Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: BarefootDanC on January 16, 2025, 01:22:PM
-
For those of you who believe he is innocent, why do you believe that?
For those of you who believe he might be, why do you believe that?
-
This is a good question Dan. It has come up before on several occasions. I will give it some thought and bullet-point.
-
For those of you who believe he is innocent, why do you believe that?
For those of you who believe he might be, why do you believe that?
Why did the police believe he was innocent for a month Dan? Even Kennealys review of the investigation confirmed this!
Any evidence that sent JB down came after the first investigation was tied up, ie, Julie, silencer, scratch marks etc,.
Also, all doors and windows were secured from inside the Whitehouse. Sheila standing still to be shot!
Two bodies down stairs, three bodies up stairs!
The Aga burns!
-
For those of you who believe he is innocent, why do you believe that?
For those of you who believe he might be, why do you believe that?
Because I asked him and he told me so and I saw how he carried himself. To put it bluntly.
-
Why did the police believe he was innocent for a month Dan? Even Kennealys review of the investigation confirmed this!
Any evidence that sent JB down came after the first investigation was tied up, ie, Julie, silencer, scratch marks etc,.
Also, all doors and windows were secured from inside the Whitehouse. Sheila standing still to be shot!
Two bodies down stairs, three bodies up stairs!
The Aga burns!
"Why did the police believe he was innocent for a month Dan? Even Kennealys review of the investigation confirmed this!"
Because they weren't investigating the case properly and they hadn't all the blood results back from the silencer and Julie statement at this time.
"Any evidence that sent JB down came after the first investigation was tied up, ie, Julie, silencer, scratch marks etc,."
That's mostly true, but a lot of evidence which convicted him was inarguably there all along. For example:
(1) Nevill did not call the police, but Jeremy claims he called him instead and Jeremy called the police on the local number. In other words, Jeremy's story is far-fetched.
(2) Sheila had two gun shot wounds, which is more consistent with murder than suicide
(3) Other than Jeremy's claim to having received a call from Nevill and the gun being on top of Sheila, there is no other evidence that it was her at all. No broken finger-nails, no gun residue on her nightie, relatively clean hand and feet. No evidence that she left her bedroom during the night.
Moreover, someone still needs to provide a reasonable explanation as to how the blood got in the sound moderator. How did the relatives know that Robert Boutflour's blood would be a match? If it was down to the police, why did they frame an innocent person with absolutely no motive whatsoever?
"Also, all doors and windows were secured from inside the Whitehouse."
But Jeremy proved his ability to get in and outside the house. Do we believe his story that he got into his house through the window to get his passport?
"Sheila standing still to be shot!"
Quite common for people who are about to be executed to be obedient.
"Two bodies down stairs, three bodies up stairs!"
In fact two dead bodies! Whereas Sheila was found dead upstairs! Also, no-one saw her go upstairs so a reasonable explanation is that someone mis-gendered Nevill.
"The Aga burns!"
No-one knows how or when Nevill got those burns, let alone proof that he got them from the Aga on the night of the killling. If he got them from the Aga on the night of the killings, how did Nevill then get to be precariously over a chair?? This isn't Boyce's first mad experiment!
-
"Why did the police believe he was innocent for a month Dan? Even Kennealys review of the investigation confirmed this!"
Because they weren't investigating the case properly and they hadn't all the blood results back from the silencer and Julie statement at this time.
"Any evidence that sent JB down came after the first investigation was tied up, ie, Julie, silencer, scratch marks etc,."
That's mostly true, but a lot of evidence which convicted him was inarguably there all along. For example:
(1) Nevill did not call the police, but Jeremy claims he called him instead and Jeremy called the police on the local number. In other words, Jeremy's story is far-fetched.
(2) Sheila had two gun shot wounds, which is more consistent with murder than suicide
(3) Other than Jeremy's claim to having received a call from Nevill and the gun being on top of Sheila, there is no other evidence that it was her at all. No broken finger-nails, no gun residue on her nightie, relatively clean hand and feet. No evidence that she left her bedroom during the night.
Moreover, someone still need to provide a reasonable explanation as to how the blood got in the sound moderator. How did the relatively know that Robert Boutflour's blood would be a match? If it was down to the police, why did they frame an innocent person with absolutely no motive whatsoever?
"Also, all doors and windows were secured from inside the Whitehouse."
But Jeremy proved his ability to get in and outside the house. Do we believe his story that he got into his house through the window to get his passport?
"Sheila standing still to be shot!"
Quite common for people who are about to be executed to be obedient.
"Two bodies down stairs, three bodies up stairs!"
In fact two dead bodies! Whereas Sheila was found dead upstairs! Also, no-one saw her go upstairs so a reasonable explanation is that someone mis-gendered Nevill.
"The Aga burns!"
No-one knows how or when Nevill got those burns, let alone proof that he got them from the Aga on the night of the killling. If he got them from the Aga on the night of the killings, how did Nevill then get to be precariously over a chair?? This isn't Boyce's first mad experiment!
Explained so succinctly it could almost have been in words of one syllable. Whether, or not!, it's been fully comprehended, and/or accepted! is an entirely different matter.
-
Explained so succinctly it could almost have been in words of one syllable. Whether, or not!, it's been fully comprehended, and/or accepted! is an entirely different matter.
Dont hold back now Jane!
Just tell Dan that I'm a dummy! ;D
-
Dont hold back now Jane!
Just tell Dan that I'm a dummy! ;D
Okay, Snow, if you insist. Dan, Snow has asked me to tell you he's a dummy. :))
-
For those of you who believe he is innocent, why do you believe that?
For those of you who believe he might be, why do you believe that?
I thought you asked this question some time back?
1. Sheila and Jeremy were adopted from different biological families. With the exception of Sheila's bilogical father whose identity appears to be unknown the other parents do not appear to have suffered from any mental illness or antisocial personality disorder. The same can be said for Nevill and June's biological families. Therefore, for me, if JB is guilty, and I do not believe he is, it begs the question how the Bamber family ended up with:
Adoptive mother - mental illness pre adoptions and continuing throughout her life requiring in-patient psychiatric care.
Adopted daughter - mental illness from early 20's requiring in-patient psychiatric care.
Adopted son - found guilty of murdering his immediate adopted family and his adopted sister's twin nephews
Given there's no genetic component the above to my mind is an anomaly.
