Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Roch on August 28, 2023, 09:26:AM
-
So claim the CT:
-
So claim the CT:
So Bill was right all the time
-
So Bill was right all the time
Yes, you were told that the wounds did not form any part of the submissions, as there was no direct reference to them in CT info regarding the grounds.
-
Yes, you were told that the wounds did not form any part of the submissions, as there was no direct reference to them in CT info regarding the grounds.
I have never posted anything inaccurate or misleading on anything related to the case. Guilters will need to get used to the idea that the wounds exist and Vanezis lied.
-
So claim the CT:
https://twitter.com/Bambertweets/status/1695868941560586289
Do you know when the evidence showing the injuries was given to the CCRC, Bill? Can it be retrieved from the CCRC and given to charity, "APPEAL", who are much more likely to effectively investigate the evidence :)
-
https://twitter.com/Bambertweets/status/1695868941560586289
Do you know when the evidence showing the injuries was given to the CCRC, Bill? Can it be retrieved from the CCRC and given to charity, "APPEAL", who are much more likely to effectively investigate the evidence :)
I don't know much about Appeal, have they been around long? I imagine that given the CT have been around for yonks, they would covet the evidence.
-
https://twitter.com/Bambertweets/status/1695868941560586289
Do you know when the evidence showing the injuries was given to the CCRC, Bill? Can it be retrieved from the CCRC and given to charity, "APPEAL", who are much more likely to effectively investigate the evidence :)
The CCRC have had the evidence for 2.5 years. APPEAL are a small charity which works on 6 cases at a time. They have been around for 15 years approximately. I don’t think that they would speed up the process at this stage, the CCRC must be about to make a decision.
-
So claim the CT:
Oh come on! ;D
-
I have never posted anything inaccurate or misleading on anything related to the case. Guilters will need to get used to the idea that the wounds exist and Vanezis lied.
Sorry, they won't have to get used to anything - the CT saying something (and yourself) really isn't proof of anything. I would love to know HOW the defence missed such wounds because they would have had access to autopsy photographs. The pictures you posted on the CCRC site are fuzzy beyond credibility and those you have identified as wounds on the crime scene photo's are nothing of the sort.
-
Oh come on! ;D
There was a previous accusation that the wounds had not been included in the submissions, because they weren't directly referred to in the grounds listed by the CT.
Sorry, they won't have to get used to anything - the CT saying something (and yourself) really isn't proof of anything. I would love to know HOW the defence missed such wounds because they would have had access to autopsy photographs. The pictures you posted on the CCRC site are fuzzy beyond credibility and those you have identified as wounds on the crime scene photo's are nothing of the sort.
Are they fuzzy?
https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/exploring-the-white-house-farm-murders-and-additional-injuries-to-the-adult-victims-not-disclosed-at
If nothing of the sort, then what are they? Is it feasible to blanket explain away every mark? Because that is what you are effectively doing.
-
There was a previous accusation that the wounds had not been included in the submissions, because they weren't directly referred to in the grounds listed by the CT.
Are they fuzzy?
https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/exploring-the-white-house-farm-murders-and-additional-injuries-to-the-adult-victims-not-disclosed-at
If nothing of the sort, then what are they? Is it feasible to blanket explain away every mark? Because that is what you are effectively doing.
In one particular picture, whilst the size of the arm can be matched to mine, the 'wounds' appear to have grown exponentially!!!
-
There was a previous accusation that the wounds had not been included in the submissions, because they weren't directly referred to in the grounds listed by the CT.
Are they fuzzy?
https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/exploring-the-white-house-farm-murders-and-additional-injuries-to-the-adult-victims-not-disclosed-at
If nothing of the sort, then what are they? Is it feasible to blanket explain away every mark? Because that is what you are effectively doing.
Did the legal team submit them or did Bill? I believe anyone can make a submission? Anyhoo - not sure what difference that makes?
If PV lied, how come these marks aren't in his original notes and if you believe that even his notes were written at a later date, why don't they both state that Sheila's hands were clean and free from blood? And before you ask me why they differ, I have no idea but perhaps Bill would like to contact him instead of just calling him a liar?
-
I don't know much about Appeal, have they been around long? I imagine that given the CT have been around for yonks, they would covet the evidence.
You don't know much about the charity, APPEAL? Erm... Andy Malkinson? You started the thread about Andy Malkinson, Roch, whose conviction was overturned because of their work. The smiley face at the end should have alerted you that the suggestion was "tongue in cheek". I assumed you would "get" the APPEAL reference having previously commented on them.
-
Are they fuzzy?
https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/exploring-the-white-house-farm-murders-and-additional-injuries-to-the-adult-victims-not-disclosed-at
Many of those associated with Sheila are very fuzzy. Also to call those blood stains on Junes hand 'grazes' - please!!!! The amount of assumption made in the text is ridiculous and just reads like an armchair detective on acid. No disrespect but there is no way it will be taken seriously.
