Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Armchair Detective on January 04, 2022, 09:51:PM
-
This is a list of conspiracies currently believed and/or promoted by JB and his official campaign team. Feel free to add any I have forgotten or disagree or hijack the thread with long standing personal vendettas that have no relevance to the case. I don't care.
I have tried to resist snarky comments but have failed in places, I think I am such a wit :))
1) West, Bonnet, Myall, Saxby and Bews all conspire to hide evidence of Nevill already haven spoken to West from the moment JB eventually speaks to West himself. Other officers may also be involved. The evidence that proves this is shown to the jury.
2) Myall and Bews conspire to lie about the figure in the window. They hypnotise Jeremy into forgetting all about it for several months.
3) Bews radios in a situation report about the figure in the window and calls for armed back up. This information is immediately suppressed from all other officers subsequently at the scene in case they blab to Jeremy.
4) 5.25 am - Sheila is in conversation with police, multiple officers conspire to keep this information from JB and suppress it afterward.
5) 6.09 am - At the exact time the BT operator transfers the open line to Maldon for monitoring, Sheila makes a 999 call. It is unclear if this vital information reaches the officers at the scene or if suppressing the 999 call is the action of one rogue cop. Nevertheless, despite suppressing this information, an ambulance is sent 18 minutes later which is proof of the call and not simply standard procedure for an impending raid where casualties are likely.
6) Throughout the 4 hours of the siege, lights are going on and off and curtains are being opened/closed. Multiple officers carefully watching for movement either fail in their duty to notice any of this or are inveigled into a plot to lie and state there were no signs of life.
7) Just prior to the raid, Sheila is seen through the kitchen window, dead. It is not at all possible that Nevill's body was simply mistaken for a woman's and a non eyewitness misunderstood the situation.
8 ) As the raid team enter, a reanimated Sheila runs upstairs and shoots herself only once, although she is also still dead in the kitchen because a log entry written by a non eyewitness says so. Schrodinger's Sheila.
9) Some time later but after the police surgeon has been, Sheila is shot for a second time in a bumbling accident. The police panic and think that nobody will believe a two shot suicide and decide framing innocent Jeremy is the only option that definitely won't lead to 36 years of questions and scrutiny of their actions. The TFG statements saying they saw two wounds are clearly lies. Declaring it a murder suicide and giving evidence to that effect at the inquest was all a part of EP's scheme to make themselves look incompetent, thus hiding their mistake with a clever double reverse bluff.
10) A mysterious suicide note mentioned by S Jones. The note in the bible? The "Dear Mummy" letter? No, it can only be a completely different note that was hidden, probably under PII and whatnot because that's automatically dead suspicious.
11) Julie Mugford lies her head off about everything. It's unclear whether JB still says all of her flatmates were lying about the time of his apparently inconsequential and perfectly normal 3am call to Julie now that he has changed his mind about the order of the calls. (again)
11a) But Julie is only lying her head off because Stan Jones had something on her. And because she was a woman scorned. And because she is a horrible witch who should go to prison and be flogged.
12) The relatives conspire to tell lies about horrid things Jeremy supposedly said because they were all greedy and hated poor Jeremy. Much more serious but unfounded allegations of evidence tampering are insinuated/telegraphed.
12b) The relatives also lie to the court about the inheritance, although an agreed note makes clear to the jury that PB will basically get the lot.
13) Several other witnesses also tell lies about the horrid things Jeremy has supposedly said about his parents and not sharing his inheritance. Although there appears no motive for them to lie, they are definitely lying and Jeremy is not.
14) Michael Fielder and the Sun newspaper tell horrid lies about JB and BC trying to sell nude photographs of Sheila but this definitely didn't happen because JB says it didn't. It is not possible that JB didn't give all of the photographs to Colin and kept some back. No way. Uh Uh. So you believe a reporter from the sun do you? Yeah right, that's typical of guilters..
15) Everyone at the FSS lab lies to conceal the fact there were 2 silencers and lie about the results, it's not possible one silencer was given different exhibit numbers for innocent housekeeping reasons.
15b) Vanezis manages to miss or deliberately conceal wounds on Sheila and June and Prof Knight for the defence is also incompetent.
16) ITV and Carol Ann Lee conspire to make a TV drama to thwart jeremy's appeal because the CCRC are famously influenced by dramas on TV rather than the evidence.
17) Carol Ann Lee lies about the vet saying JB decided to put down Crispy. When CAL challenges the CT to publish the vet's statement and prove her wrong, the CT claim not to have it or have seen it. Animal lovers up and down the country indifferent to child murder start to hate poor Jeremy. Clearly a co-ordinated smear campaign.
18)Every Chief Constable of EP since 1985 has concealed the REAL evidence, although it doesn't matter because JB can already prove he is innocent so the CT don't bang on about it endlessly.
19) BT lie in court about whether they have any record of local calls made through the local exchange.
20) The bible went missing during the trial. The fact that it had obviously been closed and reopened while the blood was still wet would not have been detrimental to JB's case and had nothing to do with the apparent sudden loss of interest by the defence.
21) The destruction of Sheila's nightdress and other exhibits preventing further examination with modern forensic techniques.
22) Individual negatives removed from the previously complete strips. Are these simply photos of the boys that are of no particular value to JB's defence but must not end up in the public domain as other images have or is there something more sinister in this?
23) Ainsley and Cook STOLE photos and case documents and shared with Carol Ann Lee and Kris Mrksa the producer of WHF TV series before brazenly DESTROYING the evidence.
24) Bamber was STITCHED UP by the Police due to their attitude towards homosexuality, he had gay friends and could be gay himself!
25) Essex police used the crime scene as a training exercise with the victims in-situ. This definitely counters evidence of a staged scene that wouldn't be at all potentially disastrous for the defence to put before a jury when their client is accused of staging the scene.
26) The appeal court judges all conspired to keep Jeremy in prison even though he is obviously innocent. It's not that he brought a weak and hopelessly flawed case.
27) The police conspired not to tell JB about the lab rejecting Sheila's hand swabs because they may have been contaminated, even though any contamination would have aided Bamber's defence.
28) The police conspired not to tell Jeremy about the time they inspected his hands roughly a month after the shootings. It's unclear whether JB was present while this was done.
29) Pig skin fetishist and firearms expert Phillip Boyce disavows his own previous theory and this time really PROVES that Nevill was burnt by the aga while lying on his right hand side. Despite contradicting the pathology evidence, this can only mean that Nevill died in that position and was MOVED by the police for unspecified reasons.
30) Parliament and the judiciary REFUSE to allow the results of polygraph testing which is completely infallible and definitely not pseudoscience
31) FREeMaSOnRy
TBC....
-
Lookout will have an answer to each of these.
-
Lookout will have an answer to each of these.
Good. I need putting in my place.
-
How about adding the destruction of Sheila's nightdress, just when DNA technology could have solved the case one way or the other.
-
Images cut from strips of negatives and have never been disclosed.
-
How about adding the destruction of Sheila's nightdress, just when DNA technology could have solved the case one way or the other.
Images cut from strips of negatives and have never been disclosed.
Thanks Rob, I'll add them in now.
-
Some officers from the raid team express concern that the crime scene has changed.
-
Thanks Rob, I'll add them in now.
Gringo has written some good posts about EP's curation of the negatives. BTW, CAL and the drama etc - that's a public opinion thing. If public opinion is 80/20, there's less appetite for any questioning of a rejection.
-
Points 11,12 and 14 can all be proven. Point 20 is completely wrong.
The rest are looney ideas no reasonable JB supporters believe in.
-
This is a list of conspiracies currently believed and/or promoted by JB and his official campaign team. Feel free to add any I have forgotten or disagree or hijack the thread with long standing personal vendettas that have no relevance to the case. I don't care.
I have tried to resist snarky comments but have failed in places, I think I am such a wit :))
1) West, Bonnet, Myall, Saxby and Bews all conspire to hide evidence of Nevill speaking to West from the moment JB eventually speaks to West himself. Other officers may also be involved. The evidence that proves this is shown to the jury.
2) Myall and Bews conspire to lie about the figure in the window. They hypnotise Jeremy into forgetting all about it for several months.
3) Bews radios in a situation report about the figure in the window and calls for armed back up. This information is immediately suppressed from all other officers subsequently at the scene in case they blab to Jeremy.
4) 5.25 am - Sheila is in conversation with police, multiple officers conspire to keep this information from JB and suppress it afterward.
5) 6.09 am - At the exact time the BT operator transfers the open line to Maldon for monitoring, Sheila makes a 999 call. It is unclear if this vital information reaches the officers at the scene or if suppressing the 999 call is the action of one rogue cop. Nevertheless, despite suppressing this information, an ambulance is sent 18 minutes later which is proof of the call and not simply standard procedure for an impending raid where casualties are likely.
6) Throughout the 4 hours of the siege, lights are going on and off and curtains are being opened/closed. Multiple officers carefully watching for movement either fail in their duty to notice any of this or are inveigled into a plot to lie and state there were no signs of life.
7) Just prior to the raid, Sheila is seen through the kitchen window, dead. It is not at all possible that Nevill's body was simply mistaken for a woman's and a non eyewitness misunderstood the situation.
8) As the raid team enter, a reanimated Sheila runs upstairs and shoots herself only once, although she is also still dead in the kitchen because a log entry written by a non eyewitness says so. Schrodinger's Sheila.
9) Some time later but after the police surgeon has been, Sheila is shot for a second time in a bumbling accident. The police panic and think that nobody will believe a two shot suicide and decide framing innocent Jeremy is the only option that definitely won't lead to 36 years of questions and scrutiny of their actions. The TFG statements saying they saw two wounds are clearly lies. Declaring it a murder suicide and giving evidence to that effect at the inquest was all a part of EP's scheme to make themselves look incompetent, thus hiding their mistake with a clever double reverse bluff.
10) A mysterious suicide note mentioned by S Jones. The note in the bible? The "Dear Mummy" letter? No, it can only be a completely different note that was hidden, probably under PII and whatnot because that's automatically dead suspicious.
11) Julie Mugford lies her head off about everything. It's unclear whether JB still says all of her flatmates were lying about the time of his apparently inconsequential and perfectly normal 3am call to Julie now that he has changed his mind about the order of the calls. (again)
11a) But Julie is only lying her head off because Stan Jones had something on her. And because she was a woman scorned. And because she is a horrible witch who should go to prison and be flogged.
12) The relatives conspire to tell lies about horrid things Jeremy supposedly said because they were all greedy and hated poor Jeremy. Much more serious but unfounded allegations of evidence tampering are insinuated/telegraphed.
12b) The relatives also lie to the court about the inheritance, although an agreed note makes clear to the jury that PB will basically get the lot.
13) Several others also tell lies about the horrid things Jeremy has supposedly said about his parents and not sharing his inheritance although there appears no motive for them to lie, they are lying.
14)Michael Fielder and the Sun newspaper tell horrid lies about JB and BC trying to sell nude photographs of Sheila but this definitely didn't happen because JB says it didn't. It is not possible that JB didn't give all of the photographs to Colin and kept some back. No way. Uh Uh. So you believe a reporter from the sun do you? Yeah right, that's typical of guilters..
15)Everyone at the FSS lab lies to conceal the fact there were 2 silencers and lie about the results, Vanezis manages to miss or deliberately conceal wounds on Sheila and Prof Knight for the defence is also incompetent.
16) ITV and Carol Ann Lee conspire to make a TV drama to thwart jeremy's appeal because the CCRC are famously influenced by drama's on TV rather than the evidence.
17) Carol Ann Lee lies about the vet saying JB decided to put down Crispy. When CAL challenges the CT to publish the vet's statement and prove her wrong, the CT claim not to have it or have seen it. Animal lovers up and down the country hate poor Jeremy even more.
18)Every Chief Constable of EP since 1985 has concealed the REAL evidence, although it doesn't matter because JB can already prove he is innocent so the CT don't bang on about it endlessly.
19) BT lie in court about whether they have any record of local calls made through the local exchange.
20) The bible went missing during the trial. The fact that it had obviously been closed and reopened while the blood was still wet would not have been detrimental to JB's case and had nothing to do with the apparent sudden loss of interest by the defence.
21) The judge was really mean to Jeremy by implying he might be guilty, he should be struck off.
TBC....
Ainsley and Cook STOLE photos and case documents and shared with Carol Ann Lee and Kris Mrksa the producer of WHF TV series respectively.
-
Some officers from the raid team express concern that the crime scene has changed.
A dopy officer uses the phone to dial out, so the last number redial facility cannot be checked.
-
Gringo has written some good posts about EP's curation of the negatives. BTW, CAL and the drama etc - that's a public opinion thing. If public opinion is 80/20, there's less appetite for any questioning of a rejection.
If JB wants the public to question a CCRC refusal, why has he not published their previous statement of reasons?
You don't seriously think the ITV drama was made purposely to undermine Bamber?
-
Bamber was STITCHED UP by the Police due to their attitude towards homosexuality, he had gay friends and could be gay himself!
-
A dopy officer uses the phone to dial out, so the last number redial facility cannot be checked.
The only number with a 'last number dialled' option was the portable phone.
This was not working.
-
Some officers from the raid team express concern that the crime scene has changed.
I don't think that is really a campaign thing and not all of the officers agreed. It kind of ties in with the court of appeal evidence from Mr Ismail that Sheila was moved post mortem and although the evidence of "the angle of her head not looking right" might suggest the police could have moved more than the gun and her arm as they admitted, it would be unwise to introduce evidence of a staged scene when Bamber is already accused of staging it.
-
If JB wants the public to question a CCRC refusal, why has he not published their previous statement of reasons?
You don't seriously think the ITV drama was made purposely to undermine Bamber?
Behind the scenes, yes, I do. It was given the go-ahead. Money was thrown at it. It coincided with the likelihood of a new set of submissions based upon evidence released or discovered in recent years. It's called boxing clever.
-
Julie smuggled drugs from Canada to UK BEFORE she met Bamber.
-
Points 11,12 and 14 can all be proven. Point 20 is completely wrong.
The rest are looney ideas no reasonable JB supporters believe in.
We shall agree to disagree on those but it still leaves rather a lot doesn't it?
I do respect reasonable supporters mind, there just aren't very many of you.
-
We shall agree to disagree on those but it still leaves rather a lot doesn't it?
I do respect reasonable supporters mind, there just aren't very many of you.
David is a supporter who markedly supports the police. His 'reasonable' take on the case is that Sheila, in a cluttered house, full of furniture, in the middle of the night, shot and / or clubbed people to death, without so much as a scratch. But having said that, I still think some of his posts are brilliant.
-
The only number with a 'last number dialled' option was the portable phone.
This was not working.
The Office phone had a redial facility with a display.
-
Behind the scenes, yes, I do. It was given the go-ahead. Money was thrown at it. It coincided with the likelihood of a new set of submissions based upon evidence released or discovered in recent years. It's called boxing clever.
For CCRC to consider and refer the case they need NEW EVIDENCE, not TV ratings!!!
-
For CCRC to consider and refer the case they need NEW EVIDENCE, not TV ratings!!!
That's not what I meant. I meant the CCRC will be under pressure not to refer. If it doesn't refer, nobody will give a shit - because most people assume the drama is the case in a nutshell.
-
The Office phone had a redial facility with a display.
COA:
He spoke of what he had told MacDonald as to ways of getting in and out of the farmhouse undetected and he said that one of his instructions was for MacDonald to ring him from the farm on the telephone which had the memory redial facility so that if the telephone was checked by the police it would provide him with an alibi.
----------
Have you got a source that this was the office phone.
-
David is a supporter who markedly supports the police. His 'reasonable' take on the case is that Sheila, in a cluttered house, full of furniture, in the middle of the night, shot and / or clubbed people to death, without so much as a scratch. But having said that, I still think some of his posts are brilliant.
I don't think that's true, he simply doesn't think much of the campaign team who invite ridicule upon any genuine claims JB may have for reasons I have just listed above.
-
Behind the scenes, yes, I do. It was given the go-ahead. Money was thrown at it. It coincided with the likelihood of a new set of submissions based upon evidence released or discovered in recent years. It's called boxing clever.
Since this an the biggest misscarriage of Justice in the UK and possibly the world, there might have been a CORBA meeting because Bamber could bring the whole Police Federation and Justice System down!
So they had to get the TV production together ASAP because new submission could be at CCRC's door any minute so let's make a new series on the WHF to blacken his name and make the public hate him and his CCRC will fail. We can't let him win and expose us.
-
COA:
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.
-
I don't think that's true, he simply doesn't think much of the campaign team who invite ridicule upon any genuine claims JB may have for reasons I have just listed above.
Cancelling out every single thing the CT do or say, is plain daft, IMO. The CT say Bamber is innocent. If we take David's approach in its most extreme form, he would (as a supporter) oppose that and say, 'it should be ignored because it comes from the CT'.
-
Since this an the biggest misscarriage of Justice in the UK and possibly the world, there might have been a CORBA meeting because Bamber could bring the whole Police Federation and Justice System down!
So they had to get the TV production together ASAP because new submission could be at CCRC's door any minute so let's make a new series on the WHF to blacken his name and make the public hate him and his CCRC will fail. We can't let him win and expose us.
I enjoyed reading that 😀
-
COA:
He spoke of what he had told MacDonald as to ways of getting in and out of the farmhouse undetected and he said that one of his instructions was for MacDonald to ring him from the farm on the telephone which had the memory redial facility so that if the telephone was checked by the police it would provide him with an alibi.
----------
Have you got a source that this was the office phone.
-
I enjoyed reading that 😀
Was just kiddin' 😆
-
-
This is a list of conspiracies currently believed and/or promoted by JB and his official campaign team. Feel free to add any I have forgotten or disagree or hijack the thread with long standing personal vendettas that have no relevance to the case. I don't care.
I have tried to resist snarky comments but have failed in places, I think I am such a wit :))
1) West, Bonnet, Myall, Saxby and Bews all conspire to hide evidence of Nevill speaking to West from the moment JB eventually speaks to West himself. Other officers may also be involved. The evidence that proves this is shown to the jury.
Here you invent a myth about a conspiracy. The actual claim is that the conspiracy arose when Operation Raleigh began, or maybe in the run up to it, not at the point that Jeremy was on the phone.
To what extent such a conspiracy may have involved Myall, Saxby and Bews, is unclear to me. They were merely the response officers in CA07. I comprehend the point that the Campaign Team are making, that CA07 was a response to Nevill's call, not Jeremy's, but it does not follow from this that the CA07 officers were in on it as they would have just taken the situation as they found it and the source of the call would not have mattered to them, whether HQ or Witham or wherever.
2) Myall and Bews conspire to lie about the figure in the window. They hypnotise Jeremy into forgetting all about it for several months.
3) Bews radios in a situation report about the figure in the window and calls for armed back up. This information is immediately suppressed from all other officers subsequently at the scene in case they blab to Jeremy.
Again, you misrepresent things. The allegation needs to be understood in context. You speak of Jeremy forgetting about it, but the initial investigation concluded uncontroversially that Sheila was the culprit, as this matched the evidence found, so there was no reason for Jeremy to raise the issue. It was only when Jeremy became a suspect that it became relevant.
Against this background, your suspicions make no sense. If Jeremy was lying about what occurred, then he would have claimed to have seen the figure himself and Bews and Myall would have denied the whole thing ever occurred. Instead, Bews admits it occurred, and at one point even states he was the one who saw movement in the window! It's on YouTube for everybody to see. Some conspiracy that turned out to be.
4) 5.25 am - Sheila is in conversation with police, multiple officers conspire to keep this information from JB and suppress it afterward.
Well, they did conspire to withhold the log from the defence! That is fact. Furthermore, the log quite plainly and in black-and-white states that the firearms team are in conversation with somebody from inside the farm. It uses those very words. They perhaps should have disclosed it and added a note that this was officers attempting to hail a suspect believed to be in the farmhouse, not in conversation with a suspect, and these efforts were to no avail.