2. Numerous blood stained exhibits were forensically examined. Some exhibits contained significant quantities of blood and yet none were able to produce the sort of results we are told the flake of blood inside the silencer did, despite the fact this exhibit sustained far more environmental insults than all the other exhibits.
-
I thought you asked this question some time back?
1. Sheila and Jeremy were adopted from different biological families. With the exception of Sheila's bilogical father whose identity appears to be unknown the other parents do not appear to have suffered from any mental illness or antisocial personality disorder. The same can be said for Nevill and June's biological families. Therefore, for me, if JB is guilty, and I do not believe he is, it begs the question how the Bamber family ended up with:
Adoptive mother - mental illness pre adoptions and continuing throughout her life requiring in-patient psychiatric care.
Adopted daughter - mental illness from early 20's requiring in-patient psychiatric care.
Adopted son - found guilty of murdering his immediate adopted family and his adopted sister's twin nephews
Given there's no genetic component the above to my mind is an anomaly.
2. Numerous blood stained exhibits were forensically examined. Some exhibits contained significant quantities of blood and yet none were able to produce the sort of results we are told the flake of blood inside the silencer did, despite the fact this exhibit sustained far more environmental insults than all the other exhibits.
RE: 1
This is interesting, but I don't know what you are suggesting is the reason. Also, how does this point away from Jeremy being a murderer?
RE: 2
How come neither of the expert witnesses called by the defence questioned this, if it was unlikely that those results could have been obtained from a blood flake?
-
RE: 1
This is interesting, but I don't know what you are suggesting is the reason. Also, how does this point away from Jeremy being a murderer?
It is my belief Sheila suffered an attachment disorder. I did a lot of research into this years ago:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213414001458
RE: 2
How come neither of the expert witnesses called by the defence questioned this, if it was unlikely that those results could have been obtained from a blood flake?
Which experts are you referring to?
-
It is my belief Sheila suffered an attachment disorder. I did a lot of research into this years ago:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213414001458
RE: 2
How come neither of the expert witnesses called by the defence questioned this, if it was unlikely that those results could have been obtained from a blood flake?
Which experts are you referring to?
1) So how does this point away from Jeremy?
2) Dr Patrick at the trial and Mark Webster for the 2002 appeal.
-
1) So how does this point away from Jeremy?
Because June suffered severe depression requiring in-patient psychiatric care and electroconvulsive treatment in 1959 when SC was around 2 years of age when attachments are formed. This situation does not arise with JB.
2) Dr Patrick at the trial and Mark Webster for the 2002 appeal.
A blood flake the size of the one claimed might have been able to produce the results claimed if it had not been subjected to the enviroments it had to withstand. Maybe the experts just focused on what was in front of them and did not consider the environments. Dr Lincoln's reports do not show that he considered the environnments. He was not a forensic scientist as you would expect to find working in a FSP today. He was a lecturer in blood serology working in a teaching hospital.
-
"Why did the police believe he was innocent for a month Dan? Even Kennealys review of the investigation confirmed this!"
Because they weren't investigating the case properly and they hadn't all the blood results back from the silencer and Julie statement at this time.
"Any evidence that sent JB down came after the first investigation was tied up, ie, Julie, silencer, scratch marks etc,."
That's mostly true, but a lot of evidence which convicted him was inarguably there all along. For example:
(1) Nevill did not call the police, but Jeremy claims he called him instead and Jeremy called the police on the local number. In other words, Jeremy's story is far-fetched.
(2) Sheila had two gun shot wounds, which is more consistent with murder than suicide
(3) Other than Jeremy's claim to having received a call from Nevill and the gun being on top of Sheila, there is no other evidence that it was her at all. No broken finger-nails, no gun residue on her nightie, relatively clean hand and feet. No evidence that she left her bedroom during the night.
Moreover, someone still needs to provide a reasonable explanation as to how the blood got in the sound moderator. How did the relatives know that Robert Boutflour's blood would be a match? If it was down to the police, why did they frame an innocent person with absolutely no motive whatsoever?
"Also, all doors and windows were secured from inside the Whitehouse."
But Jeremy proved his ability to get in and outside the house. Do we believe his story that he got into his house through the window to get his passport?
"Sheila standing still to be shot!"
Quite common for people who are about to be executed to be obedient.
"Two bodies down stairs, three bodies up stairs!"
In fact two dead bodies! Whereas Sheila was found dead upstairs! Also, no-one saw her go upstairs so a reasonable explanation is that someone mis-gendered Nevill.
"The Aga burns!"
No-one knows how or when Nevill got those burns, let alone proof that he got them from the Aga on the night of the killling. If he got them from the Aga on the night of the killings, how did Nevill then get to be precariously over a chair?? This isn't Boyce's first mad experiment!
No evidence Sheila had slept in her bed that night, she was obviously out of the room at some point!
There must have been gunshot residue on Sheila's nightie: two shots fired from inches away
Bamber could get into the house but he could not secure the window (secondary latch) from outside when leaving. Taff's statement confirmed all windows were secure.
Sheila would have resisted as her children were in the house.
Someone got lucky with the blood group matching Sheila's, they probably thought any human blood in the silencer would be sufficient.
-
No evidence Sheila had slept in her bed that night, she was obviously out of the room at some point!
There must have been gunshot residue on Sheila's nightie: two shots fired from inches away
Bamber could get into the house but he could not secure the window (secondary latch) from outside when leaving. Taff's statement confirmed all windows were secure.
Sheila would have resisted as her children were in the house.
Someone got lucky with the blood group matching Sheila's, they probably thought any human blood in the silencer would be sufficient.
Yes, well said Rob!
-
"Why did the police believe he was innocent for a month Dan? Even Kennealys review of the investigation confirmed this!"
Because they weren't investigating the case properly and they hadn't all the blood results back from the silencer and Julie statement at this time.
"Any evidence that sent JB down came after the first investigation was tied up, ie, Julie, silencer, scratch marks etc,."
That's mostly true, but a lot of evidence which convicted him was inarguably there all along. For example:
(1) Nevill did not call the police, but Jeremy claims he called him instead and Jeremy called the police on the local number. In other words, Jeremy's story is far-fetched.
(2) Sheila had two gun shot wounds, which is more consistent with murder than suicide
(3) Other than Jeremy's claim to having received a call from Nevill and the gun being on top of Sheila, there is no other evidence that it was her at all. No broken finger-nails, no gun residue on her nightie, relatively clean hand and feet. No evidence that she left her bedroom during the night.
