Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on July 05, 2022, 10:56:AM
-
A new poster yesterday posted -
'There are maybe a couple of hundred pieces of evidence that in some small or big way, point to Bamber being guilty'.
---------
This can be loosely broken down.
-
Probably yourself with a different ID ! It's the sort of thing you'd do.
Weren't you Daniel when you first started ? Weird if you ask me along with your pic !
-
COA forensic evidence - 75.
Circumstantial evidence - Dozens.
Julie's WS - Dozens.
Bamber's actions immediately afterwards - Dozens.
Police interviews - Dozens.
Caravan break in - Dozens.
Other witnesses - Dozens.
Failed appeals - Dozens.
-
Adam if you are so convinced of Bambers guilt. Then why dedicate such a large percentage of your time here? Appreciate its a forum and you can do as you please. But Bamber has been locked up since 85. So can't you pursue other interests? Your man is behind bars. Possibly forever
-
Probably yourself with a different ID ! It's the sort of thing you'd do.
Weren't you Daniel when you first started ? Weird if you ask me along with your pic !
Daniel?
-
COA forensic evidence - 75.
Circumstantial evidence - Dozens.
Julie's WS - Dozens.
Bamber's actions immediately afterwards - Dozens.
Police interviews - Dozens.
Caravan break in - Dozens.
Other witnesses - Dozens.
Failed appeals - Dozens.
All this is evidence in different ways.
So there is around 200 pieces.
-
C'mon, who's this " new " poster with 200 pieces of evidence, you sad sack.
-
C'mon, who's this " new " poster with 200 pieces of evidence, you sad sack.
Check the foyer.
-
COA forensic evidence - 75.
Circumstantial evidence - Dozens.
Julie's WS - Dozens.
Bamber's actions immediately afterwards - Dozens.
Police interviews - Dozens.
Caravan break in - Dozens.
Other witnesses - Dozens.
Failed appeals - Dozens.
Well Adam perhaps you can sort it into order with the most damming evidence at the top so we can have a good look at it. Hope you don't go all shy on me!
-
Well Adam perhaps you can sort it into order with the most damming evidence at the top so we can have a good look at it. Hope you don't go all shy on me!
It is all very damning.
-
Another misguided soul who trusted the so-called evidence via a cobbled together drama on TV ::)
-
Another misguided soul who trusted the so-called evidence via a cobbled together drama on TV ::)
You go girl. Don't let anyone put down Jeremy. He sent you a Christmas card.
None of the thread post is from a TV drama.
-
You go girl. Don't let anyone put down Jeremy. He sent you a Christmas card.
None of the thread post is from a TV drama.
The TV drama is what the poster had relied on in 2020 ::)
-
Like you rely on Wilkes.
-
The TV drama is what the poster had relied on in 2020 ::)
No Lookout. He watched the TV drama. Then investigated further.
-
No Lookout. He watched the TV drama. Then investigated further.
What a wally ! A TV drama that got it wrong and yet someone still bothers to investigate the crime ?
-
What a wally ! A TV drama that got it wrong and yet someone still bothers to investigate the crime ?
Ooh! Have I got this right, Lookout? A) "He was a misguided soul who trusted the so-called evidence via cobbled together TV drama", AND he's B) A wally because having watched the so-called cobbled together drama, he decides to investigate further. Guess he can't do right which ever way he does it ;D
-
Ooh! Have I got this right, Lookout? A) "He was a misguided soul who trusted the so-called evidence via cobbled together TV drama", AND he's B) A wally because having watched the so-called cobbled together drama, he decides to investigate further. Guess he can't do right which ever way he does it ;D
Take the Lookout approach. Do neither.
-
Ooh! Have I got this right, Lookout? A) "He was a misguided soul who trusted the so-called evidence via cobbled together TV drama", AND he's B) A wally because having watched the so-called cobbled together drama, he decides to investigate further. Guess he can't do right which ever way he does it ;D
Yes Jane, in other words he's been sorely led astray,lololol.
-
Yes Jane, in other words he's been sorely led astray,lololol.
:)) :)) :))
-
I've just finished listening to a very interesting podcast featuring ex-police officer Stuart Bower.
He's in touch with,and supporting JB and has recently sent letters to the 650 MP's and even the Queen, stating that he has written proof that it was Sheila who had the gun and also other information which he says makes it impossible that JB had been the murderer.
-
I've just finished listening to a very interesting podcast featuring ex-police officer Stuart Bower.
He's in touch with,and supporting JB and has recently sent letters to the 650 MP's and even the Queen, stating that he has written proof that it was Sheila who had the gun and also other information which he says makes it impossible that JB had been the murderer.
That is the guy who said there was no moon that night,does he mention this in the podcast Lookout? Where can I find it?
-
Its allright Lookout,I have found it.
-
I've just finished listening to a very interesting podcast featuring ex-police officer Stuart Bower.
He's in touch with,and supporting JB and has recently sent letters to the 650 MP's and even the Queen, stating that he has written proof that it was Sheila who had the gun and also other information which he says makes it impossible that JB had been the murderer.
Just listened to it Lookout,my,those masons are a dangerous lot.Anyway,if there is proof of the 6.09 call,surely they cant hold JB much longer.
-
Just listened to it Lookout,my,those masons are a dangerous lot.Anyway,if there is proof of the 6.09 call,surely they cant hold JB much longer.
Snow, since I joined this site, the number of the ex police officers who allegedly believe JB to have been stitched up and innocent, must run into hundreds! Don't you think it odd that, rather than taking this vital information to the appropriate places, they choose to whisper in the ear of of someone on a forum who can do diddly squat. Even declines to deliver his own 'vital' and freedom granting information because it, allegedly, wasn't the right time. Ya' see, Snow, all this rubbish about "evidence exists" and "there's proof that" has been touted out for at least ten years and nothing has changed.
-
This is the link: https://open.spotify.com/episode/4FF0Zwa2QOZySMLIIgNxhS?si=AQR7MaalR12TYFSQE2RaHQ&utm_source=copy-link&nd=1
-
C'mon, who's this " new " poster with 200 pieces of evidence, you sad sack.
It was me who said 200 pieces of evidence, and I said it in reference to taking all of the publicly available evidence into account in its totality. Only then can you get an idea of what actually happened.
To ascertain guilt or innocence, you need to look at all the evidence in its totality, which is how the legal system works. And it's why the legal system continues to say he is guilty.
The evidence taken as a whole, will tell the most accurate story.
What Jeremy Bamber has been doing over the decades is to take a single piece of evidence, create a narrative that supports his innocence from that single piece of evidence, and then claim that that piece of evidence alone proves his innocence beyond any reasonable doubt.
On the surface, and to a member of the public who hasn't investigated further, such out of context single pieces of evidence, can look very convincing.
And to the CCRC in 2012 those single pieces of evidence was declared to be "pure speculation and unsubstantiated allegations"
An example would be the two call logs, one of which Bamber says shows that Nevill Bamber spoke to Malcolm Bonnett at Chelmsford HQIR at 03:26 am
FYI - Chelmsford HQIR is where 999 calls go to, and civilian staff like Malcolm Bonnett then co-ordinate the emergency, such as sending ambulances, police cars etc.
The other 'call log' shows a call from Jeremy Bamber calling the local Chelmsford police station at 03:36 am
For the uninitiated, If Nevill Bamber directly spoke to the police that night, then it means that Sheila really was going crazy with the gun, and that would make Jeremy Bamber innocent.
But in reality, neither of those 'call logs' show that Nevill Bamber phoned Malcolm Bonnett at HQIR.
And this is the reason why:
There is a piece of information on both forms (or call logs) that shows categorically, exactly who made the phone calls.
Each form has a box on the top left that is labelled 'sender'
Each form has a box on the top right that is labelled 'receiver'
The box labelled 'sender' contains the name of the person who made the call.
The box labelled 'receiver' contains the name of the person who took the call.
On the form that has a handwritten time stamp of 03:36, the 'sender' box contains the originator of the call, and that is Jeremy Bamber, Goldhanger Lane.
On that same form the 'receiver' is PC 1990, which is PC West's Police ID number. Therefore PC West took the call, from Jeremy Bamber.
The message that Jeremy Bamber gave to PC West in that message, recorded in writing on the same form, is obviously an emergency, and so as per police protocol, he contacted the 999 call handlers to hand what was obviously an emergency over to them.
However, PC West already had Jeremy Bamber on the only available phoneline, and didn't have access to another phone, so he used his radio to contact Malcolm Bonnett at HQIR (the 999 emergency call handling facility)
PC West explained to Malcolm Bonnett what Jeremy Bamber had said to him, and Malcolm Bonnet, as per police procedures, created another form (the other call log).
In the 'sender' box he wrote 1990 (PC Wests police ID number), because PC West was the originator of the call.
In the 'receiver' box he wrote MB, short for Malcolm Bonnett, which was himself, as he was taking the call from PC West.
Malcolm Bonnet wrote 03:26 on the form for the time stamp.
And that is the simple true story of how the two 'call logs' came to be.
And it shows conclusively that Nevill Bamber was NOT the originator of either of those calls. Jeremy Bamber was the originator of one, and PC West was the originator of the other
And therefore it proves that Jeremy Bamber has used these forms to create the narrative that Nevill Bamber made a call to the police, when in fact it is easily provable with the very evidence that Jeremy Bamber has submitted, that Nevill Bamber did no such thing.
Jeremy Bamber, his lawyers, his campaign team, and his supporters, have never made any mention whatsoever of the 'sender' and 'receiver' boxes.
And that is because the 'sender' and 'receiver' boxes provide
insurmountable evidence (proof in all but name) that neither call was made by Nevill Bamber.
Given the strength of the above evidence in relation to the call logs, the different time stamps (03:26 and 03:36), which Jeremy Bamber attaches so much importance to, actually becomes insignificant.
And that is how, using single pieces of evidence and taking them out of context, Jeremy Bamber has attempted to make himself look innocent, when the very same evidence that he submits, very often says the opposite, when you look at it more closely.
-
Just listened to it Lookout,my,those masons are a dangerous lot.Anyway,if there is proof of the 6.09 call,surely they cant hold JB much longer.
You wouldn't think so Snow. Maybe the one who left CCRC was one ?
-
You wouldn't think so Snow. Maybe the one who left CCRC was one ?
How many of the 650 MPs do you think are masons Lookout? And how about the Queen. ? :))
-
This is the link: https://open.spotify.com/episode/4FF0Zwa2QOZySMLIIgNxhS?si=AQR7MaalR12TYFSQE2RaHQ&utm_source=copy-link&nd=1
Hi Steve,what do you make of all that?
-
Snow, since I joined this site, the number of the ex police officers who allegedly believe JB to have been stitched up and innocent, must run into hundreds! Don't you think it odd that, rather than taking this vital information to the appropriate places, they choose to whisper in the ear of of someone on a forum who can do diddly squat. Even declines to deliver his own 'vital' and freedom granting information because it, allegedly, wasn't the right time. Ya' see, Snow, all this rubbish about "evidence exists" and "there's proof that" has been touted out for at least ten years and nothing has changed.
What if there is documented proof of the 6.09 , 999call from the farm house Jane?
-
Come off it killingeve, JB hoodwinking hundreds of his followers for nigh-on 37 years----some of them QC's,lawyers and ex/retired police ?
-
What if there is documented proof of the 6.09 , 999call from the farm house Jane?
You may as well lump it together with everything else. https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/jeremy-bamber-police-evidence-withheld-32-years/
-
It was me who said 200 pieces of evidence, and I said it in reference to taking all of the publicly available evidence into account in its totality. Only then can you get an idea of what actually happened.
To ascertain guilt or innocence, you need to look at all the evidence in its totality, which is how the legal system works. And it's why the legal system continues to say he is guilty.
The evidence taken as a whole, will tell the most accurate story.
What Jeremy Bamber has been doing over the decades is to take a single piece of evidence, create a narrative that supports his innocence from that single piece of evidence, and then claim that that piece of evidence alone proves his innocence beyond any reasonable doubt.
On the surface, and to a member of the public who hasn't investigated further, such out of context single pieces of evidence, can look very convincing.
And to the CCRC in 2012 those single pieces of evidence was declared to be "pure speculation and unsubstantiated allegations"
An example would be the two call logs, one of which Bamber says shows that Nevill Bamber spoke to Malcolm Bonnett at Chelmsford HQIR at 03:26 am
FYI - Chelmsford HQIR is where 999 calls go to, and civilian staff like Malcolm Bonnett then co-ordinate the emergency, such as sending ambulances, police cars etc.
The other 'call log' shows a call from Jeremy Bamber calling the local Chelmsford police station at 03:36 am
For the uninitiated, If Nevill Bamber directly spoke to the police that night, then it means that Sheila really was going crazy with the gun, and that would make Jeremy Bamber innocent.
But in reality, neither of those 'call logs' show that Nevill Bamber phoned Malcolm Bonnett at HQIR.
And this is the reason why:
There is a piece of information on both forms (or call logs) that shows categorically, exactly who made the phone calls.
Each form has a box on the top left that is labelled 'sender'
Each form has a box on the top right that is labelled 'receiver'
The box labelled 'sender' contains the name of the person who made the call.
The box labelled 'receiver' contains the name of the person who took the call.
On the form that has a handwritten time stamp of 03:36, the 'sender' box contains the originator of the call, and that is Jeremy Bamber, Goldhanger Lane.
On that same form the 'receiver' is PC 1990, which is PC West's Police ID number. Therefore PC West took the call, from Jeremy Bamber.
The message that Jeremy Bamber gave to PC West in that message, recorded in writing on the same form, is obviously an emergency, and so as per police protocol, he contacted the 999 call handlers to hand what was obviously an emergency over to them.
However, PC West already had Jeremy Bamber on the only available phoneline, and didn't have access to another phone, so he used his radio to contact Malcolm Bonnett at HQIR (the 999 emergency call handling facility)
PC West explained to Malcolm Bonnett what Jeremy Bamber had said to him, and Malcolm Bonnet, as per police procedures, created another form (the other call log).
In the 'sender' box he wrote 1990 (PC Wests police ID number), because PC West was the originator of the call.
In the 'receiver' box he wrote MB, short for Malcolm Bonnett, which was himself, as he was taking the call from PC West.
Malcolm Bonnet wrote 03:26 on the form for the time stamp.
And that is the simple true story of how the two 'call logs' came to be.
And it shows conclusively that Nevill Bamber was NOT the originator of either of those calls. Jeremy Bamber was the originator of one, and PC West was the originator of the other
And therefore it proves that Jeremy Bamber has used these forms to create the narrative that Nevill Bamber made a call to the police, when in fact it is easily provable with the very evidence that Jeremy Bamber has submitted, that Nevill Bamber did no such thing.
Jeremy Bamber, his lawyers, his campaign team, and his supporters, have never made any mention whatsoever of the 'sender' and 'receiver' boxes.
And that is because the 'sender' and 'receiver' boxes provide
insurmountable evidence (proof in all but name) that neither call was made by Nevill Bamber.
Given the strength of the above evidence in relation to the call logs, the different time stamps (03:26 and 03:36), which Jeremy Bamber attaches so much importance to, actually becomes insignificant.
And that is how, using single pieces of evidence and taking them out of context, Jeremy Bamber has attempted to make himself look innocent, when the very same evidence that he submits, very often says the opposite, when you look at it more closely.
Yes there is around 200 pieces of incriminating evidence.
The main recent claims from supporters here are -
Bamber couldn't cycle in the dark.
Four cartridges were moved into the bedroom to help create a Bamber scenario.
Bamber would leave the silencer next to Sheila.
-
You may as well lump it together with everything else. https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/jeremy-bamber-police-evidence-withheld-32-years/
So,you are not impressed Steve.
-
I'm waiting for the 200 pieces of evidence. Killingeve has only listed 1----which in my estimation is wrong anyway, but carry on.
-
I'm waiting for the 200 pieces of evidence. Killingeve has only listed 1----which in my estimation is wrong anyway, but carry on.
Yes,we understand about the sender and receiver and all that,but what I want explained is the VAST difference in the wording of the two logs.No one has addressed this to my satisfaction Lookout.Not West in his interview and not Killingeve.