Also, if they were hailing to no avail and if there was no sign of life in the farmhouse, then why did they wait so long to attempt entry? Did they lack the equipment and training to effect low light entry? I appreciate that safety concerns are legitimate considerations, and anyone with a gun has to be considered dangerous, but ultimately, they were dealing with a young woman, not hardened terrorists. One argument that occurs to me is that they may have been concerned about setting Sheila off and her then shooting everybody, especially as there were young children in the house. OK, but they waited three hours. Three hours. Why?
5) 6.09 am - At the exact time the BT operator transfers the open line to Maldon for monitoring, Sheila makes a 999 call. It is unclear if this vital information reaches the officers at the scene or if suppressing the 999 call is the action of one rogue cop. Nevertheless, despite suppressing this information, an ambulance is sent 18 minutes later which is proof of the call and not simply standard procedure for an impending raid where casualties are likely.
Two calls can't be made from one phone at one time, so your claim does not make sense. Are you saying that as the open line was transferred:
(i). Sheila terminates the open line and makes a call?
(ii). Sheila speaks into the open line (perhaps after hearing voices emanating from the handset)?
(iii). Something else?
6) Throughout the 4 hours of the siege, lights are going on and off and curtains are being opened/closed. Multiple officers carefully watching for movement either fail in their duty to notice any of this or are inveigled into a plot to lie and state there were no signs of life.
Who makes this claim?
7) Just prior to the raid, Sheila is seen through the kitchen window, dead. It is not at all possible that Nevill's body was simply mistaken for a woman's and a non eyewitness misunderstood the situation.
It is a fact that an authorised firearms officer, PC Collins, looked through the back kitchen window and when he reported what he saw back to CA07, he stated one dead female. They then enter the farmhouse and find one dead male. CA07 then radioed this back to Igor Norman at Chelmsford as one dead male and one dead female found on entry to the farmhouse, and PC West also recorded it this way in the Wireless Log.
What is clear is that PC Collins' second report back to CA07 could not have included the conjunctive word as there was only one body in the kitchen. Furthermore, if PC Collins had seen a different body through the window to that found in the kitchen, he would have reported this.
It follows from this that PC Collins' original observation could not have been mistaken in its essential fact - he definitely saw a body, whether male or female. This in turn leaves open two possibilities:
(i). the body found by the raid group on entry to the main kitchen was in the same position to that observed by PC Collins through the kitchen window;
or,
(ii). the body found by the raid group on entry to the main kitchen was in a different position to that observed by PC Collins through the kitchen window.
If (i) applies, then PC Collins' evidence in this respect is true and he just mistook Nevill's body for female.
If (ii) applies, PC Collins' evidence is false, and either Nevill was still alive at this point or Sheila was in the kitchen just before the raid group entered the farmhouse.
8 ) As the raid team enter, a reanimated Sheila runs upstairs and shoots herself only once, although she is also still dead in the kitchen because a log entry written by a non eyewitness says so. Schrodinger's Sheila.
PC Collins was not commenting on whether the bodies he saw were alive or dead. If he says 'dead bodies', that is because they appear to be dead. Even a doctor would not be able to tell from behind a window six feet away.
9) Some time later but after the police surgeon has been, Sheila is shot for a second time in a bumbling accident. The police panic and think that nobody will believe a two shot suicide and decide framing innocent Jeremy is the only option that definitely won't lead to 36 years of questions and scrutiny of their actions. The TFG statements saying they saw two wounds are clearly lies. Declaring it a murder suicide and giving evidence to that effect at the inquest was all a part of EP's scheme to make themselves look incompetent, thus hiding their mistake with a clever double reverse bluff.
Again, I think you misrepresent the alleged conspiracy. What is being posited here is that the officers decided to cover up the second shot only. There is no suggestion that the officers on the scene sought to frame Jeremy. In fact, it's the very opposite of what you say. The efforts were intended to make it look like a two-shot suicide. A variation on the theory is that Taff Jones became aware of what had gone on and this explains his apparent obstinance.
Personally, I do not believe there is anything to support this theory but I retain an open mind. Stranger things have happened.
10) A mysterious suicide note mentioned by S Jones. The note in the bible? The "Dear Mummy" letter? No, it can only be a completely different note that was hidden, probably under PII and whatnot because that's automatically dead suspicious.
I don't know if there was a suicide note, but it was Stan Jones who mentioned a suicide note in his COLP interview. It's not as if Jeremy was stood there with him saying, 'Go on Stan, mention the suicide note.
Go on. I'll give you all my dinner money if you do...' Jeremy seems to be blamed for drawing natural inferences from things people have done or said of their own free will, which seems rather unfair to me.
Personally, I suspect it was just clumsy expression on Stan Jones' part that Jeremy has now seized on, but if Jeremy Bamber is innocent, can you blame him for making hay of it? Shouldn't the COLP officers have sought clarification from DS Jones on the point? Why blame Jeremy when it's the police who are not being rigorous and checking things?
11) Julie Mugford lies her head off about everything. It's unclear whether JB still says all of her flatmates were lying about the time of his apparently inconsequential and perfectly normal 3am call to Julie now that he has changed his mind about the order of the calls. (again)
Well you're wrong here too. Even the prosecution counsel, Anthony Arlidge, Q.C. disagrees with you. He conceded the point in his closing speech on 27th. October 1985, when he told the jury:
"Somebody in this case is lying, and lying their head off. It's just something you have to face up to."
You say the phone call was at 3 a.m. Julie said it was at 3.15 a.m. Susan Battersby said it was at 3.12 a.m., based on her alarm clock, which she asks us to assume was deadly accurate.
Julie told the police in her first statement that Douglas Dale had answered the phone, then corrected this later and admitted she answered.
11a) But Julie is only lying her head off because Stan Jones had something on her. And because she was a woman scorned. And because she is a horrible witch who should go to prison and be flogged.
Putting aside the truth or otherwise of all this, I'm not clear why you think this is a wild supposition or 'conspiracy theory'. You do realise that people tell lies in court, including women and policemen? You do understand that people are sometimes framed for crimes they did not commit? I will grant you that normally this is because the person framed is believed to be guilty or is looked upon as suspicious, but the point is that you seem to be dismissing as wild supposition things that actually have occurred in real life in other cases.
12) The relatives conspire to tell lies about horrid things Jeremy supposedly said because they were all greedy and hated poor Jeremy. Much more serious but unfounded allegations of evidence tampering are insinuated/telegraphed.
Again, putting aside the truth or otherwise of this, I'm unclear why you put these allegations in the 'conspiracy theory' category, as if they can be dismissed out-of-hand as beneath your notice. People do plot together to tell lies, and - brace yourself for this because it will shock you - they sometimes do it because they're greedy or nasty. You do realise this?
12b) The relatives also lie to the court about the inheritance, although an agreed note makes clear to the jury that PB will basically get the lot.
13) Several others also tell lies about the horrid things Jeremy has supposedly said about his parents and not sharing his inheritance although there appears no motive for them to lie, they are lying.
Are you serious when you suggest there was no motive for them to lie? I'm not saying they were lying, but you can't seriously be telling us there was no motive.
14) Michael Fielder and the Sun newspaper tell horrid lies about JB and BC trying to sell nude photographs of Sheila but this definitely didn't happen because JB says it didn't. It is not possible that JB didn't give all of the photographs to Colin and kept some back. No way. Uh Uh. So you believe a reporter from the sun do you? Yeah right, that's typical of guilters.
I don't believe anything that comes out of the mouth or pen of a reporter from the Sun, or any journalist, from any newspaper, or any media person or anybody who works in broadcasting. If a journalist or media person gave me the time of day, I'd ring up the Greenwich Observatory to double-check. Not one of them is trustworthy in the sense that you can rely on their word without carrying out your own checks. They tell lies.
That having been said, I think you have to make a choice. If Michael Fielder's story was true, then we have another reason in support of Sheila as the killer, don't we, and if Jeremy is lying about selling photographs, that is no proof that he is a murderer. If, on the other hand, Michael Fielder's story is false, it does not follow that Jeremy is innocent, it merely serves to establish what we already know, that journalists are scumbags; and, it may be that Fielder lied because Brett and Jeremy themselves were a couple of scumbags.
Certainly, what we can say is that Jeremy's moral orientation took a turn for the worse under the influence of young Brett.
15) Everyone at the FSS lab lies to conceal the fact there were 2 silencers and lie about the results, Vanezis manages to miss or deliberately conceal wounds on Sheila and Prof Knight for the defence is also incompetent.
Where is it said by anybody supporting Jeremy that everybody has lied? Anyway, why shouldn't it be the case that large numbers of people told lies in different ways? Why can't experienced professionals make mistakes? How did the Post Office Horizon scandal happen? By accident?
16) ITV and Carol Ann Lee conspire to make a TV drama to thwart jeremy's appeal because the CCRC are famously influenced by drama's on TV rather than the evidence.
Again, I'm not clear why you think this is far-fetched. The TV drama was based partly on Colin Caffell's book. You do realise that Colin Caffell would crawl bollock-naked over broken glass to stop Jeremy being freed? And do you think Carol Ann Lee just woke up in a manger? She writes for money. She doesn't just do it for the good of her health. She appeared on that podcast and said what they want her to say because they paid her. This is not a silly person. She's a shrewd lady.
I'm starting to view you as a bit of a naif. I'm starting to think you might be a promising mark for a confidence man. You seem to be under the belief that what you see on TV and read in newspapers is true and doesn't represent some sort of agenda.
17) Carol Ann Lee lies about the vet saying JB decided to put down Crispy. When CAL challenges the CT to publish the vet's statement and prove her wrong, the CT claim not to have it or have seen it. Animal lovers up and down the country hate poor Jeremy even more.
No such thing occurred. Jeremy fully admits that he had Crispy put down. The controversy is over why. You fail to ask why Carol Ann Lee would impute the worst possible motives in Jeremy for the most mundane incident while absolving everybody else.
18)Every Chief Constable of EP since 1985 has concealed the REAL evidence, although it doesn't matter because JB can already prove he is innocent so the CT don't bang on about it endlessly.
What a silly comment. If Essex Police have concealed evidence, then what else should we conclude than that they have....concealed evidence? That is literally what they have done. And if you were innocent of something and still in prison for it, what else would you do other than protest your innocence at every opportunity?
19) BT lie in court about whether they have any record of local calls made through the local exchange.
To my knowledge, nobody associated with Jeremy Bamber has ever made this accusation. There would be no need.
20) The bible went missing during the trial. The fact that it had obviously been closed and reopened while the blood was still wet would not have been detrimental to JB's case and had nothing to do with the apparent sudden loss of interest by the defence.
Here you rely on the 2002 appeal judges, but they actually got this wrong. There is a factor they failed to take account of. As to why Jeremy's defence did not raise the Bible during the trial, I have no idea and I doubt anybody else does, even Jeremy himself. I suspect the only person who knows is Geoffrey Rivlin, Q.C., and he's probably forgotten. It may be that Rivlin was worried that blood impressions inside the Bible may incriminate Jeremy. OK, so what? Doesn't mean Jeremy is guilty, as the cause of it can be more than one thing.
21) The destruction of Sheila's nightdress and other exhibits preventing further examination with modern forensic techniques.
Which is true. It is admitted by the authorities that this occurred.
22) Individual negatives removed from the previously complete strips. Are these simply photos of the boys that are of no particular value to JB's defence but must not end up in the public domain or is there something more sinister in this?
Well, which is it? I'm not clear how this is wild supposition. The concern seems well-founded.
23) Ainsley and Cook STOLE photos and case documents and shared with Carol Ann Lee and Kris Mrksa the producer of WHF TV series respectively.
Again, this actually happened. It is fact. Whether the documents were technically stolen by police officers is a matter of law, but no legitimate reason for them to have those documents springs to mind. "Any chance I can take this document home, guv, show it to the wife?" "Yeah, go on. Jeremy's legal team won't need it anymore", sounds to me like a conversation that should not take place between police officers. However, we are talking about the police force that destroyed crucial evidence in a murder case involving a disputed conviction, so perhaps that's how it panned out.
24) Bamber was STITCHED UP by the Police due to their attitude towards homosexuality, he had gay friends and could be gay himself!
TBC....
Why not? Why shouldn't this be a factor? I doubt anybody would claim it was the only reason, but why shouldn't it have come into play? The Birmingham Six would say they were stitched up because they were Irish (in fact, they were all Irish Republicans). Judith Ward was an IRA groupie. My point is that the personal habits, views, and lifestyle choices of an individual can firm them up as a suspect, especially if these personal attributes have some relevance to the case itself. It turned out that Judith Ward was innocent.
In the present case, and to give due credit to Stan Jones (who was an able detective), Jeremy's slightly decadent, 'alternative', metropolitan outlook and lifestyle formed a background against which a picture could be painted of him as someone materialistic rather than dutiful and, taken together with other things, allowed the prosecution to portray Jeremy as perhaps the type of person who would seek to escape a rural north Essex life and might - just might - resort to desperate measures to do it. If it turns out that Stan Jones was wrong, then this train of thought starts to look a bit prejudiced. Indeed, I'm told that early in his prison career, Jeremy Bamber was subscribing to Farmers Weekly. Was that just to give him another appeal point? And even his detractors base their detraction on Jeremy wanting to use the money he would inherit to buy a small farm in Devon. Why would they come up with something like that? Why would Jeremy want to sell up one farm-business conglomerate that is prosperous and doing well only to set up another in some random part of the country he has no connection to? Does that make any sense to you?
-
It is a fact that an authorised firearms officer, PC Collins, looked through the back kitchen window and when he reported what he saw back to CA07, he stated one dead female. They then enter the farmhouse and find one dead male. CA07 then radioed this back to Igor Norman at Chelmsford as one dead male and one dead female found on entry to the farmhouse, and PC West also recorded it this way in the Wireless Log.
What is clear is that PC Collins' second report back to CA07 could not have included the conjunctive word as there was only one body in the kitchen. Furthermore, if PC Collins had seen a different body through the window to that found in the kitchen, he would have reported this.
It follows from this that PC Collins' original observation could not have been mistaken in its essential fact - he definitely saw a body, whether male or female. This in turn leaves open two possibilities:
(i). the body found by the raid group on entry to the main kitchen was in the same position to that observed by PC Collins through the kitchen window;
or,
(ii). the body found by the raid group on entry to the main kitchen was in a different position to that observed by PC Collins through the kitchen window.
If (i) applies, then PC Collins' evidence in this respect is true and he just mistook Nevill's body for female.
If (ii) applies, PC Collins' evidence is false, and either Nevill was still alive at this point or Sheila was in the kitchen just before the raid group entered the farmhouse.
PC Collins was not commenting on whether the bodies he saw were alive or dead. If he says 'dead bodies', that is because they appear to be dead. Even a doctor would not be able to tell from behind a window six feet away.
Again, I think you misrepresent the alleged conspiracy. What is being posited here is that the officers decided to cover up the second shot only. There is no suggestion that the officers on the scene sought to frame Jeremy. In fact, it's the very opposite of what you say. The efforts were intended to make it look like a two-shot suicide. A variation on the theory is that Taff Jones became aware of what had gone on and this explains his apparent obstinance.
Personally, I do not believe there is anything to support this theory but I retain an open mind. Stranger things have happened.
PC Collins made the observation at approx 7.37am.
TFU entered the farmhouse at approx 7.40am. It was then some minutes until they arrived in the main bedroom and observed Sheila. All agreed she was dead. The police surgeon arrived at approx 8.10am and certified Sheila dead shortly afterwards. At trial he said:
In cross-examination at the trial he said the deaths could have occurred at any time during the previous night.
If Sheila died by her own hand, or at the hands of Essex police, at a much later time than the other victims why did Dr Craig provide the above testimony? Bearing in mind he was an expert witness for the defence and went on to say:
The appearance of Sheila Caffell's body suggested to him that the wounds had been inflicted by her own hand.
But more importantly if Sheila was still alive at 7.37am do you honestly believe the police surgeon would be incapable of discerning obvious differences between the victims who died over 4 hours before he certified their deaths and Sheila dying some 30 minutes before certifying her dead? Or is this just another highly qualified expert of long experience who was involved in wrongdoing or incompetenr/negligent?
As I've pointed out previously as far as I know no patient (Dr Craig was a GP too) or anyone else ever made a complaint to the GMC.
David might well pop up soon and guess what in his opinion Dr Craig was also an alcoholic :o ;D ::) His evidence: a former poster claims he lived in the Essex area and there was a rumour Dr Craig was a boozer! There were lots of rumours about Jeremy Bamber too!
-
This is a list of conspiracies currently believed and/or promoted by JB and his official campaign team. Feel free to add any I have forgotten or disagree or hijack the thread with long standing personal vendettas that have no relevance to the case. I don't care.
I have tried to resist snarky comments but have failed in places, I think I am such a wit :))
1) West, Bonnet, Myall, Saxby and Bews all conspire to hide evidence of Nevill speaking to West from the moment JB eventually speaks to West himself. Other officers may also be involved. The evidence that proves this is shown to the jury.
2) Myall and Bews conspire to lie about the figure in the window. They hypnotise Jeremy into forgetting all about it for several months.
3) Bews radios in a situation report about the figure in the window and calls for armed back up. This information is immediately suppressed from all other officers subsequently at the scene in case they blab to Jeremy.
4) 5.25 am - Sheila is in conversation with police, multiple officers conspire to keep this information from JB and suppress it afterward.
5) 6.09 am - At the exact time the BT operator transfers the open line to Maldon for monitoring, Sheila makes a 999 call. It is unclear if this vital information reaches the officers at the scene or if suppressing the 999 call is the action of one rogue cop. Nevertheless, despite suppressing this information, an ambulance is sent 18 minutes later which is proof of the call and not simply standard procedure for an impending raid where casualties are likely.
6) Throughout the 4 hours of the siege, lights are going on and off and curtains are being opened/closed. Multiple officers carefully watching for movement either fail in their duty to notice any of this or are inveigled into a plot to lie and state there were no signs of life.
7) Just prior to the raid, Sheila is seen through the kitchen window, dead. It is not at all possible that Nevill's body was simply mistaken for a woman's and a non eyewitness misunderstood the situation.
8 ) As the raid team enter, a reanimated Sheila runs upstairs and shoots herself only once, although she is also still dead in the kitchen because a log entry written by a non eyewitness says so. Schrodinger's Sheila.
9) Some time later but after the police surgeon has been, Sheila is shot for a second time in a bumbling accident. The police panic and think that nobody will believe a two shot suicide and decide framing innocent Jeremy is the only option that definitely won't lead to 36 years of questions and scrutiny of their actions. The TFG statements saying they saw two wounds are clearly lies. Declaring it a murder suicide and giving evidence to that effect at the inquest was all a part of EP's scheme to make themselves look incompetent, thus hiding their mistake with a clever double reverse bluff.
10) A mysterious suicide note mentioned by S Jones. The note in the bible? The "Dear Mummy" letter? No, it can only be a completely different note that was hidden, probably under PII and whatnot because that's automatically dead suspicious.
11) Julie Mugford lies her head off about everything. It's unclear whether JB still says all of her flatmates were lying about the time of his apparently inconsequential and perfectly normal 3am call to Julie now that he has changed his mind about the order of the calls. (again)
11a) But Julie is only lying her head off because Stan Jones had something on her. And because she was a woman scorned. And because she is a horrible witch who should go to prison and be flogged.
12) The relatives conspire to tell lies about horrid things Jeremy supposedly said because they were all greedy and hated poor Jeremy. Much more serious but unfounded allegations of evidence tampering are insinuated/telegraphed.
12b) The relatives also lie to the court about the inheritance, although an agreed note makes clear to the jury that PB will basically get the lot.
13) Several others also tell lies about the horrid things Jeremy has supposedly said about his parents and not sharing his inheritance although there appears no motive for them to lie, they are lying.
