Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Cambridgecutie on May 07, 2025, 12:31:PM
-
Adam claims that it was impossible for DS Jones to fabricate the OUTSIDE of the silencer between 9th Aug and 13th Aug because he required too much knowledge that was unavailable. Such as?
Adam also claims that DS Jones would not do such a thing at that time based on a 'hunch'. DS Jones makes it clear in the Sky docu that he suspected JB from the off. The pathologist also confirmed DS Jones was the only dissenter on 9th Aug.
The OUTSIDE of the silencer would not be enough to get the case to court let alone a conviction. DS Jones had to seize the moment and in doing so he created a back up like an insurance policy and was able at a later date to get the ball rolling with JM and the INSIDE of the silencer.
-
Adam claims that it was impossible for DS Jones to fabricate the OUTSIDE of the silencer between 9th Aug and 13th Aug because he required too much knowledge that was unavailable. Such as?
Adam also claims that DS Jones would not do such a thing at that time based on a 'hunch'. DS Jones makes it clear in the Sky docu that he suspected JB from the off. The pathologist also confirmed DS Jones was the only dissenter on 9th Aug.
The OUTSIDE of the silencer would not be enough to get the case to court let alone a conviction. DS Jones had to seize the moment and in doing so he created a back up like an insurance policy and was able at a later date to get the ball rolling with JM and the INSIDE of the silencer.
DS Jones would only entertain such a feat with a monetary incentive.
-
Stan would need to know -
About back spatter.
How to convincingly put blood into a silencer via back spatter.
Sheila's arm length.
Rifle length.
Silencer length.
Different positions Sheila could shoot herself in.
Had the police already checked the silencers.
Sheila's blood group.
Who in the small family circle had Sheila's blood group.
Was there already blood in the rifle barrel
Was a silencer found next to Sheila.
Was Sheila able to put the silencer back after her first shot.
Was there evidence Sheila put the silencer back after the first shot - vertical blood lines.
Why would Sheila put the silencer back in the downstairs gun cupboard.
What the kitchen crime scene photos showed
Why would paint end up on the silencer.
Did Bamber say he left the rifle out minus silencer.
Why would he go out to shoot rabbits minus silencer.
How to put a scratch mark on the silencer.
Whose grey hair should they put on the silencer.
Why would Bamber use a silencer.
Why would he put it away after shooting everyone.
Is this one piece of evidence be enough.
Did he need to do this or was other evidence being processed.
What his punishment would be if found to be fabricating evidence.
If found to be fabricating one piece of evidence, would that negate the whole ongoing case.
If found to be fabricating evidence, what could a rich Bamber do to get revenge.
Was he 100% sure Bamber was guilty. If yes, is it too soon to be handing in fabricated evidence.
Was the case still being investigated with an open mind on murder/suicide.
Would the silencer be tested. Or would Taff say 'don't bother'.
Had he put enough blood into the silencer to be tested.
-
He would need to know this within hours of the massacre.
If deciding to break into WHF & fabricate it prior to hopeing the relatives found it. As CC/Curiosity claimed he did.
-
CC/Curiosity is now saying the relatives handed SJ a silencer with nothing on.
SJ then decided to fabricate it & asked the relatives to lie in there WS's.
Again SJ would need to find out the above 40 pieces of information instantly as the silencer was quickly passed to experts.
-
Jones would have too much to lose.
Fitting up a man who had just lost his family. A bereaved grieving man. A middle class soon to be wealthy man.
It's a none starter.
-
^-^Jones would have too much to lose.
Fitting up a man who had just lost his family. A bereaved grieving man. A middle class soon to be wealthy man.
It's a none starter.
I agree.
-
The relatives & a rogue officer would not know the 40 pieces of information.
Taff was heading the investigation. So would not authorise a unison fabrication. EP would not involve the relatives.
-
So ruled out -
The relatives.
A rogue officer.
EP.
-
Would have to be a substantial monetary incentive.
-
Would have to be a substantial monetary incentive.
Also how is detective special brew getting round the fact its was those with a substantial monetary incentive who first got their hands on and reported the blood and paint? Not Stan Jones? ???
-
DS Jones would only entertain such a feat with a monetary incentive.
Your perception not his.
You appear to be motivated by money hence considering how much JB might secure if he's ever acquitted.
-
Your perception not his.
You appear to be motivated by money hence considering how much JB might secure if he's ever acquitted.
It is reality CC, you must have lived a sheltered life if you think otherwise. I'm not being disrespectful.
-
Stan would need to know -
About back spatter.
Not for the OUTSIDE. No one suggested the blood on the outside was caused by back spatter.
The inference with the blood on the OUTSIDE, hair, paint and scratches is that the rifle with silencer came into contact with NB when he sustained a beating thought to have been from the rifle/silencer.