-
Yes,we understand about the sender and receiver and all that,but what I want explained is the VAST difference in the wording of the two logs.No one has addressed this to my satisfaction Lookout.Not West in his interview and not Killingeve.
It would only take a very minor change in the top left corner of MB's log, sorry to be so cynical Snow.
I have always thought a call came in from WHF and still do, West's two statements just add insult to injury.
-
Come off it killingeve, JB hoodwinking hundreds of his followers for nigh-on 37 years----some of them QC's,lawyers and ex/retired police ?
The facts speak for themselves. The sender and receiver boxes in my example prove who made the calls. Nevill Bamber did not make one of those calls.
The time stamps that Jeremy Bamber talks about are irrelevant.
As for the lawyers, they don't care about the truth, they only care about representing their client.
Michael Turner QC represented Bamber in the 2002 CoA. At the time, he did an interview with the Telegraph, and here are some quotes from that article...
If you ever find yourself accused of murder, covered in blood and holding a smoking gun, Michael Turner is the man to call. “If you say you didn’t do it, the gun was planted and it’s a stitch-up, then fine,” says this leading defence lawyer. “You want me to believe you – or at least appear to – and put that case with passion.”
“It’s not my job to believe my client. It’s my job to represent him.”
What if he realises halfway through a trial that his client is evil? “Whether I think my client is an evil individual or not is neither here nor there.”
-
The facts speak for themselves. The sender and receiver boxes in my example prove who made the calls. Nevill Bamber did not make one of those calls.
The time stamps that Jeremy Bamber talks about are irrelevant.
As for the lawyers, they don't care about the truth, they only care about representing their client.
Michael Turner QC represented Bamber in the 2002 CoA. At the time, he did an interview with the Telegraph, and here are some quotes from that article...
If you ever find yourself accused of murder, covered in blood and holding a smoking gun, Michael Turner is the man to call. “If you say you didn’t do it, the gun was planted and it’s a stitch-up, then fine,” says this leading defence lawyer. “You want me to believe you – or at least appear to – and put that case with passion.”
“It’s not my job to believe my client. It’s my job to represent him.”
What if he realises halfway through a trial that his client is evil? “Whether I think my client is an evil individual or not is neither here nor there.”
Why do you say the time stamps are irrelevant? to me they are critical.
-
It would only take a very minor change in the top left corner of MB's log, sorry to be so cynical Snow.
I have always thought a call came in from WHF and still do, West's two statements just add insult to injury.
I never thought a call from Nevill to the police was that important Rob,as long as Nevill called JB.But now I am inclined to think Nevill did make a call to the police,and the only conclusion that makes sense to me is that West received two calls,the first from Nevill which he passed on to Bonnet,hence the wording.Then West must have received JBs call five or ten minutes later,so I must be cynical too Rob,believing that a log exists somewhere that has the details from Nevills call that West wrote down,before sending the info to Bonnet.Its the only thing that makes sense to me.
-
Why do you say the time stamps are irrelevant? to me they are critical.
The time stamps are not electronic and asynchronous. The best they can do is give an estimation.
-
The time stamps are not electronic and asynchronous. The best they can do is give an estimation.
How do you explain the vast difference in the wording of the logs Dave,apparently from the same call from JB?
-
The time stamps are not electronic and asynchronous. The best they can do is give an estimation.
Yes I agree, in those days a minute or to is the best we are going to get. But looking at Wests and MB's logs I would say that their clocks were set quite close to one another?
-
I never thought a call from Nevill to the police was that important Rob,as long as Nevill called JB.But now I am inclined to think Nevill did make a call to the police,and the only conclusion that makes sense to me is that West received two calls,the first from Nevill which he passed on to Bonnet,hence the wording.Then West must have received JBs call five or ten minutes later,so I must be cynical too Rob,believing that a log exists somewhere that has the details from Nevills call that West wrote down,before sending the info to Bonnet.Its the only thing that makes sense to me.
I believe there were two calls Snow but we must also remember at this stage nothing underhand was going on, it was only when the dodgy silencer turned up.
-
I believe there were two calls Snow but we must also remember at this stage nothing underhand was going on, it was only when the dodgy silencer turned up.
Yes Rob,and that must have been when West was told in no uncertain terms that he only received one phone call.
-
I believe there were two calls Snow but we must also remember at this stage nothing underhand was going on, it was only when the dodgy silencer turned up.
Who do you believe took Nevils alleged call?
-
Who do you believe took Nevils alleged call?
It had to be West,because Bonnets log says that is who passed the info on Dave.
-
And wasn't it suggested that they would have convinced West that JB made both calls anyway.Hence West did what he thought was right ,and denied he received two calls.Quite possible,and the only thing that fits as far as I can see.
-
What if there is documented proof of the 6.09 , 999call from the farm house Jane?
There is no documented evidence of a 999 call being made from WHF at any time that night.
There were 3 'event' logs made on the night, documenting the events as they unfolded. At least 2 of them documented an event at 6.09
It is absolutely clear that at 6.09 a BT operator patched through the open line at White House Farm, to an operative at HQIR in Chelmsford (HQIR in Chelmsford being the place where 999 calls go to, hence the reference to 999).
This was at the request of the police so that the police could monitor the open line in the kitchen. The logs clearly document the line being diverted to Chelmsford HQIR.
Up until 06:09am it had been a BT operator who had been listening in on the line.
There was no actual 999 call made from WHF. And the fact that people say that a 999 call was made at 6.09am, is proof that there was no such 999 call, because the thing they are referring to is a BT operator diverting the line to the place where 999 calls are received.
-
Why do you say the time stamps are irrelevant? to me they are critical.
Because the sender boxes and the receiver boxes reveal who actually made the two calls.
The time stamps are a red herring, they prove nothing. The contents of the sender boxes prove everything. Therefore the time stamps become irrelevant to the very pertinent point of who made the two calls.
Nevill Bamber isn't named in any of the boxes, sender or receiver. Therefore he did not make any of the calls. There is no way of getting around that. That is fact, undeniable fact. And it is why Jeremy Bamber and the Campaign team never mention the sender and receiver boxes.
The webpage on JB's campaign team website that covers the call logs, mentions everything that is written on the two forms, except the contents of the sender and receiver sections.
Jeremy Bamber is named as the sender on one form, because he phoned PC West at Chelmsford Local police station
PC West is named as the sender on the other form, because he radio'd JB's message to Malcolm Bonnett at HQIR in Chelmsford.
So only Jeremy Bamber made a call, and only PC West made a call.
Nevill Bamber therefore did not make a call, not according to these forms. Therefore everything else on the form is irrelevant to whether Nevill Bamber made a call or not.
-
It had to be West,because Bonnets log says that is who passed the info on Dave.
West took JBs call.
-
What if there is documented proof of the 6.09 , 999call from the farm house Jane?
Wishful thinking, Snow? Have you read "killingeve's" excellent post, yet? Probably not, would be my guess.
-
How do you explain the vast difference in the wording of the logs Dave,apparently from the same call from JB?
Howz about only West heard, and wrote down, to his own satisfaction, JB's exact words. Bonnet only heard, and wrote down, his own version of what West had said that JB had said. Personally, for the purposes of calling emergency services, I'd say Bonnet got it as close as makes no difference, given that he received it third hand...........Now! should you ever have had to do dictation, at school, you'll recall that your work would have been marked down if the punctuation marks were incorrect. We can't expect messages about potential tragedies to be written that way.
-
It was me who said 200 pieces of evidence, and I said it in reference to taking all of the publicly available evidence into account in its totality. Only then can you get an idea of what actually happened.
To ascertain guilt or innocence, you need to look at all the evidence in its totality, which is how the legal system works. And it's why the legal system continues to say he is guilty.
The evidence taken as a whole, will tell the most accurate story.
What Jeremy Bamber has been doing over the decades is to take a single piece of evidence, create a narrative that supports his innocence from that single piece of evidence, and then claim that that piece of evidence alone proves his innocence beyond any reasonable doubt.
On the surface, and to a member of the public who hasn't investigated further, such out of context single pieces of evidence, can look very convincing.
And to the CCRC in 2012 those single pieces of evidence was declared to be "pure speculation and unsubstantiated allegations"
An example would be the two call logs, one of which Bamber says shows that Nevill Bamber spoke to Malcolm Bonnett at Chelmsford HQIR at 03:26 am
FYI - Chelmsford HQIR is where 999 calls go to, and civilian staff like Malcolm Bonnett then co-ordinate the emergency, such as sending ambulances, police cars etc.
The other 'call log' shows a call from Jeremy Bamber calling the local Chelmsford police station at 03:36 am
For the uninitiated, If Nevill Bamber directly spoke to the police that night, then it means that Sheila really was going crazy with the gun, and that would make Jeremy Bamber innocent.
But in reality, neither of those 'call logs' show that Nevill Bamber phoned Malcolm Bonnett at HQIR.
And this is the reason why:
There is a piece of information on both forms (or call logs) that shows categorically, exactly who made the phone calls.
Each form has a box on the top left that is labelled 'sender'
Each form has a box on the top right that is labelled 'receiver'
The box labelled 'sender' contains the name of the person who made the call.
The box labelled 'receiver' contains the name of the person who took the call.
On the form that has a handwritten time stamp of 03:36, the 'sender' box contains the originator of the call, and that is Jeremy Bamber, Goldhanger Lane.
On that same form the 'receiver' is PC 1990, which is PC West's Police ID number. Therefore PC West took the call, from Jeremy Bamber.
The message that Jeremy Bamber gave to PC West in that message, recorded in writing on the same form, is obviously an emergency, and so as per police protocol, he contacted the 999 call handlers to hand what was obviously an emergency over to them.
However, PC West already had Jeremy Bamber on the only available phoneline, and didn't have access to another phone, so he used his radio to contact Malcolm Bonnett at HQIR (the 999 emergency call handling facility)
PC West explained to Malcolm Bonnett what Jeremy Bamber had said to him, and Malcolm Bonnet, as per police procedures, created another form (the other call log).
In the 'sender' box he wrote 1990 (PC Wests police ID number), because PC West was the originator of the call.
In the 'receiver' box he wrote MB, short for Malcolm Bonnett, which was himself, as he was taking the call from PC West.
Malcolm Bonnet wrote 03:26 on the form for the time stamp.
And that is the simple true story of how the two 'call logs' came to be.
And it shows conclusively that Nevill Bamber was NOT the originator of either of those calls. Jeremy Bamber was the originator of one, and PC West was the originator of the other
And therefore it proves that Jeremy Bamber has used these forms to create the narrative that Nevill Bamber made a call to the police, when in fact it is easily provable with the very evidence that Jeremy Bamber has submitted, that Nevill Bamber did no such thing.
Jeremy Bamber, his lawyers, his campaign team, and his supporters, have never made any mention whatsoever of the 'sender' and 'receiver' boxes.
And that is because the 'sender' and 'receiver' boxes provide
insurmountable evidence (proof in all but name) that neither call was made by Nevill Bamber.
Given the strength of the above evidence in relation to the call logs, the different time stamps (03:26 and 03:36), which Jeremy Bamber attaches so much importance to, actually becomes insignificant.
And that is how, using single pieces of evidence and taking them out of context, Jeremy Bamber has attempted to make himself look innocent, when the very same evidence that he submits, very often says the opposite, when you look at it more closely.
Excellent post, killingeve. Wasted on supporters, I fear, but good to see it laid out so clearly, nonetheless.
-
The facts speak for themselves. The sender and receiver boxes in my example prove who made the calls. Nevill Bamber did not make one of those calls.
The time stamps that Jeremy Bamber talks about are irrelevant.
As for the lawyers, they don't care about the truth, they only care about representing their client.
Michael Turner QC represented Bamber in the 2002 CoA. At the time, he did an interview with the Telegraph, and here are some quotes from that article...
If you ever find yourself accused of murder, covered in blood and holding a smoking gun, Michael Turner is the man to call. “If you say you didn’t do it, the gun was planted and it’s a stitch-up, then fine,” says this leading defence lawyer. “You want me to believe you – or at least appear to – and put that case with passion.”
“It’s not my job to believe my client. It’s my job to represent him.”
What if he realises halfway through a trial that his client is evil? “Whether I think my client is an evil individual or not is neither here nor there.”
What you have to say regarding lawyers has always been my own belief. I've said it here on several occasions. I regard the courtroom as a theatre and the barrister who can deliver the most impassioned and believable closing speech is the one most likely to win. Their client's guilt or innocence has nothing to do with it. They're less interested in what really happened, than in what their client claims to have happened. To believe otherwise is childishly naive.
-
West took JBs call.
Yes,then Nevills.
-
Wishful thinking, Snow? Have you read "killingeve's" excellent post, yet? Probably not, would be my guess.
Good morning Jane,yes I have just read Killingeve's post.I am simply going by what Stuart Bower says on this point.
-
Yes,then Nevills.
Sorry,Nevills then JBs.
-
There is no documented evidence of a 999 call being made from WHF at any time that night.
There were 3 'event' logs made on the night, documenting the events as they unfolded. At least 2 of them documented an event at 6.09
It is absolutely clear that at 6.09 a BT operator patched through the open line at White House Farm, to an operative at HQIR in Chelmsford (HQIR in Chelmsford being the place where 999 calls go to, hence the reference to 999).
This was at the request of the police so that the police could monitor the open line in the kitchen. The logs clearly document the line being diverted to Chelmsford HQIR.
Up until 06:09am it had been a BT operator who had been listening in on the line.
There was no actual 999 call made from WHF. And the fact that people say that a 999 call was made at 6.09am, is proof that there was no such 999 call, because the thing they are referring to is a BT operator diverting the line to the place where 999 calls are received.
Good day Killingeve,I will have to look in to this,Mike has done many posts about it,I believe.
-
Howz about only West heard, and wrote down, to his own satisfaction, JB's exact words. Bonnet only heard, and wrote down, his own version of what West had said that JB had said. Personally, for the purposes of calling emergency services, I'd say Bonnet got it as close as makes no difference, given that he received it third hand...........Now! should you ever have had to do dictation, at school, you'll recall that your work would have been marked down if the punctuation marks were incorrect. We can't expect messages about potential tragedies to be written that way.
Sorry Jane,that is no explanation whatsoever to gloss over the VAST differences.Common sense tells us there had to be two different calls.I hold firm on this.
-
Yes,then Nevills.
West never said he received a call from Nevill.
-
Excellent post, killingeve. Wasted on supporters, I fear, but good to see it laid out so clearly, nonetheless.
By no means wasted Jane,but I simply believe that West received two calls,one from Nevill then one from JB,West wrote two logs ,one from Nevills call which he passed to Bonnet,and one from JB.The log which West made from Nevills call simply hasn't seen the light of day.
-
West never said he received a call from Nevill.
Hi Dave,that is true,BUT he did not say that he DIDN;T receive a call from Nevill.Listen carefully to his interview again,he told the absolute truth,but cleverly reffered to BONNET not receiving a call from Nevill,nothing about receiving one himself.
-
By no means wasted Jane,but I simply believe that West received two calls,one from Nevill then one from JB,West wrote two logs ,one from Nevills call which he passed to Bonnet,and one from JB.The log which West made from Nevills call simply hasn't seen the light of day.
Perhaps you could give us your reasons for believing such, Snow. Personally, I can think of no good reason to deny something which never occurred.
-
Perhaps you could give us your reasons for believing such, Snow. Personally, I can think of no good reason to deny something which never occurred.
For me Jane,the different wording in the two logs prove it,you know this to be true.Dont fight it any more Jane. :))
-
The facts speak for themselves. The sender and receiver boxes in my example prove who made the calls. Nevill Bamber did not make one of those calls.
The time stamps that Jeremy Bamber talks about are irrelevant.
As for the lawyers, they don't care about the truth, they only care about representing their client.
Michael Turner QC represented Bamber in the 2002 CoA. At the time, he did an interview with the Telegraph, and here are some quotes from that article...
If you ever find yourself accused of murder, covered in blood and holding a smoking gun, Michael Turner is the man to call. “If you say you didn’t do it, the gun was planted and it’s a stitch-up, then fine,” says this leading defence lawyer. “You want me to believe you – or at least appear to – and put that case with passion.”