14) Michael Fielder and the Sun newspaper tell horrid lies about JB and BC trying to sell nude photographs of Sheila but this definitely didn't happen because JB says it didn't. It is not possible that JB didn't give all of the photographs to Colin and kept some back. No way. Uh Uh. So you believe a reporter from the sun do you? Yeah right, that's typical of guilters..
15) Everyone at the FSS lab lies to conceal the fact there were 2 silencers and lie about the results, Vanezis manages to miss or deliberately conceal wounds on Sheila and Prof Knight for the defence is also incompetent.
16) ITV and Carol Ann Lee conspire to make a TV drama to thwart jeremy's appeal because the CCRC are famously influenced by drama's on TV rather than the evidence.
17) Carol Ann Lee lies about the vet saying JB decided to put down Crispy. When CAL challenges the CT to publish the vet's statement and prove her wrong, the CT claim not to have it or have seen it. Animal lovers up and down the country hate poor Jeremy even more.
18)Every Chief Constable of EP since 1985 has concealed the REAL evidence, although it doesn't matter because JB can already prove he is innocent so the CT don't bang on about it endlessly.
19) BT lie in court about whether they have any record of local calls made through the local exchange.
20) The bible went missing during the trial. The fact that it had obviously been closed and reopened while the blood was still wet would not have been detrimental to JB's case and had nothing to do with the apparent sudden loss of interest by the defence.
21) The destruction of Sheila's nightdress and other exhibits preventing further examination with modern forensic techniques.
22) Individual negatives removed from the previously complete strips. Are these simply photos of the boys that are of no particular value to JB's defence but must not end up in the public domain or is there something more sinister in this?
23) Ainsley and Cook STOLE photos and case documents and shared with Carol Ann Lee and Kris Mrksa the producer of WHF TV series respectively.
24) Bamber was STITCHED UP by the Police due to their attitude towards homosexuality, he had gay friends and could be gay himself!
TBC....
.
WONDERFUL! Love it, love it, LOVE IT!!!
Could you consider another one? The reason he was framed and being kept inside is because there are those in the know -nod,nod,wink,wink- who are aware of his 'parentage' and fear he may bring down the Royal Family challenge Charles for the crown.
-
This is a list of conspiracies currently believed and/or promoted by JB and his official campaign team. Feel free to add any I have forgotten or disagree or hijack the thread with long standing personal vendettas that have no relevance to the case. I don't care.
I have tried to resist snarky comments but have failed in places, I think I am such a wit :))
1) West, Bonnet, Myall, Saxby and Bews all conspire to hide evidence of Nevill speaking to West from the moment JB eventually speaks to West himself. Other officers may also be involved. The evidence that proves this is shown to the jury.
2) Myall and Bews conspire to lie about the figure in the window. They hypnotise Jeremy into forgetting all about it for several months.
3) Bews radios in a situation report about the figure in the window and calls for armed back up. This information is immediately suppressed from all other officers subsequently at the scene in case they blab to Jeremy.
4) 5.25 am - Sheila is in conversation with police, multiple officers conspire to keep this information from JB and suppress it afterward.
5) 6.09 am - At the exact time the BT operator transfers the open line to Maldon for monitoring, Sheila makes a 999 call. It is unclear if this vital information reaches the officers at the scene or if suppressing the 999 call is the action of one rogue cop. Nevertheless, despite suppressing this information, an ambulance is sent 18 minutes later which is proof of the call and not simply standard procedure for an impending raid where casualties are likely.
6) Throughout the 4 hours of the siege, lights are going on and off and curtains are being opened/closed. Multiple officers carefully watching for movement either fail in their duty to notice any of this or are inveigled into a plot to lie and state there were no signs of life.
7) Just prior to the raid, Sheila is seen through the kitchen window, dead. It is not at all possible that Nevill's body was simply mistaken for a woman's and a non eyewitness misunderstood the situation.
8 ) As the raid team enter, a reanimated Sheila runs upstairs and shoots herself only once, although she is also still dead in the kitchen because a log entry written by a non eyewitness says so. Schrodinger's Sheila.
9) Some time later but after the police surgeon has been, Sheila is shot for a second time in a bumbling accident. The police panic and think that nobody will believe a two shot suicide and decide framing innocent Jeremy is the only option that definitely won't lead to 36 years of questions and scrutiny of their actions. The TFG statements saying they saw two wounds are clearly lies. Declaring it a murder suicide and giving evidence to that effect at the inquest was all a part of EP's scheme to make themselves look incompetent, thus hiding their mistake with a clever double reverse bluff.
10) A mysterious suicide note mentioned by S Jones. The note in the bible? The "Dear Mummy" letter? No, it can only be a completely different note that was hidden, probably under PII and whatnot because that's automatically dead suspicious.
11) Julie Mugford lies her head off about everything. It's unclear whether JB still says all of her flatmates were lying about the time of his apparently inconsequential and perfectly normal 3am call to Julie now that he has changed his mind about the order of the calls. (again)
11a) But Julie is only lying her head off because Stan Jones had something on her. And because she was a woman scorned. And because she is a horrible witch who should go to prison and be flogged.
12) The relatives conspire to tell lies about horrid things Jeremy supposedly said because they were all greedy and hated poor Jeremy. Much more serious but unfounded allegations of evidence tampering are insinuated/telegraphed.
12b) The relatives also lie to the court about the inheritance, although an agreed note makes clear to the jury that PB will basically get the lot.
13) Several others also tell lies about the horrid things Jeremy has supposedly said about his parents and not sharing his inheritance although there appears no motive for them to lie, they are lying.
14) Michael Fielder and the Sun newspaper tell horrid lies about JB and BC trying to sell nude photographs of Sheila but this definitely didn't happen because JB says it didn't. It is not possible that JB didn't give all of the photographs to Colin and kept some back. No way. Uh Uh. So you believe a reporter from the sun do you? Yeah right, that's typical of guilters..
15) Everyone at the FSS lab lies to conceal the fact there were 2 silencers and lie about the results, Vanezis manages to miss or deliberately conceal wounds on Sheila and Prof Knight for the defence is also incompetent.
16) ITV and Carol Ann Lee conspire to make a TV drama to thwart jeremy's appeal because the CCRC are famously influenced by drama's on TV rather than the evidence.
17) Carol Ann Lee lies about the vet saying JB decided to put down Crispy. When CAL challenges the CT to publish the vet's statement and prove her wrong, the CT claim not to have it or have seen it. Animal lovers up and down the country hate poor Jeremy even more.
18)Every Chief Constable of EP since 1985 has concealed the REAL evidence, although it doesn't matter because JB can already prove he is innocent so the CT don't bang on about it endlessly.
19) BT lie in court about whether they have any record of local calls made through the local exchange.
20) The bible went missing during the trial. The fact that it had obviously been closed and reopened while the blood was still wet would not have been detrimental to JB's case and had nothing to do with the apparent sudden loss of interest by the defence.
21) The destruction of Sheila's nightdress and other exhibits preventing further examination with modern forensic techniques.
22) Individual negatives removed from the previously complete strips. Are these simply photos of the boys that are of no particular value to JB's defence but must not end up in the public domain or is there something more sinister in this?
23) Ainsley and Cook STOLE photos and case documents and shared with Carol Ann Lee and Kris Mrksa the producer of WHF TV series respectively.
24) Bamber was STITCHED UP by the Police due to their attitude towards homosexuality, he had gay friends and could be gay himself!
TBC....
I agree with Jane's sentiments. It is indeed wonderful!
Don't think you've included claims that Essex police used the crime scene as a training exercise with the victims in-situ.
-
Well, they did conspire to withhold the log from the defence! That is fact. Furthermore, the log quite plainly and in black-and-white states that the firearms team are in conversation with somebody from inside the farm. It uses those very words. They perhaps should have disclosed it and added a note that this was officers attempting to hail a suspect believed to be in the farmhouse, not in conversation with a suspect, and these efforts were to no avail.
Also, if they were hailing to no avail and if there was no sign of life in the farmhouse, then why did they wait so long to attempt entry? Did they lack the equipment and training to effect low light entry? I appreciate that safety concerns are legitimate considerations, and anyone with a gun has to be considered dangerous, but ultimately, they were dealing with a young woman, not hardened terrorists. One argument that occurs to me is that they may have been concerned about setting Sheila off and her then shooting everybody, especially as there were young children in the house. OK, but they waited three hours. Three hours. Why?
The answers to your questions above can be found in the Dickinson report along with decision making and command structure. Not really sure why I am bothering to point this out as no doubt you and others with your mindset will write it off on the basis that all the officers at the farm on 7th Aug conspired against Bamber.
-
.
WONDERFUL! Love it, love it, LOVE IT!!!
Could you consider another one? The reason he was framed and being kept inside is because there are those in the know -nod,nod,wink,wink- who are aware of his 'parentage' and fear he may bring down the Royal Family challenge Charles for the crown.
Thanks, I was actually surprised at how long the list got.
I can't in all fairness include that one as it is not a currently promoted conspiracy along with "they were all assassinated because of Nevill's war work" but yes, there are so many conspiracies against poor Jeremy Bamber, he never stood a chance.
-
I agree with Jane's sentiments. It is indeed wonderful!
Don't think you've included claims that Essex police used the crime scene as a training exercise with the victims in-situ.
I'll edit it in now but will probably add some snark..:)
-
PC Collins made the observation at approx 7.37am.
TFU entered the farmhouse at approx 7.40am. It was then some minutes until they arrived in the main bedroom and observed Sheila. All agreed she was dead. The police surgeon arrived at approx 8.10am and certified Sheila dead shortly afterwards. At trial he said:
In cross-examination at the trial he said the deaths could have occurred at any time during the previous night.
If Sheila died by her own hand, or at the hands of Essex police, at a much later time than the other victims why did Dr Craig provide the above testimony? Bearing in mind he was an expert witness for the defence and went on to say:
The appearance of Sheila Caffell's body suggested to him that the wounds had been inflicted by her own hand.
But more importantly if Sheila was still alive at 7.37am do you honestly believe the police surgeon would be incapable of discerning obvious differences between the victims who died over 4 hours before he certified their deaths and Sheila dying some 30 minutes before certifying her dead? Or is this just another highly qualified expert of long experience who was involved in wrongdoing or incompetenr/negligent?
As I've pointed out previously as far as I know no patient (Dr Craig was a GP too) or anyone else ever made a complaint to the GMC.
David might well pop up soon and guess what in his opinion Dr Craig was also an alcoholic :o ;D ::) His evidence: a former poster claims he lived in the Essex area and there was a rumour Dr Craig was a boozer! There were lots of rumours about Jeremy Bamber too!
Re the above, just to add, Prof Vanezis estimated the time between two Sheila's gunshot wounds shots at a few seconds. Prof Knight for the defence extended the time to a few minutes. Both pathologists agreed Sheila did not move between the two shots in terms of standing up and/or walking.
-
Here you invent a myth about a conspiracy. The actual claim is that the conspiracy arose when Operation Raleigh began, or maybe in the run up to it, not at the point that Jeremy was on the phone.
To what extent such a conspiracy may have involved Myall, Saxby and Bews, is unclear to me. They were merely the response officers in CA07. I comprehend the point that the Campaign Team are making, that CA07 was a response to Nevill's call, not Jeremy's, but it does not follow from this that the CA07 officers were in on it as they would have just taken the situation as they found it and the source of the call would not have mattered to them, whether HQ or Witham or wherever.
Again, you misrepresent things. The allegation needs to be understood in context. You speak of Jeremy forgetting about it, but the initial investigation concluded uncontroversially that Sheila was the culprit, as this matched the evidence found, so there was no reason for Jeremy to raise the issue. It was only when Jeremy became a suspect that it became relevant.
Against this background, your suspicions make no sense. If Jeremy was lying about what occurred, then he would have claimed to have seen the figure himself and Bews and Myall would have denied the whole thing ever occurred. Instead, Bews admits it occurred, and at one point even states he was the one who saw movement in the window! It's on YouTube for everybody to see. Some conspiracy that turned out to be.
Well, they did conspire to withhold the log from the defence! That is fact. Furthermore, the log quite plainly and in black-and-white states that the firearms team are in conversation with somebody from inside the farm. It uses those very words. They perhaps should have disclosed it and added a note that this was officers attempting to hail a suspect believed to be in the farmhouse, not in conversation with a suspect, and these efforts were to no avail.
Also, if they were hailing to no avail and if there was no sign of life in the farmhouse, then why did they wait so long to attempt entry? Did they lack the equipment and training to effect low light entry? I appreciate that safety concerns are legitimate considerations, and anyone with a gun has to be considered dangerous, but ultimately, they were dealing with a young woman, not hardened terrorists. One argument that occurs to me is that they may have been concerned about setting Sheila off and her then shooting everybody, especially as there were young children in the house. OK, but they waited three hours. Three hours. Why?
Two calls can't be made from one phone at one time, so your claim does not make sense. Are you saying that as the open line was transferred:
(i). Sheila terminates the open line and makes a call?
(ii). Sheila speaks into the open line (perhaps after hearing voices emanating from the handset)?
(iii). Something else?
Who makes this claim?
It is a fact that an authorised firearms officer, PC Collins, looked through the back kitchen window and when he reported what he saw back to CA07, he stated one dead female. They then enter the farmhouse and find one dead male. CA07 then radioed this back to Igor Norman at Chelmsford as one dead male and one dead female found on entry to the farmhouse, and PC West also recorded it this way in the Wireless Log.
What is clear is that PC Collins' second report back to CA07 could not have included the conjunctive word as there was only one body in the kitchen. Furthermore, if PC Collins had seen a different body through the window to that found in the kitchen, he would have reported this.
It follows from this that PC Collins' original observation could not have been mistaken in its essential fact - he definitely saw a body, whether male or female. This in turn leaves open two possibilities:
(i). the body found by the raid group on entry to the main kitchen was in the same position to that observed by PC Collins through the kitchen window;
or,
(ii). the body found by the raid group on entry to the main kitchen was in a different position to that observed by PC Collins through the kitchen window.
If (i) applies, then PC Collins' evidence in this respect is true and he just mistook Nevill's body for female.
If (ii) applies, PC Collins' evidence is false, and either Nevill was still alive at this point or Sheila was in the kitchen just before the raid group entered the farmhouse.
PC Collins was not commenting on whether the bodies he saw were alive or dead. If he says 'dead bodies', that is because they appear to be dead. Even a doctor would not be able to tell from behind a window six feet away.
Again, I think you misrepresent the alleged conspiracy. What is being posited here is that the officers decided to cover up the second shot only. There is no suggestion that the officers on the scene sought to frame Jeremy. In fact, it's the very opposite of what you say. The efforts were intended to make it look like a two-shot suicide. A variation on the theory is that Taff Jones became aware of what had gone on and this explains his apparent obstinance.
Personally, I do not believe there is anything to support this theory but I retain an open mind. Stranger things have happened.
I don't know if there was a suicide note, but it was Stan Jones who mentioned a suicide note in his COLP interview. It's not as if Jeremy was stood there with him saying, 'Go on Stan, mention the suicide note.
Go on. I'll give you all my dinner money if you do...' Jeremy seems to be blamed for drawing natural inferences from things people have done or said of their own free will, which seems rather unfair to me.
Personally, I suspect it was just clumsy expression on Stan Jones' part that Jeremy has now seized on, but if Jeremy Bamber is innocent, can you blame him for making hay of it? Shouldn't the COLP officers have sought clarification from DS Jones on the point? Why blame Jeremy when it's the police who are not being rigorous and checking things?
Well you're wrong here too. Even the prosecution counsel, Anthony Arlidge, Q.C. disagrees with you. He conceded the point in his closing speech on 27th. October 1985, when he told the jury:
"Somebody in this case is lying, and lying their head off. It's just something you have to face up to."
You say the phone call was at 3 a.m. Julie said it was at 3.15 a.m. Susan Battersby said it was at 3.12 a.m., based on her alarm clock, which she asks us to assume was deadly accurate.
Julie told the police in her first statement that Douglas Dale had answered the phone, then corrected this later and admitted she answered.
Putting aside the truth or otherwise of all this, I'm not clear why you think this is a wild supposition or 'conspiracy theory'. You do realise that people tell lies in court, including women and policemen? You do understand that people are sometimes framed for crimes they did not commit? I will grant you that normally this is because the person framed is believed to be guilty or is looked upon as suspicious, but the point is that you seem to be dismissing as wild supposition things that actually have occurred in real life in other cases.
Again, putting aside the truth or otherwise of this, I'm unclear why you put these allegations in the 'conspiracy theory' category, as if they can be dismissed out-of-hand as beneath your notice. People do plot together to tell lies, and - brace yourself for this because it will shock you - they sometimes do it because they're greedy or nasty. You do realise this?
Are you serious when you suggest there was no motive for them to lie? I'm not saying they were lying, but you can't seriously be telling us there was no motive.
I don't believe anything that comes out of the mouth or pen of a reporter from the Sun, or any journalist, from any newspaper, or any media person or anybody who works in broadcasting. If a journalist or media person gave me the time of day, I'd ring up the Greenwich Observatory to double-check. Not one of them is trustworthy in the sense that you can rely on their word without carrying out your own checks. They tell lies.
That having been said, I think you have to make a choice. If Michael Fielder's story was true, then we have another reason in support of Sheila as the killer, don't we, and if Jeremy is lying about selling photographs, that is no proof that he is a murderer. If, on the other hand, Michael Fielder's story is false, it does not follow that Jeremy is innocent, it merely serves to establish what we already know, that journalists are scumbags; and, it may be that Fielder lied because Brett and Jeremy themselves were a couple of scumbags.
Certainly, what we can say is that Jeremy's moral orientation took a turn for the worse under the influence of young Brett.
Where is it said by anybody supporting Jeremy that everybody has lied? Anyway, why shouldn't it be the case that large numbers of people told lies in different ways? Why can't experienced professionals make mistakes? How did the Post Office Horizon scandal happen? By accident?
Again, I'm not clear why you think this is far-fetched. The TV drama was based partly on Colin Caffell's book. You do realise that Colin Caffell would crawl bollock-naked over broken glass to stop Jeremy being freed? And do you think Carol Ann Lee just woke up in a manger? She writes for money. She doesn't just do it for the good of her health. She appeared on that podcast and said what they want her to say because they paid her. This is not a silly person. She's a shrewd lady.
I'm starting to view you as a bit of a naif. I'm starting to think you might be a promising mark for a confidence man. You seem to be under the belief that what you see on TV and read in newspapers is true and doesn't represent some sort of agenda.
No such thing occurred. Jeremy fully admits that he had Crispy put down. The controversy is over why. You fail to ask why Carol Ann Lee would impute the worst possible motives in Jeremy for the most mundane incident while absolving everybody else.
What a silly comment. If Essex Police have concealed evidence, then what else should we conclude than that they have....concealed evidence? That is literally what they have done. And if you were innocent of something and still in prison for it, what else would you do other than protest your innocence at every opportunity?
To my knowledge, nobody associated with Jeremy Bamber has ever made this accusation. There would be no need.
Here you rely on the 2002 appeal judges, but they actually got this wrong. There is a factor they failed to take account of. As to why Jeremy's defence did not raise the Bible during the trial, I have no idea and I doubt anybody else does, even Jeremy himself. I suspect the only person who knows is Geoffrey Rivlin, Q.C., and he's probably forgotten. It may be that Rivlin was worried that blood impressions inside the Bible may incriminate Jeremy. OK, so what? Doesn't mean Jeremy is guilty, as the cause of it can be more than one thing.
Which is true. It is admitted by the authorities that this occurred.
Well, which is it? I'm not clear how this is wild supposition. The concern seems well-founded.
Again, this actually happened. It is fact. Whether the documents were technically stolen by police officers is a matter of law, but no legitimate reason for them to have those documents springs to mind. "Any chance I can take this document home, guv, show it to the wife?" "Yeah, go on. Jeremy's legal team won't need it anymore", sounds to me like a conversation that should not take place between police officers. However, we are talking about the police force that destroyed crucial evidence in a murder case involving a disputed conviction, so perhaps that's how it panned out.