Moreover, someone still needs to provide a reasonable explanation as to how the blood got in the sound moderator. How did the relatives know that Robert Boutflour's blood would be a match? If it was down to the police, why did they frame an innocent person with absolutely no motive whatsoever?
"Also, all doors and windows were secured from inside the Whitehouse."
But Jeremy proved his ability to get in and outside the house. Do we believe his story that he got into his house through the window to get his passport?
"Sheila standing still to be shot!"
Quite common for people who are about to be executed to be obedient.
"Two bodies down stairs, three bodies up stairs!"
In fact two dead bodies! Whereas Sheila was found dead upstairs! Also, no-one saw her go upstairs so a reasonable explanation is that someone mis-gendered Nevill.
"The Aga burns!"
No-one knows how or when Nevill got those burns, let alone proof that he got them from the Aga on the night of the killling. If he got them from the Aga on the night of the killings, how did Nevill then get to be precariously over a chair?? This isn't Boyce's first mad experiment!
The silencer was first examined on 13th Aug and JM provided a stat on 8th Aug.
Re your 1,2,3 above
1. The soc evidence supports the phone call. It is well documented the Bamber's were very private people especially with regards to SC's mental illness. These things were taboo back in the day along with infertitilty and adoption. SC was not the Bamber's biological daughter and differences would have been a reminder of this. NB was a magistrate and negligent insofar as firearm security. Firearms were all over the farmhouse along with hundreds of rounds of ammo all of it accessible to anyone within the farmhouse.
2. If the 2 gunshot wounds to the neck were remotely suspicious the pathologist would have said as much at the time. He found nothing to contradict the murder/suicide theory.
3. If there's no evidence SC left her bedroom how do you believe she ended up in her parents bedroom? If SC was responsible, I firmly believe she was, what evidence exists that doing what the defence alleges she did would cause her nails to break? Where's the expert evidence? Her nightie was not checked for gunshot residue. How could any such test be reliable? SC was found in a room where a firearm had been discharged at least 9 times (with the barrel pointing within the bedroom). Therefore you would expect residue whether victim or perp. Why would her hands and feet look any different than they did?
Forget RB's blood in the silencer. What evidence exists that the rifle, ammo and silencer combi are capable of producing back spatter other than a set of test results produced from a lab that Parliament had already criticised for quality failings and was headed up by a scientist charged with perverting the course of justice in another case?
JB admitted he could enter the farmhouse when the windows and doors appeared secured from within but he did not know of a way of exiting and leaving the windows and doors secured. DCI Jones checked all and found totally secured. I thought Bamber entered for car related docs for his trip to South of France? His car was owned by the business. The business was run from the office in the farmhouse so it would make sense that car related docs in terms of insurance policies etc were retained there. If you drive abroad you need to take insurance docs.
-
The silencer was first examined on 13th Aug and JM provided a stat on 8th Aug.
Re your 1,2,3 above
1. The soc evidence supports the phone call. It is well documented the Bamber's were very private people especially with regards to SC's mental illness. These things were taboo back in the day along with infertitilty and adoption. SC was not the Bamber's biological daughter and differences would have been a reminder of this. NB was a magistrate and negligent insofar as firearm security. Firearms were all over the farmhouse along with hundreds of rounds of ammo all of it accessible to anyone within the farmhouse.
2. If the 2 gunshot wounds to the neck were remotely suspicious the pathologist would have said as much at the time. He found nothing to contradict the murder/suicide theory.
3. If there's no evidence SC left her bedroom how do you believe she ended up in her parents bedroom? If SC was responsible, I firmly believe she was, what evidence exists that doing what the defence alleges she did would cause her nails to break? Where's the expert evidence? Her nightie was not checked for gunshot residue. How could any such test be reliable? SC was found in a room where a firearm had been discharged at least 9 times (with the barrel pointing within the bedroom). Therefore you would expect residue whether victim or perp. Why would her hands and feet look any different than they did?
Forget RB's blood in the silencer. What evidence exists that the rifle, ammo and silencer combi are capable of producing back spatter other than a set of test results produced from a lab that Parliament had already criticised for quality failings and was headed up by a scientist charged with perverting the course of justice in another case?
JB admitted he could enter the farmhouse when the windows and doors appeared secured from within but he did not know of a way of exiting and leaving the windows and doors secured. DCI Jones checked all and found totally secured. I thought Bamber entered for car related docs for his trip to South of France? His car was owned by the business. The business was run from the office in the farmhouse so it would make sense that car related docs in terms of insurance policies etc were retained there. If you drive abroad you need to take insurance docs.
The point is: how could JB possibly ameliorate a purported emergency situation when the siblings were not particularly close? Remember he told police outside WHF: I don't like her and she doesn't like me. Nevill had told Farm Secretary Barbara Wilson that "the shooting season's coming up..accidents do happen." He'd also remarked to RB when discussing guns that he'd better not make it too easy for a successor to step into my shoes.
She was carried there in the exhaustive state she was in. The photographs look as if she were sleeping, she looks calm, the evidence of nocturnal combat is just not there.
"Secure windows, insecure windows, it makes no difference." Jeremy is the type of nonentity individual who has to brag about the slightest achievement, even it is so diabolical as to the killing of five.
-
The point is: how could JB possibly ameliorate a purported emergency situation when the siblings were not particularly close? Remember he told police outside WHF: I don't like her and she doesn't like me. Nevill had told Farm Secretary Barbara Wilson that "the shooting season's coming up..accidents do happen." He'd also remarked to RB when discussing guns that he'd better not make it too easy for a successor to step into my shoes.
They were close enough to attend a party on the Saturday evening with JB taking SC home. Even if JB spoke the words claimed if everyone went around shooting people they didn't "like" the human race would soon become extinct.
NB had every reason to be mindful of shooting accidents given he accidentally shot June's father in the eye which resulted in loss of sight.
You put too much weight on who said what because you are unable or unwilling to carry out any proper research into the forensic side.
She was carried there in the exhaustive state she was in. The photographs look as if she were sleeping, she looks calm, the evidence of nocturnal combat is just not there.
Your assertion above is not supported by expert opinion by way of the pathologists at trial.
"Secure windows, insecure windows, it makes no difference." Jeremy is the type of nonentity individual who has to brag about the slightest achievement, even it is so diabolical as to the killing of five.
Yes makes no difference in terms of entry but not exit. JB made this perfectly clear in his police interviews. And given the length of time you have been around the case you should know this basic info by now.
