have been because they consisted of the children, or they could have showed parts too explicit from the mortuary photos? Police would be very careful about the photos landing in the wrong hands and being published? Just my opinion, NGB has already told us it was the Crowns privilege to use PII back then, probably common practice.
This is an entirely different issue RJ. The negatives that Essex Police removed from strips prior to inspections, three times between 2001 and 2012, are nothing to do with the PII issue. Neither Essex Police nor the CCRC have suggested that this is the reason for the removed negatives.
I know it’s entirely different to what your suggesting Gringo, I’m merely pointing out to Rob what could go or be in PII that forms part of the so called withheld evidence, including photographic image is one of them. I’m under no illusions that there was and still is corrupt police officers, this will never change. If any negatives was or have been removed like you say, they certainly wouldn’t be in PII, they’re gone end of, so asking for them or requesting them is surely futile, unless of course you know different and have seen the so called removed negatives and they still have them in their possession then I would say yes, release them to his defence I can’t be any clearer on that.
-
Supporters & Bamber have been claiming stuff is being withheld for years. While simultaneously saying new evidence is going to free him. There is no proof of either.
But no harm in doing both. As all the released evidence shows he is guilty. It will also keep current supporters & may entice new ones.
We live in a fair country Adam, your position seems to be we think he did it but we can't prove it so it's ok to frame him?
-
No not getting my hopes up, I was referring more to images being cut from the rolls and probably being destroyed because they help the defence, rather than images of a sensitive nature being withheld. Sorry if I am being very cynical now!
If images have been cut from the rolls there is no excuse for this, if the police have tampered with the negatives, what else have they fiddled with? A image that happens to show a certain phone that the jury was told was hidden, or a picture of the inside of the gun cabinet could be dynamite to the defence.
There seems to be proof of clear tampers and lying by the police, I just don't understand how the Crown's case can stand?
Well, Mike has proof that Bamber confessed to killing four members of his family but not killing Sheila, there was a taped confession. Bamber and Mike says the police shot Sheila twice by accident and put the blame of Sheila’s death onto Bamber, what more proof do you need Rob?
-
We live in a fair country Adam, your position seems to be we think he did it but we can't prove it so it's ok to frame him?
No one is framing him, he’s already confessed on tape to killing, or don’t you believe Mike because you haven’t seen the tape yet? Have you seen the negatives that have been removed?
-
Ridiculous post trying to cover your mates backs
The word COULD stands out from you
Your opinions are totally biased as usual
There is not a single excuse for non disclosure unless it’s to keep an innocent man in prison
You fail to give a single valid reason for evidence from Julie Mugford being witheld
Written without jealousy and not like yours. You come across as being jealous of anyone who was closer to Bamber than yourself, you attacked AA, you attack Daisy, you Attack Anne, you attack the CT, you constant attack JM, mostly all females, all because you were dumped by Bamber and they are or have been closer than you.
Anyway, I’ve got a life and I can’t be sitting at a computer daydreaming about Bamber all day like you and planning his next welcome home party. Good luck with the planning 👍
-
We live in a fair country Adam, your position seems to be we think he did it but we can't prove it so it's ok to frame him?
Do you believe there was an Industrial frame. Involving hundreds of people?
-
Written without jealousy and not like yours. You come across as being jealous of anyone who was closer to Bamber than yourself, you attacked AA, you attack Daisy, you Attack Anne, you attack the CT, you constant attack JM, mostly all females, all because you were dumped by Bamber and they are or have been closer than you.
Anyway, I’ve got a life and I can’t be sitting at a computer daydreaming about Bamber all day like you and planning his next welcome home party. Good luck with the planning 👍
Of course Real Justice the truth hurts doesn’t it.
It’s in black and white the relatives lied
The relatives tampered with vital evidence and you can’t handle the truth that vital evidence like negatives have been removed and special branch destroyed vital evidence.
Here you go running away when the questions get to difficult to answer
Bring on more and more documentaries as the truth will be revealed
The question remains what will happen to anyone that lied to have an innocent man convicted.
I will continue to call out liars like AA and Mugford, the campaign team and people that hide behind user names
-
Do you believe there was an Industrial frame. Involving hundreds of people?
Industrial frame hundreds of people? it only needs maybe one or two dodgy officers?
Where is this confession of JB killing four people, then I don't need to worry about this possible MOJ anymore? Why is this forum still going?
-
Of course Real Justice the truth hurts doesn’t it.