Why not? Why shouldn't this be a factor? I doubt anybody would claim it was the only reason, but why shouldn't it have come into play? The Birmingham Six would say they were stitched up because they were Irish (in fact, they were all Irish Republicans). Judith Ward was an IRA groupie. My point is that the personal habits, views, and lifestyle choices of an individual can firm them up as a suspect, especially if these personal attributes have some relevance to the case itself. It turned out that Judith Ward was innocent.
In the present case, and to give due credit to Stan Jones (who was an able detective), Jeremy's slightly decadent, 'alternative', metropolitan outlook and lifestyle formed a background against which a picture could be painted of him as someone materialistic rather than dutiful and, taken together with other things, allowed the prosecution to portray Jeremy as perhaps the type of person who would seek to escape a rural north Essex life and might - just might - resort to desperate measures to do it. If it turns out that Stan Jones was wrong, then this train of thought starts to look a bit prejudiced. Indeed, I'm told that early in his prison career, Jeremy Bamber was subscribing to Farmers Weekly. Was that just to give him another appeal point? And even his detractors base their detraction on Jeremy wanting to use the money he would inherit to buy a small farm in Devon. Why would they come up with something like that? Why would Jeremy want to sell up one farm-business conglomerate that is prosperous and doing well only to set up another in some random part of the country he has no connection to? Does that make any sense to you?
Quite a comprehensive response and certainly puts things in perspective.
-
Here you rely on the 2002 appeal judges, but they actually got this wrong. There is a factor they failed to take account of. As to why Jeremy's defence did not raise the Bible during the trial, I have no idea and I doubt anybody else does, even Jeremy himself. I suspect the only person who knows is Geoffrey Rivlin, Q.C., and he's probably forgotten. It may be that Rivlin was worried that blood impressions inside the Bible may incriminate Jeremy. OK, so what? Doesn't mean Jeremy is guilty, as the cause of it can be more than one thing.
If you bother to read Prof Knight's trial testimony you will see Bamber's defence did indeed use the bible at trial.
Again if you bother to read the Dickinson report the TFU admit they might have inadvertently moved the bible when the door to the box room was opened.
It is clear to me you are unfamiliar with the most important aspects of the case material and yet seem very keen that we should listen to podcasts put out by the CT where 99.9% of the information either does not stand up to scrutiny or is totally irrelevant.
-
Again, you misrepresent things. The allegation needs to be understood in context. You speak of Jeremy forgetting about it, but the initial investigation concluded uncontroversially that Sheila was the culprit, as this matched the evidence found, so there was no reason for Jeremy to raise the issue. It was only when Jeremy became a suspect that it became relevant.
Against this background, your suspicions make no sense. If Jeremy was lying about what occurred, then he would have claimed to have seen the figure himself and Bews and Myall would have denied the whole thing ever occurred. Instead, Bews admits it occurred, and at one point even states he was the one who saw movement in the window! It's on YouTube for everybody to see. Some conspiracy that turned out to be.
According to Mrs Eaton on morning of 7th Aug at Bamber's cottage he said something along the lines of 'If only dogs could talk' referring to Crispy. Why didn't he refer then to 'movement' at the window?
When he was interviewed under caution and DS Jones put it to him that Sheila could not have shot herself twice and he was under suspicion for the murders, why didn't he refer then to 'movement' at the window? Instead he backtracked and said his father might have said 'she has the gun and has gone crazy' and not Sheila! He even suggested Crispy might have let off the second shot!
-
Here you invent a myth about a conspiracy. The actual claim is that the conspiracy arose when Operation Raleigh began, or maybe in the run up to it, not at the point that Jeremy was on the phone.
To what extent such a conspiracy may have involved Myall, Saxby and Bews, is unclear to me. They were merely the response officers in CA07. I comprehend the point that the Campaign Team are making, that CA07 was a response to Nevill's call, not Jeremy's, but it does not follow from this that the CA07 officers were in on it as they would have just taken the situation as they found it and the source of the call would not have mattered to them, whether HQ or Witham or wherever.
Again, you misrepresent things. The allegation needs to be understood in context. You speak of Jeremy forgetting about it, but the initial investigation concluded uncontroversially that Sheila was the culprit, as this matched the evidence found, so there was no reason for Jeremy to raise the issue. It was only when Jeremy became a suspect that it became relevant.
Against this background, your suspicions make no sense. If Jeremy was lying about what occurred, then he would have claimed to have seen the figure himself and Bews and Myall would have denied the whole thing ever occurred. Instead, Bews admits it occurred, and at one point even states he was the one who saw movement in the window! It's on YouTube for everybody to see. Some conspiracy that turned out to be.
Well, they did conspire to withhold the log from the defence! That is fact. Furthermore, the log quite plainly and in black-and-white states that the firearms team are in conversation with somebody from inside the farm. It uses those very words. They perhaps should have disclosed it and added a note that this was officers attempting to hail a suspect believed to be in the farmhouse, not in conversation with a suspect, and these efforts were to no avail.
Also, if they were hailing to no avail and if there was no sign of life in the farmhouse, then why did they wait so long to attempt entry? Did they lack the equipment and training to effect low light entry? I appreciate that safety concerns are legitimate considerations, and anyone with a gun has to be considered dangerous, but ultimately, they were dealing with a young woman, not hardened terrorists. One argument that occurs to me is that they may have been concerned about setting Sheila off and her then shooting everybody, especially as there were young children in the house. OK, but they waited three hours. Three hours. Why?
Two calls can't be made from one phone at one time, so your claim does not make sense. Are you saying that as the open line was transferred:
(i). Sheila terminates the open line and makes a call?
(ii). Sheila speaks into the open line (perhaps after hearing voices emanating from the handset)?
(iii). Something else?
Who makes this claim?
It is a fact that an authorised firearms officer, PC Collins, looked through the back kitchen window and when he reported what he saw back to CA07, he stated one dead female. They then enter the farmhouse and find one dead male. CA07 then radioed this back to Igor Norman at Chelmsford as one dead male and one dead female found on entry to the farmhouse, and PC West also recorded it this way in the Wireless Log.
What is clear is that PC Collins' second report back to CA07 could not have included the conjunctive word as there was only one body in the kitchen. Furthermore, if PC Collins had seen a different body through the window to that found in the kitchen, he would have reported this.
It follows from this that PC Collins' original observation could not have been mistaken in its essential fact - he definitely saw a body, whether male or female. This in turn leaves open two possibilities:
(i). the body found by the raid group on entry to the main kitchen was in the same position to that observed by PC Collins through the kitchen window;
or,
(ii). the body found by the raid group on entry to the main kitchen was in a different position to that observed by PC Collins through the kitchen window.
If (i) applies, then PC Collins' evidence in this respect is true and he just mistook Nevill's body for female.
If (ii) applies, PC Collins' evidence is false, and either Nevill was still alive at this point or Sheila was in the kitchen just before the raid group entered the farmhouse.
PC Collins was not commenting on whether the bodies he saw were alive or dead. If he says 'dead bodies', that is because they appear to be dead. Even a doctor would not be able to tell from behind a window six feet away.
Again, I think you misrepresent the alleged conspiracy. What is being posited here is that the officers decided to cover up the second shot only. There is no suggestion that the officers on the scene sought to frame Jeremy. In fact, it's the very opposite of what you say. The efforts were intended to make it look like a two-shot suicide. A variation on the theory is that Taff Jones became aware of what had gone on and this explains his apparent obstinance.
Personally, I do not believe there is anything to support this theory but I retain an open mind. Stranger things have happened.
I don't know if there was a suicide note, but it was Stan Jones who mentioned a suicide note in his COLP interview. It's not as if Jeremy was stood there with him saying, 'Go on Stan, mention the suicide note.
Go on. I'll give you all my dinner money if you do...' Jeremy seems to be blamed for drawing natural inferences from things people have done or said of their own free will, which seems rather unfair to me.
Personally, I suspect it was just clumsy expression on Stan Jones' part that Jeremy has now seized on, but if Jeremy Bamber is innocent, can you blame him for making hay of it? Shouldn't the COLP officers have sought clarification from DS Jones on the point? Why blame Jeremy when it's the police who are not being rigorous and checking things?
Well you're wrong here too. Even the prosecution counsel, Anthony Arlidge, Q.C. disagrees with you. He conceded the point in his closing speech on 27th. October 1985, when he told the jury:
"Somebody in this case is lying, and lying their head off. It's just something you have to face up to."
You say the phone call was at 3 a.m. Julie said it was at 3.15 a.m. Susan Battersby said it was at 3.12 a.m., based on her alarm clock, which she asks us to assume was deadly accurate.
Julie told the police in her first statement that Douglas Dale had answered the phone, then corrected this later and admitted she answered.
Putting aside the truth or otherwise of all this, I'm not clear why you think this is a wild supposition or 'conspiracy theory'. You do realise that people tell lies in court, including women and policemen? You do understand that people are sometimes framed for crimes they did not commit? I will grant you that normally this is because the person framed is believed to be guilty or is looked upon as suspicious, but the point is that you seem to be dismissing as wild supposition things that actually have occurred in real life in other cases.
Again, putting aside the truth or otherwise of this, I'm unclear why you put these allegations in the 'conspiracy theory' category, as if they can be dismissed out-of-hand as beneath your notice. People do plot together to tell lies, and - brace yourself for this because it will shock you - they sometimes do it because they're greedy or nasty. You do realise this?
Are you serious when you suggest there was no motive for them to lie? I'm not saying they were lying, but you can't seriously be telling us there was no motive.
I don't believe anything that comes out of the mouth or pen of a reporter from the Sun, or any journalist, from any newspaper, or any media person or anybody who works in broadcasting. If a journalist or media person gave me the time of day, I'd ring up the Greenwich Observatory to double-check. Not one of them is trustworthy in the sense that you can rely on their word without carrying out your own checks. They tell lies.
That having been said, I think you have to make a choice. If Michael Fielder's story was true, then we have another reason in support of Sheila as the killer, don't we, and if Jeremy is lying about selling photographs, that is no proof that he is a murderer. If, on the other hand, Michael Fielder's story is false, it does not follow that Jeremy is innocent, it merely serves to establish what we already know, that journalists are scumbags; and, it may be that Fielder lied because Brett and Jeremy themselves were a couple of scumbags.
Certainly, what we can say is that Jeremy's moral orientation took a turn for the worse under the influence of young Brett.
Where is it said by anybody supporting Jeremy that everybody has lied? Anyway, why shouldn't it be the case that large numbers of people told lies in different ways? Why can't experienced professionals make mistakes? How did the Post Office Horizon scandal happen? By accident?
Again, I'm not clear why you think this is far-fetched. The TV drama was based partly on Colin Caffell's book. You do realise that Colin Caffell would crawl bollock-naked over broken glass to stop Jeremy being freed? And do you think Carol Ann Lee just woke up in a manger? She writes for money. She doesn't just do it for the good of her health. She appeared on that podcast and said what they want her to say because they paid her. This is not a silly person. She's a shrewd lady.
I'm starting to view you as a bit of a naif. I'm starting to think you might be a promising mark for a confidence man. You seem to be under the belief that what you see on TV and read in newspapers is true and doesn't represent some sort of agenda.
No such thing occurred. Jeremy fully admits that he had Crispy put down. The controversy is over why. You fail to ask why Carol Ann Lee would impute the worst possible motives in Jeremy for the most mundane incident while absolving everybody else.
What a silly comment. If Essex Police have concealed evidence, then what else should we conclude than that they have....concealed evidence? That is literally what they have done. And if you were innocent of something and still in prison for it, what else would you do other than protest your innocence at every opportunity?
To my knowledge, nobody associated with Jeremy Bamber has ever made this accusation. There would be no need.
Here you rely on the 2002 appeal judges, but they actually got this wrong. There is a factor they failed to take account of. As to why Jeremy's defence did not raise the Bible during the trial, I have no idea and I doubt anybody else does, even Jeremy himself. I suspect the only person who knows is Geoffrey Rivlin, Q.C., and he's probably forgotten. It may be that Rivlin was worried that blood impressions inside the Bible may incriminate Jeremy. OK, so what? Doesn't mean Jeremy is guilty, as the cause of it can be more than one thing.
Which is true. It is admitted by the authorities that this occurred.
Well, which is it? I'm not clear how this is wild supposition. The concern seems well-founded.
Again, this actually happened. It is fact. Whether the documents were technically stolen by police officers is a matter of law, but no legitimate reason for them to have those documents springs to mind. "Any chance I can take this document home, guv, show it to the wife?" "Yeah, go on. Jeremy's legal team won't need it anymore", sounds to me like a conversation that should not take place between police officers. However, we are talking about the police force that destroyed crucial evidence in a murder case involving a disputed conviction, so perhaps that's how it panned out.
Why not? Why shouldn't this be a factor? I doubt anybody would claim it was the only reason, but why shouldn't it have come into play? The Birmingham Six would say they were stitched up because they were Irish (in fact, they were all Irish Republicans). Judith Ward was an IRA groupie. My point is that the personal habits, views, and lifestyle choices of an individual can firm them up as a suspect, especially if these personal attributes have some relevance to the case itself. It turned out that Judith Ward was innocent.
In the present case, and to give due credit to Stan Jones (who was an able detective), Jeremy's slightly decadent, 'alternative', metropolitan outlook and lifestyle formed a background against which a picture could be painted of him as someone materialistic rather than dutiful and, taken together with other things, allowed the prosecution to portray Jeremy as perhaps the type of person who would seek to escape a rural north Essex life and might - just might - resort to desperate measures to do it. If it turns out that Stan Jones was wrong, then this train of thought starts to look a bit prejudiced. Indeed, I'm told that early in his prison career, Jeremy Bamber was subscribing to Farmers Weekly. Was that just to give him another appeal point? And even his detractors base their detraction on Jeremy wanting to use the money he would inherit to buy a small farm in Devon. Why would they come up with something like that? Why would Jeremy want to sell up one farm-business conglomerate that is prosperous and doing well only to set up another in some random part of the country he has no connection to? Does that make any sense to you?
The absolute truth
The facts
Thank you for your lengthy rebuttal which nobody can deny
-
Where is it said by anybody supporting Jeremy that everybody has lied? Anyway, why shouldn't it be the case that large numbers of people told lies in different ways? Why can't experienced professionals make mistakes? How did the Post Office Horizon scandal happen? By accident?
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/liars-lobby
The Post Office scandal was based on faulty software.
No one is denying miscarriages of justice occur and most contain similar features. But in Bamber's case we are being asked to believe the unbelievable: that very large numbers of unrelated individuals either conspired against Bamber or were incompetent/negligent.
-
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/liars-lobby
The Post Office scandal was based on faulty software.
No one is denying miscarriages of justice occur and most contain similar features. But in Bamber's case we are being asked to believe the unbelievable: that very large numbers of unrelated individuals either conspired against Bamber or were incompetent/negligent.
Thanks for taking the time to rebut QC, don't tell him but I can't even be bothered to read his verbose reply and gave up after the first 5000 words of missing the point.
I tried flattering him at first as he can be even handed and make good points but it is clear he will dance on the head of pin, create straw men, invert known facts and generally bore the living daylights out of anyone he takes a dislike to which is anybody that has the temerity to disagree with him even once.
Just scroll past. He isn't fooling anyone with a brain.
-
Thanks for taking the time to rebut QC, don't tell him but I can't even be bothered to read his verbose reply and gave up after the first 5000 words of missing the point.
I tried flattering him at first as he can be even handed and make good points but it is clear he will dance on the head of pin, create straw men, invert known facts and generally bore the living daylights out of anyone he takes a dislike to which is anybody that has the temerity to disagree with him even once.
Just scroll past. He isn't fooling anyone with a brain.
TBF, he did bother to read yours. I like some of your posts but I think he has dismantled the post in question on this occasion. Let's see if CC gets similar treatment. For example, is an innocent man not allowed to respond in a facetious manner to police questioning?
-
TBF, he did bother to read yours. I like some of your posts but I think he has dismantled the post in question on this occasion. Let's see if CC gets similar treatment. For example, is an innocent man not allowed to respond in a facetious manner to police questioning?
I thought the point was clear Roch but I will spell it out, it is not the merits or otherwise of the individual points but the sheer volume of them, although some are self evidently ridiculous.
Anybody that tries to argue that PC West not telling Jeremy his father had already called is somehow only a conspiracy after the fact doesn't deserve any attention. Life is too short.
-
TBF, he did bother to read yours. I like some of your posts but I think he has dismantled the post in question on this occasion. Let's see if CC gets similar treatment. For example, is an innocent man not allowed to respond in a facetious manner to police questioning?
I do not consider you an arbitrator. I reject the idea QC has dismantled AD's post. Unlikely he will repond to my posts since he claims to have put me on ignore. I just hope he doesn't think because I didn't tackle all his points that I agree with them because I don't. As AD said life's too short and I've got housework to do.
-
Thanks for taking the time to rebut QC, don't tell him but I can't even be bothered to read his verbose reply and gave up after the first 5000 words of missing the point.
I tried flattering him at first as he can be even handed and make good points but it is clear he will dance on the head of pin, create straw men, invert known facts and generally bore the living daylights out of anyone he takes a dislike to which is anybody that has the temerity to disagree with him even once.
Just scroll past. He isn't fooling anyone with a brain.
QC hasn't started patronising you yet. He will if he feels it neccessary.
-
I thought the point was clear Roch but I will spell it out, it is not the merits or otherwise of the individual points but the sheer volume of them, although some are self evidently ridiculous.
Anybody that tries to argue that PC West not telling Jeremy his father had already called is somehow only a conspiracy after the fact doesn't deserve any attention. Life is too short.
[/b]
Absolutely! Had West taken Nevill's call before Bamber's as claimed by CT now, first thing West would have told Bamber was that he had just spoken to his father , he had called and help is on its way! West would know immediately both calls were regarding the same incident! No rocket science there. There was no need for him to make Bamber hold. As I always say Nevill's alleged call is the KEY to the case..... IF the call didn't happen he is guilty, period! ... Silencer and Mugford can wait.
-
TBF, he did bother to read yours. I like some of your posts but I think he has dismantled the post in question on this occasion. Let's see if CC gets similar treatment. For example, is an innocent man not allowed to respond in a facetious manner to police questioning?
He did not dismantle Roch. He just put his own twist and HIS belief according to his own understanding therefore not a fact based, it's not to say if he is right or wrong just that it's his views and opinion. I guess when one is living and breathing this forum for years and every day they have plenty of time to bother reading post and spend time responding . I think he does it show how smart he is, it's ego, wanting to be right. He gets pretty upset and easily offended if people don't agree to his posts. He also likes to twist things and portray himself as victim. This is MY experience with him. He might have few good points as many have said which I can't dispute because I personally havnt come across anything even one which I havnt heard before , maybe because I havnt gone through all his posts and comments.
I think most supporters here don't even care if Bamber is innocent or not. For a lot it's all about point scoring and ego to be right! It's just a case to talk about " fooling" around in forum. I just got a chance to get on the forum and it's hard to catch up let alone having time to counter-argue 22 points!
Empty vessels make most noise. Just saying. 😁
-
I believe the original theory offered was that Bonnet and West, between them, if you please, made the decision to withhold, from JB, the information that his father had already called them, in case it was decided, at a later date, to prosecute JB!!!. It occurs to me, that if all the -what can they be called, other than deliberate lies- "myths" emerging from the case were erased, there would, more likely, be a much more obvious case for guilt.
-
I believe the original theory offered was that Bonnet and West, between them, if you please, made the decision to withhold, from JB, the information that his father had already called them, in case it was decided, at a later date, to prosecute JB!!!. It occurs to me, that if all the -what can they be called, other than deliberate lies- "myths" emerging from the case were erased, there would, more likely, be a much more obvious case for guilt.
What a lot of bollocks !!! People will make anything up to find Bamber boy innocent. I have never heard anything as ridiculous as this.