“It’s not my job to believe my client. It’s my job to represent him.”
What if he realises halfway through a trial that his client is evil? “Whether I think my client is an evil individual or not is neither here nor there.”
EP messed up regarding the phone-calls, each one within 10 minutes of each other------BOTH Mr Bambers and this is where the confusion set in. Doubtless their voices would have been similar too causing even more confusion during that hour of the morning. EP took it that both calls then came from the same place,namely Goldhanger,JB's house.
Where there is a 999 call, that line can trace where the call came from even if the person is unable to speak. Did anyone bother to trace Nevill's call ? Someone wrote it down and it wasn't because JB had given out his father's address during his own call because a car was already being sent out after Nevill's call at 03.26.
I had 3 relatives whose voices on the phone had been uncannily similar and at times I had to stop and think who it was who'd phoned !
Besides anything else, voices/calls are recorded on 999 calls, for reference.Where are these tapes ??
-
For me Jane,the different wording in the two logs prove it,you know this to be true.Dont fight it any more Jane. :))
Oh! I didn't realize that A) they had telepathic qualities, B) they were cloned. It surely doesn't require much grey matter to reason that one person relaying another person's message to a third person, when all three are in different places, isn't going to be either written or spoken verbatim!!
-
Sorry Jane,that is no explanation whatsoever to gloss over the VAST differences.Common sense tells us there had to be two different calls.I hold firm on this.
As you're the one claiming "VAST differences", please list them.
-
Hi Dave,that is true,BUT he did not say that he DIDN;T receive a call from Nevill.Listen carefully to his interview again,he told the absolute truth,but cleverly reffered to BONNET not receiving a call from Nevill,nothing about receiving one himself.
::)
He also did not say he didn't receive a call from Mr Blobby. So maybe that happened also?
-
Hi Dave,that is true,BUT he did not say that he DIDN;T receive a call from Nevill.Listen carefully to his interview again,he told the absolute truth,but cleverly reffered to BONNET not receiving a call from Nevill,nothing about receiving one himself.
The accusation levelled by Jeremy Bamber is that Malcolm Bonnett received a call from Nevill Bamber. He is not saying that PC West took a call from Nevill Bamber.
In relation to these two 'call logs', Jeremy Bamber has never accused PC West of taking a call from Nevill Bamber.
So when Michael West made that interview, he was responding to those accusations, and only those accusations.
Micheal West didn't cleverly refer to anything, as you say he did, he merely addressed the accusations that had been made by Jeremy Bamber over the last decade or more.
Therefore, why would he deny something that he has never been accused of doing?
But that is what you are doing. You are accusing PC West of taking a call from Nevill Bamber purely because he didn't explicitly say that he didn't take a call.
You are now just creating fiction.
-
Sorry Jane,that is no explanation whatsoever to gloss over the VAST differences.Common sense tells us there had to be two different calls.I hold firm on this.
There were 2 different calls.
Bamber to West.
West to Bonnett.
----------
You are getting carried away & need to stick to reality.
-
Police can question you until you reach a stage of confusion, which is their way of twisting what you said in the first place. This method is by no means a clever one !!
-
Hi Dave,that is true,BUT he did not say that he DIDN;T receive a call from Nevill.Listen carefully to his interview again,he told the absolute truth,but cleverly reffered to BONNET not receiving a call from Nevill,nothing about receiving one himself.
He also never said he made two statements one with a call stating 3.26 and another stating 3.36, I think the listeners would have been very surprised if they knew the full facts.
-
::)
He also did not say he didn't receive a call from Mr Blobby. So maybe that happened also?
Did Mr Blobby exist in 1985 Dave? I am not sure!
-
If Nevill called Chelmsford Police, he would get through to West. As Bamber did.
Nevill's call would have to be before Bamber phoned West.
Otherwise West would not have bothered asking Bamber for details. West would just tell Bamber he knows all about it & it's being dealt with.
End of issue.
-
Having checked,Mr Blobby did not appear on TV untill 1992 on Noels house party.However he may have been born for many years before starting a TV career. :))
-
If Nevill called Chelmsford Police, he would get through to West. As Bamber did.
Nevill's call would have to be before Bamber phoned West.
Otherwise West would not have bothered asking Bamber for details. West would just tell Bamber he knows all about it & it's being dealt with.
End of issue.
If Bamber had said in 1985 West told him he already knew all about the issue from an earlier call, that would have been interesting.
But Bamber's never said that.
-
Bamber's own phone evidence confirms Nevill did not call West.
-
If Bamber had said in 1985 West told him he already knew all about the issue from an earlier call, that would have been interesting.
But Bamber's never said that.
Hi Adam,I think someone explained this a while back,police cannot discuss other peoples calls,all West was required to do was tell JB to meet the police at the farm.The police were already in transit because of Nevills call.
-
Because the police were on their way to the white house when JB phoned,there was no need for West to pass on JBs call to Bonnet,everything was already in motion because of Nevs call.Quite simple.
-
Hi Adam,I think someone explained this a while back,police cannot discuss other peoples calls,all West was required to do was tell JB to meet the police at the farm.The police were already in transit because of Nevills call.
West isn't going to waste Bamber's time taking details again. Which according to Bamber took over 5 minutes.
He would just tell Bamber he has received another call & police had already been despatched to WHF.
-
Bamber's own phone evidence confirms there was no call from Nevill.
It has always been an outrageous claim by the CT. Made decades later. Blatant properganda to influence gullible supporters, hence this forum.
-
Yes,we understand about the sender and receiver and all that,but what I want explained is the VAST difference in the wording of the two logs.No one has addressed this to my satisfaction Lookout.Not West in his interview and not Killingeve.
To answer your question, there isn't a vast difference in the wording of the two logs. You say there is, but this is not the case. Let me explain:
First of all Both logs convey the exact same message.
Here is Malcolm Bonnetts version of the message, as it appears on the form that he filled in - And just as a reminder it is this message that Jeremy Bamber falsely says, comes from a phone call made by Nevill Bamber :
Subject: Daughter gone berserk
Mr Bamber
White House Farm
Tollshunt D'arcy
Daughter Sheila Bamber, aged 26 yrs has got hold of one of my guns.
Message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber, after the phone went(?) dead. Mr Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410's
The above message contains the same information as that of PC West, but is written in the first person, presumably to to avoid the whole thing descending into a game of Chinese whispers.
If you listen to Michael West's interview from the recent documentary, he says that Malcolm Bonnett has 'transposed' the message. And transposed just means - in this context - changed the format of the message.
More accurately, he's changed the grammatical structure, so that it reads in the first person, and he must have done it for reasons of clarity.
If you imagine how it would have happened at the time, Malcolm Bonnet would have received PC West's message, so what does he then write down?
If Malcolm Bonnet wrote down the events as they were being told to him by PC West, he would have had to have written something like:
PC West from Chelmsford station, said that Jeremy Bamber at Goldhanger Lane said that his father Nevill Bamber at Tollshunt D'arcy said that Jeremy Bambers sister, Nevill Bambers daughter, Sheila.....has gone crazy with a gun.
There is no way that Malcolm Bonnett would or could have written the message in such a convoluted and confusing way.
The thing that is creating the emergency isn't PC West, and isn't Jeremy Bamber. It is Sheila with the gun.
By writing in the first person he removed all the extraneous stuff.
And then, to save any confusion, he wrote a little explanatory paragraph after the message.
And just to confirm, the explanatory paragraph being this...
Message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber, after the phone went(?) dead. Mr Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410's
The explanatory paragraph proves that the message came originally from Jeremy Bamber, not Nevill Bamber.
And the contents of the sender box proves that Malcolm Bonnett received the message from PC West, not Nevill Bamber.
And that is why Malcolm Bonnett's message is different from PC West's message. But actually, in the end, not a vast difference, and something that can be easily explained.
But big evidence trumps small evidence. And the big evidence with these forms is contained in the 'sender' boxes. And the contents of those boxes alone, proves that Nevill did not make any of those calls.
-
West isn't going to waste Bamber's time taking details again. Which according to Bamber took over 5 minutes.
He would just tell Bamber he has received another call & police had already been despatched to WHF.
The police had only just left Witham when JB phoned,there was plenty time to take a few details from JB to check if it was indeed a call about the same incident,that would be protocol Adam.
-
To answer your question, there isn't a vast difference in the wording of the two logs. You say there is, but this is not the case. Let me explain:
First of all Both logs convey the exact same message.
Here is Malcolm Bonnetts version of the message, as it appears on the form that he filled in - And just as a reminder it is this message that Jeremy Bamber falsely says, comes from a phone call made by Nevill Bamber :
Subject: Daughter gone berserk
Mr Bamber
White House Farm
Tollshunt D'arcy
Daughter Sheila Bamber, aged 26 yrs has got hold of one of my guns.
Message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber, after the phone went(?) dead. Mr Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410's
The above message contains the same information as that of PC West, but is written in the first person, presumably to to avoid the whole thing descending into a game of Chinese whispers.
If you listen to Michael West's interview from the recent documentary, he says that Malcolm Bonnett has 'transposed' the message. And transposed just means - in this context - changed the format of the message.
More accurately, he's changed the grammatical structure, so that it reads in the first person, and he must have done it for reasons of clarity.
If you imagine how it would have happened at the time, Malcolm Bonnet would have received PC West's message, so what does he then write down?
If Malcolm Bonnet wrote down the events as they were being told to him by PC West, he would have had to have written something like:
PC West from Chelmsford station, said that Jeremy Bamber at Goldhanger Lane said that his father Nevill Bamber at Tollshunt D'arcy said that Jeremy Bambers sister, Nevill Bambers daughter, Sheila.....has gone crazy with a gun.
There is no way that Malcolm Bonnett would or could have written the message in such a convoluted and confusing way.
The thing that is creating the emergency isn't PC West, and isn't Jeremy Bamber. It is Sheila with the gun.
By writing in the first person he removed all the extraneous stuff.
And then, to save any confusion, he wrote a little explanatory paragraph after the message.
And just to confirm, the explanatory paragraph being this...
Message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber, after the phone went(?) dead. Mr Bamber has a collection of shotguns and .410's
The explanatory paragraph proves that the message came originally from Jeremy Bamber, not Nevill Bamber.
And the contents of the sender box proves that Malcolm Bonnett received the message from PC West, not Nevill Bamber.
And that is why Malcolm Bonnett's message is different from PC West's message. But actually, in the end, not a vast difference, and something that can be easily explained.
But big evidence trumps small evidence. And the big evidence with these forms is contained in the 'sender' boxes. And the contents of those boxes alone, proves that Nevill did not make any of those calls.
Hi Killingeve,I will have another go at addressing your points shortly.
-
Bamber's own phone evidence confirms there was no call from Nevill.
It has always been an outrageous claim by the CT. Made decades later. Blatant properganda to influence gullible supporters, hence this forum.
Am I a creepy fan Adam? :))
-
The police had only just left Witham when JB phoned,there was plenty time to take a few details from JB to check if it was indeed a call about the same incident,that would be protocol Adam.
As Bamber said, he was asked for all details.
Bamber phoning the sixth furthest police station is weird enough. There is no possibility Nevill did.
-
Am I a creepy fan Adam? :))
'Gullible'.
The CT will claim Nevill phoned Chelmsford Police to attract gullible supporters who will actually believe it.
Even David believes it is too far fetched.
-
As Bamber said, he was asked for all details.
Bamber phoning the sixth furthest police station is weird enough. There is no possibility Nevill did.
As I said Adam,Bews and the gang had just left Witham,West knew he had plenty time to quiz JB,any additional info gathered from him could be relayed to CA07.For instance the details of the weapons at the Whitehouse being passed to Bonnet in his rolling log,started by Nevills call of course.All makes sense,think about it Adam.
-
'Gullible'.
The CT will claim Nevill phoned Chelmsford Police to attract gullible supporters who will actually believe it.
Even David believes it is too far fetched.
Yes,Dave now has me in fantasy land like Roch.
-
As I said Adam,Bews and the gang had just left Witham,West knew he had plenty time to quiz JB,any additional info gathered from him could be relayed to CA07.For instance the details of the weapons at the Whitehouse being passed to Bonnet in his rolling log,started by Nevills call of course.All makes sense,think about it Adam.
Snow66! you must not fall into the trap of supporting everything put forward by supporters & the CT. Virtually all of it is rubbish.
Bamber gave West the standard information required in the only call West received on the issue. West passed the information onto Bonnett.
-
Nevill would instantly take the rifle off Sheila, Daniel or Nicholas if any of them picked it up.
Rather than ring Bamber's AM & then look through Yellow Pages for the sixth furthest away police station.
-
If Nevill did look through Yellow Pages, there would be one in the kitchen.
Probably next to the cream dial phone left off the hook.
But there is nothing in the crime scene photos.
-
Nevill would instantly take the rifle off Sheila, Daniel or Nicholas if any of them picked it up.
Rather than ring Bamber's AM & then look through Yellow Pages for the sixth furthest away police station.
Well,in that case I will just have to phone up West and clear things up.I will say to him,'now look here Mick my lad' yes that is what I will say,'look here Mick my lad,just admit you received a call from both JB AND Nevill,the night of the shootings'.Is this off the record',he will say,rolling up his trouser leg and flashing his Masons ring.Afraid not Mick,I will tell him,'I am not a Free Mason'.Then,I have nothing to say sunshine','bugger off or I will see the boys are sent round for a visit',and it wont be for a cup of tea and slice of Victoria sponge,you insect'.Fair enough Mickey my boy', I will say,but the truth will come out some day'.And that will be that.So,I suppose there is little point phoning him when you think about it!
-
Oh my,that dosen't make sense unless I payed him a visit,how else would I see him rolling up his trouser leg. :))
-
Well,in that case I will just have to phone up West and clear things up.I will say to him,'now look here Mick my lad' yes that is what I will say,'look here Mick my lad,just admit you received a call from both JB AND Nevill,the night of the shootings'.Is this off the record',he will say,rolling up his trouser leg and flashing his Masons ring.Afraid not Mick,I will tell him,'I am not a Free Mason'.Then,I have nothing to say sunshine','bugger off or I will see the boys are sent round for a visit',and it wont be for a cup of tea and slice of Victoria sponge,you insect'.Fair enough Mickey my boy', I will say,but the truth will come out some day'.And that will be that.So,I suppose there is little point phoning him when you think about it!
There was no reason to conceal a call from Nevill at that stage. DCI Taff Jones was the boss and any call from Nevill would have confirmed his viewpoint, that the killings were the result of "a domestic." There was no involvement from Robert Boutflour or Julie Mugford for another month, neither did any of the players at that stage know how the case would develop.
-
There was no reason to conceal a call from Nevill at that stage. DCI Taff Jones was the boss and any call from Nevill would have confirmed his viewpoint, that the killings were the result of "a domestic." There was no involvement from Robert Boutflour or Julie Mugford for another month, neither did any of the players at that stage know how the case would develop.
Yes,that makes sense Steve,but it isnt entirely true.I believe the relatives turned up at the police station with their theories four or five days after the shooting,not after a month.And you say there was no need to conceal a call from Nevill at that stage,well it wasn't.Maybe it was this evidence that Taff showed the relatives to get them off his back.THEN,later on AFTER it was a murder enquiry,West and the relatives were told that both calls were made by Jeremy,and Taff may have been made to believe this too,whether he had doubt of JBs guilt or not.And to this day,that may be what West and everyone else believes,and think it is best to keep the Nevill phone call/missing log hidden,whether it points to JBs innocence or not.As far as they are concerned the right person is behind bars.Make any sense Steve? Or are you just too set in your ways to have ANY doubt?
-
Yes,that makes sense Steve,but it isnt entirely true.I believe the relatives turned up at the police station with their theories four or five days after the shooting,not after a month.And you say there was no need to conceal a call from Nevill at that stage,well it wasn't.Maybe it was this evidence that Taff showed the relatives to get them off his back.THEN,later on AFTER it was a murder enquiry,West and the relatives were told that both calls were made by Jeremy,and Taff may have been made to believe this too,whether he had doubt of JBs guilt or not.And to this day,that may be what West and everyone else believes,and think it is best to keep the Nevill phone call/missing log hidden,whether it points to JBs innocence or not.As far as they are concerned the right person is behind bars.Make any sense Steve? Or are you just too set in your ways to have ANY doubt?