-
You don't know much about the charity, APPEAL? Erm... Andy Malkinson? You started the thread about Andy Malkinson, Roch, whose conviction was overturned because of their work. The smiley face at the end should have alerted you that the suggestion was "tongue in cheek". I assumed you would "get" the APPEAL reference having previously commented on them.
Yes, sorry I know about their involvement. I just meant I didn't know anything about their organisation etc. I did read on here that you suggested they could probably do a better job then the CCRC.
-
You don't know much about the charity, APPEAL? Erm... Andy Malkinson? You started the thread about Andy Malkinson, Roch, whose conviction was overturned because of their work. The smiley face at the end should have alerted you that the suggestion was "tongue in cheek". I assumed you would "get" the APPEAL reference having previously commented on them.
;D - Roch does have a bad memory. He takes on too many anti-establishment ventures ;)
-
Many of those associated with Sheila are very fuzzy. Also to call those blood stains on Junes hand 'grazes' - please!!!! The amount of assumption made in the text is ridiculous and just reads like an armchair detective on acid. No disrespect but there is no way it will be taken seriously.
Would June have distinct linear marks merely from smudging or her gunshot wounds? What edge caused the lines, if only smudges?
Pretty sure Bill's report was a pre-cursor. A preliminary investigation, which resulted in an expert being sought by the defence.
-
Yes, sorry I know about their involvement. I just meant I didn't know anything about their organisation etc. I did read on here that you suggested they could probably do a better job then the CCRC.
They demonstrably do a better job. I know that they are a small charity as Bill says. It is not a serious suggestion that Appeal take over the CCRC role, Roch. This would obviously be absurd. It is sarcasm, in order to point out the obvious need for the abolishing of the CCRC as it stands. If a small charity are performing better than them, as Andy Malkinson demonstrates, then they are not fit for purpose. I don't really think that we should place the responsibility of investigating miscarriages with a few well meaning volunteers, however good they are.
-
In one particular picture, whilst the size of the arm can be matched to mine, the 'wounds' appear to have grown exponentially!!!
Which picture Jane?
-
Sorry, they won't have to get used to anything - the CT saying something (and yourself) really isn't proof of anything. I would love to know HOW the defence missed such wounds because they would have had access to autopsy photographs. The pictures you posted on the CCRC site are fuzzy beyond credibility and those you have identified as wounds on the crime scene photo's are nothing of the sort.
Oh dear, a rant in the face of overwhelming evidence. Okay, one more time. The images are not fuzzy or indistinct. Maybe it’s your eyesight or computer screen that’s causing the problem. Anyway, here we go again. My report has been verified by forensic scientists paid for their work. Their report is submitted to the CCRC by the lawyers. Their photos are better than mine, although mine are perfectly clear anyway. Nobody is trying to fool the CCRC or Court of Appeal. The game is nearly over Guilters.
-
;D - Roch does have a bad memory. He takes on too many anti-establishment ventures ;)
Yes Roch's support of Bamber is based on his distrust of justice departments. Maybe he had a bad experience himself.
-
Have the CT added this to the CCRC?
The amount of add ons, it will be 2030 before a refusal is made.
-
So Bill was right all the time
How do you think June got her non gun shot injuries?
Was Sheila too powerful for both her and Nevill?
-
Seems Sheila got non gun shot injuries but was able to kill everyone and attack Nevill.
Nevill got 40+ non gun shot injuries but was able to phone Bamber's AM & Chelmsford Police.
June got non gun shot injuries and didn't do much else apart from get overpowered by Sheila.
-
In a physical confrontation between June & Sheila, I would back June to win. Going by the photos.
June looks a bit bulkier than Sheila. At 61 she would still be able to put up a fight. Doesn't have to be a 12 rounder. Just enough to negate Sheila.
I do not believe June had any physical disabilities. Sheila was very docile and un cordinated.
-
Have the CT added this to the CCRC?
The amount of add ons, it will be 2030 before a refusal is made.
The CCRC have had the wounds evidence for 2.5 years.
-
The CCRC have had the wounds evidence for 2.5 years.
It wasn't one of the 8 grounds submitted in 2021.
-
Seems that one person has sent a tweet yesterday.
-
They demonstrably do a better job. I know that they are a small charity as Bill says. It is not a serious suggestion that Appeal take over the CCRC role, Roch. This would obviously be absurd. It is sarcasm, in order to point out the obvious need for the abolishing of the CCRC as it stands. If a small charity are performing better than them, as Andy Malkinson demonstrates, then they are not fit for purpose. I don't really think that we should place the responsibility of investigating miscarriages with a few well meaning volunteers, however good they are.