It’s in black and white the relatives lied
The relatives tampered with vital evidence and you can’t handle the truth that vital evidence like negatives have been removed and special branch destroyed vital evidence.
Here you go running away when the questions get to difficult to answer
Bring on more and more documentaries as the truth will be revealed
The question remains what will happen to anyone that lied to have an innocent man convicted.
I will continue to call out liars like AA and Mugford, the campaign team and people that hide behind user names
I don’t know if your a bit slow or what, it be told you before, no one will have any action, or lose anything, the relationship bed included. The house is owned by a trust, the farm shares was sold/ taken off Bamber due to a court case he lost, his Granda ma’s will will not be contested etc, JM was going to be used in one of his appeals and this was dropped, nothing in the new appeal indicates to me that JM is being targeted again?
Why don’t you try Martin Bashir, he’s unemployed at the moment and I’m sure he will use forgery and deception to gain the public’s interest for you? Has MWT dropped off the Bamber radar now, you don’t seem to push his name much now days. Anyway, waste your life around Bamber and dream of what IF’s and the party you missed out on.
-
Industrial frame hundreds of people? it only needs maybe one or two dodgy officers?
Where is this confession of JB killing four people, then I don't need to worry about this possible MOJ anymore? Why is this forum still going?
Mike was tapping the confession, he fights for Bamber on the grounds he was framed for Sheila’s death when it was in fact the Police that accidentally shot her twice and tried to cover it up. He said recently that the tape exists. Mike at one time was Bamber’s advocate and a trusted prisoner in the same Prison.
-
Mike was tapping the confession, he fights for Bamber on the grounds he was framed for Sheila’s death when it was in fact the Police that accidentally shot her twice and tried to cover it up. He said recently that the tape exists. Mike at one time was Bamber’s advocate and a trusted prisoner in the same Prison.
How was it done? did the authorities know? I have been in a high security prison to visit a friend who got in a lot of trouble. There is no way you can smuggle anything inside.
-
How was it done? did the authorities know? I have been in a high security prison to visit a friend who got in a lot of trouble. There is no way you can smuggle anything inside.
I do believe the Authorities knew about it, if you would like to know more please feel free to direct your Questions to Mike, I wasn’t there and I haven’t seen it.
-
I don’t know if your a bit slow or what, it be told you before, no one will have any action, or lose anything, the relationship bed included. The house is owned by a trust, the farm shares was sold/ taken off Bamber due to a court case he lost, his Granda ma’s will will not be contested etc, JM was going to be used in one of his appeals and this was dropped, nothing in the new appeal indicates to me that JM is being targeted :) :) :)
Why don’t you try Martin Bashir, he’s unemployed at the moment and I’m sure he will use forgery and deception to gain the public’s interest for you? Has MWT dropped off the Bamber radar now, you don’t seem to push his name much now days. Anyway, waste your life around Bamber and dream of what IF’s and the party you missed out on.
Once again you come across as desperate. What is it your friend David said he wished it would all go away
This case is far from going away as you and your friends realise. Programmes are commissioned due to public interest so we are where we are, prime time documentaries
-
How was it done? did the authorities know? I have been in a high security prison to visit a friend who got in a lot of trouble. There is no way you can smuggle anything inside.
I would ask Ngb about this not the spokesperson for the family who won’t answer difficult questions about the unsafe conviction
Ngb will give you an unbiased truthful answer
-
Once again you come across as desperate. What is it your friend David said he wished it would all go away
This case is far from going away as you and your friends realise. Programmes are commissioned due to public interest so we are where we are, prime time documentaries
Ha Ha desperate, I’m not locked away for life with no chance of Parole. Yes im out cycling at the moment 20 Miles into my bike ride, just stopped off for coffee and cake in the glorious sunshine, my only desperate thing at the moment, my arse feels a little sore that’s all.
I would think the only thing David is thinking about, how much divvy he’s going to make from this years bumper Holiday season?
-
I am really confused now! so if the police shot Sheila twice by accident, then she was fully alive and active within the house, why did she not just walk outside and tell the police what had happened?
I am not sure but Mike probably did not need to tape it anyway, the authorities were probably recording everything they said?
-
I would ask Ngb about this not the spokesperson for the family who won’t answer difficult questions about the unsafe conviction
Ngb will give you an unbiased truthful answer
Thanks Jackie, it sounds like he was wired so the authorities would have to be in on it, but I don't see the need as the authorities could easily record anything they said anyway?
-
Industrial frame hundreds of people? it only needs maybe one or two dodgy officers?