I don't understand why if there was a call from Nevill DCI Taff Jones was unaware of it.
-
I don't understand why if there was a call from Nevill DCI Taff Jones was unaware of it.
I did not say he was unaware of it Steve.I said he may have showed it to the relatives to get them off his back.Then,when it was a murder case,it was decided both calls were made by JB,and that the 'Nevill' call [which,as I say,they decided was made by JB too] should be hidden,so that it wouldn't cause any complications for the prosecution case.Possible Steve?
-
So,as far as West is probably concerned,the two calls were merged into one to make sure a Vicious killer was sent rightly sent down.
-
I did not say he was unaware of it Steve.I said he may have showed it to the relatives to get them off his back.Then,when it was a murder case,it was decided both calls were made by JB,and that the 'Nevill' call [which,as I say,they decided was made by JB too] should be hidden,so that it wouldn't cause any complications for the prosecution case.Possible Steve?
It's too much of a conspiracy for my liking.
-
So,as far as West is probably concerned,the two calls were merged into one to make sure a Vicious killer was sent rightly sent down.
But DCI Taff Jones has become aware of this call before relatives called into the police station. He sent them away with a flea in their ear, which established his position. Why not tell them of the call from Nevill at this stage?
-
It's too much of a conspiracy for my liking.
But what else can REALLY explain the major errors in the logs Steve,Sheilas age,different surname-Bamber,Caffell ,sister daughter etc. Think about it Steve.----When all possibilities have been dealt with,whatever remains,no matter how improbable,must be the truth.
-
But what else can REALLY explain the major errors in the logs Steve,Sheilas age,different surname-Bamber,Caffell ,sister daughter etc. Think about it Steve.----When all possibilities have been dealt with,whatever remains,no matter how improbable,must be the truth.
They were working under pressure in the early hours and forgot precise details.
-
But DCI Taff Jones has become aware of this call before relatives called into the police station. He sent them away with a flea in their ear, which established his position. Why not tell them of the call from Nevill at this stage?
BUT HE DID TELL THEM ABOUT THE CALL AT THAT STAGE STEVE! Later on however,Taff,West,the ralatives and the entire police force decided,largely through Bambers behavior,that he was guilty,hence they believed he MUST have made both calls to West,one pretending to be Nevill,and that hiding this call/log was the right,decent,logical thing to do,so that the right man was sent down.But did they get the right man Steve?Of course everyone involved with sending JB down will have to continue to convince themselves that they got it right for the sake of their own sanity.
-
BUT HE DID TELL THEM ABOUT THE CALL AT THAT STAGE STEVE! Later on however,Taff,West,the ralatives and the entire police force decided,largely through Bambers behavior,that he was guilty,hence they believed he MUST have made both calls to West,one pretending to be Nevill,and that hiding this call/log was the right,decent,logical thing to do,so that the right man was sent down.But did they get the right man Steve?Of course everyone involved with sending JB down will have to continue to convince themselves that they got it right for the sake of their own sanity.
Taff believed JB was innocent and wanted the relatives off his back. Which brings up the problem of Taff not mentioning Nevills call the relatives. Something that he would have undoubtedly done to persuade them. Same applies for the alleged wounds. Taff cannot have brough things up that did not happen.
-
Taff believed JB was innocent and wanted the relatives off his back. Which brings up the problem of Taff not mentioning Nevills call the relatives. Something that he would have undoubtedly done to persuade them. Same applies for the alleged wounds. Taff cannot have brough things up that did not happen.
Hi Dave,please read my recent posts again,I just said that Taff DID tell the relatives about Nevills call to get them off his back,but later on everyone[maybe even Taff] decided JB made BOTH calls to West.Imitating Nevill as it were.
-
Anyway,why did they time the routes from Whitehouse farm to JBs cottage? What were they trying to prove,establish?
-
So,as far as West is probably concerned,the two calls were merged into one to make sure a Vicious killer was sent rightly sent down.
The call was hidden by fiddling the times Snow.
Bews and Myall's statements left at 3.45
But the Myall note has 3.37 (while JB on line talking to West!)
Ca7 arrives at 3.50 according the West and 3.48 according to MB 's log (impossible if left at 3.45)
According to Bonnet Ca7 left at 3.35 which cannot be due to JB's call if on line to West at 3.37
Then there is the log itself! West would have said something like:
"Hello PC 1990 West here, I have a Mr Bamber on the phone from 9 Head Street, Goldhanger"
West creates two statements one stating 3.26 and the other 3.36 when asked at trial who asked him to write the statement stating 3.26 he can't remember!
-
The call was hidden by fiddling the times Snow.
Bews and Myall's statements left at 3.45
But the Myall note has 3.37 (while JB on line talking to West!)
Ca7 arrives at 3.50 according the West and 3.48 according to MB 's log (impossible if left at 3.45)
According to Bonnet Ca7 left at 3.35 which cannot be due to JB's call if on line to West at 3.37
Then there is the log itself! West would have said something like:
"Hello PC 1990 West here, I have a Mr Bamber on the phone from 9 Head Street, Goldhanger"
West creates two statements one stating 3.26 and the other 3.36 when asked at trial who asked him to write the statement stating 3.26 he can't remember!
Yes,I would say if you look at all the evidence,a call from Nevill is quite likely Rob,makes sense to me,and as I say,I wasn't desperate for a Nevill call one way or another.
-
If Nevill did look through Yellow Pages, there would be one in the kitchen.
Probably next to the cream dial phone left off the hook.
But there is nothing in the crime scene photos.
I'll ask again.
Where was the Yellow Pages?
-
BUT HE DID TELL THEM ABOUT THE CALL AT THAT STAGE STEVE! Later on however,Taff,West,the ralatives and the entire police force decided,largely through Bambers behavior,that he was guilty,hence they believed he MUST have made both calls to West,one pretending to be Nevill,and that hiding this call/log was the right,decent,logical thing to do,so that the right man was sent down.But did they get the right man Steve?Of course everyone involved with sending JB down will have to continue to convince themselves that they got it right for the sake of their own sanity.
Snow66! you must stop talking rubbish & making things up.
You are getting carried away again.
-
Being as you've asked the question from your own post it's your place to answer it.
-
Nevill calling Bamber's AM is bad enough.
Then Bamber unbelievably called the sixth furthest away police station.
Decades later the CT are claiming Nevill also looked through Yello Pages. Predictably gullible supporters have gone along with it.
-
Nevill would have instantly disarmed Daniel, Nicholas or Sheila when seeing them with such a low powered rifle.
-
I'll ask again.
Where was the Yellow Pages?
Sorry Adam,I did not notice that post,maybe being a magistrate he called local police stations regularly,some people can remember phone numbers quite easily,who knows?
-
Sorry Adam,I did not notice that post,maybe being a magistrate he called local police stations regularly,some people can remember phone numbers quite easily,who knows?
Chelmsford was over 20 miles away.
Why would a part time magistrate call police stations?
-
Anyway,why did they time the routes from Whitehouse farm to JBs cottage? What were they trying to prove,establish?
I will also repeat,why did the police time the routes?
-
Chelmsford was over 20 miles away.
Why would a part time magistrate call police stations?
I have no idea Adam,but it a appears he did.
-
I will also repeat,why did the police time the routes?
To see how easy/quick it was to cycle.
They also walked the same routes.
The prosecution had to decide whether to say whether he walked or cycled.
-
To see how easy/quick it was to cycle.
They also walked the same routes.
The prosecution had to decide whether to say whether he walked or cycled.
Why,what difference did it make how he got there or how long it took?
-
Why,what difference did it make how he got there or how long it took?
The prosecition needed to put forward to the jury that he cycled or walked.
They may have decided he walked. However Bamber had stolen Junes bike just before the massacre. Julie also said Bamber planned to cycle.
So the prosecution had to check on ease/time of walking/cycling.
-
The prosecition needed to put forward to the jury that he cycled or walked.
They may have decided he walked. However Bamber had stolen Junes bike just before the massacre. Julie also said Bamber planned to cycle.
So the prosecution had to check on ease/time of walking/cycling.
But what exactly did the prosecution need to put forward if he walked or cycled for?
-
But what exactly did the prosecution need to put forward if he walked or cycled for?
It's called a prosecution case.
The successful prosecution case was that he cycled to/from WHF.
Cycling also covers the 16/26 gap between the probable call to his AM & then the police.
-
Hi Dave,please read my recent posts again,I just said that Taff DID tell the relatives about Nevills call to get them off his back,but later on everyone[maybe even Taff] decided JB made BOTH calls to West.Imitating Nevill as it were.
There is no evidence to support this.
-
There is no evidence to support this.
Maybe not Dave,but it makes sense.
-
It's called a prosecution case.
The successful prosecution case was that he cycled to/from WHF.
Cycling also covers the 16/26 gap between the probable call to his AM & then the police.
If there was no evidence of any calls except the one JB made to the police,why did the police have to prove anything regarding how JB got to the farm,or how long it took?
-
If there was no evidence of any calls except the one JB made to the police,why did the police have to prove anything regarding how JB got to the farm,or how long it took?
They had to prove it was possible to cycle.
The prosecution witness Julie said Bamber planned to cycle in her WS.
-
The police wouldn't create 200 pieces of incriminating evidence in an Industrial Frame.
They would not have the time or manpower. They would not need that much to secure a conviction.
The evidence in my thread post came organically over time.
-
I've never read such drivel in all my life !
-
They had to prove it was possible to cycle.
The prosecution witness Julie said Bamber planned to cycle in her WS.
Good morning Adam.You know what I am getting at,the police had to have a reason for TIMING the routes.You say they had to prove it was possible to cycle,why? It must all come down to timings,yet if there was no record of a call from Nevill to JB with BT,and no record of a call from Nevill to the police,why did timings matter?
-
Good morning Adam.You know what I am getting at,the police had to have a reason for TIMING the routes.You say they had to prove it was possible to cycle,why? It must all come down to timings,yet if there was no record of a call from Nevill to JB with BT,and no record of a call from Nevill to the police,why did timings matter?
I have given reasons in replies 128, 124, 122 & 120.
Not sure what else I can do.
The police would investigate Bamber stealing June's bike shortly before the massacre.
-
For me the prosecution case is stronger by saying he cycled to/from WHF.
It matches Julie's WS & Bamber stealing June's bike just before the massacre.
It also matches the 16/26 minute gap between Bamber calling his AM (not verified) & calling the police.
The police were right to cycle the different routes.
-
Bamber committing the massacre then spending up to 70 minutes walking back does not sound right.
Although Wilkinson's WS does say some routes were much quicker to walk.
Basically the prosecution covered itself - Bamber could cycle or walk.
-
Obviously Bamber could not give the jury the alternative reason he stole June's bike. That would just make him look more guilty.
This reason surfaced decades later on the OS.
-
The defence were snookered when it came to travelling to/from WS.
The prosecution had Wilkinson's WS.
I don't believe the defence ever disputed that Bamber could get to/from WHF quickly. Unseen.
-
Obviously Bamber could not give the jury the alternative reason he stole June's bike. That would just make him look more guilty.
This reason surfaced decades later on the OS.
Wouldn't it be more likely that the police received two calls that night about ten minutes appart,and were desperate to prove that JB made them both.One from the Whitehouse and one from JBs cottage,hence the extensive time spend biking the various routes?
-
Wouldn't it be more likely that the police received two calls that night about ten minutes appart,and were desperate to prove that JB made them both.One from the Whitehouse and one from JBs cottage,hence the extensive time spend biking the various routes?
Bamber did have the option of phoning Chelmsford Police from WHF. Pretending he was Nevill. Then phoning them again when he got back.
The evidence is he didn't do that.
-
Maybe not Dave,but it makes sense.
Your comment proves that you are just making stuff up, creating works of fiction.
You can't say that something did happened on the basis that there is no evidence, and therefore you think that allows you to fill in the blanks with whatever fiction you like, which is what you are doing. That way, madness lies.
You should always stick to evidence.
There's no evidence that Nevill Bamber made any call (emergency or otherwise) related to what happened that night, and the evidence that has been presented by Jeremy Bamber, can easily be proven to be wrong.
And that was also the view of the CCRC in 2012, who issued a withering statement on Jeremy Bamber's many submissions which led to the 109 page report, that Bamber refuses to allow to be published.
"Pure speculation and unsubstantiated allegations" they said.
The CCRC in 2012 accused Jeremy Bamber of making "multiple unsubstantiated allegations".
Because they too, understood that the contents of the 'sender' boxes in the call logs, proves that the originator of those messages were Jeremy Bamber and PC West. Not Nevill Bamber.
Because they too, noticed that Jeremy Bamber and his legal team, made no mention of the 'sender' and 'receiver' boxes, that clearly states who made the calls.
It's the same with the 'movement in the farm' claims. It's the same with the 06.09am, 999 call from inside WHF, all of which provably didn't happen, not with the 'evidence' that was presented.
-
Your comment proves that you are just making stuff up, creating works of fiction.
You can't say that something did happened on the basis that there is no evidence, and therefore you think that allows you to fill in the blanks with whatever fiction you like, which is what you are doing. That way, madness lies.
You should always stick to evidence.
There's no evidence that Nevill Bamber made any call (emergency or otherwise) related to what happened that night, and the evidence that has been presented by Jeremy Bamber, can easily be proven to be wrong.
And that was also the view of the CCRC in 2012, who issued a withering statement on Jeremy Bamber's many submissions which led to the 109 page report, that Bamber refuses to allow to be published.
"Pure speculation and unsubstantiated allegations" they said.
The CCRC in 2012 accused Jeremy Bamber of making "multiple unsubstantiated allegations".
Because they too, understood that the contents of the 'sender' boxes in the call logs, proves that the originator of those messages were Jeremy Bamber and PC West. Not Nevill Bamber.
Because they too, noticed that Jeremy Bamber and his legal team, made no mention of the 'sender' and 'receiver' boxes, that clearly states who made the calls.
It's the same with the 'movement in the farm' claims. It's the same with the 06.09am, 999 call from inside WHF, all of which provably didn't happen, not with the 'evidence' that was presented.
I am cautious about the alleged 6.09 call. Not 100% dismissive, but cautious. Re an alleged call from Nevill, it worries me that many supporters do not support it.
-
Jeremy Bamber case in Parliament----13/7/2022 @5am---youtube. ( officialbambervideo ) No.79 Season 2.
-
For me the prosecution case is stronger by saying he cycled to/from WHF.
It matches Julie's WS & Bamber stealing June's bike just before the massacre.
It also matches the 16/26 minute gap between Bamber calling his AM (not verified) & calling the police.
The police were right to cycle the different routes.
Why do you say JB stole June's bike? he had it at his cottage weeks before the crime took place, why did June not report it missing?
200 - 1 = 199 ;)
-
Your comment proves that you are just making stuff up, creating works of fiction.
You can't say that something did happened on the basis that there is no evidence, and therefore you think that allows you to fill in the blanks with whatever fiction you like, which is what you are doing. That way, madness lies.
You should always stick to evidence.
There's no evidence that Nevill Bamber made any call (emergency or otherwise) related to what happened that night, and the evidence that has been presented by Jeremy Bamber, can easily be proven to be wrong.
And that was also the view of the CCRC in 2012, who issued a withering statement on Jeremy Bamber's many submissions which led to the 109 page report, that Bamber refuses to allow to be published.
"Pure speculation and unsubstantiated allegations" they said.
The CCRC in 2012 accused Jeremy Bamber of making "multiple unsubstantiated allegations".
Because they too, understood that the contents of the 'sender' boxes in the call logs, proves that the originator of those messages were Jeremy Bamber and PC West. Not Nevill Bamber.
Because they too, noticed that Jeremy Bamber and his legal team, made no mention of the 'sender' and 'receiver' boxes, that clearly states who made the calls.
It's the same with the 'movement in the farm' claims. It's the same with the 06.09am, 999 call from inside WHF, all of which provably didn't happen, not with the 'evidence' that was presented.