I wonder if the Malkinson volunteers are 'armchair detectives on acid'. 😏
-
;D - Roch does have a bad memory. He takes on too many anti-establishment ventures ;)
I'm not surprised, can we believe anything official these days? 😏
-
Sorry, they won't have to get used to anything - the CT saying something (and yourself) really isn't proof of anything. I would love to know HOW the defence missed such wounds because they would have had access to autopsy photographs. The pictures you posted on the CCRC site are fuzzy beyond credibility and those you have identified as wounds on the crime scene photo's are nothing of the sort.
I doubt if the defence even looked at any photos. Rivlin signed a statement of facts months before the trial agreeing with the prosecution that JB was guilty. Ainsley commented that the defence only spent one or two days examining statements at Witham. It’s obvious from Rivlin’s behavior at the trial that he was going through the motions. Likewise, I doubt if anybody else connected with the defence bothered to look at the photographs, let alone study them in detail.
-
I doubt if the defence even looked at any photos. Rivlin signed a statement of facts months before the trial agreeing with the prosecution that JB was guilty. Ainsley commented that the defence only spent one or two days examining statements at Witham. It’s obvious from Rivlin’s behavior at the trial that he was going through the motions. Likewise, I doubt if anybody else connected with the defence bothered to look at the photographs, let alone study them in detail.
Hi Bill, I think somebody in the beginning went to look at negatives? But didn't spend long doing so.
-
Hi Bill, I think somebody in the beginning went to look at negatives? But didn't spend long doing so.
Maybe, I don’t know. They wouldn’t have seen much, it’s only the more recent digital images that enable many of the wounds to be identified.
-
I doubt if the defence even looked at any photos. Rivlin signed a statement of facts months before the trial agreeing with the prosecution that JB was guilty. Ainsley commented that the defence only spent one or two days examining statements at Witham. It’s obvious from Rivlin’s behavior at the trial that he was going through the motions. Likewise, I doubt if anybody else connected with the defence bothered to look at the photographs, let alone study them in detail.
They certainly did not check the Sea Wall visibility at night. According to ILB.
-
Did the legal team submit them or did Bill? I believe anyone can make a submission? Anyhoo - not sure what difference that makes?
If PV lied, how come these marks aren't in his original notes and if you believe that even his notes were written at a later date, why don't they both state that Sheila's hands were clean and free from blood? And before you ask me why they differ, I have no idea but perhaps Bill would like to contact him instead of just calling him a liar?
Regards PV, we can but speculate..
Only PV can account for himself. S Jones, Cook, Ainsley, Miller & co are all down below with Louis Cypher!
I'm not sure some members on here realise that Vanezis is a somewhat controversial character. I don't know whether Bill attempted to contact him. I expect he will remain quiet and hide behind the fact that he worked on the actual bodies, which is probably what the default position is of the CCRC.
-
Regards PV, we can but speculate.
I'm not sure some members on here realise that Vanezis is a somewhat controversial character. I don't know whether Bill attempted to contact him.
I certainly did try to contact him and asked to meet with him. I sent recorded delivery letters, signed for by a secretary, but he refused to meet. Egotistical turd.
-
I doubt if the defence even looked at any photos. Rivlin signed a statement of facts months before the trial agreeing with the prosecution that JB was guilty. Ainsley commented that the defence only spent one or two days examining statements at Witham. It’s obvious from Rivlin’s behavior at the trial that he was going through the motions. Likewise, I doubt if anybody else connected with the defence bothered to look at the photographs, let alone study them in detail.
I don't believe they didn't look at the photographs and if such a document existed, that would surly be Bambers freedom card because he could claim he didn't get a fair trial. I am sure Neil would know more about this than anyone?
-
Maybe, I don’t know. They wouldn’t have seen much, it’s only the more recent digital images that enable many of the wounds to be identified.
I would say that it’s only the more recent digital images that have allowed the claim that many of the smears and blobs are wounds and cuts.
-
Regards PV, we can but speculate..
Only PV can account for himself. S Jones, Cook, Ainsley, Miller & co are all down below with Louis Cypher!
I'm not sure some members on here realise that Vanezis is a somewhat controversial character. I don't know whether Bill attempted to contact him. I expect he will remain quiet and hide behind the fact that he worked on the actual bodies, which is probably what the default position is of the CCRC.
He is a highly qualified and very well respected forensic pathologist https://pcoconvin.eventsair.com/ialm20/peter-vanezis
-
I certainly did try to contact him and asked to meet with him. I sent recorded delivery letters, signed for by a secretary, but he refused to meet. Egotistical turd.
Thanks for clearing up Zoso's query.
-
He is a highly qualified and very well respected forensic pathologist https://pcoconvin.eventsair.com/ialm20/peter-vanezis
It depends who you ask. I know several more senior pathologists than him who are scornful of his abilities. It might be more accurate to say that he has carefully cultivated a certain reputation, as have a number of other prosecution friendly pathologists. It hasn’t hurt his image to be seen as an establishment figure of course but public image can be misleading.