-
They were close enough to attend a party on the Saturday evening with JB taking SC home. Even if JB spoke the words claimed if everyone went around shooting people they didn't "like" the human race would soon become extinct.
NB had every reason to be mindful of shooting accidents given he accidentally shot June's father in the eye which resulted in loss of sight.
You put too much weight on who said what because you are unable or unwilling to carry out any proper research into the forensic side.
Your assertion above is not supported by expert opinion by way of the pathologists at trial.
Yes makes no difference in terms of entry but not exit. JB made this perfectly clear in his police interviews. And given the length of time you have been around the case you should no this basic info by now.
Wasn't this only because Colin had imbibed excess alcohol intake? It wasn't Sheila who had asked her brother to escort her home: Sheila dialled the number and handed the receiver to Colin. Strange Jeremy couldn't remember any details of the ten-minute conversation in the fields on the Tuesday afternoon, and strange he told Julie his sister had done "horrible things in the past" to him, but wouldn't elucidate. Also odd was Sheila's diary that last fateful evening: I didn't mean to be horrible to Jeremy.
It was clear Nevill was discussing his son, not his father-in-law, as Jeremy was the next generation who would inherit the Farm.
There is nothing forensically-related which exonerates Jeremy. He was a Macavity-type figure and if you don't realize that by now then all your and David's efforts to get the monster released to get him off on some technicality or other have been in vain.
-
They were close enough to attend a party on the Saturday evening with JB taking SC home. Even if JB spoke the words claimed if everyone went around shooting people they didn't "like" the human race would soon become extinct......................
But they didn't attend the party together, did they? Colin gave the party, ergo Colin invited the guests. Was Sheila actually invited, or, having helped prepare for it, simply stayed on? It certainly didn't appear that JB was her first choice of a lift home. She asked Colin first, but as he'd been drinking he told her to ask JB. She, in turn, asked Colin to ask him on her behalf.
Re words spoken. I quite agree that without hearing the 'tune', it's not possible to put any other interpretation, than our own, to them.
-
Because June suffered severe depression requiring in-patient psychiatric care and electroconvulsive treatment in 1959 when SC was around 2 years of age when attachments are formed. This situation does not arise with JB.
A blood flake the size of the one claimed might have been able to produce the results claimed if it had not been subjected to the enviroments it had to withstand. Maybe the experts just focused on what was in front of them and did not consider the environments. Dr Lincoln's reports do not show that he considered the environnments. He was not a forensic scientist as you would expect to find working in a FSP today. He was a lecturer in blood serology working in a teaching hospital.
So are you saying that the "environments" might have affected the outcome of the testing they did on the blood (grouping, PGM, etc)? In other words, wrong results due to the environment?
-
So are you saying that the "environments" might have affected the outcome of the testing they did on the blood (grouping, PGM, etc)? In other words, wrong results due to the environment?
There was no testing! Just a set of results produced to fit the prosecution case.
I am saying a blood flake, as described by the prosecution, would not have been able to withstand the 'environmental insults' and produce the results claimed:
- Firearm discharged
- Blood sucked into firearm
- Silencers works by slowing the exiting hot gases. In this case we have to believe the blood flake could withstand this. And yet exhibits which had a greater quantity of blood unaffected by such an environment were unable to be grouped:
71. The rifle bore blood smearing on the barrel in the region of the fore-sight and around the mechanism and there were splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon. The appearance of the blood staining was consistent with it having been used to strike somebody who was already bleeding. On analysis the blood was found to be human blood but tests to determine grouping were unsuccessful.
https://www.nationalguntrusts.com/blogs/nfa-gun-trust-atf-information-database-blog/how-a-silencer-works-gif-video-1
-
There was no testing! Just a set of results produced to fit the prosecution case.
I am saying a blood flake, as described by the prosecution, would not have been able to withstand the 'environmental insults' and produce the results claimed:
- Firearm discharged
- Blood sucked into firearm
- Silencers works by slowing the exiting hot gases. In this case we have to believe the blood flake could withstand this. And yet exhibits which had a greater quantity of blood unaffected by such an environment were unable to be grouped:
71. The rifle bore blood smearing on the barrel in the region of the fore-sight and around the mechanism and there were splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon. The appearance of the blood staining was consistent with it having been used to strike somebody who was already bleeding. On analysis the blood was found to be human blood but tests to determine grouping were unsuccessful.
https://www.nationalguntrusts.com/blogs/nfa-gun-trust-atf-information-database-blog/how-a-silencer-works-gif-video-1
"Silencers works by slowing the exiting hot gases. In this case we have to believe the blood flake could withstand this. And yet exhibits which had a greater quantity of blood unaffected by such an environment were unable to be grouped:...."
This fact was something that all the experts were very much aware of!
My understand of "back spatter" is immediately after the hot gases being emitted, this then causes a kind of suction which draws the blood in.
-
"Silencers works by slowing the exiting hot gases. In this case we have to believe the blood flake could withstand this. And yet exhibits which had a greater quantity of blood unaffected by such an environment were unable to be grouped:...."
This fact was something that all the experts were very much aware of!
My understand of "back spatter" is immediately after the hot gases being emitted, this then causes a kind of suction which draws the blood in.
Who are all the experts you refer to?
I am aware that post trial the defence argued heat, from repeat firing of the rifle, may have produced the results presented at trial. To test this hypothesis FSS Huntingdon placed blood in a (the?) silencer and discharged a (the?) rifle with the same/different ? ammo a total of 25 times. We are told the results were unaffected.
The experiment was to test whether between the 25 shots, at soc, blood had entered the silencer, dried, and further blood had entered and deposited on the dried blood thus producing the defence argument that the blood represented an intimate mix of June and NB's.
The above was all about the mixed blood argument presented by the defence at trial. A simple typed report was produced without the photographic evidence that is generated by tests using gel electrophoresis. There is no evidence that the defence asked its own experts to check over the simple typed report and ask for the supporting photographic evidence.
My hypothesis is that a blood flake would not have been able to withstand the enviroments:
- Hot gasses from silencer
- Time spent in the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber
- Time spent hanging around in ambient temp from the above until we are told the flake was identified on 12th Sept
- I have been advised by arguably the world's leading expert on blood serology that PGM is more robust than AK and EAP and yet in this case we are told the flake was unable to produce a result for PGM!
- None of the other case related exhibits were able to produce the sort of results we are told the flake did despite the fact other exhibits contained a greater quantity of blood which did not sustain the sort of environmental insults the flake underwent.