Can you point me to your 200 pieces of evidence that proves JB committed the crime please, from what you posted above I am expecting some pretty strong evidence.
Perhaps if you start with your top ten pieces of evidence then post the rest latter, your chance to switch me to a guilter.
-
Can you point me to your 200 pieces of evidence that proves JB committed the crime please, from what you posted above I am expecting some pretty strong evidence.
Perhaps if you start with your top ten pieces of evidence then post the rest latter, your chance to switch me to a guilter.
My thread post points to it.
-
Why do you say JB stole June's bike? he had it at his cottage weeks before the crime took place, why did June not report it missing?
200 - 1 = 199 ;)
It was days before.
Bamber & June had no relationship for years. Even Bamber agreed with Mary Mugford's damning testimony saying 'there was a lack of understanding'.
You can say that again.
-
Chapter 31, page 220 of Wilkes's book -
Julies mother Mary Mugford followed her daughter into the witness box.
She said 'Jeremy hated his mother & blamed her for turning Sheila mad. And he resented her for loving the twins more than him. Jeremy disliked his mother intensely & I felt he was more affectionate to me'.
'He used to call me mummy all the time. He offerred me his mothers small car which had been bought that Christmas. This was just after the shooting. A list had been drawn up and he was going to keep no momentoes, which I thought very strange. He wanted to sell everthing'.
'Jeremy resented his mother because she sent him away to boarding school. He never forgave her for that.
'Apparently she was a religious maniac.
A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.
'Jeremy never spoke to his mother & she never showed any affection towards him'.
'He often spoke of this'.
-
Chapter 31, page 220 of Wilkes's book -
Julies mother Mary Mugford followed her daughter into the witness box.
She said 'Jeremy hated his mother & blamed her for turning Sheila mad. And he resented her for loving the twins more than him. Jeremy disliked his mother intensely & I felt he was more affectionate to me'.
'He used to call me mummy all the time. He offerred me his mothers small car which had been bought that Christmas. This was just after the shooting. A list had been drawn up and he was going to keep no momentoes, which I thought very strange. He wanted to sell everthing'.
'Jeremy resented his mother because she sent him away to boarding school. He never forgave her for that.
'Apparently she was a religious maniac.
A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.
'Jeremy never spoke to his mother & she never showed any affection towards him'.
'He often spoke of this'.
Who did June approach Adam about changing her will? you say a few months before so if she really intended to she would have started proceedings? Possibly B Cock?
-
Your comment proves that you are just making stuff up, creating works of fiction.
You can't say that something did happened on the basis that there is no evidence, and therefore you think that allows you to fill in the blanks with whatever fiction you like, which is what you are doing. That way, madness lies.
You should always stick to evidence.
There's no evidence that Nevill Bamber made any call (emergency or otherwise) related to what happened that night, and the evidence that has been presented by Jeremy Bamber, can easily be proven to be wrong.
And that was also the view of the CCRC in 2012, who issued a withering statement on Jeremy Bamber's many submissions which led to the 109 page report, that Bamber refuses to allow to be published.
"Pure speculation and unsubstantiated allegations" they said.
The CCRC in 2012 accused Jeremy Bamber of making "multiple unsubstantiated allegations".
Because they too, understood that the contents of the 'sender' boxes in the call logs, proves that the originator of those messages were Jeremy Bamber and PC West. Not Nevill Bamber.
Because they too, noticed that Jeremy Bamber and his legal team, made no mention of the 'sender' and 'receiver' boxes, that clearly states who made the calls.
It's the same with the 'movement in the farm' claims. It's the same with the 06.09am, 999 call from inside WHF, all of which provably didn't happen, not with the 'evidence' that was presented.
Hi Killingeve,hope your well this evening.I will try and sum up the phone call issue tonight.
-
Who did June approach Adam about changing her will? you say a few months before so if she really intended to she would have started proceedings? Possibly B Cock?
No idea.
June would inherit from Nevill after Nevill's death. If June was still alive.
June had allocated money to other friends & the church in her will.
If June died before Nevill, Bamber would inherit her shares of the caravan site. Sheila inheriting the freehold of caravan site.
After the caravan break in it is likely June would have cut Bamber out of her will by the time of her death. Re allocating to the twins, church, Sheila & other friends/relatives.
Bamber testified he would have to continue working at WHF to inherit anything from Nevill.
-
Both parents would need to be dead for Bamber to have a chance of inheriting anything substantial -
Nevill dies first - Goes to June.
June dies first - Bamber gets some more shares in the caravan park. If not disinherited by June.
----------
June & Nevill were 61 & both quite fit. There would be a good possibility of one of them living another 20 years.
As said June's will already also included Sheila, the church & other friends/relatives.
It is likely Bamber would be disinherited by June & the twins would be added.
-
Bamber would be upset that he would not inherit from Nevill. If Nevill died first.
He would know that if June then has everything he may get cut out completely.
-
Ideally for Bamber, June would die first. If she has cut Bamber out of her will, it would not be a disaster as he was only going to inherit her caravan park shares.
Nevill dying first gives June everything. Meaning Bamber working on the farm for decades may count for nothing.
-
Can you point me to your 200 pieces of evidence that proves JB committed the crime please, from what you posted above I am expecting some pretty strong evidence.
Perhaps if you start with your top ten pieces of evidence then post the rest latter, your chance to switch me to a guilter.
To answer your question, no I won't list 200 pieces of evidence, because it would be unwieldy, and would be incredibly boring to read.
The evidence is there to read on this forum, the red forum and various books and documentaries.
I'm more into narrative explanations, rather than list building.
The point that I was making was less about 200 pieces of evidence, and more about there being a large body of evidence that collectively, as a whole, points to Sheila being less likely to have committed the crime, as well as Jeremy being more likely to have committed the crime.
The dry, academic and legal argument is that if Sheila didn't do it, then Jeremy did.
Or to put it another way, if Jeremy didn't do it, then Sheila did.
Jeremy Bamber is the one who will not allow any other scenario, like an assassin, or a burglar.
There are two main scenarios laid out by both defence and prosecution:
If Sheila did it, then it was due to a completely unpredicted and unexpected, random psychotic mental breakdown, triggered by her schizophrenia.
If Jeremy did it, then it was as a result of a psychopath, calmly and cold-bloodedly planning the murder of his family over approximately an 18 month period.
And people who say Jeremy Bamber is innocent seem to be in agreement (mostly) that Sheila had a breakdown as described above, and nobody blames her, as she was mentally ill. Just one of those things.
And people who say Jeremy Bamber is guilty seem to be in agreement (mostly) that Jeremy is a psychopath who carefully planned the crime in cold blood over a period of time.
So, to put it mildly disrespectfully, based on the above, there's the 'Sheila went mad' scenario, or the 'Jeremy the psycho' scenario.
------------------------
So all the evidence that was presented to the police, collected, collated, bungled, messed up, lost, and all the rest of it, all that we now know evidentially, has to be set, or tested, against either 'Jeremy the psycho', or 'Sheila went mad'.
For example, there were 25 shots fired, and each hit their target. As an example, one of the boys had 5 bullets in his tiny little head, and they were in a single arc, equi-distant from each other.
BANG.
BANG.
BANG.
BANG.
BANG.
So who did it?
'Sheila went mad'? Or 'Jeremy the psycho'?
But don't ask yourself who actually did it. Ask yourself, what type of person is most likely to have done it.
Would it be a calm(ish) psychopath carrying out a plan made over an 18 month period. Or a person having a random mental breakdown, the symptoms being, behaving in an uncontrollably berserk, crazy and violent way.
Well, for a start, there were no stray bullets.
No stray bullets hit the walls or ceilings, or any other random non-human objects.
25 bullets all hit their target.
None of us were there, so no one can say for sure, but for me it is more likely to be the work of a calm psychopath. Therefore in this case, that would be 'Jeremy the psycho' scenario.
If it was the 'Sheila went mad' scenario, then I would expect some stray bullets. After all, she was mad, she was going crazy, she went berserk.
For me, it is therefore less likely to be Sheila, because I would have expected her to be less accurate and more manic, in her firing technique.
Jeremy was proficient with guns, and was a regular user of the Anschutz. He even admits to using it to shoot rabbits earlier that very evening.
Sheila knew very little about guns, didn't handle them regularly, if ever. And had never used the Anschutz, which had been purchased less than a year earlier.
For me, it just makes Sheila less likely to have fired those bullets. It doesn't mean she didn't do it, but to me:
25 bullets efficiently dispatched, all hit their target + 'Sheila went mad' = less likely that Sheila did it.
And to me:
25 bullets efficiently dispatched, all hit their target + 'Jeremy the psycho' = more likely that Jeremy did it.
And that is just the firing of the bullets. One piece of evidence. Not enough to convict on its own.
But once you start adding up the entire body of evidence, layer by layer, then for each piece of evidence, I keep finding myself saying that the 'Jeremy the psycho' scenario is more likely, and the 'Sheila went mad' scenario less likely.
It's the totality of evidence, that when taken into consideration as a single, whole body of evidence, that Bamber looks as guilty as he does. That is when you start to get to the beyond reasonable doubt stage.
Single sheets of paper with an incorrect handwritten timestamp, is not going to put a dent in that whole body of evidence.
It's never really black or white for me...there is a large area of gray, where something is more likely, or less likely, rather than guilty, or innocent.
Also....and unfortunately for Jeremy Bamber...
There will always be paragraph 518 of the 2002 CoA. Currently, this evidence proves that Sheila was murdered, and was dead before the firearms officers broke into the house.
And then there is the phone call from Jeremy Bamber to Chelmsford Police station, that proves that Jeremy Bamber tried to frame Sheila.
Those two very big, very important pieces of evidence - on their own - condemn Bamber.
Paragraph 518 will have to be disproved if Bamber is going to overturn his conviction.
-
JB was never cut out of the Wills and at least received a percentage of interest after tax earlier on which he was able to pay scientists for doing various tests. Strange how he didn't keep it to himself isn't it being as he was so greedy and grasping ? I'm blowed if I'd have bothered with anything like that if I'd been guilty !
As for the rest of the money, DB had said it was gone---spent ! Didn't take them long did it ?
-
If Sheila hadn't have killed her family, they'd all have benefitted from Grannie Speakman's estate !
-
People usually kill if they've got nothing to lose. JB had everything to gain !! Would he have been fool enough to have committed murder, knowing that he wouldn't see a penny ? I think not.
-
Sheila had lost her mind, her husband,her boys and had reached the point of no return.
-
Basically Bamber was not in a good place with the wills. As stated above.
Both on what & when he would inherit. Together with finances continually being drained on Sheila, Daniel & Nicholas and the possibility Bamber would be disinherited or lose a large amount.
-
No idea.
June would inherit from Nevill after Nevill's death. If June was still alive.
June had allocated money to other friends & the church in her will.
If June died before Nevill, Bamber would inherit her shares of the caravan site. Sheila inheriting the freehold of caravan site.
After the caravan break in it is likely June would have cut Bamber out of her will by the time of her death. Re allocating to the twins, church, Sheila & other friends/relatives.
Bamber testified he would have to continue working at WHF to inherit anything from Nevill.
Oh ok I thought you might know who June approached, I do know that Mr Cock had not been notified, so unless June did contact someone I think we have to assume she was not going to go ahead with this?
-
Oh ok I thought you might know who June approached, I do know that Mr Cock had not been notified, so unless June did contact someone I think we have to assume she was not going to go ahead with this?
MM testimony says -
'A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.
----------
June was 61 & in good health. So no hurry .Then again after the caravan break in Bamber may have felt there was a hurry.
-
To answer your question, no I won't list 200 pieces of evidence, because it would be unwieldy, and would be incredibly boring to read.
The evidence is there to read on this forum, the red forum and various books and documentaries.
I'm more into narrative explanations, rather than list building.
The point that I was making was less about 200 pieces of evidence, and more about there being a large body of evidence that collectively, as a whole, points to Sheila being less likely to have committed the crime, as well as Jeremy being more likely to have committed the crime.
The dry, academic and legal argument is that if Sheila didn't do it, then Jeremy did.
Or to put it another way, if Jeremy didn't do it, then Sheila did.
Jeremy Bamber is the one who will not allow any other scenario, like an assassin, or a burglar.
There are two main scenarios laid out by both defence and prosecution:
If Sheila did it, then it was due to a completely unpredicted and unexpected, random psychotic mental breakdown, triggered by her schizophrenia.
If Jeremy did it, then it was as a result of a psychopath, calmly and cold-bloodedly planning the murder of his family over approximately an 18 month period.
And people who say Jeremy Bamber is innocent seem to be in agreement (mostly) that Sheila had a breakdown as described above, and nobody blames her, as she was mentally ill. Just one of those things.
And people who say Jeremy Bamber is guilty seem to be in agreement (mostly) that Jeremy is a psychopath who carefully planned the crime in cold blood over a period of time.
So, to put it mildly disrespectfully, based on the above, there's the 'Sheila went mad' scenario, or the 'Jeremy the psycho' scenario.
------------------------
So all the evidence that was presented to the police, collected, collated, bungled, messed up, lost, and all the rest of it, all that we now know evidentially, has to be set, or tested, against either 'Jeremy the psycho', or 'Sheila went mad'.
For example, there were 25 shots fired, and each hit their target. As an example, one of the boys had 5 bullets in his tiny little head, and they were in a single arc, equi-distant from each other.
BANG.
BANG.
BANG.
BANG.
BANG.
So who did it?
'Sheila went mad'? Or 'Jeremy the psycho'?
But don't ask yourself who actually did it. Ask yourself, what type of person is most likely to have done it.
Would it be a calm(ish) psychopath carrying out a plan made over an 18 month period. Or a person having a random mental breakdown, the symptoms being, behaving in an uncontrollably berserk, crazy and violent way.
Well, for a start, there were no stray bullets.
No stray bullets hit the walls or ceilings, or any other random non-human objects.
25 bullets all hit their target.
None of us were there, so no one can say for sure, but for me it is more likely to be the work of a calm psychopath. Therefore in this case, that would be 'Jeremy the psycho' scenario.
If it was the 'Sheila went mad' scenario, then I would expect some stray bullets. After all, she was mad, she was going crazy, she went berserk.
For me, it is therefore less likely to be Sheila, because I would have expected her to be less accurate and more manic, in her firing technique.
Jeremy was proficient with guns, and was a regular user of the Anschutz. He even admits to using it to shoot rabbits earlier that very evening.
Sheila knew very little about guns, didn't handle them regularly, if ever. And had never used the Anschutz, which had been purchased less than a year earlier.
For me, it just makes Sheila less likely to have fired those bullets. It doesn't mean she didn't do it, but to me:
25 bullets efficiently dispatched, all hit their target + 'Sheila went mad' = less likely that Sheila did it.
And to me:
25 bullets efficiently dispatched, all hit their target + 'Jeremy the psycho' = more likely that Jeremy did it.
And that is just the firing of the bullets. One piece of evidence. Not enough to convict on its own.
But once you start adding up the entire body of evidence, layer by layer, then for each piece of evidence, I keep finding myself saying that the 'Jeremy the psycho' scenario is more likely, and the 'Sheila went mad' scenario less likely.
It's the totality of evidence, that when taken into consideration as a single, whole body of evidence, that Bamber looks as guilty as he does. That is when you start to get to the beyond reasonable doubt stage.
Single sheets of paper with an incorrect handwritten timestamp, is not going to put a dent in that whole body of evidence.
It's never really black or white for me...there is a large area of gray, where something is more likely, or less likely, rather than guilty, or innocent.
Also....and unfortunately for Jeremy Bamber...
There will always be paragraph 518 of the 2002 CoA. Currently, this evidence proves that Sheila was murdered, and was dead before the firearms officers broke into the house.
And then there is the phone call from Jeremy Bamber to Chelmsford Police station, that proves that Jeremy Bamber tried to frame Sheila.
Those two very big, very important pieces of evidence - on their own - condemn Bamber.
Paragraph 518 will have to be disproved if Bamber is going to overturn his conviction.
I would agree with this, though didn't one of the Raid Team pull the front of Sheila's nightdress down to mainitain her modesty?