-
Not as ridiculous as the story that JB used to have sex in prison and actually got someone pregnant
A made up story that’s been going around for years that Jeremy told me personally NEVER happened
-
Here you invent a myth about a conspiracy. The actual claim is that the conspiracy arose when Operation Raleigh began, or maybe in the run up to it, not at the point that Jeremy was on the phone.
To what extent such a conspiracy may have involved Myall, Saxby and Bews, is unclear to me. They were merely the response officers in CA07. I comprehend the point that the Campaign Team are making, that CA07 was a response to Nevill's call, not Jeremy's, but it does not follow from this that the CA07 officers were in on it as they would have just taken the situation as they found it and the source of the call would not have mattered to them, whether HQ or Witham or wherever.
Again, you misrepresent things. The allegation needs to be understood in context. You speak of Jeremy forgetting about it, but the initial investigation concluded uncontroversially that Sheila was the culprit, as this matched the evidence found, so there was no reason for Jeremy to raise the issue. It was only when Jeremy became a suspect that it became relevant.
Against this background, your suspicions make no sense. If Jeremy was lying about what occurred, then he would have claimed to have seen the figure himself and Bews and Myall would have denied the whole thing ever occurred. Instead, Bews admits it occurred, and at one point even states he was the one who saw movement in the window! It's on YouTube for everybody to see. Some conspiracy that turned out to be.
Well, they did conspire to withhold the log from the defence! That is fact. Furthermore, the log quite plainly and in black-and-white states that the firearms team are in conversation with somebody from inside the farm. It uses those very words. They perhaps should have disclosed it and added a note that this was officers attempting to hail a suspect believed to be in the farmhouse, not in conversation with a suspect, and these efforts were to no avail.
Also, if they were hailing to no avail and if there was no sign of life in the farmhouse, then why did they wait so long to attempt entry? Did they lack the equipment and training to effect low light entry? I appreciate that safety concerns are legitimate considerations, and anyone with a gun has to be considered dangerous, but ultimately, they were dealing with a young woman, not hardened terrorists. One argument that occurs to me is that they may have been concerned about setting Sheila off and her then shooting everybody, especially as there were young children in the house. OK, but they waited three hours. Three hours. Why?
Two calls can't be made from one phone at one time, so your claim does not make sense. Are you saying that as the open line was transferred:
(i). Sheila terminates the open line and makes a call?
(ii). Sheila speaks into the open line (perhaps after hearing voices emanating from the handset)?
(iii). Something else?
Who makes this claim?
It is a fact that an authorised firearms officer, PC Collins, looked through the back kitchen window and when he reported what he saw back to CA07, he stated one dead female. They then enter the farmhouse and find one dead male. CA07 then radioed this back to Igor Norman at Chelmsford as one dead male and one dead female found on entry to the farmhouse, and PC West also recorded it this way in the Wireless Log.
What is clear is that PC Collins' second report back to CA07 could not have included the conjunctive word as there was only one body in the kitchen. Furthermore, if PC Collins had seen a different body through the window to that found in the kitchen, he would have reported this.
It follows from this that PC Collins' original observation could not have been mistaken in its essential fact - he definitely saw a body, whether male or female. This in turn leaves open two possibilities:
(i). the body found by the raid group on entry to the main kitchen was in the same position to that observed by PC Collins through the kitchen window;
or,
(ii). the body found by the raid group on entry to the main kitchen was in a different position to that observed by PC Collins through the kitchen window.
If (i) applies, then PC Collins' evidence in this respect is true and he just mistook Nevill's body for female.
If (ii) applies, PC Collins' evidence is false, and either Nevill was still alive at this point or Sheila was in the kitchen just before the raid group entered the farmhouse.
PC Collins was not commenting on whether the bodies he saw were alive or dead. If he says 'dead bodies', that is because they appear to be dead. Even a doctor would not be able to tell from behind a window six feet away.
Again, I think you misrepresent the alleged conspiracy. What is being posited here is that the officers decided to cover up the second shot only. There is no suggestion that the officers on the scene sought to frame Jeremy. In fact, it's the very opposite of what you say. The efforts were intended to make it look like a two-shot suicide. A variation on the theory is that Taff Jones became aware of what had gone on and this explains his apparent obstinance.
Personally, I do not believe there is anything to support this theory but I retain an open mind. Stranger things have happened.
I don't know if there was a suicide note, but it was Stan Jones who mentioned a suicide note in his COLP interview. It's not as if Jeremy was stood there with him saying, 'Go on Stan, mention the suicide note.
Go on. I'll give you all my dinner money if you do...' Jeremy seems to be blamed for drawing natural inferences from things people have done or said of their own free will, which seems rather unfair to me.
Personally, I suspect it was just clumsy expression on Stan Jones' part that Jeremy has now seized on, but if Jeremy Bamber is innocent, can you blame him for making hay of it? Shouldn't the COLP officers have sought clarification from DS Jones on the point? Why blame Jeremy when it's the police who are not being rigorous and checking things?
Well you're wrong here too. Even the prosecution counsel, Anthony Arlidge, Q.C. disagrees with you. He conceded the point in his closing speech on 27th. October 1985, when he told the jury:
"Somebody in this case is lying, and lying their head off. It's just something you have to face up to."
You say the phone call was at 3 a.m. Julie said it was at 3.15 a.m. Susan Battersby said it was at 3.12 a.m., based on her alarm clock, which she asks us to assume was deadly accurate.
Julie told the police in her first statement that Douglas Dale had answered the phone, then corrected this later and admitted she answered.
Putting aside the truth or otherwise of all this, I'm not clear why you think this is a wild supposition or 'conspiracy theory'. You do realise that people tell lies in court, including women and policemen? You do understand that people are sometimes framed for crimes they did not commit? I will grant you that normally this is because the person framed is believed to be guilty or is looked upon as suspicious, but the point is that you seem to be dismissing as wild supposition things that actually have occurred in real life in other cases.
Again, putting aside the truth or otherwise of this, I'm unclear why you put these allegations in the 'conspiracy theory' category, as if they can be dismissed out-of-hand as beneath your notice. People do plot together to tell lies, and - brace yourself for this because it will shock you - they sometimes do it because they're greedy or nasty. You do realise this?
Are you serious when you suggest there was no motive for them to lie? I'm not saying they were lying, but you can't seriously be telling us there was no motive.
I don't believe anything that comes out of the mouth or pen of a reporter from the Sun, or any journalist, from any newspaper, or any media person or anybody who works in broadcasting. If a journalist or media person gave me the time of day, I'd ring up the Greenwich Observatory to double-check. Not one of them is trustworthy in the sense that you can rely on their word without carrying out your own checks. They tell lies.
That having been said, I think you have to make a choice. If Michael Fielder's story was true, then we have another reason in support of Sheila as the killer, don't we, and if Jeremy is lying about selling photographs, that is no proof that he is a murderer. If, on the other hand, Michael Fielder's story is false, it does not follow that Jeremy is innocent, it merely serves to establish what we already know, that journalists are scumbags; and, it may be that Fielder lied because Brett and Jeremy themselves were a couple of scumbags.
Certainly, what we can say is that Jeremy's moral orientation took a turn for the worse under the influence of young Brett.
Where is it said by anybody supporting Jeremy that everybody has lied? Anyway, why shouldn't it be the case that large numbers of people told lies in different ways? Why can't experienced professionals make mistakes? How did the Post Office Horizon scandal happen? By accident?
Again, I'm not clear why you think this is far-fetched. The TV drama was based partly on Colin Caffell's book. You do realise that Colin Caffell would crawl bollock-naked over broken glass to stop Jeremy being freed? And do you think Carol Ann Lee just woke up in a manger? She writes for money. She doesn't just do it for the good of her health. She appeared on that podcast and said what they want her to say because they paid her. This is not a silly person. She's a shrewd lady.
I'm starting to view you as a bit of a naif. I'm starting to think you might be a promising mark for a confidence man. You seem to be under the belief that what you see on TV and read in newspapers is true and doesn't represent some sort of agenda.
No such thing occurred. Jeremy fully admits that he had Crispy put down. The controversy is over why. You fail to ask why Carol Ann Lee would impute the worst possible motives in Jeremy for the most mundane incident while absolving everybody else.
What a silly comment. If Essex Police have concealed evidence, then what else should we conclude than that they have....concealed evidence? That is literally what they have done. And if you were innocent of something and still in prison for it, what else would you do other than protest your innocence at every opportunity?
To my knowledge, nobody associated with Jeremy Bamber has ever made this accusation. There would be no need.
Here you rely on the 2002 appeal judges, but they actually got this wrong. There is a factor they failed to take account of. As to why Jeremy's defence did not raise the Bible during the trial, I have no idea and I doubt anybody else does, even Jeremy himself. I suspect the only person who knows is Geoffrey Rivlin, Q.C., and he's probably forgotten. It may be that Rivlin was worried that blood impressions inside the Bible may incriminate Jeremy. OK, so what? Doesn't mean Jeremy is guilty, as the cause of it can be more than one thing.
Which is true. It is admitted by the authorities that this occurred.
Well, which is it? I'm not clear how this is wild supposition. The concern seems well-founded.
Again, this actually happened. It is fact. Whether the documents were technically stolen by police officers is a matter of law, but no legitimate reason for them to have those documents springs to mind. "Any chance I can take this document home, guv, show it to the wife?" "Yeah, go on. Jeremy's legal team won't need it anymore", sounds to me like a conversation that should not take place between police officers. However, we are talking about the police force that destroyed crucial evidence in a murder case involving a disputed conviction, so perhaps that's how it panned out.
Why not? Why shouldn't this be a factor? I doubt anybody would claim it was the only reason, but why shouldn't it have come into play? The Birmingham Six would say they were stitched up because they were Irish (in fact, they were all Irish Republicans). Judith Ward was an IRA groupie. My point is that the personal habits, views, and lifestyle choices of an individual can firm them up as a suspect, especially if these personal attributes have some relevance to the case itself. It turned out that Judith Ward was innocent.
In the present case, and to give due credit to Stan Jones (who was an able detective), Jeremy's slightly decadent, 'alternative', metropolitan outlook and lifestyle formed a background against which a picture could be painted of him as someone materialistic rather than dutiful and, taken together with other things, allowed the prosecution to portray Jeremy as perhaps the type of person who would seek to escape a rural north Essex life and might - just might - resort to desperate measures to do it. If it turns out that Stan Jones was wrong, then this train of thought starts to look a bit prejudiced. Indeed, I'm told that early in his prison career, Jeremy Bamber was subscribing to Farmers Weekly. Was that just to give him another appeal point? And even his detractors base their detraction on Jeremy wanting to use the money he would inherit to buy a small farm in Devon. Why would they come up with something like that? Why would Jeremy want to sell up one farm-business conglomerate that is prosperous and doing well only to set up another in some random part of the country he has no connection to? Does that make any sense to you?
One cannot escape the thought that, for the most part, your intention is not simply to play devil's advocate, but to aggressively argue, lengthily, against whatever was posted last.
-
Not as ridiculous as the story that JB used to have sex in prison and actually got someone pregnant
A made up story that’s been going around for years that Jeremy told me personally NEVER happened
Whatever JB told you -and frankly, he can tell you anything- if a woman claims to be pregnant with his child, there's no way you can prove otherwise............unless there is evidence of JB's sterility.
-
Whatever JB told you -and frankly, he can tell you anything- if a woman claims to be pregnant with his child, there's no way you can prove otherwise............unless there is evidence of JB's sterility.
There are so many fake stories about JB and this will obviously be another one from a desperate women and quite hilarious as the guilters like to promote the stories that JB is gay
Unless there is evidence this women exists it will be a fake story
-
Not as ridiculous as the story that JB used to have sex in prison and actually got someone pregnant
A made up story that’s been going around for years that Jeremy told me personally NEVER happened
Jackie, Jeremy told you so must be true! I believe you ... 🤪
You can't digest the fact that Bamber indeed had intimate relationship with that someone, two bodies became one, awww. Why Jackie? Why are you refusing to believe? Why does it upset you so much that you bring it up everytime? So what if he had? Nothing wrong I am sure Bamber has desire like everyone else, wouldn't you want him to fullfill his God given desires and wants? Don't be so mean Jackie. Let him.
-
One cannot escape the thought that, for the most part, your intention is not simply to play devil's advocate, but to aggressively argue, lengthily, against whatever was posted last.
QC conveys the facts and in my opinion his long post is Probably one of the best I have read on this form but as expected slated by the guilters as everything is on point
-
Jackie, Jeremy told you so must be true! I believe you ... 🤪
You can't digest the fact that Bamber indeed had intimate relationship with that someone, two bodies became one, awww. Why Jackie? Why are you refusing to believe? Why does it upset you so much that you bring it everytime? So what if he had? Nothing wrong I am sure Bamber has desire like everyone else, wouldn't you want him to fullfill his God given desires and wants? Don't be so mean Jackie. Let him.
Why on earth would you believe a mad women that is anonymous. She doesn’t exist. All famous men are accused of the same thing
-
There are so many fake stories about JB and this will obviously be another one from a desperate women and quite hilarious as the guilters like to promote the stories that JB is gay
Unless there is evidence this women exists it will be a fake story
What about the allegation that Jeremy date raped the girl from the Chequers? Is that fake too?
-
There are so many fake stories about JB and this will obviously be another one from a desperate women and quite hilarious as the guilters like to promote the stories that JB is gay
Unless there is evidence this women exists it will be a fake story
JB is definitely NOT gay. There are women who say JB to be very good and generous lover in bed. He is bi sexual and there is nothing wrong with that! That's his choice.
Funny CT and supporters blame EP of framing Bamber because he had gay friends and could be gay himself but supporters like Jackie and CT want to hide his sexuslity and refuse to believe he is Bi as if it is a sin. Now who is Homophobic??? 🤣
-
QC hasn't started patronising you yet. He will if he feels it neccessary.
I think he might be jealous of your gift for brevity Adam, not to mention your ability to dismantle lengthy posts with a single sentence.
He was patronising enough. Best ignored. Who has the time?
-
I believe the original theory offered was that Bonnet and West, between them, if you please, made the decision to withhold, from JB, the information that his father had already called them, in case it was decided, at a later date, to prosecute JB!!!. It occurs to me, that if all the -what can they be called, other than deliberate lies- "myths" emerging from the case were erased, there would, more likely, be a much more obvious case for guilt.
Indeed, but you can add the occupants of CA7 because they were dispatched after the information received from Nevill and before Jb called, unless you want to try and argue that they wouldn't be told why they were going to WHF, just to be argumentative!
-
JB is definitely NOT gay. There are women who say JB to be very good and generous lover in bed. He is bi sexual and there is nothing wrong with that! That's his choice.
Funny CT and supporters blame EP of framing Bamber because he had gay friends and could be gay himself but supporters like Jackie and CT want to hide his sexuslity and refuse to believe he is Bi as if it is a sin. Now who is Homophobic??? 🤣
Your second paragraph is true, EP and also RWB called JB a " puff " ! Isn't that loathing enough ? That was a crime to them so it was " entered in their notes " as well as anything else they could cop JB for. Even down to a private detective to spy on JB and Brett Collins which was ordered by RWB to report any " goings on " ::)
-
Why on earth would you believe a mad women that is anonymous. She doesn’t exist. All famous men are accused of the same thing
I'm perfectly positive that you'd prefer to believe that he's celibate, but Jackie, men have needs, and I feel certain that one -or more- of his female visitors would happily fulfil them. There's not reason on God's earth why he should share such with you...........unless you made a point of asking the question? Could that be why he dumped you?
-
JB is definitely NOT gay. There are women who say JB to be very good and generous lover in bed. He is bi sexual and there is nothing wrong with that! That's his choice.
Funny CT and supporters blame EP of framing Bamber because he had gay friends and could be gay himself but supporters like Jackie and CT want to hide his sexuslity and refuse to believe he is Bi as if it is a sin. Now who is Homophobic??? 🤣
Then people like me get labelled as porn loving perverts for mentioning JB and S - E - X in the same breath.
-
Indeed, but you can add the occupants of CA7 because they were dispatched after the information received from Nevill and before Jb called, unless you want to try and argue that they wouldn't be told why they were going to WHF, just to be argumentative!
I'll leave that to QC..............he's so much better at it, than I :))
-
JB is definitely NOT gay. There are women who say JB to be very good and generous lover in bed. He is bi sexual and there is nothing wrong with that! That's his choice.
Funny CT and supporters blame EP of framing Bamber because he had gay friends and could be gay himself but supporters like Jackie and CT want to hide his sexuslity and refuse to believe he is Bi as if it is a sin. Now who is Homophobic??? 🤣
You have NO idea if JB is gay bi or heterosexual. But guilters like to slur him as if being gay is a bad thing
Do not try to pretend you know JB’s sex life was or is because it makes no difference to his guilt or innocence
-
Your second paragraph is true, EP and also RWB called JB a " puff " ! Isn't that loathing enough ? That was a crime to them so it was " entered in their notes " as well as anything else they could cop JB for. Even down to a private detective to spy on JB and Brett Collins which was ordered by RWB to report any " goings on " ::)
Many from that time and generation had such attitude towards gay, esp in 1985. To be honest many even now do! I know few. Maybe they do not express as much these days due to being called homophobic. You can't deny that. So they entered as a crime in their note book? I don't think so...
If Boutflour let his spies loose on Bamber and Brett it will be because he suspected Bamber murderered his family, so makes sense. I don't think he sent his spies because he was interested if they were having some wild gay orgy. Do you think any video of this exist Lookout?
-
You have NO idea if JB is gay bi or heterosexual. But guilters like to slur him as if being gay is a bad thing
Do not try to pretend you know JB’s sex life was or is because it makes no difference to his guilt or innocence
No, being gay is not bad, I am saying the opposite, learn to read! But you are hiding he is bi. Why?
I havnt pretended neither do I want to know his sex life, the though of it repulses me 🤮. Thanks but no thanks , I will leave that to you. And no his sexuality makes no difference to his innocence or guilt. Did I say it did? Nope!
-
You have NO idea if JB is gay bi or heterosexual. But guilters like to slur him as if being gay is a bad thing
Do not try to pretend you know JB’s sex life was or is because it makes no difference to his guilt or innocence
Jackie, that's a very sweeping statement. I, frankly, can't see it as being any MORE likely that detractors, more than supporters, are homophobic. It's not his sexuality that's the crime. It's the murders he committed. For all that, he's as entitled, as anyone else, to enjoy a fulfilling sex life.
-
Many from that time and generation had such attitude towards gay, esp in 1985. To be honest many even now do! I know few. Maybe they do not express as much these days due to being called homophobic. You can't deny that. So they entered as a crime in their note book? I don't think so...
If Boutflour let his spies loose on Bamber and Brett it will be because he suspected Bamber murderered his family, so makes sense. I don't think he sent his spies because he was interested if they were having some wild gay orgy. Do you think any video of this exist Lookout?
Asking for Jackie 😁
-
I'm perfectly positive that you'd prefer to believe that he's celibate, but Jackie, men have needs, and I feel certain that one -or more- of his female visitors would happily fulfil them. There's not reason on God's earth why he should share such with you...........unless you made a point of asking the question? Could that be why he dumped you?
You are a vile, disgusting sexual deviant and a sad and lonely women
Your positive ?
you'd prefer to believe ?
You have been warned if you keep making these serious slurs online you will get prosecuted
There are laws against people like you and I will not put up with these serious slurs. I am going to send your posts to a lady solicitor who deals with online abuse and you had better have proof of everything you have written
men have needs
What has this got anything to do with the case apart from attacking me
You need phycological help writing this
-
You are a vile, disgusting sexual deviant and a sad and lonely women
Your positive ?
you'd prefer to believe ?