-
I would say that it’s only the more recent digital images that have allowed the claim that many of the smears and blobs are wounds and cuts.
So the original negatives support the prosecution case? Why don't EP just release them to a neutral party then, so that scientific examination using the appropriate software can be carried out to confirm or refute defence claims? Maybe they have. Maybe that's been requested by the CCRC.
Your view seems to infer that blobs and streams are being made to look like wounds. No effort is made by detractors to explain the plethora of different types of marks, some of which are isolated and have no source around them.
-
Why did police conceal the photograph of Nevill's arm?
-
They certainly did not check the Sea Wall visibility at night. According to ILB.
They certainly didn't make an attempt of the sea wall in the alleged time frame that the gulity man was supposed to have done it in
According to Mick Ainsley, Wilkinson,
-
Why did police conceal the photograph of Nevill's arm?
Which photograph?
-
It depends who you ask. I know several more senior pathologists than him who are scornful of his abilities. It might be more accurate to say that he has carefully cultivated a certain reputation, as have a number of other prosecution friendly pathologists. It hasn’t hurt his image to be seen as an establishment figure of course but public image can be misleading.
Perhaps there is some jealously of his success or his media attention. Don't get me wrong, I don't think he did the best job. His reports are conflicting, especially in respect to the blood on Sheila's hands which I don't believe he has explained adequately.
-
They certainly didn't make an attempt of the sea wall in the alleged time frame that the gulity man was supposed to have done it in
According to Mick Ainsley, Wilkinson,
Why do you think the defence missed an open goal. Over a year period?
Proving the Sea Wall could not be cycled at night creates 'reasonable doubt'.
-
Which photograph?
The one Paul Terezon complained about.
-
Perhaps there is some jealously of his success or his media attention. Don't get me wrong, I don't think he did the best job. His reports are conflicting, especially in respect to the blood on Sheila's hands which I don't believe he has explained adequately.
Have you seen some of the controversies he has become involved in?
-
Have you seen some of the controversies he has become involved in?
Dear me! Did a more unlucky man ever exist? His biological parents gave him away, then went on to have two more children. He seems not to have been exactly what his adoptive parents wanted in a son. His relatives called him a "cuckoo in the nest". His school 'friends' called him "Bastard". His sister had it handed to her on a plate whilst he believed he had to work his a**e off to keep her in 'luxury'. He had no true friends. But for the, alleged, actions -or, perhaps, non actions?- of a civilian police worker, he might have been a free man, BUT..............apparently the police didn't like him and conspired, with the help of his relatives who didn't like him, and his ex girlfriend who had very good reason not to like him, to have him convicted. Still, he had hopes of being freed, and MAY have been...........had it not been for the pathologist, who, for reasons we know not, and perhaps persuaded by police? believed getting him convicted was worth putting his, hitherto, excellent reputation on the line for. His defence, being his last defence!, could have come to his aid, but it seems that they didn't like him either. The Judge might have swayed things, but it seems he called it as he saw it.
-
The one Paul Terezon complained about.
Which one is that?
-
Dear me! Did a more unlucky man ever exist? His biological parents gave him away, then went on to have two more children. He seems not to have been exactly what his adoptive parents wanted in a son. His relatives called him a "cuckoo in the nest". His school 'friends' called him "Bastard". His sister had it handed to her on a plate whilst he believed he had to work his a**e off to keep her in 'luxury'. He had no true friends. But for the, alleged, actions -or, perhaps, non actions?- of a civilian police worker, he might have been a free man, BUT..............apparently the police didn't like him and conspired, with the help of his relatives who didn't like him, and his ex girlfriend who had very good reason not to like him, to have him convicted. Still, he had hopes of being freed, and MAY have been...........had it not been for the pathologist, who, for reasons we know not, and perhaps persuaded by police? believed getting him convicted was worth putting his, hitherto, excellent reputation on the line for. His defence, being his last defence!, could have come to his aid, but it seems that they didn't like him either. The Judge might have swayed things, but it seems he called it as he saw it.
A simple answer to the question would have sufficed Jane 😄.
You mention the police - you are aware of 29 complaints, twice not properly investigated by EP? The ones which IOPC criticised EP for, advising that they breached their own mandatory guidelines by doing so?
As for the judge.. are you aware that he was the prosecutor for the Shrewsbury 24, as well as the judge for the Bridgewater 4. Then he becomes embroiled in yet another case that people argue about for nigh on 40 years. Not exactly a glowing record.
-
A simple answer to the question would have sufficed Jane 😄.
You mention the police - you are aware of 29 complaints, twice not properly investigated by EP? The ones which IOPC criticised EP for, advising that they breached their own mandatory guidelines by doing so?