-
I would agree with this, though didn't one of the Raid Team pull the front of Sheila's nightdress down to mainitain her modesty?
You will need to source that.
-
The phonecall to Chelmsford doesn't condemn Bamber at all
-
To answer your question, no I won't list 200 pieces of evidence, because it would be unwieldy, and would be incredibly boring to read.
The evidence is there to read on this forum, the red forum and various books and documentaries.
I'm more into narrative explanations, rather than list building.
The point that I was making was less about 200 pieces of evidence, and more about there being a large body of evidence that collectively, as a whole, points to Sheila being less likely to have committed the crime, as well as Jeremy being more likely to have committed the crime.
The dry, academic and legal argument is that if Sheila didn't do it, then Jeremy did.
Or to put it another way, if Jeremy didn't do it, then Sheila did.
Jeremy Bamber is the one who will not allow any other scenario, like an assassin, or a burglar.
There are two main scenarios laid out by both defence and prosecution:
If Sheila did it, then it was due to a completely unpredicted and unexpected, random psychotic mental breakdown, triggered by her schizophrenia.
If Jeremy did it, then it was as a result of a psychopath, calmly and cold-bloodedly planning the murder of his family over approximately an 18 month period.
And people who say Jeremy Bamber is innocent seem to be in agreement (mostly) that Sheila had a breakdown as described above, and nobody blames her, as she was mentally ill. Just one of those things.
And people who say Jeremy Bamber is guilty seem to be in agreement (mostly) that Jeremy is a psychopath who carefully planned the crime in cold blood over a period of time.
So, to put it mildly disrespectfully, based on the above, there's the 'Sheila went mad' scenario, or the 'Jeremy the psycho' scenario.
------------------------
So all the evidence that was presented to the police, collected, collated, bungled, messed up, lost, and all the rest of it, all that we now know evidentially, has to be set, or tested, against either 'Jeremy the psycho', or 'Sheila went mad'.
For example, there were 25 shots fired, and each hit their target. As an example, one of the boys had 5 bullets in his tiny little head, and they were in a single arc, equi-distant from each other.
BANG.
BANG.
BANG.
BANG.
BANG.
So who did it?
'Sheila went mad'? Or 'Jeremy the psycho'?
But don't ask yourself who actually did it. Ask yourself, what type of person is most likely to have done it.
Would it be a calm(ish) psychopath carrying out a plan made over an 18 month period. Or a person having a random mental breakdown, the symptoms being, behaving in an uncontrollably berserk, crazy and violent way.
Well, for a start, there were no stray bullets.
No stray bullets hit the walls or ceilings, or any other random non-human objects.
25 bullets all hit their target.
None of us were there, so no one can say for sure, but for me it is more likely to be the work of a calm psychopath. Therefore in this case, that would be 'Jeremy the psycho' scenario.
If it was the 'Sheila went mad' scenario, then I would expect some stray bullets. After all, she was mad, she was going crazy, she went berserk.
For me, it is therefore less likely to be Sheila, because I would have expected her to be less accurate and more manic, in her firing technique.
Jeremy was proficient with guns, and was a regular user of the Anschutz. He even admits to using it to shoot rabbits earlier that very evening.
Sheila knew very little about guns, didn't handle them regularly, if ever. And had never used the Anschutz, which had been purchased less than a year earlier.
For me, it just makes Sheila less likely to have fired those bullets. It doesn't mean she didn't do it, but to me:
25 bullets efficiently dispatched, all hit their target + 'Sheila went mad' = less likely that Sheila did it.
And to me:
25 bullets efficiently dispatched, all hit their target + 'Jeremy the psycho' = more likely that Jeremy did it.
And that is just the firing of the bullets. One piece of evidence. Not enough to convict on its own.
But once you start adding up the entire body of evidence, layer by layer, then for each piece of evidence, I keep finding myself saying that the 'Jeremy the psycho' scenario is more likely, and the 'Sheila went mad' scenario less likely.
It's the totality of evidence, that when taken into consideration as a single, whole body of evidence, that Bamber looks as guilty as he does. That is when you start to get to the beyond reasonable doubt stage.
Single sheets of paper with an incorrect handwritten timestamp, is not going to put a dent in that whole body of evidence.
It's never really black or white for me...there is a large area of gray, where something is more likely, or less likely, rather than guilty, or innocent.
Also....and unfortunately for Jeremy Bamber...
There will always be paragraph 518 of the 2002 CoA. Currently, this evidence proves that Sheila was murdered, and was dead before the firearms officers broke into the house.
And then there is the phone call from Jeremy Bamber to Chelmsford Police station, that proves that Jeremy Bamber tried to frame Sheila.
Those two very big, very important pieces of evidence - on their own - condemn Bamber.
Paragraph 518 will have to be disproved if Bamber is going to overturn his conviction.
I guess we all see things differently, to me the crime was an act of pure rage, over the years JB has had many psychological reports and shows no signs of these traits.
As regards the 25 shots they were all at point blank range and into for the most part stationary targets, I think it would be harder to miss.
Finally the phone call, if JB is guilty he can say and do whatever he wants, if he really planned the crime over the last 18 months surely he would simply dial 999? Why does he cast suspicion on himself for no reason?
Sorry I am still a supporter or whatever term you want to use, but thanks for your reply.
-
Oh ok I thought you might know who June approached, I do know that Mr Cock had not been notified, so unless June did contact someone I think we have to assume she was not going to go ahead with this?
June had approached Basil Cock to establish an allowance for her daughter to be paid quarterly. June and Nevill had form when it came to threats of disinheritance, as they had done to effectively end the relationship between Jeremy and Sue Ford.
-
I guess we all see things differently, to me the crime was an act of pure rage, over the years JB has had many psychological reports and shows no signs of these traits.
As regards the 25 shots they were all at point blank range and into for the most part stationary targets, I think it would be harder to miss.
Finally the phone call, if JB is guilty he can say and do whatever he wants, if he really planned the crime over the last 18 months surely he would simply dial 999? Why does he cast suspicion on himself for no reason?
Sorry I am still a supporter or whatever term you want to use, but thanks for your reply.
But she had to reload twice. It's another pointer to Jeremy being the culprit rather than his sister.
-
MM testimony says -
'A few months before the murders Jeremy had told me her mother was thinking of changing her will in favour of her grandsons, on whom she doted'.
----------
June was 61 & in good health. So no hurry .Then again after the caravan break in Bamber may have felt there was a hurry.
Yes but you are twisting this to mean JB was going to be completely written out of the will, in which case June would never have told him. I read this as meaning the twins would receive something to be perhaps held in trust until they were 21 or something like this.
-
But she had to reload twice. It's another pointer to Jeremy being the culprit rather than his sister.
Yes I agree Steve the reloading is the main doubt I have regarding Sheila doing the crime. Provided the magazine is not fully loaded say seven or eight bullets it is quite easy to insert them. She started with probably 10 bullets two reloads of seven or eight bullets and this covers her for 25 shots.
-
Hi Killingeve,hope your well this evening.I will try and sum up the phone call issue tonight.
Ok Killingeve,this is my take on the phone calls.Nevill phones pc West first who made a log featuring 'Daughter gone berserk',which he passed on to Bonnet,hence your argument,sender,receiver etc,all true and in order.Then JB phones pc West about ten minutes later,which the log indeed states,3.36,'Sister gone crazy' and so on.Obviously West dosen't pass on JBs call to Bonnet because it is about the same incident and would serve no purpose,things are already underway.Bews and the gang are already leaving for the Whitehouse.So,now West has two logs,one from Nevills call and one from JBs,but only Nevills log is passed on to Bonnet.So,no problem there,West thinks no more about the calls,and the case is treated as murder/suicide,BUT,the relatives are unhappy with the verdict and pester Taff,who has to tell them about Nevills phone call to get them off his back.So they retreat to scratch their heads for a while.But then JBs odd behaviour unfortunately convinces every copper and his wife that he is indeed the culprit.But in order for JB to be guilty,the police conclude that he must have made both calls or had an accomplice which they must have ruled out.Now the police know that JB would have needed to get from the Whitehouse to his cottage pretty quick if he made both calls,his car did not move that night,so this is when their attention falls on Junes bike.They time the routes,but are not too happy with the results,as a result the police decide that it is best to merge Nevill and JBs calls/logs into one and declare to the jury that only JB called the police.This was the best they could do.At trial they still made a big issue about Bamber using the bike however.This was because if West folded under pressure and confessed that he received two calls that night,the prosecution would still try and convince the Jury that JB biked like a madman and made both calls.But of course all went well for the prosecution,especially due to the fact that Bonnets log was not disclosed for comparison.So,I believe Wests original log made from Nevills call will come to light some day,once JB is found innocent.That is if it hasn't been destroyed.Any proof of this work of fiction? No,and yes. No,there isnt a Nevill log in circulation at the moment,and yes,with the disclosure of Bonnets log we can see that the mistakes and differences between the two exieting logs are too great to be from one and the same phone call.Also the mix up with the times and when CAO7 and CA05 were despatched can only be explained by two seperate calls being made.And JB could not have made the two calls,he simply could not have got from the Whitehouse to his cottage in the available time,even on the bike.So,there you are,Nevill did indeed call the police.Bye,bye!
-
Yes but you are twisting this to mean JB was going to be completely written out of the will, in which case June would never have told him. I read this as meaning the twins would receive something to be perhaps held in trust until they were 21 or something like this.
Not twisting anything. Just quoted Wilkes book.
As posted earlier, Bamber was in a bad place regarding the wills.
-
Not twisting anything. Just quoted Wilkes book.
As posted earlier, Bamber was in a bad place regarding the wills.
It's twisting it if you say he was going to be completely written out of the will, I see nothing in what MM said that infers this, just that the will be be changed so the twins receive something.
-
Yes but you are twisting this to mean JB was going to be completely written out of the will, in which case June would never have told him. I read this as meaning the twins would receive something to be perhaps held in trust until they were 21 or something like this.
They would inherit when they became 25 I believe. But don't forget Jeremy was sent away at 7 years old, and Nevill and June may well have wanted to pay the school fees for Nicholas and Daniel at a similar establishment, if only to get them away from Colin, whom they often considered a bad influence.
-
It's twisting it if you say he was going to be completely written out of the will, I see nothing in what MM said that infers this, just that the will be be changed so the twins receive something.
I think we both know over time June would have frozen Bamber out.
She was already allocating money to the church & other friends/relatives. The twins would be next.
Bamber was only inheriting June's caravan park shares. The problem would be if Nevill dies first. June then becomes all powerful.
-
Yes I agree Steve the reloading is the main doubt I have regarding Sheila doing the crime. Provided the magazine is not fully loaded say seven or eight bullets it is quite easy to insert them. She started with probably 10 bullets two reloads of seven or eight bullets and this covers her for 25 shots.
The problem is she would have to know where the ammunition was kept. It always looked to me as if the scene of the bullets on the blue and white chequered worktop by the telephone was staged. If they were there at the time Jeremy claimed, namely when he hastily tipped them out in the search for rabbits, then June would have cleared them away after she had finished speaking to Pamela on the telephone later that evening.
-
Ok Killingeve,this is my take on the phone calls.Nevill phones pc West first who made a log featuring 'Daughter gone berserk',which he passed on to Bonnet,hence your argument,sender,receiver etc,all true and in order.Then JB phones pc West about ten minutes later,which the log indeed states,3.36,'Sister gone crazy' and so on.Obviously West dosen't pass on JBs call to Bonnet because it is about the same incident and would serve no purpose,things are already underway.Bews and the gang are already leaving for the Whitehouse.So,now West has two logs,one from Nevills call and one from JBs,but only Nevills log is passed on to Bonnet.So,no problem there,West thinks no more about the calls,and the case is treated as murder/suicide,BUT,the relatives are unhappy with the verdict and pester Taff,who has to tell them about Nevills phone call to get them off his back.So they retreat to scratch their heads for a while.But then JBs odd behaviour unfortunately convinces every copper and his wife that he is indeed the culprit.But in order for JB to be guilty,the police conclude that he must have made both calls or had an accomplice which they must have ruled out.Now the police know that JB would have needed to get from the Whitehouse to his cottage pretty quick if he made both calls,his car did not move that night,so this is when their attention falls on Junes bike.They time the routes,but are not too happy with the results,as a result the police decide that it is best to merge Nevill and JBs calls/logs into one and declare to the jury that only JB called the police.This was the best they could do.At trial they still made a big issue about Bamber using the bike however.This was because if West folded under pressure and confessed that he received two calls that night,the prosecution would still try and convince the Jury that JB biked like a madman and made both calls.But of course all went well for the prosecution,especially due to the fact that Bonnets log was not disclosed for comparison.So,I believe Wests original log made from Nevills call will come to light some day,once JB is found innocent.That is if it hasn't been destroyed.Any proof of this work of fiction? No,and yes. No,there isnt a Nevill log in circulation at the moment,and yes,with the disclosure of Bonnets log we can see that the mistakes and differences between the two exieting logs are too great to be from one and the same phone call.Also the mix up with the times and when CAO7 and CA05 were despatched can only be explained by two seperate calls being made.And JB could not have made the two calls,he simply could not have got from the Whitehouse to his cottage in the available time,even on the bike.So,there you are,Nevill did indeed call the police.Bye,bye!
But Jeremy had already claimed he received a telephone call from Nevill that first Wednesday 7th August, so the relatives would have known about this claim then. I don't understand your timeline.
-
The problem is she would have to know where the ammunition was kept. It always looked to me as if the scene of the bullets on the blue and white chequered worktop by the telephone was staged. If they were there at the time Jeremy claimed, namely when he hastily tipped them out in the search for rabbits, then June would have cleared them away after she had finished speaking to Pamela on the telephone later that evening.
Yes a good point Steve I, I have always assumed Sheila knew where the bullets were kept and just chucked a box on the worktop. If JB was staging the crime scene to this extent would he have fired so many shots? He could have used one or two on each of the twins maybe four on June and the rest on Nevil with no reloads?
-
A best case scenario would be if -
June dies first, within 10 years. Bamber inherits her caravan park shares. Bamber had somehow avoided being frozen out.
Nevill dies a couple of years later. Leaving the farm to Sheila & Bamber. The twins not included.
This would still mean having to work on the farm for another 10+ years. Then share his inheritance, which would be reducing due to the expense of paying for Sheila & the twins.
The alternatives would be too much for him to bear.
-
Yes a good point Steve I, I have always assumed Sheila knew where the bullets were kept and just chucked a box on the worktop. If JB was staging the crime scene to this extent would he have fired so many shots? He could have used one or two on each of the twins maybe four on June and the rest on Nevil with no reloads?
Well again we come to the point Adam made earlier, namely that the gun was used for vermin and Jeremy couldn't possibly know how many bullets he would need to ensure death for all victims.
-
A best case scenario would be if -
June dies first, within 10 years. Bamber inherits her caravan park shares. Bamber had somehow avoided being frozen out.
Nevill dies a couple of years later. Leaving the farm to Sheila & Bamber. The twins not included.
This would still mean having to work on the farm for another 10+ years. Then share his inheritance, which would be reducing due to the expense of paying for Sheila & the twins.
The alternatives would be too much for him to bear.
These are of course -
Nevill/June living another 20 years.
Nevill dying first & leaving everything with June.
Or both!
-
Well again we come to the point Adam made earlier, namely that the gun was used for vermin and Jeremy couldn't possibly know how many bullets he would need to ensure death for all victims.
Well I don't agree with Adam on this, at close range the rifle was lethal, JB could have committed the crime with just five shots, but this would have looked suspicious. He could have used nine or ten shots and I don't think anyone would have questioned this?
-
How do I know so much on the wills?
From Bamber himself.
-
Well I don't agree with Adam on this, at close range the rifle was lethal, JB could have committed the crime with just five shots, but this would have looked suspicious. He could have used nine or ten shots and I don't think anyone would have questioned this?
Yes an 11 shot massacre would have looked very clinical & proficient.
Then again having to reload twice did him no favours.
Suspect he felt either way would not be a problem. Unless the police start digging.
-
But Jeremy had already claimed he received a telephone call from Nevill that first Wednesday 7th August, so the relatives would have known about this claim then. I don't understand your timeline.