Where is this confession of JB killing four people, then I don't need to worry about this possible MOJ anymore? Why is this forum still going?
Police, evidence experts, Julie, courts, relatives, Bamber's ex friends.
They would all have to work together.
-
Police, evidence experts, Julie, courts, relatives, Bamber's ex friends.
They would all have to work together.
No I disagree, it would only need a photo here and a photo their, a few statements changed or go missing and job done.
-
No I disagree, it would only need a photo here and a photo their, a few statements changed or go missing and job done.
Job done? Surely Bamber would have overturned 'a photo here or there, a few statements changed or go missing'. He's been trying for 36 years.
What about all the forensic evidence?
What statements have gone missing?
-
Job done? Surely Bamber would have overturned 'a photo here or there, a few statements changed or go missing'. He's been trying for 36 years.
What about all the forensic evidence?
What statements have gone missing?
The photo of SC's foot showing blood marks which the jury never saw and have only recently been seen, the jury was told her feet were spotless.
Where are all the other photos of her hands etc. etc. I think 160 or so photos were shown to the jury out of over 500. Where are the logs calling in armed police I bet they were quite colourful, no mention of a reflection from the Moon in those I bet.
How many officers were in the house that day over 50? where are all the statements?
It's up to the jury to decide the case with all the information available not the information the Crown wants them to see to get a conviction.
-
The photo of SC's foot showing blood marks which the jury never saw and have only recently been seen, the jury was told her feet were spotless.
Where are all the other photos of her hands etc. etc. I think 160 or so photos were shown to the jury out of over 500. Where are the logs calling in armed police I bet they were quite colourful, no mention of a reflection from the Moon in those I bet.
How many officers were in the house that day over 50? where are all the statements?
It's up to the jury to decide the case with all the information available not the information the Crown wants them to see to get a conviction.
Well the foot showed a bit of redness. Not much considering Sheila was supposed to have walked around the bloodied house & fought Nevill. Bare footed.
Have you got a source about how many photos were shown to the jury?
What WS's are missing?
-
Ha Ha desperate, I’m not locked away for life with no chance of Parole. Yes im out cycling at the moment 20 Miles into my bike ride, just stopped off for coffee and cake in the glorious sunshine, my only desperate thing at the moment, my arse feels a little sore that’s all.
I would think the only thing David is thinking about, how much divvy he’s going to make from this years bumper Holiday season?
Dedham Vale and back?
-
The photo of SC's foot showing blood marks which the jury never saw and have only recently been seen, the jury was told her feet were spotless.
Where are all the other photos of her hands etc. etc. I think 160 or so photos were shown to the jury out of over 500. Where are the logs calling in armed police I bet they were quite colourful, no mention of a reflection from the Moon in those I bet.
How many officers were in the house that day over 50? where are all the statements?
It's up to the jury to decide the case with all the information available not the information the Crown wants them to see to get a conviction.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/board,11.0.html
-
Dedham Vale and back?
Ha Ha nice try, from the Osea park it’s about 25 mile, it’s a lovely place though Dedham, I used to visit it quite a lot when I was living on the Garrison in Colchester, I used to run and cycle to and around Friday woods regular. I Do miss Colly though I must admit.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/board,11.0.html
I can count Adam there are a lot missing?
-
Well the foot showed a bit of redness. Not much considering Sheila was supposed to have walked around the bloodied house & fought Nevill. Bare footed.
Have you got a source about how many photos were shown to the jury?
What WS's are missing?
But that's not what the jury were told was it Adam, they were told her feet were spotless implying she had not been walking round the house but been murdered before she had a chance to do anything.
That's just one foot, so what do the missing photos of her other foot and hands show? if the jury are only shown select facts to suit the Crown's version of events how are the jury expected to arrive at a correct judgement?
I don't need a source for the photos you know as well as I do it was only a fraction of the total taken.
-
I can count Adam there are a lot missing?
What officers WS's are missing?
How do you know they were not available at trial?
-
But that's not what the jury were told was it Adam, they were told her feet were spotless implying she had not been walking round the house but been murdered before she had a chance to do anything.
That's just one foot, so what do the missing photos of her other foot and hands show? if the jury are only shown select facts to suit the Crown's version of events how are the jury expected to arrive at a correct judgement?
I don't need a source for the photos you know as well as I do it was only a fraction of the total taken.
There was no blood, cuts or bruises on Sheila's feet. Her nails were in tact. As stated in the COA.
But well done to the CT for finding a photo of a foot with redness, since 1986.
The defence can show the jury what they want.