I do not trust anything coming out of FSS. I have carried out considerable research into much of the trial testimony and I believe it is wrong.
3.3 FSS Quality
3.3.1 Following some high profile quality failures in the 1980s the FSS implemented accreditation to quality standards from 1993 onwards, a world first for forensic science. The present FSS in-house quality framework goes well beyond the basic requirements of ISO17025 and is in close accord with the FSR’s forthcoming Codes. Indeed, before closure was announced the FSS were planning to act as a test-bed for compliance to this code later this year.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm
Plus at the time the Bamber exhibits were under examination FSS Huntingdon was headed up by Ronald Outteridge, the forensic scientist charged with perverting the course of justice in the case of Stefan Kiszko:
https://www.watersidepress.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Criminal-Proceedings_Holland-Outteridge.pdf
And the above is just the tip of the iceberg about the flake being a crock of shite.
-
Interesting reading, Cambridge.
-
Interesting reading, Cambridge.
It is indeed Roch!
Cutie certainly knows her stuff!
-
It is indeed Roch!
Cutie certainly knows her stuff!
She has researched this area of the case very thoroughly. Unfortunately she has not been listened to by some who could have made a difference to JB's prospects by following up on her analysis.
-
She has researched this area of the case very thoroughly. Unfortunately she has not been listened to by some who could have made a difference to JB's prospects by following up on her analysis.
I don't dispute what your saying NGB, But, i don't take her serious anymore and i don't know how anyone can, she has been posting here under different names i'm lead to believe, she claimed she was Colsville from Red forum when she first introduced herself on here, yet we all Know her as Holly, meaning she had two Identites on Red, [On the red forum I have been posting as Colsville, if you want to have a look at what I've written] her arguments about Stan Jones, re him planting blood in the silencer and climbing through the WHF window to plant the silencer for the relatives to find, was Bonkers, and I'm personally not bothered wether she thinks Bamber innocent or guilty, but she spent most of her time arguing for his guilt and now done a complete U turn ;D ;D ;D
So i must admit, So this is my reason why i don't listen to her.
-
She has researched this area of the case very thoroughly. Unfortunately she has not been listened to by some who could have made a difference to JB's prospects by following up on her analysis.
Thats a pity, ngb!
-
I don't dispute what your saying NGB, But, i don't take her serious anymore and i don't know how anyone can, she has been posting here under different names i'm lead to believe, she claimed she was Colsville from Red forum when she first introduced herself on here, yet we all Know her as Holly, meaning she had two Identites on Red, [On the red forum I have been posting as Colsville, if you want to have a look at what I've written] her arguments about Stan Jones, re him planting blood in the silencer and climbing through the WHF window to plant the silencer for the relatives to find, was Bonkers, and I'm personally not bothered wether she thinks Bamber innocent or guilty, but she spent most of her time arguing for his guilt and now done a complete U turn ;D ;D ;D
So i must admit, So this is my reason why i don't listen to her.
Yes, there is no doubt Cutie has been up to a few shenanigans over the years regarding different identitie's HB, but that doesn't really mean her findings should be dissmissed if they are correct does it?
-
Who are all the experts you refer to?
I am aware that post trial the defence argued heat, from repeat firing of the rifle, may have produced the results presented at trial. To test this hypothesis FSS Huntingdon placed blood in a (the?) silencer and discharged a (the?) rifle with the same/different ? ammo a total of 25 times. We are told the results were unaffected.
The experiment was to test whether between the 25 shots, at soc, blood had entered the silencer, dried, and further blood had entered and deposited on the dried blood thus producing the defence argument that the blood represented an intimate mix of June and NB's.
The above was all about the mixed blood argument presented by the defence at trial. A simple typed report was produced without the photographic evidence that is generated by tests using gel electrophoresis. There is no evidence that the defence asked its own experts to check over the simple typed report and ask for the supporting photographic evidence.
My hypothesis is that a blood flake would not have been able to withstand the enviroments:
- Hot gasses from silencer
- Time spent in the cyanoacrylate fuming chamber
- Time spent hanging around in ambient temp from the above until we are told the flake was identified on 12th Sept
- I have been advised by arguably the world's leading expert on blood serology that PGM is more robust than AK and EAP and yet in this case we are told the flake was unable to produce a result for PGM!
- None of the other case related exhibits were able to produce the sort of results we are told the flake did despite the fact other exhibits contained a greater quantity of blood which did not sustain the sort of environmental insults the flake underwent.
I do not trust anything coming out of FSS. I have carried out considerable research into much of the trial testimony and I believe it is wrong.
3.3 FSS Quality
3.3.1 Following some high profile quality failures in the 1980s the FSS implemented accreditation to quality standards from 1993 onwards, a world first for forensic science. The present FSS in-house quality framework goes well beyond the basic requirements of ISO17025 and is in close accord with the FSR’s forthcoming Codes. Indeed, before closure was announced the FSS were planning to act as a test-bed for compliance to this code later this year.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/forensic/m61.htm
Plus at the time the Bamber exhibits were under examination FSS Huntingdon was headed up by Ronald Outteridge, the forensic scientist charged with perverting the course of justice in the case of Stefan Kiszko:
https://www.watersidepress.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Criminal-Proceedings_Holland-Outteridge.pdf
And the above is just the tip of the iceberg about the flake being a crock of shite.
"Who are the experts who I refer to?"
1) Glynis Howard called by the prosecution
2) Dr Patrick for the defence at trial, although not called
3) MarK Webster for the defence at the 2002 appeal.
My question for you is does any expert back up your opinion? This reminds me of the "rabbits blood" theory.
-
"Who are the experts who I refer to?"
1) Glynis Howard called by the prosecution
It has been pointed out to you previously by me and others that GH was not involved with the blood supposedly found inside the silencer which was first identified on 12th Sep. Her involvement and trial testimony was solely concerned with the blood on the outside of the silencer which she examined on 13th Aug. Where she refers to the inside she is referring to the inside of the aperture which is accessible without any dismantling of the silencer. The dismantling did not happen until Sep.
2) Dr Patrick for the defence at trial, although not called
We have Dr Patrick Lincoln's reports here which were compiled for the defence pre trial. As you will see he does not refer to any chain of custody ie that he has even considered the environments. There's no evidence he is even aware that the bloood we are told was found inside was found a month after the blood was examined on the outside.
He identified an anomaly with the testing, referenced in his report, but there's no evidence this was challenged.