It is the call Nevill made to PC WEST that Taff wouuld have shown to the relatives Steve.
-
Well I don't agree with Adam on this, at close range the rifle was lethal, JB could have committed the crime with just five shots, but this would have looked suspicious. He could have used nine or ten shots and I don't think anyone would have questioned this?
He was high on drugs at the time, just as David Bain was in one of his manufactured trances enabled by his mother's tutelage on the subject. He would later tell Julie he had had a "mental blank", which is as good a description as any to depict the circumstances of the carnage inflicted that night.
-
Yes an 11 shot massacre would have looked very clinical & proficient.
Then again having to reload twice did him no favours.
Suspect he felt either way would not be a problem. Unless the police start digging.
No a four shot massacre and a suicide using 5 shots would look very clinical, 9 or ten shots into sleeping victims not so.
-
Yes an 11 shot massacre would have looked very clinical & proficient.
Then again having to reload twice did him no favours.
Suspect he felt either way would not be a problem. Unless the police start digging.
Bamber of course primed the police outside to not be surprised at reloads. Telling them Sheila knew how to use all the weapons inside WHF.
Later retracting.
-
It is the call Nevill made to PC WEST that Taff wouuld have shown to the relatives Steve.
But there was no reason to cover up that call at that stage. Why go for an interrogation of Jeremy Bamber on Sunday 8th September, when a call Taff knew about would confirm his initial suspicion that the whole episode at White House Farm had been "a domestic"?
-
No a four shot massacre and a suicide using 5 shots would look very clinical, 9 or ten shots into sleeping victims not so.
The massacre couldn't be completed in 5 shots.
He may have gone for an 11 shot massacre but didn't make it.
-
Bamber of course primed the police outside to not be surprised at reloads. Telling them Sheila knew how to use all the weapons inside WHF.
Later retracting.
Would the police not assume that anyway? A farmers girl living on a farm all her life.
-
The massacre couldn't be completed in 5 shots.
He may have gone for an 11 shot massacre but didn't make it.
Why not five shots?
-
Not twisting anything. Just quoted Wilkes book.
As posted earlier, Bamber was in a bad place regarding the wills.
Why was he
-
Why was he
Read my.posts on it. Posted today on this thread.
-
He was high on drugs at the time, just as David Bain was in one of his manufactured trances enabled by his mother's tutelage on the subject. He would later tell Julie he had had a "mental blank", which is as good a description as any to depict the circumstances of the carnage inflicted that night.
No he wasn't high on drugs. None of the police officers in his company not long after the massacre can attest to this. He had just hours previously completed a full days work at the farm as well
-
Bamber of course primed the police outside to not be surprised at reloads. Telling them Sheila knew how to use all the weapons inside WHF.
Later retracting.
A good point Adam. Jeremy had thought about police reaction in advance, also disseminating the lie that his sister had recently indulged in target practice. He had also attempted to work his charm on Ann Eaton, with dispiriting results.
-
Would the police not assume that anyway? A farmers girl living on a farm all her life.
She had lived in London from the age of 17, and been away from the Farm at boarding school for long periods before then.
-
Why not five shots?
With a shot gun, yes.
Nevill, June & Sheila were shot in the Neck, Jaw (twice) & under the chin. And still lived.
-
Why was he
He was basically tied to the Farm for the duration of his parents' lifetime. It's misleading to say he was in a bad position regarding the wills.
-
No he wasn't high on drugs. None of the police officers in his company not long after the massacre can attest to this. He had just hours previously completed a full days work at the farm as well
Agree he would be fully focused.
A stiff drink before & afterwards maybe.
-
He was basically tied to the Farm for the duration of his parents' lifetime. It's misleading to say he was in a bad position regarding the wills.
Read my posts.
Surprisingly no one has asked for my source.
-
With a shot gun, yes.
Nevill, June & Sheila were shot in the Neck, Jaw (twice) & under the chin. And still lived.
Yes I am assuming that JB is not worried about the shooter being seen as a marksman Adam, he could easily have done the crime with five shots into sleeping victims. You keep saying he staged the crime scene his best way would have been to use just a single magazine no reloads using nine or ten bullets.
-
No he wasn't high on drugs. None of the police officers in his company not long after the massacre can attest to this. He had just hours previously completed a full days work at the farm as well
But his pupils were like saucers that first morning according to Ann Eaton. Is this not a symptom of cocaine and marijuana use?
-
But there was no reason to cover up that call at that stage. Why go for an interrogation of Jeremy Bamber on Sunday 8th September, when a call Taff knew about would confirm his initial suspicion that the whole episode at White House Farm had been "a domestic"?
Because by that time,mainly due to JBs behaviou,the police possibly including Taff thought he was guilty and had made both calls,the one from Whitehouse farm to the police[immitating Nevill] and the other call once he sped back to his cottage.
-
But his pupils were like saucers that first morning according to Ann Eaton. Is this not a symptom of cocaine and marijuana use?
It can be. It could also be just a matter of opinion by Ann eaton. It might have been misinterpreted as exhaustion
-
Read my posts.
Surprisingly no one has asked for my source.
I don't agree with them Adam. It's misleading to say Jeremy was in a bad position regarding the wills. It would be more accurate to say he was in a better position once he had killed off all the other beneficiaries.
-
Yes I am assuming that JB is not worried about the shooter being seen as a marksman Adam, he could easily have done the crime with five shots into sleeping victims. You keep saying he staged the crime scene his best way would have been to use just a single magazine no reloads using nine or ten bullets.
Agree he may have attempted an 11 shot massacre. But didn't make it.
-
Agree he would be fully focused.
A stiff drink before & afterwards maybe.
Don't think he was a massive drinker to be honest
Cannabis was his poison
-
I don't agree with them Adam. It's misleading to say Jeremy was in a bad position regarding the wills. It would be more accurate to say he was in a better position once he had killed off all the other beneficiaries.
If Nevill died first, June inherits everything.
A nightmare scenario for Bamber.
One or both could live another 20 years. Another nightmare for him.
Both nightmares could happen!
-
Because by that time,mainly due to JBs behaviou,the police possibly including Taff thought he was guilty and had made both calls,the one from Whitehouse farm to the police[immitating Nevill] and the other call once he sped back to his cottage.
Well now you have made further allegations, namely that Jeremy imitated Nevill on the telephone to police, that Taff Jones changed his stance regarding Jeremy's innocence and therefore covered up a call he knew had been received by one of his junior officers.
-
If Nevill died first, June inherits everything.
A nightmare scenario for Bamber.
One or both could live another 20 years. Another nightmare for him.
Both nightmares could happen!
Not to mention June adding the church, friends, relatives & the twins to her will.
-
Agree he may have attempted an 11 shot massacre. But didn't make it.
I don't go much on this 11 shot thing? but anyway ten shots were plenty if JB had thought about the crime, and with no questions asked about reloads.
-
If Nevill died first, June inherits everything.
A nightmare scenario for Bamber.
One or both could live another 20 years. Another nightmare for him.
Both nightmares could happen!
But you're forgetting the heartfelt letter written by June to be opened by Sheila and Jeremy after her death.
-
I don't agree with them Adam. It's misleading to say Jeremy was in a bad position regarding the wills. It would be more accurate to say he was in a better position once he had killed off all the other beneficiaries.
It's not my opinion so nothing to agree/disagree with. It is the situation with the wills. As stated by Bamber.
Do you know what Bamber's & Junes shares in the caravan park were?
-
Read that when abroad Bamber asked June to send him some more money.
June sent him a plane ticket back to England!
-
Read that when abroad Bamber asked June to send him some more money.
June sent him a plane ticket back to England!
The most sensible action. My mother would have done the same.
-
Read that when abroad Bamber asked June to send him some more money.
June sent him a plane ticket back to England!
I hope that is not one of your 200 hundred pieces of evidence Adam? if it is I now make it 198 pieces ;)
-
I hope that is not one of your 200 hundred pieces of evidence Adam? if it is I now make it 198 pieces ;)
It is not one of my pieces. Although with Sheila, Daniel & Nicholas getting hundreds a week, I'm sure he wasn't pleased.
Still 200. Although probably more. There is 75 in one document!
-
Well now you have made further allegations, namely that Jeremy imitated Nevill on the telephone to police, that Taff Jones changed his stance regarding Jeremy's innocence and therefore covered up a call he knew had been received by one of his junior officers.
Well,remember Taff wasn't in charge by that time Steve.And ask yourself this Steve,why was Bonnets log withheld? Common sense surely tells you that the police would have had a hard time explaining the mistakes and differences in the two logs.
-
To the jury.
-
When was Bonnets log disclosed?
-
He was basically tied to the Farm for the duration of his parents' lifetime. It's misleading to say he was in a bad position regarding the wills.
That already puts him in a bad positon.
-
This is sounding more and more like a work of fiction as Adam goes along, it's shocking !
How about reversing the procedures by discussing what would have happened "IF" JB had indeed committed the murders and done nothing ?
How would that have been solved seeing as there'd been no forensic evidence found ? Would he have been tried for murder then ?
-
When was Bonnets log disclosed?
Some supporters argue that Bonnet received a call from Nevill,but this is wrong.Nevills call was passed on to Bonnet by West,the log clearly shows this.JBs call however was NEVER passed on to Bonnet.The timings on the two disclosed logs are correct.Bonnet made out his log at 3.26 when west phoned/radiod him,and West made out his log at 3.36 when JB phoned him.The police knew there was a call from Nevill and told this to the relatives,but after some head scratching and seeing the bike at JBs cottage,they set about proving that JB made both calls.
-
It all spiralled from there with JBs odd behaviourBut there was no proof whatsoever against JB at this stage,on the contrary the call from Nevill was on his side.Funny how new evidence suddenly appeared in the nick of time,ie,silencer and scratches after the crime scene was vacated.
-
Not to mention June adding the church, friends, relatives & the twins to her will.
In Chapter 15 footnote 22 of her book Carol Ann Lee states Jeremy had looked at the wills, fearing that June had left money to the Church, though in fact, she hadn't (Julie's W/S 8/9 September 1985). I've trawled through all statements by Julie on this site but have been unable to find the direct quote.
-
If the two call logs were shown to the average person on the street,and you told them that they were both made up from the same caller,they would think you were having a laugh.
-
Again,as far as saying there is no proof of a call from Nevill,this may be true in the mean time,but I am sure one will appear some day.Its like JB says,it has taken many years to get any idea of what really happened because many pieces of the puzzle are hidden away.You cant possibly see the whole picture until you have all the pieces.
-
It's not my opinion so nothing to agree/disagree with. It is the situation with the wills. As stated by Bamber.
Do you know what Bamber's & Junes shares in the caravan park were?
From memory June and Pamela owned 42% respectively, with Jeremy and Ann Eaton owning 8% each.
-
From memory June and Pamela owned 42% respectively, with Jeremy and Ann Eaton owning 8% each.
Have to assume June owned 24% then.
Bamber inheriting another 24% would give him a 32% share. Not sure that would be enough of an extra income where he could stop working on WHF. If June died first.
Although very likely June would have amended her will over the next 15 years. Against Bamber.
-
In Chapter 15 footnote 22 of her book Carol Ann Lee states Jeremy had looked at the wills, fearing that June had left money to the Church, though in fact, she hadn't (Julie's W/S 8/9 September 1985). I've trawled through all statements by Julie on this site but have been unable to find the direct quote.
This supports Mary Mugfords court testimony.
-
Have to assume June owned 24% then.
Bamber inheriting another 24% would give him a 32% share. Not sure that would be enough of an extra income where he could stop working on WHF. If June died first.
Although very likely June would have amended her will over the next 15 years. Against Bamber.
No: Pamela 42% June 42% Ann Eaton 8% Jeremy Bamber 8%.
-
No: Pamela 42% June 42% Ann Eaton 8% Jeremy Bamber 8%.
I get it. So Bamber would get 50% of the caravan park shares. Sheila getting the freehold.
Unless June amended her wills over the next 15/20 years.
-
I get it. So Bamber would get 50% of the caravan park shares. Sheila getting the freehold.
Unless June amended her wills over the next 15/20 years.
With the five people dead he also gets June's £230,000 (worth £608,000 today), Nevill's £380,000 (£1 million), Sheila's Maida Vale flat and Bourtree Cottage.
-
I wouldn't worry chaps----he got nothing,did he ? ::)
-
I wouldn't worry chaps----he got nothing,did he ? ::)
No but he's alive, unlike the five people he killed.
-
With the five people dead he also gets June's £230,000 (worth £608,000 today), Nevill's £380,000 (£1 million), Sheila's Maida Vale flat and Bourtree Cottage.
Better than working on the farm for another 15/20 years. Then getting less than Sheila, Daniel, Nicholas & the church.
Or nothing at all.
-
No but he's alive, unlike the five people he killed.
Steve, aren't you satisfied that he's having a slow death ? You knowing that he'll never be released ?
-
Steve, aren't you satisfied that he's having a slow death ? You knowing that he'll never be released ?
I'm satisfied that he won't get the opportunity to kill any of the Boutflour, Eaton or Caffell families.
-
I'm satisfied that he won't get the opportunity to kill any of the Boutflour, Eaton or Caffell families.
On the contrary,JB would certainly have to watch his back if he ever came out, in case any of those mentioned had ideas !
-
Why do you say JB stole June's bike? he had it at his cottage weeks before the crime took place, why did June not report it missing?
200 - 1 = 199 ;)
AE's WS says June bought the bike on the 13th July 1985.
Twenty days before the massacre.
Suspect Bamber stole it around 4th August. Give him enough time to do a trial run. Julie also said she saw it when she was last there. Around 3 days before.
-
AE's WS says June bought the bike on the 13th July 1985.
Twenty days before the massacre.
Suspect Bamber stole it around 4th August. Give him enough time to do a trial run. Julie also said she saw it when she was last there. Around 3 days before.
" Suspect ?" Another lie,unless you can prove it. You're full of assumptions !
-
" Suspect ?" Another lie,unless you can prove it. You're full of assumptions !
The only person that does know is Bamber.
He's always refused to say when he stole June's bike.
He didn't need to steal it until around 4 days before.
-
We do know June only bought the bike 20 days before the massacre.
Rob saying Bamber stole the bike weeks before was wrong.
-
Some supporters argue that Bonnet received a call from Nevill,but this is wrong.Nevills call was passed on to Bonnet by West,the log clearly shows this.JBs call however was NEVER passed on to Bonnet.The timings on the two disclosed logs are correct.Bonnet made out his log at 3.26 when west phoned/radiod him,and West made out his log at 3.36 when JB phoned him.The police knew there was a call from Nevill and told this to the relatives,but after some head scratching and seeing the bike at JBs cottage,they set about proving that JB made both calls.
The statements you claim as being factual are sweeping beyond belief, as is your claim to know exactly what happened. I'd say those you're accusing of duplicity made a far better job of proving their case, than do you, of yours.
-
We do know June only bought the bike 20 days before the massacre.
Rob saying Bamber stole the bike weeks before was wrong.
The bike was bought in the hope that JM would cycle to and fro instead of staying with JB at his Goldhanger house as she, June, didn't believe in co-habiting or anything ungodly.
-
The statements you claim as being factual are sweeping beyond belief, as is your claim to know exactly what happened. I'd say those you're accusing of duplicity made a far better job of proving their case, than do you, of yours.
Hiya Jane,nice weather,hope your coping with the heat.Thanks for the reply,although it is a bit harsh. :'(,at least you have acklowledged my theories,no one else seems very interested,oh except Killingeve who called it fiction.Well you never know,I may just be right Jane,and some day you will be saying wowee,the snowman was right after all. :)
-
Hiya Jane,nice weather,hope your coping with the heat.Thanks for the reply,although it is a bit harsh. :'(,at least you have acklowledged my theories,no one else seems very interested,oh except Killingeve who called it fiction.Well you never know,I may just be right Jane,and some day you will be saying wowee,the snowman was right after all. :)
Snow, it grieves me to say so, and I'm sorry, but I'm inclined to agree with Killingeve.............but your saving grace may just be that what you say is just tongue in cheek put out for your own amusement? Not that you're likely to let on if it is, eh? ;)
-
Some supporters argue that Bonnet received a call from Nevill,but this is wrong.Nevills call was passed on to Bonnet by West,the log clearly shows this.JBs call however was NEVER passed on to Bonnet.The timings on the two disclosed logs are correct.Bonnet made out his log at 3.26 when west phoned/radiod him,and West made out his log at 3.36 when JB phoned him.The police knew there was a call from Nevill and told this to the relatives,but after some head scratching and seeing the bike at JBs cottage,they set about proving that JB made both calls.