-
There was no blood, cuts or bruises on Sheila's feet. Her nails were in tact. As stated in the COA.
But well done to the CT for finding a photo of a foot with redness, since 1986.
The defence can show the jury what they want.
Telling the jury her feet were spotless, when she had clearly been walking around picking up blood on her feet?
"The defence can show the jury what they want" I agree if they have access to all the evidence, so can I see photos of the palms of SC's hands??
-
Telling the jury her feet were spotless, when she had clearly been walking around picking up blood on her feet?
"The defence can show the jury what they want" I agree if they have access to all the evidence, so can I see photos of the palms of SC's hands??
The photo is very weak. She may have walked across the bedroom onto June's blood. Bamber shot June before Sheila.
The defence can obtain and submit any evidence it wants. As well as dispute any evidence the prosecution brings up.
But well done to the CT. For finding one inconclusive photo in 36 years. They will be claiming Nevill called the sixth furthest police station next.
-
Telling the jury her feet were spotless, when she had clearly been walking around picking up blood on her feet?
"The defence can show the jury what they want" I agree if they have access to all the evidence, so can I see photos of the palms of SC's hands??
There are pictures of Sheila on the forum. If you find any others of her hands online, please post them.
Still waiting for your Sheila scenario. It should flow naturally and match the undisputed crime scene.
-
There are pictures of Sheila on the forum. If you find any others of her hands online, please post them.
Still waiting for your Sheila scenario. It should flow naturally and match the undisputed crime scene.
Sheila scenario? well going by the evidence given to the jury she was murdered on the spot as her feet were spotless, but going by the photo of her foot she was obviously walking around.
So do you want me to base my Sheila scenario on the evidence the jury heard or photos that have since come to light?
-
Sheila scenario? well going by the evidence given to the jury she was murdered on the spot as her feet were spotless, but going by the photo of her foot she was obviously walking around.
So do you want me to base my Sheila scenario on the evidence the jury heard or photos that have since come to light?
Just want you to give a Sheila scenario. Rather than bottling it.
Based on the undisputed bullet allocation, 1/2 phone calls, kitchen fight & body locations.
-
Sheila scenario? well going by the evidence given to the jury she was murdered on the spot as her feet were spotless, but going by the photo of her foot she was obviously walking around.
So do you want me to base my Sheila scenario on the evidence the jury heard or photos that have since come to light?
Rob I’ve put a link for you to read about earlier posts of Sheila’s feet? Have a read mate.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8696.0.html
-
Just want you to give a Sheila scenario. Rather than bottling it.
Based on the undisputed bullet allocation, 1/2 phone calls, kitchen fight & body locations.
It's good that Adam is giving Forum members the 'hard word'. This is a very effective way of delivering moral support. People need to buck their ideas up and not just lean on Adam and expect him to put in all the effort on the Forum.
-
Sheila scenario? well going by the evidence given to the jury she was murdered on the spot as her feet were spotless, but going by the photo of her foot she was obviously walking around.
So do you want me to base my Sheila scenario on the evidence the jury heard or photos that have since come to light?
No she was led from her bedroom to the master bedroom, which would already be bloodied. The complete sequence of events I doubt we will ever know.
-
It's good that Adam is giving Forum members the 'hard word'. This is a very effective way of delivering moral support. People need to buck their ideas up and not just lean on Adam and expect him to put in all the effort on the Forum.
It is strange that supporters refuse to give a Sheila scenario. They are saying Sheil did it!
-
It is strange that supporters refuse to give a Sheila scenario. They are saying Sheil did it!
It's upsetting for me, too, Adam. I was almost crying about it the other day. If supporters won't come up with Sheila scenarios, then I think they should pack it all in and write to Jeremy and tell him so. In fact, Jeremy himself ought to provide a Sheila scenario in one of his prison letters. We want a Sheila scenario and we want it now!
-
It is strange that supporters refuse to give a Sheila scenario. They are saying Sheil did it!
Because experienced police officers on the scene were happy the crime scene supported four murders and a suicide!
Why have a wild guess? does your scenario Adam explain how a badly injured June jumped over the duvet on the floor without touching it?
Which statements do I use to base my scenario on Brews and co original one or the shortened one with the reflection in the window removed/ or maybe a person?
Does my scenario need to allow for one, two or none silencers being used that night?
-
Rob I’ve put a link for you to read about earlier posts of Sheila’s feet? Have a read mate.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8696.0.html
Thanks RJ I have not read it all, but if the negatives were all in their original strips and numbered then this should be easy to determine.