He makes clear he has no idea who actually carried out the tests and what sort of processes, systems and oversight were in place.
It is evident from the CoA hearing that the communication was not what it should be between all involved:
462. In one respect Dr Lincoln was in error. Whether that error was from something said by Mr Hayward or simply from an assumption made by Dr Lincoln cannot now be ascertained and matters not. The error was to suggest that the whole of the blood flake was dissolved and the resulting solution was used for all the tests. In fact what had happened was that the flake had been divided into a number of parts and each part had then been used for a separate group test. Thus the tests were not done on liquid drawn from the same solution made from the whole flake but on separate solutions each made from distinct parts of the flake. We have no means of knowing whether correction of this error would in any way have altered Dr Lincoln's view.
As I have pointed out numerous times he was a medi doctor working in a London teaching hospital not a forensic scientist working in a FSP. Ie no access to other relevant experts to confer with eg ballistics.
3) MarK Webster for the defence at the 2002 appeal.
I have read MW's lengthy testimony at the CoA 2002. As with Dr Lincoln there's no evidence he was aware of the chain of custody. He is a highly qualified biologist. This aspect of the case requires a multi-disciplinary approach: ballistics, biologist and pathologist.
My question for you is does any expert back up your opinion? This reminds me of the "rabbits blood" theory.
My question for you is has any expert ever carried out any testing to confirm the drawback phenomenon is even possible with a silencer attached?
It has been pointed out to you previously the rabbit blood theory is a non-starter because tests were carried out to determine human in origin. The starting points are to determine what is believed to be blood is in fact blood and then to check it is human in origin.
-
And there's no evidence the defence or court at trial were aware the blood supposedly found inside the silencer was examined a month after the blood on the outside was examined. No evidence the chain of custody was considered.
And no one has explained how blood on the outside of the rifle, arguably of greater quantity and quality than blood found inside the silencer, was unable to generate any blood results beyond what was thought to blood was in fact blood and human in origin:
71. The rifle bore blood smearing on the barrel in the region of the fore-sight and around the mechanism and there were splashes of blood to the left side of the weapon. The appearance of the blood staining was consistent with it having been used to strike somebody who was already bleeding. On analysis the blood was found to be human blood but tests to determine grouping were unsuccessful.
-
"Who are the experts who I refer to?"
1) Glynis Howard called by the prosecution
2) Dr Patrick for the defence at trial, although not called
3) MarK Webster for the defence at the 2002 appeal.
My question for you is does any expert back up your opinion? This reminds me of the "rabbits blood" theory.
You don't need experts to back up your opinion when you reach this level of investigative excellence. With this person on the case, JB will be out in no time!
To be honest I couldn't care less what he wore, or what he looked liked, as trying to guess this doesn't make him more or less guilty.
But, what we do know is that he made lots of really clumsy, clunky and very obvious lies. And everyone saw those lies, could remember those lies, but not Bamber. Bamber didn't have the memory, the intelligence, the nous, the common sense, to remember the lies that he made. Many of which he didn't have to make in the first place
Many of those lies were expertly exposed by DS Jones in Bambers interviews.
And all of that shows quite clearly that he isn't the sharpest tool in the box. He never really controlled events after the murders, and his general idiocy let him down.
So, if he was so poorly organised after the murders, then it makes sense that he was hopelessly poorly organised before the murders.
And so it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that in Jeremy Bambers warped fantasising world, going in like a mixture between the SAS and the milk tray man, ridiculous as it sounds, starts to sound plausible, once you realise how dumb he was in those days.
If it wasn't so tragic, it would be a comedy, watching Bamber struggling to put a wet suit on outside the house on the night, hopping around trying to get a leg into the suit, then falling over and swearing to himself.
If Mr Bean did murders.
That's a beautiful photo of you Cutie. Nice face
PS... I am not a lesbo
How about bi? Best of both worlds ;)
Ehhhh??? No I love opposite sex too much.
-
You don't need experts to back up your opinion when you reach this level of investigative excellence. With this person on the case, JB will be out in no time!
Ah, but Cambridgecutie is "not on the case" at all! She is not connected to the Campaign Team or Jeremy's lawyers, who have submitted a 1,000+ page dossier to the CCRC.
My understanding of the CCRC submission is they are not challenging the actual biology of the blood tests, i.e. they agree that the blood group is a match for Sheila but they respond to this by saying that the blood was also a match for Robert Boutflour's.
It seems like they think either Robert Boutflour inserted his own blood into the moderator (they say they have proof that "the sound moderator was never on the gun") or the police planted Sheila's blood in it.
-
You don't need experts to back up your opinion when you reach this level of investigative excellence. With this person on the case, JB will be out in no time!
FAO Mods
I accept the op dated 15th July 2022 @10.51am uploaded by David1919 on 21st Jan 2025 @ 3.30pm is logged under my profile history but I do not believe I made this post?
David has been advised previously that Cambridgecutie and Munska are not one and the same. I find his obsession with accusing posters of being others and/or using multiple profiles simultaneously creepy and disturbing. I am aware that using multiple profiles simultaneously is against forum rules and can confirm that I have never done this.
-
I don't dispute what your saying NGB, But, i don't take her serious anymore and i don't know how anyone can, she has been posting here under different names 'm lead to believe, she claimed she was Colsville from Red forum when she first introduced herself on here, yet we all Know her as Holly, meaning she had two Identites on Red, [On the red forum I have been posting as Colsville, if you want to have a look at what I've written] her arguments about Stan Jones, re him planting blood in the silencer and climbing through the WHF window to plant the silencer for the relatives to find, was Bonkers, and I'm personally not bothered wether she thinks Bamber innocent or guilty, but she spent most of her time arguing for his guilt and now done a complete U turn ;D ;D ;D
So i must admit, So this is my reason why i don't listen to her.
Where have I ever made reference to being Colsville?
I can confirm when I posted on the so-called Red forum I only did so under the username Holly Goodhead. Most of the time I was on that forum I was a 'senior moderator'. The owner/admin of the forum would not have tolerated the mods having multiple usernames/profiles.
-
You don't need experts to back up your opinion when you reach this level of investigative excellence. With this person on the case, JB will be out in no time!
When I heard Keir Starmer describe Axel Rudakubana as "loners, misfits, young men in their bedroom", I thought for a moment he was talking about you!