If they did anything to prove whether two calls could have been made by the same person from two different locations, then that would suggest that two separate calls were indeed made.
-
Snow, it grieves me to say so, and I'm sorry, but I'm inclined to agree with Killingeve.............but your saving grace may just be that what you say is just tongue in cheek put out for your own amusement? Not that you're likely to let on if it is, eh? ;)
Sorry Jane,it was by no means supposed to be tongue in cheek.I actually thought it explained what possibly happened quite coherently.
-
If they did anything to prove whether two calls could have been made by the same person from two different locations, then that would suggest that two separate calls were indeed made.
Hi Roch,that is what I have been asking,what was the importance of timing the routes?If only one call was made that night to the police,and BT didnt record a call from Nev to JB ,the police didn't have to worry if JB drove,biked or walked to and from the Whitehouse.So what exactly were they trying to prove timing the different routes?The only reason I can think of is if evidence of another call existed,either to the police or from Nev to jb.Or am I missing something obvious with all my fiction?
-
For those who don't believe that Nevill made a call, would it be because of his non-renewed gun licence which had been due prior to the shootings and his reluctance to involve the police at that stage ?
-
Two hundred pieces of evidence in defence of Bamber----that EP have retained for nearly 37 years !
From over 600 letters and packs containing information on the case which were sent out to all MP's, ONE had been acknowleged ! David Davis, once Secretary of State was the only MP to reply, with interest, and ONE person in the House of Lords also answered and showed her interest. Everywhere else,it fell on deaf ears as usual.
This is not just JB's case but others too who've been let down by the justice system as 9 out of 10 cases of MOJ's involves the withholding of evidence. Shocking statistics in what is classed as a democratic society.
These are MP's that we the public, put where they are ! Why ? Their sheer ignorance in not affording a reply surely tells us all that their interest in the general public is totally zilch.
-
Two hundred pieces of evidence in defence of Bamber----that EP have retained for nearly 37 years !
From over 600 letters and packs containing information on the case which were sent out to all MP's, ONE had been acknowleged ! David Davis, once Secretary of State was the only MP to reply, with interest, and ONE person in the House of Lords also answered and showed her interest. Everywhere else,it fell on deaf ears as usual.
This is not just JB's case but others too who've been let down by the justice system as 9 out of 10 cases of MOJ's involves the withholding of evidence. Shocking statistics in what is classed as a democratic society.
These are MP's that we the public, put where they are ! Why ? Their sheer ignorance in not affording a reply surely tells us all that their interest in the general public is totally zilch.
Good morning Lookout,are you referring to the letters that Stuart Bower sent to MPs?
-
Good morning Lookout,are you referring to the letters that Stuart Bower sent to MPs?
No, it wasn't Stuart Bower who sent the letters.
-
" Suspect ?" Another lie,unless you can prove it. You're full of assumptions !
Jeremy Bamber admitted to taking the bike from WHF and keeping it at his house in Goldhanger.
He says he took the bike about a week before the murders happened, without giving a specific date.
He said this during his interviews after becoming a suspect.
He said he took the bike so that Julie could ride it.
So, you make of that what you will.
-
Jeremy Bamber admitted to taking the bike from WHF and keeping it at his house in Goldhanger.
He says he took the bike about a week before the murders happened, without giving a specific date.
He said this during his interviews after becoming a suspect.
He said he took the bike so that Julie could ride it.
So, you make of that what you will.
Lookout has very limited knowledge of the case.
She supports Bamber because he sent her a Christmas card.
Similar to QC, she will focus on the poster when she has no counter evidence.
-
Two hundred pieces of evidence in defence of Bamber----that EP have retained for nearly 37 years !
From over 600 letters and packs containing information on the case which were sent out to all MP's, ONE had been acknowleged ! David Davis, once Secretary of State was the only MP to reply, with interest, and ONE person in the House of Lords also answered and showed her interest. Everywhere else,it fell on deaf ears as usual.
This is not just JB's case but others too who've been let down by the justice system as 9 out of 10 cases of MOJ's involves the withholding of evidence. Shocking statistics in what is classed as a democratic society.
These are MP's that we the public, put where they are ! Why ? Their sheer ignorance in not affording a reply surely tells us all that their interest in the general public is totally zilch.
No Lookout. The thread refers to 200 pieces of evidence which incriminate Bamber. Detailed in the thread post.
-
Lookout has very limited knowledge of the case.
She supports Bamber because he sent her a Christmas card.
Similar to QC, she will focus on the poster when she has no counter evidence.
On the contrary, it would appear that your knowlege has reached rock bottom when you constantly refer to Christmas cards which I find really boring and very very childish ! Try reading up about the case using your own initiative and not that of books and the media. Pity you aren't able to think for yourself without looking for others to blame to hide your own incompetence.
-
No Lookout. The thread refers to 200 pieces of evidence which incriminate Bamber. Detailed in the thread post.
I'll do it my way, the same as you do, so kindly refrain from telling me what to do !
-
On the contrary, it would appear that your knowlege has reached rock bottom when you constantly refer to Christmas cards which I find really boring and very very childish ! Try reading up about the case using your own initiative and not that of books and the media. Pity you aren't able to think for yourself without looking for others to blame to hide your own incompetence.
You know nothing about the case & have never provided a source.
This is disappointing as it prevents good discussion.
-
You know nothing about the case & have never provided a source.
This is disappointing as it prevents good discussion.
I know more about the case than you do ! Yours is just hearsay, assumptions and general guesswork !
-
If you profess to know more than anyone else, tell us all why, after 37 years,are EP still withholding vital evidence which could help JB's defence, and what you think that evidence contains ?
Or are you the same as all the useless politicians who are scared of the can of worms that could see them with egg on their faces and a huge bill ?
-
If you profess to know more than anyone else, tell us all why, after 37 years,are EP still withholding vital evidence which could help JB's defence, and what you think that evidence contains ?
Or are you the same as all the useless politicians who are scared of the can of worms that could see them with egg on their faces and a huge bill ?
No evidence is being withheld.
The millions of released evidence documentation confirms Bamber's guilt.
The obvious counter tactic is to always say there is hidden evidence.
-
Any hidden evidence will have to be proof of a deliberate frame attempt. On one or several pieces of evidence.
So far this has not been found.
-
Any hidden evidence will have to be proof of deliberate a deliberate frame attempt. On one or several pieces of evidence.
So far this has not been found.
Have you ever made any enquiries as to the hidden evidence ? No you haven't ! So how do you know that there isn't ? What do you make of the high-court demands/ requests for evidence of which has been refused ? Shouldn't you also be interested in this as part of our democratic system to show transparency ? Or are you more of a snake who wishes things to be buried forever to save face ?
-
Have you ever made any enquiries as to the hidden evidence ? No you haven't ! So how do you know that there isn't ? What do you make of the high-court demands/ requests for evidence of which has been refused ? Shouldn't you also be interested in this as part of our democratic system to show transparency ? Or are you more of a snake who wishes things to be buried forever to save face ?
Lookout Bamber was arrested in 1985 & convicted in 1986.
You know 36 years later there is nothing being hidden.
-
Have you ever made any enquiries as to the hidden evidence ? No you haven't ! So how do you know that there isn't ? What do you make of the high-court demands/ requests for evidence of which has been refused ? Shouldn't you also be interested in this as part of our democratic system to show transparency ? Or are you more of a snake who wishes things to be buried forever to save face ?
Just out of interest, has there ever been a list made of those items of evidence which are claimed to be withheld? I know it was once said that JB had to name every item he was requesting, prior to its release. He has subsequently claimed "We now have everything we need". I also wonder what is the point of the courts making demands for the release of evidence without naming the evidence, especially as JB claims to "...now have everything..."?
-
Lookout Bamber was arrested in 1985 & convicted in 1986.
You know 36 years later there is nothing being hidden.
We ALL know about the arrest etc etc etc etc. ::)
I KNOW that nigh-on 37 years gone that documents/ files are WITHHELD ! Got it ?? Obviously you haven't so you know NOTHING !
-
Just out of interest, has there ever been a list made of those items of evidence which are claimed to be withheld? I know it was once said that JB had to name every item he was requesting, prior to its release. He has subsequently claimed "We now have everything we need". I also wonder what is the point of the courts making demands for the release of evidence without naming the evidence, especially as JB claims to "...now have everything..."?
Whatever it is that's missing should link up with documents already in-situ and clearly, just like a jig-saw puzzle, it shows a huge gap. We aren't going to know the contents of the said files/documents for some unknown reason, though after all these years it is iffy.
JB has stated that " we now have everything " in the hope that when these files were requested via the high court, he'd thought it would have sealed the deal.
I would doubt that today JB would utter those same words after they were sorely let down. This being obvious because the request for the withheld files still stands. Whether the team have any ideas of their contents I don't know, or whether the CCRC can work their fluence on EP we've yet to see.
-
We ALL know about the arrest etc etc etc etc. ::)
I KNOW that nigh-on 37 years gone that documents/ files are WITHHELD ! Got it ?? Obviously you haven't so you know NOTHING !
Of course documents have been withheld Lookout,the campaign team and Peter Tatchell didnt stand outside Essex police station and hand in a petition just for the fun of it.
-
Of course documents have been withheld Lookout,the campaign team and Peter Tatchell didnt stand outside Essex police station and hand in a petition just for the fun of it.
Adam hasn't followed the case at all. He's completely blinkered ! It was/is either his way or not at all.
-
Adam hasn't followed the case at all. He's completely blinkered ! It was/is either his way or not at all.
Seems like it Lookout,no leeway.
-
Seems like it Lookout,no leeway.
Surely you describe yourself there, Snow. I believe you to have claimed to be undecided but I've yet to see you put forward anything connected to JB's guilt. Still, I'm delighted to see you've learned how to do capitals! Next stop spacing, eh.
-
Adam hasn't followed the case at all. He's completely blinkered ! It was/is either his way or not at all.
Lookout supports Bamber due to a 'gut feeling' in 1985 & Bamber sending her a Christmas card.
She has never provided a source or created a thread.
-
Surely you describe yourself there, Snow. I believe you to have claimed to be undecided but I've yet to see you put forward anything connected to JB's guilt. Still, I'm delighted to see you've learned how to do capitals! Next stop spacing, eh.
Hiya Jane,hope your well.Thankyou for putting down someone with learning difficulties regarding grammar and computers.Anyway,just to please you,I will make a list of things that may point to JBs guilt.
-
Surely you describe yourself there, Snow. I believe you to have claimed to be undecided but I've yet to see you put forward anything connected to JB's guilt. Still, I'm delighted to see you've learned how to do capitals! Next stop spacing, eh.
Snow has agreed that both Nevill & June would be in bed at 2am.
He has also agreed that the crime scene fits my Bamber scenario like a glove. But then let himself down by claiming this is because the police moved 4 cartridges into the bedroom.
-
Hiya Jane,hope your well.Thankyou for putting down someone with learning difficulties regarding grammar and computers.Anyway,just to please you,I will make a list of things that may point to JBs guilt.
My apologies if you feel put down but as you'd only ever claimed difficulties with the intricacies connected to computer use -something I'm still trying to get to grips with- and made no mention of learning difficulties -which aren't obvious- as I'm not a mind-reader, how could I have even suspected, let alone, known? I've NEVER criticized your grammar, although it's something you do. My suggestion that your next step might be learning where the space bar lives has been suggested, to you, by others, including the person you appear to admire, despite his constant wrongful accusations and insults which eventually led to his permanent ban.
-
My apologies if you feel put down but as you'd only ever claimed difficulties with the intricacies connected to computer use -something I'm still trying to get to grips with- and made no mention of learning difficulties -which aren't obvious- as I'm not a mind-reader, how could I have even suspected, let alone, known? I've NEVER criticized your grammar, although it's something you do. My suggestion that your next step might be learning where the space bar lives has been suggested, to you, by others, including the person you appear to admire, despite his constant wrongful accusations and insults which eventually led to his permanent ban.
Sorry Jane,I DO NOT have actual learning difficulties,it was a somewhat ill judged term on my part.I was merely trying to say English and grammar was never my forte.And I have never had any sort of computer training.As for admiring anyone,yes I did like Gascoignes long detailed posts and did not hide this.But then,I do not think that I have put any member down and listen to what everyone has to say.I can say with all honesty that I have no ill feeling for anyone on the forum,I think you know this.I know it isnt going to please everyone praising Gascoigne,but I have to tell the truth,once you start telling lies for the sake of pleasing everyone,you are on a slippery slope.At least you know that with me,what you see,is what you get Jane.So please dont punish me too much for sticking up for Gascoigne,I would do the same for you.
-
Surely you describe yourself there, Snow. I believe you to have claimed to be undecided but I've yet to see you put forward anything connected to JB's guilt. Still, I'm delighted to see you've learned how to do capitals! Next stop spacing, eh.
Hi Jane,having thought hard about the things that point to JBs guilt,this is what I have come up with. Leaving the loaded rifle and ammo lying around.Ignoring Nevills call for help.Phoning a police station instead of 999.Calling Sheila a nutter and schizophrenic to Bews and others[although this was probably true] Telling the police that Sheila could use all the weapons inside the Whitehouse.Various alleged statesment to Julie--tonights the night.I should have been an actor,etc. Julies statement saying JB planned the massacre,and that he confessed to her. JBs behaviour at the funerals. The silencer[dodgy] The scratches on the fire surround.[dodgy] Hows that?
-
Hi Jane,having thought hard about the things that point to JBs guilt,this is what I have come up with. Leaving the loaded rifle and ammo lying around.Ignoring Nevills call for help.Phoning a police station instead of 999.Calling Sheila a nutter and schizophrenic to Bews and others[although this was probably true] Telling the police that Sheila could use all the weapons inside the Whitehouse.Various alleged statesment to Julie--tonights the night.I should have been an actor,etc. Julies statement saying JB planned the massacre,and that he confessed to her. JBs behaviour at the funerals. The silencer[dodgy] The scratches on the fire surround.[dodgy] Hows that?
That'll do nicely for starters, Snow ;) However, just to do a slight amendment, we really only have his word for it that he left the rifle and ammo laying around. There's no one who can either prove or disprove. The phone call to a police station -rather than calling 999- remains questionable given the number of times he refers to Nevill's fear/panic and then saying to Colin that he'd thought his father may have already been shot. Then there's the point that he'd surely have known that his claim that Sheila was gun competent would be challenged by the family who'd have known, as well as he, that she wasn't. Of course, I realize that none of the above is likely to cause you to ponder his 'innocence'.
-
That'll do nicely for starters, Snow ;) However, just to do a slight amendment, we really only have his word for it that he left the rifle and ammo laying around. There's no one who can either prove or disprove. The phone call to a police station -rather than calling 999- remains questionable given the number of times he refers to Nevill's fear/panic and then saying to Colin that he'd thought his father may have already been shot. Then there's the point that he'd surely have known that his claim that Sheila was gun competent would be challenged by the family who'd have known, as well as he, that she wasn't. Of course, I realize that none of the above is likely to cause you to ponder his 'innocence'.
Snow66! is well aware there are over 200 pieces of evidence. He is posting on a thread relating to it!
-
Another 200 pieces of evidence withheld !
-
No Lookout. He watched the TV drama. Then investigated further.
How do you know Killingeve is a male Adam?
-
How do you know Killingeve is a male Adam?
Wheels within wheels,snow.
-
Wheels within wheels,snow.
They wont get one over on you Lookout!
-
They wont get one over on you Lookout!
No chance I'm afraid.
-
Evidence?......proposals more like
-
Evidence?......proposals more like
Yes,Adams exclusive proposals Rod ^-^