As for the judge.. are you aware that he was the prosecutor for the Shrewsbury 24, as well as the judge for the Bridgewater 4. Then he becomes embroiled in yet another case that people argue about for nigh on 40 years. Not exactly a glowing record.
Maybe so, Roch, but nothing I've said can be negated, can it? It all adds up to a barrel load of negatives, and not a positive to be found. Coincidental, or what?
-
Dear me! Did a more unlucky man ever exist? His biological parents gave him away, then went on to have two more children. He seems not to have been exactly what his adoptive parents wanted in a son. His relatives called him a "cuckoo in the nest". His school 'friends' called him "Bastard". His sister had it handed to her on a plate whilst he believed he had to work his a**e off to keep her in 'luxury'. He had no true friends. But for the, alleged, actions -or, perhaps, non actions?- of a civilian police worker, he might have been a free man, BUT..............apparently the police didn't like him and conspired, with the help of his relatives who didn't like him, and his ex girlfriend who had very good reason not to like him, to have him convicted. Still, he had hopes of being freed, and MAY have been...........had it not been for the pathologist, who, for reasons we know not, and perhaps persuaded by police? believed getting him convicted was worth putting his, hitherto, excellent reputation on the line for. His defence, being his last defence!, could have come to his aid, but it seems that they didn't like him either. The Judge might have swayed things, but it seems he called it as he saw it.
..and given that some people had to work hard at school for years on end, do prep and didn't get everything handed to them on a plate on a plate in the 1980s, but had to uproot to find work, not bum around Australia and New Zealand on trips paid for by rich parents, then find work in a sink school, not a rent-free cottage and company car. So resentful he became because this was not sufficient for his playboy lifestyle he determined to kill the golden geese which laid the golden eggs, Sheila, Nicholas and Daniel being collateral damage in this regard to his diabolical plans.
-
..and given that some people had to work hard at school for years on end, do prep and didn't get everything handed to them on a plate on a plate in the 1980s, but had to uproot to find work, not bum around Australia and New Zealand on trips paid for by rich parents, then find work in a sink school, not a rent-free cottage and company car. So resentful he became because this was not sufficient for his playboy lifestyle he determined to kill the golden geese which laid the golden eggs, Sheila, Nicholas and Daniel being collateral damage in this regard to his diabolical plans.
What does any of this have to do with cuts, scrapes, dints and grazes?
Why don't you write to EP and suggest the negatives are examined by another expert / laboratory, to contrast the expert's findings for the defence? We will back up your request.
-
A simple answer to the question would have sufficed Jane 😄.
You mention the police - you are aware of 29 complaints, twice not properly investigated by EP? The ones which IOPC criticised EP for, advising that they breached their own mandatory guidelines by doing so?
As for the judge.. are you aware that he was the prosecutor for the Shrewsbury 24, as well as the judge for the Bridgewater 4. Then he becomes embroiled in yet another case that people argue about for nigh on 40 years. Not exactly a glowing record.
The judge can only go off the evidence presented at court.
-
The judge can only go off the evidence presented at court.
And are you aware of how the Shrewsbury prosecutions came about in terms of the statements?
As for Carl Bridgewater (RIP), Drake later blamed corrupt policing for the conviction.
Bit unlucky to be embroiled in a third controversial conviction, tainted by non-disclosure and police malpractice?
-
What does any of this have to do with cuts, scrapes, dints and grazes?
Why don't you write to EP and suggest the negatives are examined by another expert / laboratory, to contrast the expert's findings for the defence? We will back up your request.
I don't recall any of this brought up by defence at the 2002 appeal.
-
And are you aware of how the Shrewsbury prosecutions came about in terms of the statements?
As for Carl Bridgewater (RIP), Drake later blamed corrupt policing for the conviction.
Bit unlucky to be embroiled in a third controversial conviction, tainted by non-disclosure and police malpractice?
I don't know the full facts and neither do you. There always was a grey area in what constituted peaceful picketing. As for Carl Bridgewater, the jury convicted on the evidence presented before them.
-
What does any of this have to do with cuts, scrapes, dints and grazes?
Why don't you write to EP and suggest the negatives are examined by another expert / laboratory, to contrast the expert's findings for the defence? We will back up your request.
Is that the royal 'we'?
-
Is that the royal 'we'?
If you like 🤴
-
Dear me! Did a more unlucky man ever exist? His biological parents gave him away, then went on to have two more children. He seems not to have been exactly what his adoptive parents wanted in a son. His relatives called him a "cuckoo in the nest". His school 'friends' called him "Bastard". His sister had it handed to her on a plate whilst he believed he had to work his a**e off to keep her in 'luxury'. He had no true friends. But for the, alleged, actions -or, perhaps, non actions?- of a civilian police worker, he might have been a free man, BUT..............apparently the police didn't like him and conspired, with the help of his relatives who didn't like him, and his ex girlfriend who had very good reason not to like him, to have him convicted. Still, he had hopes of being freed, and MAY have been...........had it not been for the pathologist, who, for reasons we know not, and perhaps persuaded by police? believed getting him convicted was worth putting his, hitherto, excellent reputation on the line for. His defence, being his last defence!, could have come to his aid, but it seems that they didn't like him either. The Judge might have swayed things, but it seems he called it as he saw it.