-
Ah, but Cambridgecutie is "not on the case" at all! She is not connected to the Campaign Team or Jeremy's lawyers, who have submitted a 1,000+ page dossier to the CCRC.
My understanding of the CCRC submission is they are not challenging the actual biology of the blood tests, i.e. they agree that the blood group is a match for Sheila but they respond to this by saying that the blood was also a match for Robert Boutflour's.
It seems like they think either Robert Boutflour inserted his own blood into the moderator (they say they have proof that "the sound moderator was never on the gun") or the police planted Sheila's blood in it.
I was invited by JB to join his CT about a decade ago but I disagreed with the strategy and when I shared my views with the supreme leader I was told it was their way or the highway so I chose the latter.
-
Ah, but Cambridgecutie is "not on the case" at all! She is not connected to the Campaign Team or Jeremy's lawyers,who have submitted a 1,000+ page dossier to the CCRC.
My understanding of the CCRC submission is they are not challenging the actual biology of the blood tests, i.e. they agree that the blood group is a match for Sheila but they respond to this by saying that the blood was also a match for Robert Boutflour's.
It seems like they think either Robert Boutflour inserted his own blood into the moderator (they say they have proof that "the sound moderator was never on the gun") or the police planted Sheila's blood in it.
If you need 1,000 pages (assuming they're A4) to convince others of something I would say those trying to do the convincing are on a hiding to nothing. It would appear they're going for quantity over quality! Throw enough shite at the wall in the hope that some will stick. The CoA judges in 2002 got thoroughly pi**ed off with this:
522. In this regard there is one further observation that we feel compelled to make. That is that it seems to us that there is a significant deficiency in the statutory framework that provides for a reference by the CCRC to this court of a matter. We have no difficulty at all with the concept that there should be a machinery to review potential miscarriages of justice, where no other avenue of appeal remains. Once a matter has been referred to this court it is clearly right that the court should fully consider those matters that have caused the case to be referred by the CCRC. However, it does seem remarkable to us that the appellant, following a referral to the court, is then entitled to raise any matter he wishes as a ground of appeal without either it having been deemed worthy of consideration by the CCRC or the leave of the court having first been obtained. We have no doubt that some of the matters that occupied the time of the court raised on behalf of the appellant were of such little merit that the court would, if it had power, have refused leave to argue them. As a result notwithstanding the economical advocacy of counsel and the efficient preparation of the case, the case lasted some days longer than could be justified by some of the points that were taken. We would not want to see an appellant shut out from trying to raise a point following a referral but we can see no justification for not having the filter present in such circumstances of requiring leave to raise additional matters to those referred by the CCRC that is present in all other appeals brought by a convicted person. The Court of Appeal Criminal Division is pressed to deal sufficiently expeditiously with the caseload that it has and time unnecessarily wasted means that cases where the court subsequently determines that someone is wrongly detained in prison are delayed. We hope that thought will be given to making this relatively modest change to the legislation that would enable the court to make more efficient use of its time.
-
If you need 1,000 pages (assuming they're A4) to convince others of something I would say those trying to do the convincing are on a hiding to nothing. It would appear they're going for quantity over quality! Throw enough shite at the wall in the hope that some will stick. The CoA judges in 2002 got thoroughly pi**ed off with this:
522. In this regard there is one further observation that we feel compelled to make. That is that it seems to us that there is a significant deficiency in the statutory framework that provides for a reference by the CCRC to this court of a matter. We have no difficulty at all with the concept that there should be a machinery to review potential miscarriages of justice, where no other avenue of appeal remains. Once a matter has been referred to this court it is clearly right that the court should fully consider those matters that have caused the case to be referred by the CCRC. However, it does seem remarkable to us that the appellant, following a referral to the court, is then entitled to raise any matter he wishes as a ground of appeal without either it having been deemed worthy of consideration by the CCRC or the leave of the court having first been obtained. We have no doubt that some of the matters that occupied the time of the court raised on behalf of the appellant were of such little merit that the court would, if it had power, have refused leave to argue them. As a result notwithstanding the economical advocacy of counsel and the efficient preparation of the case, the case lasted some days longer than could be justified by some of the points that were taken. We would not want to see an appellant shut out from trying to raise a point following a referral but we can see no justification for not having the filter present in such circumstances of requiring leave to raise additional matters to those referred by the CCRC that is present in all other appeals brought by a convicted person. The Court of Appeal Criminal Division is pressed to deal sufficiently expeditiously with the caseload that it has and time unnecessarily wasted means that cases where the court subsequently determines that someone is wrongly detained in prison are delayed. We hope that thought will be given to making this relatively modest change to the legislation that would enable the court to make more efficient use of its time.
If JB is innocent. The appeal court judges from 2002 will not come out of this well. Especially if what they dismissed as minor, turns out to be major.
-
Could a guy keep a burden like this to himself for a 40 year period in a CAT A establishment refusing to do any offence related work ( which your expected to do and makes your life easier) and continually fight the system to the same velocity of Jeremy Bamber? Any knockback he has he just keeps going. He's never relented. He is adamant of his innocence.
This could be the greatest MOJ of all time. I do believe he will get to the COA and possibly get an acuittal Even if he is gulity. Momentum will spill over with this case one day. Maybe it's just a hunch I have but I believe so.
-
Ah, but Cambridgecutie is "not on the case" at all! She is not connected to the Campaign Team or Jeremy's lawyers, who have submitted a 1,000+ page dossier to the CCRC.
That was sarcasm.
-
If JB is innocent. The appeal court judges from 2002 will not come out of this well. Especially if what they dismissed as minor, turns out to be major.
Please consider the words spoken and the words highlighted ie "some of the matters".
-
Please consider the words spoken and the words highlighted ie "some of the matters".
Yes but that's my point. Will those particular things prove to be otherwise in the long run?
-
Yes but that's my point. Will those particular things prove to be otherwise in the long run?
Hardly. A conversation with an officer about the purchase of a Porsche.
If JB's conviction is ever quashed then yes all manner of people will come in for some severe criticism.
-
If JB is innocent. The appeal court judges from 2002 will not come out of this well.Especially if what they dismissed as minor, turns out to be major.
You can say that again! Lord Justice Kay is deceased! Justice Henriques is still alive but he's 81. By the time the CCRC have waded through the 1,000 page dossier, according to BarefootDanC, he might well have joined Lord Justice Kay. I'm not sure about Justice Wright?
-
Hardly. A conversation with an officer about the purchase of a Porsche.
If JB's conviction is ever quashed then yes all manner of people will come in for some severe criticism.