My question is where are the other photos of the other foot, palms of the hands etc.? Why are photos being drip fed out over many years?
-
Because experienced police officers on the scene were happy the crime scene supported four murders and a suicide!
Why have a wild guess? does your scenario Adam explain how a badly injured June jumped over the duvet on the floor without touching it?
Which statements do I use to base my scenario on Brews and co original one or the shortened one with the reflection in the window removed/ or maybe a person?
Does my scenario need to allow for one, two or none silencers being used that night?
Your Sheila scenario does not need to include a silencer.
-
Your Sheila scenario does not need to include a silencer.
Ok thanks that's good because I don't think one was used anyway.
-
Ok thanks that's good because I don't think one was used anyway.
Look forward to reading your scenario.
-
Thanks RJ I have not read it all, but if the negatives were all in their original strips and numbered then this should be easy to determine.
My question is where are the other photos of the other foot, palms of the hands etc.? Why are photos being drip fed out over many years?
No problem Rob, I would be careful what photo’s you believe Rob I’ve seen fake and doctored documents and photo’s on here in the past, one supposedly from a Police officer. It doesn’t get them anywhere, it has the opposite effect. Your doing the right thing though, asking questions and you come across as a nice person and this forum needs posters like you.
The blood on Sheila’s feet was covered in the 2002 appeal Rob, if you want to read part of it, scroll down to Ground 2 paragraph 233, Disturbance of Crime Scene. I don’t think it answers fully your photograph query, but it might help you. Some things in this appeal might answer some of your questions.
https://ceadstorage.blob.core.windows.net/cead-images/Bamber.PDF
-
No problem Rob, I would be careful what photo’s you believe Rob I’ve seen fake and doctored documents and photo’s on here in the past, one supposedly from a Police officer. It doesn’t get them anywhere, it has the opposite effect. Your doing the right thing though, asking questions and you come across as a nice person and this forum needs posters like you.
The blood on Sheila’s feet was covered in the 2002 appeal Rob, if you want to read part of it, scroll down to Ground 2 paragraph 233, Disturbance of Crime Scene. I don’t think it answers fully your photograph query, but it might help you. Some things in this appeal might answer some of your questions.
https://ceadstorage.blob.core.windows.net/cead-images/Bamber.PDF
You are referring to a document Mike put up. I don't think it's fair to use the phrase 'them' RJ. As for photos, it has been claimed that the photo of Sheila's throat was enhanced to make the blood look wet but it's also been claimed that it looks wet because of flash photography. It seems those making the accusations are not in agreement. It should also be noted that at times, a prosecution will also need to enhance photos to argue their case. Enhancing of photos is not necessary skullduggery, it could actually be the opposite. This is where David's arguments regarding enhancing CCTV images fall down. The police tried to enhance the images of a white van suspected of being linked to a murder on Twickenham Green. If they had successfully done so, it may have led to Levi Bellfield being caught earlier than he was. David would support that. But if you provide him with an example where the enhancement of a camera image shows that the handle attachment on Tommy Mair's bag dropped in the street is different to the bag presented by police in evidence, he dismisses and mocks. Sorry RJ but you can't have it both ways, re enhanced or magnified images. And re Sheila's throat, how do the little pools also look wet where it was suggested finger marks were made?
-
You are referring to a document Mike put up. I don't think it's fair to use the phrase 'them' RJ. As for photos, it has been claimed that the photo of Sheila's throat was enhanced to make the blood look wet but it's also been claimed that it looks wet because of flash photography. It seems those making the accusations are not in agreement. It should also be noted that at times, a prosecution will also need to enhance photos to argue their case. Enhancing of photos is not necessary skullduggery, it could actually be the opposite. This is where David's arguments regarding enhancing CCTV images fall down. The police tried to enhance the images of a white van suspected of being linked to a murder on Twickenham Green. If they had successfully done so, it may have led to Levi Bellfield being caught earlier than he was. David would support that. But if you provide him with an example where the enhancement of a camera image shows that the handle attachment on Tommy Mair's bag dropped in the street is different to the bag presented by police in evidence, he dismisses and mocks. Sorry RJ but you can't have it both ways, re enhanced or magnified images. And re Sheila's throat, how do the little pools also look wet where it was suggested finger marks were made?
Hi Roch, I’m not getting into an argument and going over what’s happened on here over the last 11 years, I’m merely pointing out to Rob what has happened in the past so be careful, I don’t give a toss who believes what, it’s good to have genuine posters like Rob on here so. Why do you bring David into this, I’ve not accused anyone and I didn’t bring anyone it to it, you must and show a guilty conscience.