You have been warned if you keep making these serious slurs online you will get prosecuted
There are laws against people like you and I will not put up with these serious slurs. I am going to send your posts to a lady solicitor who deals with online abuse and you had better have proof of everything you have written
men have needs
What has this got anything to do with the case apart from attacking me
You need phycological help writing this
Jackie.......................................SHUT UP............................or learn how to debate
-
Jackie.......................................SHUT UP............................or learn how to debate
I am taking screen shots of all your posts making personal threat or slurs about me. Your low intelligence shows because you cannot control your self by constantly making personal slurs on forum members
Do you think you are above the law???? A solicitor will have a field day with your attacks and slurs
YOU have not got the intelligence to debate properly without personal slurs
-
You are a vile, disgusting sexual deviant and a sad and lonely women
Your positive ?
you'd prefer to believe ?
You have been warned if you keep making these serious slurs online you will get prosecuted
There are laws against people like you and I will not put up with these serious slurs. I am going to send your posts to a lady solicitor who deals with online abuse and you had better have proof of everything you have written
men have needs
What has this got anything to do with the case apart from attacking me
You need phycological help writing this
😂😂😂
-
I am taking screen shots of all your posts making personal threat or slurs about me. Your low intelligence shows because you cannot control your self by constantly making personal slurs on forum members
Do you think you are above the law???? A solicitor will have a field day with your attacks and slurs
YOU have not got the intelligence to debate properly without personal slurs
Jackie................................................SHUT UP........................................................
-
One cannot escape the thought that, for the most part, your intention is not simply to play devil's advocate, but to aggressively argue, lengthily, against whatever was posted last.
Precisely. And if I respond it will be followed by another half million words and another until I give up and he thinks he has proven his superior intellect so I'm saving time and effort by just ignoring him.
-
Jackie.......................................SHUT UP............................or learn how to debate
1. What is online harassment?
Online harassment is not defined in UK law, but recognised behaviour includes offensive, abusive, violent, threatening, racist or explicit online content, which is designed to cause alarm or distress. For behaviour to constitute "harassment" it must take place on at least two occasions. Generally, a perpetrator’s conduct can be considered "harassment" (rather than being simply unpleasant) where it includes more than one episode of unreasonable and oppressive behaviour which is calculated to result in alarm, fear or distress to the victim.
Online harassment can take place on multiple platforms including email, instant messaging, social media sites, blogs and chat rooms. It often involves bullying or "trolling" an individual or organisation. It can also include identity theft and posting false profiles in an individual’s name. Because online content can go viral very quickly, it is easy for harassment to escalate if you do not take prompt action against it.
-
I am taking screen shots of all your posts making personal threat or slurs about me. Your low intelligence shows because you cannot control your self by constantly making personal slurs on forum members
Do you think you are above the law???? A solicitor will have a field day with your attacks and slurs
YOU have not got the intelligence to debate properly without personal slurs
[/i][/b]
Jackie but YOU are the one who keeps bringing Jeremy's sex in prison on every post and topic ? You did here too when no one has mentioned. In fact you do it on every post? So who is obsessed?
I love the threats? Why just say it here and waste your time? You have warned and threatened Jane many times, why not just do it. Go on, I dare you ...come on Jackie show it.
-
You have NO idea if JB is gay bi or heterosexual. But guilters like to slur him as if being gay is a bad thing
Do not try to pretend you know JB’s sex life was or is because it makes no difference to his guilt or innocence
Yes but did he date rape the girl from the Chequers who woke up to find him on top of her?
-
Precisely. And if I respond it will be followed by another half million words and another until I give up and he thinks he has proven his superior intellect so I'm saving time and effort by just ignoring him.
I imagine such may have been his plan from the start. He gets away with it by playing the uncertainty card, but what's perfectly obvious is that he can't, civilly, cope with any of his arguments countered, so hits out at the poster and complains to the moderator.
-
Yes but did he date rape the girl from the Chequers who woke up to find him on top of her?
Oooh! Careful!! You'll be the next to get "pervert" hurled at you.
-
[/i][/b]
Jackie but YOU are the one who keeps bringing Jeremy's sex in prison on every post and topic ? You did here too when no one has mentioned. In fact you do it on every post? So who is obsessed?
I love the threats? Why just say it here and waste your time? You have warned and threatened Jane many times, why not just do it. Go on, I dare you ...come on Jackie show it.
No you are a liar. You bought up the subject. I am responding because like all the other myths on here it will not be true. There is no proof so why even bring the subject up. Its ridiculous and probably only bought up to try and get JB in trouble.
-
Precisely. And if I respond it will be followed by another half million words and another until I give up and he thinks he has proven his superior intellect so I'm saving time and effort by just ignoring him.
To be fair his superior intellect is obvious
-
Yes but did he date rape the girl from the Chequers who woke up to find him on top of her?
Please post the proof or is it another story
-
I imagine such may have been his plan from the start. He gets away with it by playing the uncertainty card, but what's perfectly obvious is that he can't, civilly, cope with any of his arguments countered, so hits out at the poster and complains to the moderator.
I have observed this from a distance and have been embarrassed on his behalf on a number of occasions. He clearly has the ability to be so much better too.
Remember when he flounced off just after his ban, vowing never to grace the forum with his golden intellect ever again? :))
-
1. What is online harassment?
Online harassment is not defined in UK law, but recognised behaviour includes offensive, abusive, violent, threatening, racist or explicit online content, which is designed to cause alarm or distress. For behaviour to constitute "harassment" it must take place on at least two occasions. Generally, a perpetrator’s conduct can be considered "harassment" (rather than being simply unpleasant) where it includes more than one episode of unreasonable and oppressive behaviour which is calculated to result in alarm, fear or distress to the victim.[/
Online harassment can take place on multiple platforms including email, instant messaging, social media sites, blogs and chat rooms. It often involves bullying or "trolling" an individual or organisation. It can also include identity theft and posting false profiles in an individual’s name. Because online content can go viral very quickly, it is easy for harassment to escalate if you do not take prompt action against it.
What is online harassment?
An art Jackie has been practicing since long before I joined this Forum. Probably the reason she's received life bans from other forums, and possibly the reason she has previously been banned from this one. I think these facts speak for themselves.
-
No you are a liar. You bought up the subject. I am responding because like all the other myths on here it will not be true. There is no proof so why even bring the subject up. Its ridiculous and probably only bought up to try and get JB in trouble.
Eh???? I DID NOT you are a lying monstrosity here, no shame. If you can lie so openly and blatantly God knows what else you are capable of! Go Sue me too , waiting for the Lady solicitor's letter to get summoned . Hurry hurry Jackie, run .
You keep lying so much you don't know what you
are saying.
-
What is online harassment?
An art Jackie has been practicing since long before I joined this Forum. Probably the reason she's received life bans from other forums, and possibly the reason she has previously been banned from this one. I think these facts speak for themselves.
You are a liar more harrassment. For legal reasons what forums have I received life bans from
-
Many from that time and generation had such attitude towards gay, esp in 1985. To be honest many even now do! I know few. Maybe they do not express as much these days due to being called homophobic. You can't deny that. So they entered as a crime in their note book? I don't think so...
If Boutflour let his spies loose on Bamber and Brett it will be because he suspected Bamber murderered his family, so makes sense. I don't think he sent his spies because he was interested if they were having some wild gay orgy. Do you think any video of this exist Lookout?
RWB definitely thought something was brewing, sexually between the two men and was looking for proof to put in his " diary " as another slight against JB.
-
RWB definitely thought something was brewing, sexually between the two men and was looking for proof to put in his " diary " as another slight against JB.
Does any video exist at all of all the evidence against JB ?
-
Eh???? I DID NOT you are a lying monstrosity here, no shame. If you can lie so openly and blatantly God knows what else you are capable of! Go Sue me too , waiting for the Lady solicitor's letter to get summoned . Hurry hurry Jackie, run .
You keep lying so much you don't know what you
are saying.
There would be no point you have no money and live in a two bedroomed council flat
Show me the post where I bought up the fact Jeremy had sex in prison
-
To be fair his superior intellect is obvious
Oh yes, his genius theory that 4 bullet casings got kicked from the kitchen and all the way upstairs to the bedroom was the moment I dropped to my knees and wept, realising I, a mere mortal could never hope to emulate or even understand anything the great man ever said as he clearly operates at a level above all others!
-
You are a liar more harrassment. For legal reasons what forums have I received life bans from
Jackie, SHUT UP! I imagine the whole damn Forum is SICK of you making threats of legal action just because you don't like what I say.
-
No you are a liar. You bought up the subject. I am responding because like all the other myths on here it will not be true. There is no proof so why even bring the subject up. Its ridiculous and probably only bought up to try and get JB in trouble.
Who is the liar?? Tut tut...Na na na na na na, Jackie Pinocchio na na na na na 🤥🤥🤥
NO ONE mentioned Jeremy and the sex In prison with a woman before YOUR comment ( until comment 53) , I was just replying to Jane about Bonnett/ West call! You butted your Pinocchio nose with the sex topic. Yet again! Surprise surprise.
-
There would be no point you have no money and live in a two bedroomed council flat
Show me the post where I bought up the fact Jeremy had sex in prison
POST 53. You told us about JB allegedly having sex in prison and getting the female pregnant. In other words, you provided the ammunition.
-
Who is the liar?? Tut tut...Na na na na na na, Jackie Pinocchio na na na na na 🤥🤥🤥
NO ONE mentioned Jeremy and the sex In prison with a woman before YOUR comment ( until comment 53) , I was just replying to Jane about Bonnett/ West call! You butted your Pinocchio nose with the sex topic. Yet again! Surprise surprise.
You are as sick as Jane everyone saw your post when you posted JB got someone pregnant and miscarried are you denying you ever posted that
-
You are as sick as Jane everyone saw your post when you posted JB got someone pregnant and miscarried are you denying you ever posted that
Nope! I don't deny, absolutely not. BUT it was not on this post though , it was few days back on ANOTHER post. Again surprise surprise you brought it up there, yet again! So I added more info it was not just sex but the lady misscarried....
So?
-
Lookout will have an answer to each of these.
Yes---Conspiracies are exactly what they are and go straight over my head ;D
-
You are as sick as Jane everyone saw your post when you posted JB got someone pregnant and miscarried are you denying you ever posted that
Are you denying you typed Post 53?
-
Thanks, I was actually surprised at how long the list got.
I can't in all fairness include that one as it is not a currently promoted conspiracy along with "they were all assassinated because of Nevill's war work" but yes, there are so many conspiracies against poor Jeremy Bamber, he never stood a chance.
I am capable of both long and short posts.
This is a short post: I think you've shown your hand.
-
Yes---Conspiracies are exactly what they are and go straight over my head ;D
I'm afraid I don't have time for them as they're usually penned by weak-minded people.
-
This is a list of conspiracies currently believed and/or promoted by JB and his official campaign team. Feel free to add any I have forgotten or disagree or hijack the thread with long standing personal vendettas that have no relevance to the case. I don't care.
I have tried to resist snarky comments but have failed in places, I think I am such a wit :))
1) West, Bonnet, Myall, Saxby and Bews all conspire to hide evidence of Nevill speaking to West from the moment JB eventually speaks to West himself. Other officers may also be involved. The evidence that proves this is shown to the jury.
2) Myall and Bews conspire to lie about the figure in the window. They hypnotise Jeremy into forgetting all about it for several months.
3) Bews radios in a situation report about the figure in the window and calls for armed back up. This information is immediately suppressed from all other officers subsequently at the scene in case they blab to Jeremy.
4) 5.25 am - Sheila is in conversation with police, multiple officers conspire to keep this information from JB and suppress it afterward.
5) 6.09 am - At the exact time the BT operator transfers the open line to Maldon for monitoring, Sheila makes a 999 call. It is unclear if this vital information reaches the officers at the scene or if suppressing the 999 call is the action of one rogue cop. Nevertheless, despite suppressing this information, an ambulance is sent 18 minutes later which is proof of the call and not simply standard procedure for an impending raid where casualties are likely.
6) Throughout the 4 hours of the siege, lights are going on and off and curtains are being opened/closed. Multiple officers carefully watching for movement either fail in their duty to notice any of this or are inveigled into a plot to lie and state there were no signs of life.
7) Just prior to the raid, Sheila is seen through the kitchen window, dead. It is not at all possible that Nevill's body was simply mistaken for a woman's and a non eyewitness misunderstood the situation.
8 ) As the raid team enter, a reanimated Sheila runs upstairs and shoots herself only once, although she is also still dead in the kitchen because a log entry written by a non eyewitness says so. Schrodinger's Sheila.
9) Some time later but after the police surgeon has been, Sheila is shot for a second time in a bumbling accident. The police panic and think that nobody will believe a two shot suicide and decide framing innocent Jeremy is the only option that definitely won't lead to 36 years of questions and scrutiny of their actions. The TFG statements saying they saw two wounds are clearly lies. Declaring it a murder suicide and giving evidence to that effect at the inquest was all a part of EP's scheme to make themselves look incompetent, thus hiding their mistake with a clever double reverse bluff.
10) A mysterious suicide note mentioned by S Jones. The note in the bible? The "Dear Mummy" letter? No, it can only be a completely different note that was hidden, probably under PII and whatnot because that's automatically dead suspicious.
11) Julie Mugford lies her head off about everything. It's unclear whether JB still says all of her flatmates were lying about the time of his apparently inconsequential and perfectly normal 3am call to Julie now that he has changed his mind about the order of the calls. (again)
11a) But Julie is only lying her head off because Stan Jones had something on her. And because she was a woman scorned. And because she is a horrible witch who should go to prison and be flogged.
12) The relatives conspire to tell lies about horrid things Jeremy supposedly said because they were all greedy and hated poor Jeremy. Much more serious but unfounded allegations of evidence tampering are insinuated/telegraphed.
12b) The relatives also lie to the court about the inheritance, although an agreed note makes clear to the jury that PB will basically get the lot.
13) Several others also tell lies about the horrid things Jeremy has supposedly said about his parents and not sharing his inheritance although there appears no motive for them to lie, they are lying.
14) Michael Fielder and the Sun newspaper tell horrid lies about JB and BC trying to sell nude photographs of Sheila but this definitely didn't happen because JB says it didn't. It is not possible that JB didn't give all of the photographs to Colin and kept some back. No way. Uh Uh. So you believe a reporter from the sun do you? Yeah right, that's typical of guilters..
15) Everyone at the FSS lab lies to conceal the fact there were 2 silencers and lie about the results, Vanezis manages to miss or deliberately conceal wounds on Sheila and Prof Knight for the defence is also incompetent.
16) ITV and Carol Ann Lee conspire to make a TV drama to thwart jeremy's appeal because the CCRC are famously influenced by drama's on TV rather than the evidence.
17) Carol Ann Lee lies about the vet saying JB decided to put down Crispy. When CAL challenges the CT to publish the vet's statement and prove her wrong, the CT claim not to have it or have seen it. Animal lovers up and down the country hate poor Jeremy even more.
18)Every Chief Constable of EP since 1985 has concealed the REAL evidence, although it doesn't matter because JB can already prove he is innocent so the CT don't bang on about it endlessly.
19) BT lie in court about whether they have any record of local calls made through the local exchange.
20) The bible went missing during the trial. The fact that it had obviously been closed and reopened while the blood was still wet would not have been detrimental to JB's case and had nothing to do with the apparent sudden loss of interest by the defence.
21) The destruction of Sheila's nightdress and other exhibits preventing further examination with modern forensic techniques.
22) Individual negatives removed from the previously complete strips. Are these simply photos of the boys that are of no particular value to JB's defence but must not end up in the public domain or is there something more sinister in this?
23) Ainsley and Cook STOLE photos and case documents and shared with Carol Ann Lee and Kris Mrksa the producer of WHF TV series respectively.
24) Bamber was STITCHED UP by the Police due to their attitude towards homosexuality, he had gay friends and could be gay himself!
25) Essex police used the crime scene as a training exercise with the victims in-situ. This definitely counters evidence of a staged scene that wouldn't be at all potentially disastrous for the defence to put before a jury when their client is accused of staging the scene.
26) The appeal court judges all conspired to keep Jeremy in prison even though he is obviously innocent. It's not that he brought a weak and hopelessly flawed case.
27) The police conspired not to tell JB about the lab rejecting Sheila's hand swabs because they may have been contaminated, even though any contamination would have aided Bamber's defence.
28) The police conspired not to tell Jeremy about the time they inspected his own hands roughly a month after the shootings. It's unclear whether JB was present while this was done.
TBC....
Right over my head ;D
-
POST 53. You told us about JB allegedly having sex in prison and getting the female pregnant. In other words, you provided the ammunition.
The post was after Munkska posted it How would I know JB apparently got someone pregnant and miscarried. Is she denying it because everyone on here would have seen it
-
Jackie, SHUT UP! I imagine the whole damn Forum is SICK of you making threats of legal action just because you don't like what I say.
For legal reasons you provide proof of what you have stated as FACT I need it for my solicitor
-
The post was after Munkska posted it How would I know JB apparently got someone pregnant and miscarried. Is she denying it because everyone on here would have seen it
That was days ago! You presented certain information in Post 53. If it's on forum, it's up for comment. Get over it.
-
For legal reasons you provide proof of what you have stated as FACT I need it for my solicitor
'S'you're money, feel free to spend it how you want. But stop threatening me, it's getting boring. Besides which, I understand online threats to be illegal.
-
That was days ago! You presented certain information in Post 53. If it's on forum, it's up for comment. Get over it.
You know for a FACT that was in response to Munksa in a previous post way before my post Munksa Announced she knew JB had had sex in prison and get some one pregnant you saw it I saw it and everyone saw it
-
'S'you're money, feel free to spend it how you want.
I cant wait for legal reasons to have your real identity exposed because of all your slurs and harassment it will be worth every penny to get your name in your local papers for harrassment
-
You know for a FACT that was in response to Munksa in a previous post way before my post Munksa Announced she knew JB had had sex in prison and get some one pregnant you saw it I saw it and everyone saw it
If you haven't got the guts to take responsibility for yourself and admit you typed post 53 of you own volition, SHUT UP about it because the more you try to blame others, the more stupid you make yourself look.
-
I cant wait for legal reasons to have your real identity exposed because of all your slurs and harassment it will be worth every penny to get your name in your local papers for harrassment
And THAT wasn't both harassment and threat?
-
The post was after Munkska posted it How would I know JB apparently got someone pregnant and miscarried. Is she denying it because everyone on here would have seen it
.
Yes yes yes I did say on ANOTHER POST, ONLY AFTER you mentioned same old Jeremy sex in prison. You started it here , no surprise
Anyways Jackie you keep going, I sometimes find you deviously sweet 🥰... You really are a stale breath. The forum room is starting to smell a bit. I am outta this thread.
Don't forget to ring the Lady Solicitor
-
NGB1066 I have sent you a pm re action I am taking against Jane
-
.
Yes yes yes I did say on ANOTHER POST, ONLY AFTER you mentioned same old Jeremy sex in prison. You started it here , no surprise
Anyways Jackie you keep going, I sometimes find you deviously sweet 🥰... You really are a stale breath. The forum room is starting to smell a bit. I am outta this thread.
Don't forget to ring the Lady Solicitor
Definately it will be worth every single penny re the harrassment
-
And THAT wasn't both harassment and threat?
I have taken photos of every post re the harassment, sexual comments and lies for the solicitor
-
NGB1066 I have sent you a pm re action I am taking against Jane
Jackie..........................................SHUT UP.......................................
-
Jackie..........................................SHUT UP.......................................
NO I will deal with you legally
-
NO I will deal with you legally
Jackie.............................................SHUT UP..........................................
-
81
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Sheila Frooze!
« on: January 02, 2022, 08:30:PM »
Quote from: JackieD on January 02, 2022, 08:02:PM
And your contribution is trying to make people believe the vile xxxx xxxx had sex in prison LOL
Who said xxxx had sex in prison ??? You mentioned her name not me Jackie.....
I havnt given any names who had sex with your dear Bamber. It's you who mentioned xxxx's name , I only went along with it, just let you take charge as you always do.
And I will repeat
yes Bamber not just had sex with Bamber but made a woman pregnant too, sadly she misscarried . Now this info will make you breath fire 😂😂😂
-
Definately it will be worth every single penny re the harrassment
Please Jackie, be my guest! 🤩
-
81
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Sheila Frooze!