I seem to remember that there was an issue regarding his biological father. Husband was in the army in Scotland. Wife got pregnant. To save marriage baby sent for adoption.
-
I seem to remember that there was an issue regarding his biological father. Husband was in the army in Scotland. Wife got pregnant. To save marriage baby sent for adoption.
Aah, I think I just twigged what you may be hinting at. From what I recall, that is not the official account of events, which I think related to couple having been unmarried at the time?
-
Aah, I think I just twigged what you may be hinting at. From what I recall, that is not the official account of events, which I think related to couple having been unmarried at the time?
Not sure could be either. Just rembered there was a reason for adoption
Jane made it sound like it was JB's fault.
-
Not sure could be either. Just rembered there was a reason for adoption
Jane made it sound like it was JB's fault.
Adopted children, if their adopting parents are particularly religious, are often made to feel 'respondent's for their births, outside of marriage.
Regarding the marital status of JB 's biological parents, his mother, single at the time and working at Buckingham Palace, met his father, who was also working there, but married. They began a relationship. JB was the result. Assuming it wasn't possible for her to keep him, he was placed for adoption. Once his father obtained a divorce, he and JB's mother married and had two more children. I won't speculate on their feelings about their one time baby.
-
Adopted children, if their adopting parents are particularly religious, are often made to feel 'respondent's for their births, outside of marriage.
Regarding the marital status of JB 's biological parents, his mother, single at the time and working at Buckingham Palace, met his father, who was also working there, but married. They began a relationship. JB was the result. Assuming it wasn't possible for her to keep him, he was placed for adoption. Once his father obtained a divorce, he and JB's mother married and had two more children. I won't speculate on their feelings about their one time baby.
Leslie Marsham described the handover as "traumatic."
-
Adopted children, if their adopting parents are particularly religious, are often made to feel 'respondent's for their births, outside of marriage.
Regarding the marital status of JB 's biological parents, his mother, single at the time and working at Buckingham Palace, met his father, who was also working there, but married. They began a relationship. JB was the result. Assuming it wasn't possible for her to keep him, he was placed for adoption. Once his father obtained a divorce, he and JB's mother married and had two more children. I won't speculate on their feelings about their one time baby.
But you did seem to mock JB for it happening, as if it was a.part of 'the great conspiracy against him'.
-
But you did seem to mock JB for it happening, as if it was a.part of 'the great conspiracy against him'.
Roch. Why on earth would you imagine I'd mock JB for being adopted? It was entirely beyond his control.
-
Roch. Why on earth would you imagine I'd mock JB for being adopted? It was entirely beyond his control.
My mistake Jane. I misinterpreted your post.
-
A statistic the Bamberettes may be interested in. http://www.crimemagazine.com/adoption-forensics-connection-between-adoption-and-murder
-
A statistic the Bamberettes may be interested in. http://www.crimemagazine.com/adoption-forensics-connection-between-adoption-and-murder
A statistic the ostriches may be interested in.
What are the odds of three murder victims at the same crime scene, each having hand-to-hand contact fight-and-defence wounds, while the assailant remained completely unmarked. Try putting that in a probability calculator.
-
Leslie Marsham described the handover as "traumatic."
I can tell from a mile off Jeremy is Lesley Marshams son. A strong resemblance in looks I think.especially when Jeremy was younger
Don't see much resembalance with his mother
-
I do find it from an outside view and unrelating to events that Jeremy's natural parents gave him up and went on to marry and have two other biological childre, would be very harsh and traumatic for Jeremy. For a layperson and young person it's the definition of feeling unwanted.
I believe this stings Jeremy to this day. Although he has always said" my mum and dad were June and Nevill and that's that "
-
I do find it from an outside view and unrelating to events that Jeremy's natural parents gave him up and went on to marry and have two other biological childre, would be very harsh and traumatic for Jeremy. For a layperson and young person it's the definition of feeling unwanted.
I believe this stings Jeremy to this day. Although he has always said" my mum and dad were June and Nevill and that's that "
Completely agree, but then to be sent off to boarding school around the same time he found out about the adoption - brutal!
-
I do find it from an outside view and unrelating to events that Jeremy's natural parents gave him up and went on to marry and have two other biological childre, would be very harsh and traumatic for Jeremy. For a layperson and young person it's the definition of feeling unwanted.
I believe this stings Jeremy to this day. Although he has always said" my mum and dad were June and Nevill and that's that "
Completely agree, but then to be sent off to boarding school around the same time he found out about the adoption - brutal!