How to convincingly put blood into a silencer via back spatter.
I am not suggesting DS Jones contaminated the INSIDE just the OUTSIDE.
Sheila's arm length.
Faux pas. No one suggested SC could not reach the trigger WIHOUT the silencer. And no one knows her arm length.
Rifle length.
Why would he need to know this? It was available if needed.
Silencer length.
Ditto above
Different positions Sheila could shoot herself in.
Why would he need to know this to contaminate the OUTSIDE?
Had the police already checked the silencers.
No according to his COLP statement.
Sheila's blood group.
Why would he need this to contaminate the OUTSIDE?
Who in the small family circle had Sheila's blood group.
Irrelevant to the OUTSIDE.
Was there already blood in the rifle barrel
Irrelevant to the OUTSIDE. Inference being the blood, paint, scratches and hair were from the beating NB sustained in the kitchen
Was a silencer found next to Sheila.
No. Irrelevant to OUTSIDE
Was Sheila able to put the silencer back after her first shot.
No. Irrelevant to OUTSIDE
Was there evidence Sheila put the silencer back after the first shot - vertical blood lines.
No. Irrelevant to OUTSIDE of silencer
Why would Sheila put the silencer back in the downstairs gun cupboard.
She didn't. Irrelevant to OUTSIDE
What the kitchen crime scene photos showed
Admits he had access to.
Why would paint end up on the silencer.
Kitche Altercation
Did Bamber say he left the rifle out minus silencer.
Yes.
Why would he go out to shoot rabbits minus silencer.
Preferred the fixed iron sights.
How to put a scratch mark on the silencer.
Simple
Whose grey hair should they put on the silencer.
Anyone's pre DNA
Why would Bamber use a silencer.
He didn't
Why would he put it away after shooting everyone.
He didn't
Is this one piece of evidence be enough.
The OUTSIDE wasn't.
Did he need to do this or was other evidence being processed.
He would know. Irrelevant to the OUTSIDE
What his punishment would be if found to be fabricating evidence.
Experienced officer would know what he could get away with it. Doubt it was the first or last.
If found to be fabricating one piece of evidence, would that negate the whole ongoing case.
And if he didn't...?
If found to be fabricating evidence, what could a rich Bamber do to get revenge.
You are drifting into lala land
Was he 100% sure Bamber was guilty. If yes, is it too soon to be handing in fabricated evidence.
Yes based on his COLP statement
Was the case still being investigated with an open mind on murder/suicide.
Yes but not so for DS Jones
Would the silencer be tested. Or would Taff say 'don't bother'.
DI Cook was in charge of exhibits
Had he put enough blood into the silencer to be tested.
Just the right amount on the OUTSIDE to show what he wanted ie human blood
-
It is reality CC, you must have lived a sheltered life if you think otherwise. I'm not being disrespectful.
Did you know DS Jones intimately? I assume not and if I am right you have no idea what motivated him. Stop pretending otherwise.
It is you who has led a sheltered life thinking everyone thinks like you do. They don't.
Consider the people that rigged the VW emissions testing. What motivated them? It wasn't money.
Consider the 9/11 bombers. What motivated them? It wasn't money.
Consider kids who encourage other kids to take their own lives online. What motivated them? It wasn't money.
People do all sorts of shite for all sorts of reasons. The fact you can only see £££'s does not make it so for others.
-
Also how is detective special brew getting round the fact its was those with a substantial monetary incentive who first got their hands on and reported the blood and paint? Not Stan Jones? ???
For years you harassed and stalked Caroline and Jane. You are adamant AE and JM are ultimately responsible. Now you have become the forum bore with your absurd claims about me. Why? Because you're an incel:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/predicting-harm-among-incels-involuntary-celibates/predicting-harm-among-incels-involuntary-celibates-the-roles-of-mental-health-ideological-belief-and-social-networking-accessible
-
Did you know DS Jones intimately? I assume not and if I am right you have no idea what motivated him. Stop pretending otherwise.
It is you who has led a sheltered life thinking everyone thinks like you do. They don't.
Consider the people that rigged the VW emissions testing. What motivated them? It wasn't money.
Consider the 9/11 bombers. What motivated them? It wasn't money.
Consider kids who encourage other kids to take their own lives online. What motivated them? It wasn't money.
People do all sorts of shite for all sorts of reasons. The fact you can only see £££'s does not make it so for others.
I would reckon that only financial motive would make something fanciful seem remotely feasible in this instance. And I reckon I'm not in a club of one.
Do you believe Jones would undertake such an endeavour on a mere hunch?
-
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,12564.msg581497.html#msg581497
Sorry reply 2 only had 31 pieces.
Here is the full 40. Would relate to SJ as well.
-
Seems CC is saying SJ just fabricated the outside of the silencer.
So who created the back spatter effect inside?