« on: January 02, 2022, 08:30:PM »
Quote from: JackieD on January 02, 2022, 08:02:PM
And your contribution is trying to make people believe the vile xxxx xxxx had sex in prison LOL
Who said xxxx had sex in prison ??? You mentioned her name not me Jackie.....
I havnt given any names who had sex with your dear Bamber. It's you who mentioned xxxx's name , I only went along with it, just let you take charge as you always do.
And I will repeat
yes Bamber not just had sex with Bamber but made a woman pregnant too, sadly she misscarried . Now this info will make you breath fire 😂😂😂
Why are you posting this to me?
-
81
Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion / Re: Sheila Frooze!
« on: January 02, 2022, 08:30:PM »
Quote from: JackieD on January 02, 2022, 08:02:PM
And your contribution is trying to make people believe the vile xxxx xxxx had sex in prison LOL
Who said xxxx had sex in prison ??? You mentioned her name not me Jackie.....
I havnt given any names who had sex with your dear Bamber. It's you who mentioned xxxx's name , I only went along with it, just let you take charge as you always do.
And I will repeat
yes Bamber not just had sex with Bamber but made a woman pregnant too, sadly she misscarried . Now this info will make you breath fire 😂😂😂
And? So? Yes I said this on ANOTHER post few days back. Have I denied? Not all all. Give it up Jak! 😊
-
That was days ago! You presented certain information in Post 53. If it's on forum, it's up for comment. Get over it.
You wrote this
-
You wrote this
What are you claiming I've written?
-
What are you claiming I've written?
That was days ago! You presented certain information in Post 53. If it's on forum, it's up for comment. Get over it.
-
That was days ago! You presented certain information in Post 53. If it's on forum, it's up for comment. Get over it.
SO? You bought it up -for whatever reason- now you're whining about it. If you don't want it discussed, don't post it.
-
SO? You bought it up -for whatever reason- now you're whining about it. If you don't want it discussed, don't post it.
Once again you trying to disrupt the forum. I didn’t post it so don’t accuse me. Munksa posted it for no reason but to try and blacken JBs name again
Nobody is interested in if JB having sex in prison and getting someone pregnant. Anyway can work out this is just posted by an anonymous person to cause trouble
When anyone anonymous makes ridiculous claims that cannot be proved I will comment. There is NOT a simple piece of evidence this is true.
Munska started talking about Jeremy having sex in prison which I am sure nobody on this forum is interested to know or believes
Your life is in such a downward spiral to sit on here 24/7 insulting people, accusing people and telling lies
-
Bamber has not had sex since 1985. It's a prison, not a hotel.
-
Bamber has not had sex since 1985. It's a prison, not a hotel.
Thank you Adam
-
CAT A's are a 23hr lock-up anyway, so no chance of any clandestine meetings.
-
Here you invent a myth about a conspiracy. The actual claim is that the conspiracy arose when Operation Raleigh began, or maybe in the run up to it, not at the point that Jeremy was on the phone.
To what extent such a conspiracy may have involved Myall, Saxby and Bews, is unclear to me. They were merely the response officers in CA07. I comprehend the point that the Campaign Team are making, that CA07 was a response to Nevill's call, not Jeremy's, but it does not follow from this that the CA07 officers were in on it as they would have just taken the situation as they found it and the source of the call would not have mattered to them, whether HQ or Witham or wherever.
Again, you misrepresent things. The allegation needs to be understood in context. You speak of Jeremy forgetting about it, but the initial investigation concluded uncontroversially that Sheila was the culprit, as this matched the evidence found, so there was no reason for Jeremy to raise the issue. It was only when Jeremy became a suspect that it became relevant.
Against this background, your suspicions make no sense. If Jeremy was lying about what occurred, then he would have claimed to have seen the figure himself and Bews and Myall would have denied the whole thing ever occurred. Instead, Bews admits it occurred, and at one point even states he was the one who saw movement in the window! It's on YouTube for everybody to see. Some conspiracy that turned out to be.
Well, they did conspire to withhold the log from the defence! That is fact. Furthermore, the log quite plainly and in black-and-white states that the firearms team are in conversation with somebody from inside the farm. It uses those very words. They perhaps should have disclosed it and added a note that this was officers attempting to hail a suspect believed to be in the farmhouse, not in conversation with a suspect, and these efforts were to no avail.
Also, if they were hailing to no avail and if there was no sign of life in the farmhouse, then why did they wait so long to attempt entry? Did they lack the equipment and training to effect low light entry? I appreciate that safety concerns are legitimate considerations, and anyone with a gun has to be considered dangerous, but ultimately, they were dealing with a young woman, not hardened terrorists. One argument that occurs to me is that they may have been concerned about setting Sheila off and her then shooting everybody, especially as there were young children in the house. OK, but they waited three hours. Three hours. Why?
Two calls can't be made from one phone at one time, so your claim does not make sense. Are you saying that as the open line was transferred:
(i). Sheila terminates the open line and makes a call?
(ii). Sheila speaks into the open line (perhaps after hearing voices emanating from the handset)?
(iii). Something else?
Who makes this claim?
It is a fact that an authorised firearms officer, PC Collins, looked through the back kitchen window and when he reported what he saw back to CA07, he stated one dead female. They then enter the farmhouse and find one dead male. CA07 then radioed this back to Igor Norman at Chelmsford as one dead male and one dead female found on entry to the farmhouse, and PC West also recorded it this way in the Wireless Log.
What is clear is that PC Collins' second report back to CA07 could not have included the conjunctive word as there was only one body in the kitchen. Furthermore, if PC Collins had seen a different body through the window to that found in the kitchen, he would have reported this.
It follows from this that PC Collins' original observation could not have been mistaken in its essential fact - he definitely saw a body, whether male or female. This in turn leaves open two possibilities:
(i). the body found by the raid group on entry to the main kitchen was in the same position to that observed by PC Collins through the kitchen window;
or,
(ii). the body found by the raid group on entry to the main kitchen was in a different position to that observed by PC Collins through the kitchen window.
If (i) applies, then PC Collins' evidence in this respect is true and he just mistook Nevill's body for female.
If (ii) applies, PC Collins' evidence is false, and either Nevill was still alive at this point or Sheila was in the kitchen just before the raid group entered the farmhouse.
PC Collins was not commenting on whether the bodies he saw were alive or dead. If he says 'dead bodies', that is because they appear to be dead. Even a doctor would not be able to tell from behind a window six feet away.
Again, I think you misrepresent the alleged conspiracy. What is being posited here is that the officers decided to cover up the second shot only. There is no suggestion that the officers on the scene sought to frame Jeremy. In fact, it's the very opposite of what you say. The efforts were intended to make it look like a two-shot suicide. A variation on the theory is that Taff Jones became aware of what had gone on and this explains his apparent obstinance.
Personally, I do not believe there is anything to support this theory but I retain an open mind. Stranger things have happened.
I don't know if there was a suicide note, but it was Stan Jones who mentioned a suicide note in his COLP interview. It's not as if Jeremy was stood there with him saying, 'Go on Stan, mention the suicide note.
Go on. I'll give you all my dinner money if you do...' Jeremy seems to be blamed for drawing natural inferences from things people have done or said of their own free will, which seems rather unfair to me.
Personally, I suspect it was just clumsy expression on Stan Jones' part that Jeremy has now seized on, but if Jeremy Bamber is innocent, can you blame him for making hay of it? Shouldn't the COLP officers have sought clarification from DS Jones on the point? Why blame Jeremy when it's the police who are not being rigorous and checking things?
Well you're wrong here too. Even the prosecution counsel, Anthony Arlidge, Q.C. disagrees with you. He conceded the point in his closing speech on 27th. October 1985, when he told the jury:
"Somebody in this case is lying, and lying their head off. It's just something you have to face up to."
You say the phone call was at 3 a.m. Julie said it was at 3.15 a.m. Susan Battersby said it was at 3.12 a.m., based on her alarm clock, which she asks us to assume was deadly accurate.
Julie told the police in her first statement that Douglas Dale had answered the phone, then corrected this later and admitted she answered.
Putting aside the truth or otherwise of all this, I'm not clear why you think this is a wild supposition or 'conspiracy theory'. You do realise that people tell lies in court, including women and policemen? You do understand that people are sometimes framed for crimes they did not commit? I will grant you that normally this is because the person framed is believed to be guilty or is looked upon as suspicious, but the point is that you seem to be dismissing as wild supposition things that actually have occurred in real life in other cases.
Again, putting aside the truth or otherwise of this, I'm unclear why you put these allegations in the 'conspiracy theory' category, as if they can be dismissed out-of-hand as beneath your notice. People do plot together to tell lies, and - brace yourself for this because it will shock you - they sometimes do it because they're greedy or nasty. You do realise this?
Are you serious when you suggest there was no motive for them to lie? I'm not saying they were lying, but you can't seriously be telling us there was no motive.
I don't believe anything that comes out of the mouth or pen of a reporter from the Sun, or any journalist, from any newspaper, or any media person or anybody who works in broadcasting. If a journalist or media person gave me the time of day, I'd ring up the Greenwich Observatory to double-check. Not one of them is trustworthy in the sense that you can rely on their word without carrying out your own checks. They tell lies.
That having been said, I think you have to make a choice. If Michael Fielder's story was true, then we have another reason in support of Sheila as the killer, don't we, and if Jeremy is lying about selling photographs, that is no proof that he is a murderer. If, on the other hand, Michael Fielder's story is false, it does not follow that Jeremy is innocent, it merely serves to establish what we already know, that journalists are scumbags; and, it may be that Fielder lied because Brett and Jeremy themselves were a couple of scumbags.
Certainly, what we can say is that Jeremy's moral orientation took a turn for the worse under the influence of young Brett.
Where is it said by anybody supporting Jeremy that everybody has lied? Anyway, why shouldn't it be the case that large numbers of people told lies in different ways? Why can't experienced professionals make mistakes? How did the Post Office Horizon scandal happen? By accident?
Again, I'm not clear why you think this is far-fetched. The TV drama was based partly on Colin Caffell's book. You do realise that Colin Caffell would crawl bollock-naked over broken glass to stop Jeremy being freed? And do you think Carol Ann Lee just woke up in a manger? She writes for money. She doesn't just do it for the good of her health. She appeared on that podcast and said what they want her to say because they paid her. This is not a silly person. She's a shrewd lady.
I'm starting to view you as a bit of a naif. I'm starting to think you might be a promising mark for a confidence man. You seem to be under the belief that what you see on TV and read in newspapers is true and doesn't represent some sort of agenda.
No such thing occurred. Jeremy fully admits that he had Crispy put down. The controversy is over why. You fail to ask why Carol Ann Lee would impute the worst possible motives in Jeremy for the most mundane incident while absolving everybody else.
What a silly comment. If Essex Police have concealed evidence, then what else should we conclude than that they have....concealed evidence? That is literally what they have done. And if you were innocent of something and still in prison for it, what else would you do other than protest your innocence at every opportunity?
To my knowledge, nobody associated with Jeremy Bamber has ever made this accusation. There would be no need.
Here you rely on the 2002 appeal judges, but they actually got this wrong. There is a factor they failed to take account of. As to why Jeremy's defence did not raise the Bible during the trial, I have no idea and I doubt anybody else does, even Jeremy himself. I suspect the only person who knows is Geoffrey Rivlin, Q.C., and he's probably forgotten. It may be that Rivlin was worried that blood impressions inside the Bible may incriminate Jeremy. OK, so what? Doesn't mean Jeremy is guilty, as the cause of it can be more than one thing.
Which is true. It is admitted by the authorities that this occurred.
Well, which is it? I'm not clear how this is wild supposition. The concern seems well-founded.
Again, this actually happened. It is fact. Whether the documents were technically stolen by police officers is a matter of law, but no legitimate reason for them to have those documents springs to mind. "Any chance I can take this document home, guv, show it to the wife?" "Yeah, go on. Jeremy's legal team won't need it anymore", sounds to me like a conversation that should not take place between police officers. However, we are talking about the police force that destroyed crucial evidence in a murder case involving a disputed conviction, so perhaps that's how it panned out.
Why not? Why shouldn't this be a factor? I doubt anybody would claim it was the only reason, but why shouldn't it have come into play? The Birmingham Six would say they were stitched up because they were Irish (in fact, they were all Irish Republicans). Judith Ward was an IRA groupie. My point is that the personal habits, views, and lifestyle choices of an individual can firm them up as a suspect, especially if these personal attributes have some relevance to the case itself. It turned out that Judith Ward was innocent.
In the present case, and to give due credit to Stan Jones (who was an able detective), Jeremy's slightly decadent, 'alternative', metropolitan outlook and lifestyle formed a background against which a picture could be painted of him as someone materialistic rather than dutiful and, taken together with other things, allowed the prosecution to portray Jeremy as perhaps the type of person who would seek to escape a rural north Essex life and might - just might - resort to desperate measures to do it. If it turns out that Stan Jones was wrong, then this train of thought starts to look a bit prejudiced. Indeed, I'm told that early in his prison career, Jeremy Bamber was subscribing to Farmers Weekly. Was that just to give him another appeal point? And even his detractors base their detraction on Jeremy wanting to use the money he would inherit to buy a small farm in Devon. Why would they come up with something like that? Why would Jeremy want to sell up one farm-business conglomerate that is prosperous and doing well only to set up another in some random part of the country he has no connection to? Does that make any sense to you?
Why would PC West cover up a received telephone call from Nevill when it would confirm DCI Taff Jones' conviction that the whole incident was "a domestic"?
It was not uncontroversial at all. DS Stan Jones heard a cough or a chuckle behind closed doors at Bourtree Cottage. Other lower-ranked policemen had their doubts when witnessing at first hand how Bamber was reacting.
The loudhailer was met with no response. This is not a conversation.
They waited so long because they had been primed by Jeremy Bamber that a madwoman akin to Bertha Mason who had recently participated in target practice was running amok with a gun.
Nevill's head was situated in a coal scuttle with his long straggly grey hair peering out. Under these circumstances he was mistaken for a woman.
The so-called suicide note was part of Psalm 41 sticking out of the Bible and written in June's hand.
Somebody is lying, including all the relatives, Julie Mugford, James Richards and Michael Deckers.
Why telephone Julie at all in the middle of the night, unless it backs up the earlier call in which Julie claimed Bamber said "tonight's the night..it's now or never."
What and where did Carol Ann Lee claim about the euthanization of Crispy?
If Michael Fielder's story is true then why does this make it more likely that Sheila is the killer?
So Jeremy wishes to purchase a smallholding in Devon. You've fallen for yet more of his lies, haven't you..
-
Once again you trying to disrupt the forum. I didn’t post it so don’t accuse me. Munksa posted it for no reason but to try and blacken JBs name again
Nobody is interested in if JB having sex in prison and getting someone pregnant. Anyway can work out this is just posted by an anonymous person to cause trouble
When anyone anonymous makes ridiculous claims that cannot be proved I will comment. There is NOT a simple piece of evidence this is true.
Munska started talking about Jeremy having sex in prison which I am sure nobody on this forum is interested to know or believes
Your life is in such a downward spiral to sit on here 24/7 insulting people, accusing people and telling lies
Okay, Let's start at the top, shall we?
The forum was swimming very nicely today, until you came along. Any differences of opinion, which is what debating is about, became dissipated quickly.
It's you who are creating interest in JB's relationship which led to a pregnancy, partly through admitting that you spoke about it with him -when might that have been, Jackie?- and you claim he denied it. NOW, had you said nothing, quite probably, it would have gone no further. Sadly, because you became like the dog with the proverbial bone, you wouldn't let it go. Thus, more interest was created.
It really doesn't matter who said it first. If there'd been no follow up, it would have been just another post.
I'm really not certain what lies you believe I've told, but apart from being sick of you, probably the best, most prolific? in the 'art' of which you accuse me, calling me a liar, I think it's time OUR relationship is terminated.
-
Hasn't Mike got a thread or a post on a woman who claims to have given birth to Jeremy's child?
-
Hasn't Mike got a thread or a post on a woman who claims to have given birth to Jeremy's child?
Yes, Steve, I believe he has. Perhaps Jackie should have a word with him?
-
Once again you trying to disrupt the forum. I didn’t post it so don’t accuse me. Munksa posted it for no reason but to try and blacken JBs name again
Nobody is interested in if JB having sex in prison and getting someone pregnant. Anyway can work out this is just posted by an anonymous person to cause trouble
When anyone anonymous makes ridiculous claims that cannot be proved I will comment. There is NOT a simple piece of evidence this is true.
Munska started talking about Jeremy having sex in prison which I am sure nobody on this forum is interested to know or believes
Your life is in such a downward spiral to sit on here 24/7 insulting people, accusing people and telling lies
Listen sweet Jak, you can go round and round in circles. But let me tell you, YOU started it! If people wants to dig out the post/ comments it's up to them.
You either have bad memory or you are a blatant liar or both. You accused me of being Jacqueline. Then you said I ( Jacqueline to you) was lying about having sex with Bamber. You see I didn't start you did! Since then you are obsessed with this and keep bringing it up everytime in every post/topic just like you did here @ comment 53.
-
Okay, Let's start at the top, shall we?
The forum was swimming very nicely today,
Absolutely not. Nearly every post you either lie or try to mislead posters
Hence your post about Sheila . You tried to mislead posters. Sheila had been violent Fact
until you came along. Any differences of opinion, which is what debating is about, became dissipated quickly.
It's you who are creating interest in JB's relationship which led to a pregnancy,
Another lie that came from Munksa
partly
Explain partly
through admitting that you spoke about it with him -
When would that have been Jackie?
Years ago a nutter called Jacqueline Lynch put it all over Facebook
Jeremy told me he doesn’t even know her
- and you claim he denied it.
NOW, had you said nothing, quite probably, it would have gone no further. Sadly, because you became like the dog with the proverbial bone, you wouldn't let it go. Thus, more interest was created.
This forum is about truth so I am not going to let ridiculous unfounded gossip be posted
It really doesn't matter who said it first. If there'd been no follow up, it would have been just another post.
I will not let lies be posted
I'm really not certain what lies you believe I've told, but apart from being sick of you, probably the best, most prolific? in the 'art' of which you accuse me, calling me a liar, I think it's time OUR relationship is terminated.
Good I am still taking legal advice to see if you can be prosecuted about your behaviour
I will continue to pull you up on your continued lies and false statements
Hopefully a legal letter sharp shock will teach you how to behave in the future
-
CAT A's are a 23hr lock-up anyway, so no chance of any clandestine meetings.
He was not CAT A then! This was around 91-92"
-
Listen sweet Jak, you can go round and round in circles. But let me tell you, YOU started it! If people wants to dig out the post/ comments it's up to them.
You either have bad memory or you are a blatant liar or both. You accused me of being Jacqueline. Then you said I ( Jacqueline to you) was lying about having sex with Bamber. You see I didn't start you did! Since then you are obsessed with this and keep bringing it up everytime in every post/topic just like you did here @ comment 53.
I am not the slightest bit interest in conversing with a fantasist who lives in a two bedroomed council flat who is interested in insulting anyone that thinks Jeremy is guilty.
Yesterday Ii had the best news ever relating to a slam dunk piece of evidence and I am back in touch with MWT and one things for sure the campaign team do not need to be involved
-
He was not CAT A then! This was around 91-92"
This claim was all over Facebook over ten years ago and categorically denied by Jeremy.
-
Good I am still taking legal advice to see if you can be prosecuted about your behaviour
I will continue to pull you up on your continued lies and false statements
Hopefully a legal letter sharp shock will teach you how to behave in the future
Before you accuse anyone of "lies and false statements", shouldn't you make clear what such are, OR what you claim they are? You need to be able to provide proof -NOT just your opinion that they're being mean- that they are telling lies, and their statements are false.