The lasting damage this can cause should never be underestimated. It's painful enough for a child to know it was given away, but to subsequently be made to feel a misfit because it doesn't live up to its new parent's expectations, that pain can be inestimable. Most manage to find coping strategies to deal with it. It doesn't eradicate it.
I don't believe his claim that "June and Nevill were my Mum and Dad and that's that" signifies that everything was fine and dandy.
-
Why do you think the defence missed an open goal. Over a year period?
Proving the Sea Wall could not be cycled at night creates 'reasonable doubt'.
No it doesn't.
There are other routes. More realistic ones
He had a car.
-
No it doesn't.
There are other routes. More realistic ones
He had a car.
The prosecution case is he cycled the Sea Wall. No one will believe he drove or cycled past properties.
If the defence missed an open goal, why didn't Bamber tell them it could not be cycled at night?
Even you know it couldn't be cycled at night & you haven't even been there!
-
The prosecution case is he cycled the Sea Wall. No one will believe he drove or cycled past properties.
If the defence missed an open goal, why didn't Bamber tell them it could not be cycled at night?
Even you know it couldn't be cycled at night & you haven't even been there!
He drove past properties on the way to meet police at WHF to meet police. Nobody saw him.
Police checked the other routes.
Move on
-
The prosecution case is he cycled the Sea Wall. No one will believe he drove or cycled past properties.
If the defence missed an open goal, why didn't Bamber tell them it could not be cycled at night?
Even you know it couldn't be cycled at night & you haven't even been there!
Just a surprise that no one has ever said the Sea Wall cannot be cycled at night in the last 38 years. From both sides.
Thousands of people have been involved in the case and millions interested.
One person who did cycle at night & wrote a vlog you have accused of lying.
Seems you know best from your arm chair.
-
Just a surprise that no one has ever said the Sea Wall cannot be cycled at night in the last 38 years. From both sides.
Thousands of people have been involved in the case and millions interested.
One person who did cycle at night & wrote a vlog you have accused of lying.
Seems you know best from your arm chair.
Please provide your other 999 sources
-
Please provide your other 999 sources
Sources that no one has said something?
I will leave you to decide how many people have been involved or interested in the case over the last 38 years. And not said anything.
-
He drove past properties on the way to meet police at WHF to meet police. Nobody saw him.
Police checked the other routes.
Move on
Including the neighbour
-
I agree was possible to drive. He drove to work every day.
But don't believe he would take the risk of being seen or heard by vehicles, pedestrians, people in houses and security cameras.
ILB refuses to budge from it being impossible to cycle the Sea Wall. Which contradicts everyone else from all sides. He has never been there.
-
I agree was possible to drive. He drove to work every day.
But don't believe he would take the risk of being seen or heard by vehicles, pedestrians, people in houses and security cameras.
ILB refuses to budge from it being impossible to cycle the Sea Wall. Which contradicts everyone else from all sides. He has never been there.
Neither had Bamber
When asked about the routes his reply was how else? When referencing the road as the only one he knew available
Look it up
-
Neither had Bamber
When asked about the routes his reply was how else? When referencing the road as the only one he knew available
Look it up
He's not going to ream off routes to WHF that would implicate him is he?
-
The first people to suggest the Sea Wall were the relatives.
They lived and work the land. Day and night. They had the option of re checking at night.
ILB has never been there.
-
The first people to suggest the Sea Wall were the relatives.
They lived and work the land. Day and night. They had the option of re checking at night.
ILB has never been there.
The relatives were fantasists. They were so involved with the case, that they might as well have shown crime scene images and post mortem images. Then at least they would have come up with a theory that fitted the fight and defence wounds.
-
The first people to suggest the Sea Wall were the relatives.
They lived and work the land. Day and night. They had the option of re checking at night.
ILB has never been there.
What you are forgetting is that the relatives did not farm in D'Arcy. Check where they farmed. They might not have a sea wall near their farms and if they did it might not be comparable. I lived in Tollesbury and have an intimate knowledge of the sea wall in the late 70's early 80's. I was a little older than JB but very fit from sporting activity. Believe me when I say it is not something I would have attempted. I have posted about this many times. As ilb says move on
-
Perhaps more consideration should be given to Zoso's fields theory.
-
What you are forgetting is that the relatives did not farm in D'Arcy. Check where they farmed. They might not have a sea wall near their farms and if they did it might not be comparable. I lived in Tollesbury and have an intimate knowledge of the sea wall in the late 70's early 80's. I was a little older than JB but very fit from sporting activity. Believe me when I say it is not something I would have attempted. I have posted about this many times. As ilb says move on
They farmed at Wix.My great uncle was headmaster of both schools in Tollesbury so I spent a lot of time down there as a child. The wall around Goldhanger/D'Arcy is much easier to walk than the one at Tollesbury.