-
No wonder Jeremy wanted the forum shut down.
-
I would reckon that only financial motive would make something fanciful seem remotely feasible in this instance. And I reckon I'm not in a club of one.
Do you believe Jones would undertake such an endeavour on a mere hunch?
We know you have £££'s in your eyes but not everyone thinks like you!
You perceiving something as "fanciful" and "remotely feasible" doesn't make it so. To an experienced officer like DS Jones it was par for the course.
In reality it worked a treat.
-
We know you have £££'s in your eyes but not everyone thinks like you!
You perceiving something as "fanciful" and "remotely feasible" doesn't make it so. To an experienced officer like DS Jones it was par for the course.
In reality it worked a treat.
What worked a treat?
-
No wonder Jeremy wanted the forum shut down.
Why would you care if you think him guilty? And if you don't think him guilty what's your explanation as to how the OUTSIDE of the silencer became contaminated: blood, paint, hair and scratches?
I don't buy the BS you're on the fence. You have been a member here since 16th July 2015 at 10.23. You've spent a total of 75 days, 16 hours and 1 minute as of 14.40 today. You've made 11,578 posts.
-
Why would you care if you think him guilty? And if you don't think him guilty what's your explanation as to how the OUTSIDE of the silencer became contaminated: blood, paint, hair and scratches?
I don't buy the BS you're on the fence. You have been a member here since 16th July 2015 at 10.23. You've spent a total of 75 days, 16 hours and 1 minute as of 14.40 today. You've made 11,578 posts.
I don't care what you buy or don't buy about me.
Don't change the subject, answer the question what would make DS Jones do what you said he undertook without financial incentive?
-
I see members have taken my request really seriously.
-
I see members have taken my request really seriously.
No malice on my part, it is CC who turns it personal.
-
I see members have taken my request really seriously.
I agree Roch the personal attacks create a poor atmosphere on the forum. I have edited a few but it is difficult when offensive posts are in response to an offensive post. I just hope we can avoid having to moderate aggressively.
-
Adam claims that it was impossible for DS Jones to fabricate the OUTSIDE of the silencer between 9th Aug and 13th Aug because he required too much knowledge that was unavailable. Such as?
Adam also claims that DS Jones would not do such a thing at that time based on a 'hunch'. DS Jones makes it clear in the Sky docu that he suspected JB from the off. The pathologist also confirmed DS Jones was the only dissenter on 9th Aug.
The OUTSIDE of the silencer would not be enough to get the case to court let alone a conviction. DS Jones had to seize the moment and in doing so he created a back up like an insurance policy and was able at a later date to get the ball rolling with JM and the INSIDE of the silencer.
The lower ranks suspected Bamber at an early stage too: "We're not happy with this chap.."
-
Did you know DS Jones intimately? I assume not and if I am right you have no idea what motivated him. Stop pretending otherwise.
It is you who has led a sheltered life thinking everyone thinks like you do. They don't.
Consider the people that rigged the VW emissions testing. What motivated them? It wasn't money.
Consider the 9/11 bombers. What motivated them? It wasn't money.
Consider kids who encourage other kids to take their own lives online. What motivated them? It wasn't money.
People do all sorts of shite for all sorts of reasons. The fact you can only see £££'s does not make it so for others.
Of course it was money. They wanted market share and to beat their competitors. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34324772
-
The lower ranks suspected Bamber at an early stage too: "We're not happy with this chap.."
If I recall correctly the exact phrase was " were not happy with this bloke, this ain't a bloke grieving, this guy is an oddball, not what he seems "
-
If I recall correctly the exact phrase was " were not happy with this bloke, this ain't a bloke grieving, this guy is an oddball, not what he seems "
Yes, thank you.
-
I agree Roch the personal attacks create a poor atmosphere on the forum. I have edited a few but it is difficult when offensive posts are in response to an offensive post. I just hope we can avoid having to moderate aggressively.
I think at times this forum becomes like some of the Facebook groups which is a shame.
-
I think at times this forum becomes like some of the Facebook groups which is a shame.
We really try to avoid that. From what I have seen the Facebook groups are very nasty.
-
No malice on my part, it is CC who turns it personal.
No it is not. David started it with silly claims about my drinking habits aided and abetted by you and softy boy. Three boys against one girl and then you have the damn cheek to call me a bully :o I am sending for reinforcements.
-
We really try to avoid that. From what I have seen the Facebook groups are very nasty.
George Barwood's group is - and I have to ask myself why he tolerates it. I believe it's part of a conspiracy to shut guilters up.
Stephan's group is very well moderated and the vast majority of the time, discussion is respectful.
-
George Barwood's group is - and I have to ask myself why he tolerates it. I believe it's part of a conspiracy to shut guilters up.
Stephan's group is very well moderated and the vast majority of the time, discussion is respectful.