-
Hi Roch, I’m not getting into an argument and going over what’s happened on here over the last 11 years, I’m merely pointing out to Rob what has happened in the past so be careful, I don’t give a toss who believes what, it’s good to have genuine posters like Rob on here so. Why do you bring David into this, I’ve not accused anyone and I didn’t bring anyone it to it, you must and show a guilty conscience.
Anyway mate, grab yourself a bike and see this great Country of ours 🙈🙈👍
-
Hi Roch, I’m not getting into an argument and going over what’s happened on here over the last 11 years, I’m merely pointing out to Rob what has happened in the past so be careful, I don’t give a toss who believes what, it’s good to have genuine posters like Rob on here so. Why do you bring David into this, I’ve not accused anyone and I didn’t bring anyone it to it, you must and show a guilty conscience.
Alright RJ, well David aside etc, even the doc that Mike posted up - I would ask what was its real purpose? Was it Mike saying 'hey look.. the police can get together behind the scenes and rewrite statements that omit things, alter nuances, add things; they don't even have to physically sign them - yet such statements are classed as 'evidence' and relied upon by those supporting guilt.. so here I've done my own version based on what I think actually happened'.
-
Anyway mate, grab yourself a bike and see this great Country of ours 🙈🙈👍
Think I would struggle to ride around the estate. I can walk up hills but only slowly. :-[
-
Alright RJ, well David aside etc, even the doc that Mike posted up - I would ask what was its real purpose? Was it Mike saying 'hey look.. the police can get together behind the scenes and rewrite statements that omit things, alter nuances, add things; they don't even have to physically sign them - yet such statements are classed as 'evidence' and relied upon by those supporting guilt.. so here I've done my own version based on what I think actually happened'.
I don’t think he was Roch, because he became very annoyed and angry when he got called out, even to the point of trying to ban me and calling me a Pedo. You know mate what’s happened on here over the past without me going over old ground, I fell into the same trap, we all have, I’m merely without any bias pointing out to Rob, be careful that’s all mate.
-
I don’t think he was Roch, because he became very annoyed and angry when he got called out, even to the point of trying to ban me and calling me a Pedo. You know mate what’s happened on here over the past without me going over old ground, I fell into the same trap, we all have, I’m merely without any bias pointing out to Rob, be careful that’s all mate.
OK well fair point.
-
Think I would struggle to ride around the estate. I can walk up hills but only slowly. :-[
If it’s your knees Roch, cycling is the best form of exercise for them, it’s a low impact exercise on the knees. It builds Cardio and strengthen’s the muscle around the knee, if you struggle on hills look at the pedal assist bikes 👍
-
If it’s your knees Roch, cycling is the best form of exercise for them, it’s a low impact exercise on the knees. It builds Cardio and strengthen’s the muscle around the knee, if you struggle on hills look at the pedal assist bikes 👍
I can manage long walks over mixed terrain but my legs, knees and general cardio fitness really struggle up steep hills. Did one in the borders recently and I had to walk sideways up most of it!
-
No problem Rob, I would be careful what photo’s you believe Rob I’ve seen fake and doctored documents and photo’s on here in the past, one supposedly from a Police officer. It doesn’t get them anywhere, it has the opposite effect. Your doing the right thing though, asking questions and you come across as a nice person and this forum needs posters like you.
The blood on Sheila’s feet was covered in the 2002 appeal Rob, if you want to read part of it, scroll down to Ground 2 paragraph 233, Disturbance of Crime Scene. I don’t think it answers fully your photograph query, but it might help you. Some things in this appeal might answer some of your questions.
https://ceadstorage.blob.core.windows.net/cead-images/Bamber.PDF
Genuine People Use This Forum
Because they want to know more about
Missing negatives
Why the relatives mislead the jury re inheritance matters
Why the jury were misled about Sheila and guns
The NOTW Deal
Why so much information is still witheld
Under PII
Why special branch destroyed vital evidence
Why the silencer was used as evidence after the relatives had tampered with it
This list is not complete, please feel free to add
-
I can manage long walks over mixed terrain but my legs, knees and general cardio fitness really struggle up steep hills. Did one in the borders recently and I had to walk sideways up most of it!
Citizen Roch, Sergeant-Majors Adam and Real Justice need you to get into shape. I can see it now. Adam in his car barking encouragement at you from his megaphone while Real Justice is the pace-setter.