-
They farmed at Wix.My great uncle was headmaster of both schools in Tollesbury so I spent a lot of time down there as a child. The wall around Goldhanger/D'Arcy is much easier to walk than the one at Tollesbury.
No sea wall at Wix. The rest is just a matter of opinion. Not a lot of difference in mine. A child's view often differs from an adults. Perception changes with age.
-
What you are forgetting is that the relatives did not farm in D'Arcy. Check where they farmed. They might not have a sea wall near their farms and if they did it might not be comparable. I lived in Tollesbury and have an intimate knowledge of the sea wall in the late 70's early 80's. I was a little older than JB but very fit from sporting activity. Believe me when I say it is not something I would have attempted. I have posted about this many times. As ilb says move on
I think you're bound to say that, but we aren't talking about what you would or wouldn't do. We're talking about Bamber - I suspect you wouldn't kill five members of your family either but .....
-
He's not going to ream off routes to WHF that would implicate him is he?
That's true.
But it can also suggest he didn't know any other route.
He certainly wasn't asked to explain further
" look Jeremy, you have grown up in the the area, you know any nook and cranny, you know the sea wall route "
-
I think you're bound to say that, but we aren't talking about what you would or wouldn't do. We're talking about Bamber - I suspect you wouldn't kill five members of your family either but .....
I was, despite your thinking, trying to be objective and give a 'elf and safety' type response.
-
I agree was possible to drive. He drove to work every day.
But don't believe he would take the risk of being seen or heard by vehicles, pedestrians, people in houses and security cameras.
ILB refuses to budge from it being impossible to cycle the Sea Wall. Which contradicts everyone else from all sides. He has never been there.
Do you not think that breaking into your mother and father's house, murdering them along with your sister and nephews is not a risk in itself ?
-
Believe the Astra he had at the time a new model
He had written the old Astra he had months before the massacre in a RTA.
Ironically the officer who attended that accident was Saxby. Who would meet Jeremy months later along with Bews and myall at the rendovous at the farm.
-
I agree was possible to drive. He drove to work every day.
But don't believe he would take the risk of being seen or heard by vehicles, pedestrians, people in houses and security cameras.
ILB refuses to budge from it being impossible to cycle the Sea Wall. Which contradicts everyone else from all sides. He has never been there.
If you believe Jeremy Bamber to be gulity. Then you must believe he is a risk taker.
In the fact he told his girlfriend he had murdered five members of his family
With that in mind I don't think such a person would worry about the risk of driving a car past properties ( with a high chance of sleeping occupants )
It was the middle of the night
-
That's true.
But it can also suggest he didn't know any other route.
He certainly wasn't asked to explain further
" look Jeremy, you have grown up in the the area, you know any nook and cranny, you know the sea wall route "
I think that is VERY unlikely, but he didn't have to use the sea wall route, I am sure there were many others.
-
I think that is VERY unlikely, but he didn't have to use the sea wall route, I am sure there were many others.
I think the sea wall route is a none starter in regards to the events.
Adam claims it's gospel
-
I think that is VERY unlikely, but he didn't have to use the sea wall route, I am sure there were many others.
Believe there were 3 routes. Two passed properties.
The prosecution case is he cycled the Sea Wall. It passed no properties and had good, flat terrain. Julie testified he planned to cycle it.
He would know the route, day and night. He lived, worked and was brought up 2 minutes from it.
It was also an open area meaning more ambient light.
Not sure why he would cycle another route.
ILB has never been to the Sea Wall.
-
After the relatives, the next group of people to promote the Sea Wall were EP, the DPP & Prosecution.
EP cycled it during the day & provided a WS. Wilkinson did not mention anything about trees, hedges or bushes hanging over the route which would block ambient light.
One or all 3 of these departments would have checked the visibility at night as standard practice.
-
The next group of people who would have had the opportunity to visit the Sea Wall, were the defence and media.
After the arrest both would be well aware of the prosecution case.
The defence would visit the proposed route day and night. Looking for an open goal. Or at least something to help them.
The media would visit looking for a scoop. The case was now big news.
The Sea Wall was available to everyone 24/7.
-
Local residents and the general public would have had the opportunity and feel inclined to visit the Sea Wall from the time Bamber's arrest was in the media.
This has remained the case from 1985 - 2023.
-
Just the same rehash from Adam
With no proof to confirm validity
-
Just the same rehash from Adam
With no proof to confirm validity
Not sure what you mean by that.
The Sea Wall has been available 24/7 for the whole of the British public to visit since before 1985.
There is no source negating the prosecution case saying it cannot be cycled at night.
You have never been there so cannot say either way.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,246.msg1557.html#msg1557
RB says lights would be unnessacary when cycling at night.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,246.msg1557.html#msg1557
RB says lights would be unnessacary when cycling at night.
Thats it then.
A beneficiary who disliked Bamber says you don't need lights to see at night
Another carrot eater as well