-
Before you accuse anyone of "lies and false statements", shouldn't you make clear what such are, OR what you claim they are? You need to be able to provide proof -NOT just your opinion that they're being mean- that they are telling lies, and their statements are false.
I have taken screenshots of everything including your claims I am obsessed with Jeremy there is so much not just two occasions and the sexual ones are quite disturbing
-
I have taken screenshots of everything including your claims I am obsessed with Jeremy there is so much not just two occasions and the sexual ones are quite disturbing
Odd how you're the only one who thinks so. Indeed, you're the only one to have commented. I'd be interested to know exactly what it is about them you find disturbing.
-
Odd how you're the only one who thinks so. Indeed, you're the only one to have commented. I'd be interested to know exactly what it is about them you find disturbing.
You know which ones and how many there are. Your mouth is vile and it’s clear especially where QC is concerned you are doing your best to get him to leave
Nobody’s going anywhere
-
You know which ones and how many there are. Your mouth is vile and it’s clear especially where QC is concerned you are doing your best to get him to leave
Nobody’s going anywhere
Jackie, Jackie, Jackie!! Can you not see how rude to me, are your posts? "Your mouth is vile............"? Re QC, I've had fewer exchanges with him than almost any other poster who has engaged with him. As for "doing my best to get him to leave"? That's in your head, certainly not in mine. If I can't stand the heat, I'll take the opportunity to get out of the kitchen. That opportunity is open to all. A personal choice.
You're right there, though, Jackie. Nobody's going anywhere.
-
Jackie, Jackie, Jackie!! Can you not see how rude to me, are your posts? "Your mouth is vile............"? Re QC, I've had fewer exchanges with him than almost any other poster who has engaged with him. As for "doing my best to get him to leave"? That's in your head, certainly not in mine. If I can't stand the heat, I'll take the opportunity to get out of the kitchen. That opportunity is open to all. A personal choice.
You're right there, though, Jackie. Nobody's going anywhere.
We will see after I take legal advice. It’s in black and white. Keep up with the harassment 24/7
-
We will see after I take legal advice. It’s in black and white. Keep up with the harassment 24/7
Good luck with that. Just remember, for every one of mine, there's on -maybe two- of yours. In the meantime, I imagine you'll be doing enough harassing for both of us, won't you?
-
Good luck with that. Just remember, for every one of mine, there's on -maybe two- of yours. In the meantime, I imagine you'll be doing enough harassing for both of us, won't you?
I will deal with your behaviour and you will face the consequences
-
I am not the slightest bit interest in conversing with a fantasist who lives in a two bedroomed council flat who is interested in insulting anyone that thinks Jeremy is guilty.
Yesterday Ii had the best news ever relating to a slam dunk piece of evidence and I am back in touch with MWT and one things for sure the campaign team do not need to be involved
Oh here you go again Jak. When you can't argue the point I become Jacqueline and Daisy. And who else? Then you come up with council flat 😂 or my (Jacqueline to you) sex with Bamber.
-
I will deal with your behaviour and you will face the consequences
I'm feeling dreadfully threatened. You are harassing me, Jackie.
-
Oh here you go when you Jak. When you can't argue the point I become Jacqueline and Daisy. And who else? Then you come up with council flat 😂 or my (Jacqueline to you) sex with Bamber.
You are so irrelevant I am not interested in lies and liars
-
This claim was all over Facebook over ten years ago and categorically denied by Jeremy.
I wasn't on FB then
-
You are so irrelevant I am not interested in lies and liars
So which of those names you've ascribed to her, can you prove her to be, and can you provide the forum with a picture of her place of residence?
-
You are so irrelevant I am not interested in lies and liars
No probs Jak 😊
-
I'm feeling dreadfully threatened. You are harassing me, Jackie.
Good take legal advice
-
Good take legal advice
It hadn't occurred to me, but I might consider that next time Sue and I have lunch.
-
It hadn't occurred to me, but I might consider that next time Sue and I have lunch.
Brilliant perfect let’s make you famous
-
Brilliant perfect let’s make you famous
How exciting.
-
Sounds like Jeremy was very loved up with someone called Danielle in 1991 :)
-
Sounds like Jeremy was very loved up with someone called Danielle in 1991 :)
Don't you know who this Danielle is? Thought you would have ..
-
Sounds like Jeremy was very loved up with someone called Danielle in 1991 :)
You keep calling Aunty Agatha liar. I am sure you have seen Bamber's pony tail, trinket box and his Cartier watch he gave her.
What have Bamber given you? Have you got any of his souvenirs? I bet he did, a sackful. Any chance of sharing some pics?
-
Don't you know who this Danielle is? Thought you would have ..
Absolutely I believe he is still besotted with her
-
You keep calling Aunty Agatha liar. I am sure you have seen Bamber's pony tail, trinket box and his Cartier watch he gave her.
What have Bamber given you? Have you got any of his souvenirs? I bet he did, a sackful. Any chance of sharing some pics?
Jeremy has plenty of time to reward people when he comes out of prison and I am sure he will. He will have a rosy future
-
Absolutely I believe he is still besotted with her
Good for her if she's stood by him for all these years.
-
Good for her if she's stood by him for all these years.
That’s what I think Lookout and she has managed to stay silent on social media
-
That’s what I think Lookout and she has managed to stay silent on social media
That's saying something Jackie so she sounds right for him and not someone who shouts her mouth off like the other one.
-
Good for her if she's stood by him for all these years.
Like Julie she has moved abroad and has nothing to do with him anymore. Good for her.
-
Like Julie she has moved abroad and has nothing to do with him anymore. Good for her.
You seem to know a lot ? Mmm.
-
That's saying something Jackie so she sounds right for him and not someone who shouts her mouth off like the other one.
That would really be a happy ending
-
You seem to know a lot ? Mmm.
Yup! Not all but bits and bobs, that's all you need to know Lookout. Nothing is hidden if one cares to look, this forum is not the only source. For me this forum is excellent mostly for official documents.
She is not relevant to the case and won't be in JB's life at present either, I am sure many people have come and gone in his life over 36 years . All he needs doing now is look forward to the CCRC decision followed by his freedom party, not sure if Jackie will be invited? Well she can gatecrash anyhow 😁
-
Yup! Not all but bits and bobs, that's all you need to know Lookout. Nothing is hidden if one cares to look, this forum is not the only source. For me this forum is excellent mostly for official documents.
She is not relevant to the case and won't be in JB's life at present either, I am sure many people have come and gone in his life over 36 years . All he needs doing now is look forward to the CCRC decision followed by his freedom party, not sure if Jackie will be invited? Well she can gatecrash anyhow 😁
I would tell him to trust few----if he doesn't already realise that.
-
I would tell him to trust few----if he doesn't already realise that.
Exactly, i can’t wait to see that first interview
-
I would tell him to trust few----if he doesn't already realise that.
I absolutely agree to what you say!
Although I think he is guilty and he is in control , I still think some people surrounding him have their own agenda
-
Exactly, i can’t wait to see that first interview
Get your 3D glasses ordered asap Jak. It will be on sale now
You can always go to the studio too, if it's the audience ones, all you need to do is apply for a pass.
-
Get your 3D glasses ordered asap Jak. It will be on sale now
You can always go to the studio too, if it's the audience ones, all you need to do is apply for a pass.
I have no need to meet Jeremy but I look forward to seeing him tell his story on TV
-
I absolutely agree to what you say!
Although I think he is guilty and he is in control , I still think some people surrounding him have their own agenda
Control of what and whom ?
-
Control of what and whom ?
Control of CT, at the end of the day he has the last day.
-
Control of CT, at the end of the day he has the last day.
Control of CT ? Get real ! They're guided by the legal team, unless you count them as well ?
-
Control of CT ? Get real ! They're guided by the legal team, unless you count them as well ?
They count themself not me!
-
They count themself not me!
You don't make sense.
-
https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/liars-lobby
The Post Office scandal was based on faulty software.
No one is denying miscarriages of justice occur and most contain similar features. But in Bamber's case we are being asked to believe the unbelievable: that very large numbers of unrelated individuals either conspired against Bamber or were incompetent/negligent.
I've got a second-hand car to sell. Interested?
As I have emphasised to Roch, it is always tempting to the ego to seize on human malignancy as an explanation for miscarriages of justice, but we should only do so very reluctantly (and in sorrow more than anger), and only with the benefit of very solid evidence. More often than not, the necessary evidence is absent.
Equally, even when there is evidence of corruption, it is normally a wiser legal strategy to rely on mistake as the explanation. This is because mistake is easier to prove than corruption. I know how the law and the courts work, and I am sure NGB1066 may give his support to this. When you start alleging corruption, you make your task harder. You raise the bar of proof when you should be trying to reach it, and you'd better have the evidence behind you or you're in trouble.
But even someone as conservative as I am cannot dismiss the Post Office Horzon scandal as a mere software glitch. If that's really what you think, then I don't know what to say to you.
-
Thanks for taking the time to rebut QC, don't tell him but I can't even be bothered to read his verbose reply and gave up after the first 5000 words of missing the point.
I tried flattering him at first as he can be even handed and make good points but it is clear he will dance on the head of pin, create straw men, invert known facts and generally bore the living daylights out of anyone he takes a dislike to which is anybody that has the temerity to disagree with him even once.
Just scroll past. He isn't fooling anyone with a brain.
This is rubbish.
Your own post was long and you have expressed your points clumsily and with indifference to accuracy.
As I read it, it became clear to me that you believe in most of what it contains and you are grinding an axe with Jeremy in mind. It is also cheap to take shots at his campaign. I have made critical noises about them myself and don't agree with everything they say, but your attitude is one of contempt and scorn towards them.
Whether or not all that is a true judgement of you, I responded to what I saw in a civil and polite manner and everything I say about the case itself is fair and accurate.
What about the allegation that Jeremy date raped the girl from the Chequers? Is that fake too?
Could you confirm when Jeremy Bamber was convicted of this crime? In which court was a fair and open trial heard that convicted him?
Indeed, but you can add the occupants of CA7 because they were dispatched after the information received from Nevill and before Jb called, unless you want to try and argue that they wouldn't be told why they were going to WHF, just to be argumentative!
Which is not what I said.
Precisely. And if I respond it will be followed by another half million words and another until I give up and he thinks he has proven his superior intellect so I'm saving time and effort by just ignoring him.
Which is not an argument.
Oh yes, his genius theory that 4 bullet casings got kicked from the kitchen and all the way upstairs to the bedroom was the moment I dropped to my knees and wept, realising I, a mere mortal could never hope to emulate or even understand anything the great man ever said as he clearly operates at a level above all others!
Which is not what I said.
-
One cannot escape the thought that, for the most part, your intention is not simply to play devil's advocate, but to aggressively argue, lengthily, against whatever was posted last.
This is an open discussion forum, not chit-chat at an adult education 'Try Knitting' day.
My arguments are lengthy because the post I responded to was lengthy. Regardless of this, sometimes lengthy posts are necessary anyway in order to address detail or convey civility and/or make nuanced points. Got a complaint about it?
If you find me aggressive, then you will need to highlight particular sentences or passages because you've lost me there. Besides which, the post I responded to was impertinent, inaccurate, scornful and clumsy, so a touch of verbal aggression from me may be expected.
My interest is in legal justice and due process, that's what animates me, not half-baked impressions and opinions from flatmates and Essex coppers about who said what to who over a beer or a glass or two, cooked breakfasts and grinning at funerals. Though I emphasise again: if he did it, he deserves to be punished and perhaps should have been hanged. I have no sympathy for mass murderers. I can't put that to you more clearly, short of drawing you a picture.
-
This is an open discussion forum, not chit-chat at an adult education 'Try Knitting' day.
My arguments are lengthy because the post I responded to was lengthy. Regardless of this, sometimes lengthy posts are necessary anyway in order to address detail or convey civility and/or make nuanced points. Got a complaint about it?
If you find me aggressive, then you will need to highlight particular sentences or passages because you've lost me there. Besides which, the post I responded to was impertinent, inaccurate, scornful and clumsy, so a touch of verbal aggression from me may be expected.
My interest is in legal justice and due process, that's what animates me, not half-baked impressions and opinions from flatmates and Essex coppers about who said what to who over a beer or a glass or two, cooked breakfasts and grinning at funerals. Though I emphasise again: if he did it, he deserves to be punished and perhaps should have been hanged. I have no sympathy for mass murderers. I can't put that to you more clearly, short of drawing you a picture.
Perfect and concise
-
This is an open discussion forum, not chit-chat at an adult education 'Try Knitting' day.
My arguments are lengthy because the post I responded to was lengthy. Regardless of this, sometimes lengthy posts are necessary anyway in order to address detail or convey civility and/or make nuanced points. Got a complaint about it?
If you find me aggressive, then you will need to highlight particular sentences or passages because you've lost me there. Besides which, the post I responded to was impertinent, inaccurate, scornful and clumsy, so a touch of verbal aggression from me may be expected.
My interest is in legal justice and due process, that's what animates me, not half-baked impressions and opinions from flatmates and Essex coppers about who said what to who over a beer or a glass or two, cooked breakfasts and grinning at funerals. Though I emphasise again: if he did it, he deserves to be punished and perhaps should have been hanged. I have no sympathy for mass murderers. I can't put that to you more clearly, short of drawing you a picture.
In which case I would recommend you study the scientific and physical evidence and stay away from podcasts by the CT!
-
In which case I would recommend you study the scientific and physical evidence and stay away from podcasts by the CT!
I have studied the facts and evidence and I have repeatedly expressed scepticism about claims from Jeremy and his Campaign Team. I have no axe to grind, other than a belief in legal justice and scorn for people like you who carry yourself arrogantly on here but don't understand the case nearly as well as you think you do.
-
Those podcasts are taken from legal documentation and NOT something cobbled up by the CT.
-
I have studied the facts and evidence and I have repeatedly expressed scepticism about claims from Jeremy and his Campaign Team. I have no axe to grind, other than a belief in legal justice and scorn for people like you who carry yourself arrogantly on here but don't understand the case nearly as well as you think you do.
Where have I claimed any sort of understanding of the case? It was you who was ridiculing those who wish to debate certain aspects of the case, referring them to 'Try Knitting' day. I understand at one time the word 'knitting' was a banable offence!
-
Those podcasts are taken from legal documentation and NOT something cobbled up by the CT.
It's never been any other way.
-
It's never been any other way.
CC thinks so---then again she knows everything.
-
I've got a second-hand car to sell. Interested?
As I have emphasised to Roch, it is always tempting to the ego to seize on human malignancy as an explanation for miscarriages of justice, but we should only do so very reluctantly (and in sorrow more than anger), and only with the benefit of very solid evidence. More often than not, the necessary evidence is absent.
Equally, even when there is evidence of corruption, it is normally a wiser legal strategy to rely on mistake as the explanation. This is because mistake is easier to prove than corruption. I know how the law and the courts work, and I am sure NGB1066 may give his support to this. When you start alleging corruption, you make your task harder. You raise the bar of proof when you should be trying to reach it, and you'd better have the evidence behind you or you're in trouble.
But even someone as conservative as I am cannot dismiss the Post Office Horzon scandal as a mere software glitch. If that's really what you think, then I don't know what to say to you.
If not faulty software then what do you believe was the cause of these wrongful convictions?
I have worked in large organisations where millions have been thrown at IT projects only for them never to be fully implemented because they couldn't iron out all the faults in the initial rollout. By the time they had fixes for the faults the software was out of date ;D Another fine example is the NHS https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/18/nhs-records-system-10bn
The senior management of ICL/Fuijitsu probably knew it wasn't fit for purpose but did not want to incur financial penalties for going over time so signed it off.
-
CC thinks so---then again she knows everything.
I know a lot about some things but little about most.
-
Those podcasts are taken from legal documentation and NOT something cobbled up by the CT.
True but with interpretation of their own!
-
Those podcasts are taken from legal documentation and NOT something cobbled up by the CT.
My favourite is when they trot out the woman that had a few holidays at the caravan park and waved to Jeremy sometimes.
-
My favourite is when they trot out the woman that had a few holidays at the caravan park and waved to Jeremy sometimes.
She was a good listen about the allege cycle ride.
-
My favourite is when they trot out the woman that had a few holidays at the caravan park and waved to Jeremy sometimes.
I know 😂, as if she knew Bamber, she didn't even exchange words or interacted with him. Just saw him from far.
-
She was a good listen about the allege cycle ride.
Not sure why some find it hard to believe he could have cycled?!
Albeit women's it was still a normal adult bicycle, not a toddlers!
-
Not sure why some find it hard to believe he could have cycled?!
Albeit women's it was still a normal adult bicycle, not a toddlers!
He certainly wouldn't get stuck in traffic.
-
My favourite is when they trot out the woman that had a few holidays at the caravan park and waved to Jeremy sometimes.
That was someone who did know JB !
-
Why the continuation of snide comments from guilters ? I hope one day that you'll smirk on the other side of your faces !
-
Why the continuation of snide comments from guilters ? I hope one day that you'll smirk on the other side of your faces !
Sorry Lookout, ridicule is the refuge of the rascal!
In a way I hope so too because it would mean some new evidence has cast a different light on the case which would perhaps afford an end to 36 years of speculation and fiction.
-
Sorry Lookout, ridicule is the refuge of the rascal!
In a way I hope so too because it would mean some new evidence has cast a different light on the case which would perhaps afford an end to 36 years of speculation and fiction.
My seriousness in this case isn't because it's Jeremy Bamber, but is about anyone who's been dealt such a shocking blow for telling the truth, by a bunch of mobsters who call themselves professional.
-
My seriousness in this case isn't because it's Jeremy Bamber, but is about anyone who's been dealt such a shocking blow for telling the truth, by a bunch of mobsters who call themselves professional.
I would say my ridicule of the CT comes from a similar place. In such a serious matter where there is a possibility that an innocent man has lost the majority of his life, a tunnel visioned focus on weak evidence and highly fanciful theories is just not going to cut it.
-
I've always failed to see or hear of evidence from a person who wasn't there in the first place. There never would have been. Which was all the more reason to declare an unsafe conviction from the start.
This was a mass murder without the usual unanimous verdict ?
-
I've always failed to see or hear of evidence from a person who wasn't there in the first place. There never would have been. Which was all the more reason to declare an unsafe conviction from the start.
This was a mass murder without the usual unanimous verdict ?
I have some sympathy for the view that it is a possibly unsafe conviction but it's impossible to say without hearing all of the evidence and witnesses in court. TV shows often give us the impression that a jury makes a ruling on incontrovertible facts when in reality, they are routinely tasked with deciding on less concrete matters. Defendants have gone to the scaffold on less evidence than Jeremy Bamber was convicted on.
Indeed, as the CoA made clear, Mr Ismail's evidence of Sheila being moved post mortem could have been enough evidence on its own for a jury to decide guilt upon. I don't agree but I am not an eminent judge and that is how things are.
I don't agree with majority verdicts either, particularly in serious cases. I don't think it is for 10 others to decide if 2 juror's doubts are reasonable, that is for the dissenting juror but again, it is how it is.
-
Supporters can believe what they like but Barbara the caravan supporter has never said she knew Jeremy! She did not even exchang words with him. I have read her testimony and listed to her podcast. She spoke to June only once and with Nevill exchanged greetings few times, just hellos, that's it. Not sure how she can know Jeremy and his family!
Her opinion on Bamber is her own observation from far. Which she is entitled to. But she did NOT know Jeremy Bamber neither claims she does.
Her testimony is more about Osea. Imo, because she didn't like the new rules and changes of Osea post murders, I can totally understand her feeling unhappy and bitter towards the relatives.
-
I bet you're perfect, aren't you ?
Usually those who have too much to say aren't what they seem !! Or are usually hiding something themselves, especially when running somebody down.
-
Your opinion. No worries 👍
-
I bet you're perfect, aren't you ?
Usually those who have too much to say aren't what they seem !! Or are usually hiding something themselves, especially when running somebody down.
Crikey, Lookout! That could apply to any poster who makes a career of putting other posters down, and claiming things they have no proof, of nearly every time they post?