Didn't Bamber try to claim that he was talking about buying a toy Porsche ? :)) :)) :))
-
If you need 1,000 pages (assuming they're A4) to convince others of something I would say those trying to do the convincing are on a hiding to nothing. It would appear they're going for quantity over quality! Throw enough shite at the wall in the hope that some will stick. The CoA judges in 2002 got thoroughly pi**ed off with this:
522. In this regard there is one further observation that we feel compelled to make. That is that it seems to us that there is a significant deficiency in the statutory framework that provides for a reference by the CCRC to this court of a matter. We have no difficulty at all with the concept that there should be a machinery to review potential miscarriages of justice, where no other avenue of appeal remains. Once a matter has been referred to this court it is clearly right that the court should fully consider those matters that have caused the case to be referred by the CCRC. However, it does seem remarkable to us that the appellant, following a referral to the court, is then entitled to raise any matter he wishes as a ground of appeal without either it having been deemed worthy of consideration by the CCRC or the leave of the court having first been obtained. We have no doubt that some of the matters that occupied the time of the court raised on behalf of the appellant were of such little merit that the court would, if it had power, have refused leave to argue them. As a result notwithstanding the economical advocacy of counsel and the efficient preparation of the case, the case lasted some days longer than could be justified by some of the points that were taken. We would not want to see an appellant shut out from trying to raise a point following a referral but we can see no justification for not having the filter present in such circumstances of requiring leave to raise additional matters to those referred by the CCRC that is present in all other appeals brought by a convicted person. The Court of Appeal Criminal Division is pressed to deal sufficiently expeditiously with the caseload that it has and time unnecessarily wasted means that cases where the court subsequently determines that someone is wrongly detained in prison are delayed. We hope that thought will be given to making this relatively modest change to the legislation that would enable the court to make more efficient use of its time.
Exactly, following a referral from the CCRC in 2001 on one single ground, Bamber's lawyers submitted around 15 additional grounds which the Court of Appeal had to go through in detail.
Then between 2004 - 2011, Bamber's supporters submitted about 50 grounds to the CCRC and when this was finally rejected, they took this to the High Court for a judicial review (twice) and lost.
Then, the Campaign Team submit a 1,000+ dossier in March 2021 followed by two other submissions.
When this finally gets rejected, will Cambridge Cutie and David want to submit their own submissions?
Will this go on forever?
-
Didn't Bamber try to claim that he was talking about buying a toy Porsche ? :)) :)) :))
Contradicted by PC Lay (CAL Chapter 21).
-
Didn't Bamber try to claim that he was talking about buying a toy Porsche ? :)) :)) :))
Apparently a kit car based on a Porsche. They do exist I spotted one at a garage near to where I lived several years ago.
-
Exactly, following a referral from the CCRC in 2001 on one single ground, Bamber's lawyers submitted around 15 additional grounds which the Court of Appeal had to go through in detail.
Then between 2004 - 2011, Bamber's supporters submitted about 50 grounds to the CCRC and when this was finally rejected, they took this to the High Court for a judicial review (twice) and lost.
Then, the Campaign Team submit a 1,000+ dossier in March 2021 followed by two other submissions.
When this finally gets rejected, will Cambridge Cutie and David want to submit their own submissions?
Will this go on forever?
Hopefully, yes. I can't speak for David.
It needs to be narrow and focused and strike at the heart of the prosecution case against JB:
Blood ) For referral
Ballistics )
----------
SoC reconstruction ie NB coming upstairs with shooter in bedroom )
SC's nightdress )
SC's hands )
SC's swabs ) Add-on's post referral
SC moved )
Bloodstaining on and around bible )
June's mental illness/SC attachment disorder )
-
Didn't Bamber try to claim that he was talking about buying a toy Porsche ? :)) :)) :))
Can I ask if you do any strength training to improve your running? Or any other type of training?
-
Hopefully, yes. I can't speak for David.
It needs to be narrow and focused and strike at the heart of the prosecution case against JB:
Blood ) For referral
Ballistics )
----------
SoC reconstruction ie NB coming upstairs with shooter in bedroom )
SC's nightdress )
SC's hands )
SC's swabs ) Add-on's post referral
SC moved )
Bloodstaining on and around bible )
June's mental illness/SC attachment disorder )
For the Blood and Ballistics referral, would this be based on any expert opinion (or just your own research)?
-
For the Blood and Ballistics referral, would this be based on any expert opinion (or just your own research)?
For cases of this complexity I doubt many CCRC submissions end up referred based on lay person research!
-
Apparently a kit car based on a Porsche. They do exist I spotted one at a garage near to where I lived several years ago.
He named the company or brand covan turbo, he mentions it at trial.
-
He named the company or brand covan turbo, he mentions it at trial.
I doubt that any of us, lucky enough to find themselves in receipt of a small fortune, would settle for a "looky likey".
-
He named the company or brand covan turbo, he mentions it at trial.
Now worth peanuts, but isn't she gorgeous!
https://carsonline.bonhams.com/en/listings/covin/911-turbo-replica/f82b3bd5-71d2-45d1-b0c8-d8e4159b54ac?open=true
Would have preferred a different colour though, such as the original Porsche Signal Orange -
https://www.colors.rs/colorsearch?tag=w~ezmllYHt&searchtype=rs
-
Porsche is the only sports car, in the conventional sense of styling, that I find attractive. Like the round styling as opposed to say lines on Ferrari.
Love 911's after watching Private Benjamin :)
I'm surprised Porsche allow these replicas?
-
Now worth peanuts, but isn't she gorgeous!
https://carsonline.bonhams.com/en/listings/covin/911-turbo-replica/f82b3bd5-71d2-45d1-b0c8-d8e4159b54ac?open=true
Would have preferred a different colour though, such as the original Porsche Signal Orange -
https://www.colors.rs/colorsearch?tag=w~ezmllYHt&searchtype=rs
My late partner's youngest son, a proud, bright red classic Porsche owner, would have loved the convoy of such which accompanied him on his last journey, his own taking pride of place at the head.
-
I doubt that any of us, lucky enough to find themselves in receipt of a small fortune, would settle for a "looky likey".
Give me a Brompton any day Jane ;D
-
Give me a Brompton any day Jane ;D
I had to look that up, HB :))
-
I doubt that any of us, lucky enough to find themselves in receipt of a small fortune, would settle for a "looky likey".
Can't speak for other people to be honest.