On the Red forum we had zero tolerance. Its the only way, otherwise its tit for tat and just escalates.
-
DS Jones would only entertain such a feat with a monetary incentive.
What do you think motivated officers in other cases to fabricate evidence where there was clearly no financial incentive eg Guildfor Four and Maguire Seven?
-
I don't care what you buy or don't buy about me.
Don't change the subject, answer the question what would make DS Jones do what you said he undertook without financial incentive?
Why don't you post your theories about the silencer instead of sitting on the sidelines and posting nonsense like DS Jones would only fabricate the silencer if he was incentivised financially. There are numerous cases where the police fit up suspects without financial incentive.
-
Why don't you post your theories about the silencer instead of sitting on the sidelines and posting nonsense like DS Jones would only fabricate the silencer if he was incentivised financially. There are numerous cases where the police fit up suspects without financial incentive.
It's not nonsense, you are accusing a police officer of serious corruption without a scintilla of evidence.
-
Why don't you post your theories about the silencer instead of sitting on the sidelines and posting nonsense like DS Jones would only fabricate the silencer if he was incentivised financially. There are numerous cases where the police fit up suspects without financial incentive.
Sitting on the sidelines? I haven't seen JB in 30 years, I'm not a part of his CT, we have no relationship. I just am a man on a forum who has an interest in the case.
I have my own theories about the silencer.
-
Sitting on the sidelines? I haven't seen JB in 30 years, I'm not a part of his CT, we have no relationship. I just am a man on a forum who has an interest in the case.
I have my own theories about the silencer.
Please divulge.
Either Bamber used the silencer.
Or EP lead by Taff worked in unison to fabricate it. Then asked the relatives to say they found it.
-
On the Red forum we had zero tolerance. Its the only way, otherwise its tit for tat and just escalates.
Ha Ha not surprising when you was playing most of the characters, you didn’t care for zero tolerance when you dedicated a topic to attack members on the blue forum.
-
Ha Ha not surprising when you was playing most of the characters, you didn’t care for zero tolerance when you dedicated a topic to attack members on the blue forum.
Ha Ha you are either utterly deluded or a liar. I only ever had one profile on the 'Red' forum.
"attack"? It must have escaped your attention that the Blue forum is an online forum not Pear Harbour! And of course members of the Blue forum are all 'innocence and light' and never deserving of condemnation ::)
And if you felt that strongly then why not cancel your membership in protest?
-
Ha Ha you are either utterly deluded or a liar. I only ever had one profile on the 'Red' forum.
"attack"? It must have escaped your attention that the Blue forum is an online forum not Pear Harbour! And of course members of the Blue forum are all 'innocence and light' and never deserving of condemnation ::)
And if you felt that strongly then why not cancel your membership in protest?
Well in your opening post you ask members to check your Colsville posts on Red, meaning your KE/Cutie here and Holly/Colsville on Red.
I can’t cancel my account, as a Moderator on Red you will see I’ve not been on for years, I can’t remember my password.
From CC/KE who we know as Holly from Red……. On the red forum I have been posting as Colsville, if you want to have a look at what I've written.
-
Well in your opening post you ask members to check your Colsville posts on Red, meaning your KE/Cutie here and Holly/Colsville on Red.
I can’t cancel my account, as a Moderator on Red you will see I’ve not been on for years, I can’t remember my password.
From CC/KE who we know as Holly from Red……. On the red forum I have been posting as Colsville, if you want to have a look at what I've written.
Stop attemtping to make trouble and divert attention away from the case.
I have only ever had one forum profile on the 'Red' forum.
It is not against forum rules to have different profiles. It is against forum rules to use profiles simultaneously which I have never done.
-
Stop attemtping to make trouble and divert attention away from the case.
I have only ever had one forum profile on the 'Red' forum.
It is not against forum rules to have different profiles. It is against forum rules to use profiles simultaneously which I have never done.
So I’m not a Liar as you accused me of being, your opening post states you was Colsville? So you tried to fool members on the Red forum as well as the Blue forum? As a Moderator don’t you think that was unfair and very sneaky?
I’m not diverting away from the case, it’s you who brought up the subject as Red having zero tolerance, yet you are obviously lying to the rest of the forum on Red?
-
Ha Ha you are either utterly deluded or a liar. I only ever had one profile on the 'Red' forum.
"attack"? It must have escaped your attention that the Blue forum is an online forum not Pear Harbour! And of course members of the Blue forum are all 'innocence and light' and never deserving of condemnation ::)
And if you felt that strongly then why not cancel your membership in protest?
You are not telling the truth, you had two profiles on Red, Holly and Colsville! I have a right to defend myself against you calling me a liar.
-
On the Red forum we had zero tolerance. Its the only way, otherwise its tit for tat and just escalates.
That is simply not true. It may be that in more recent times the poison has stopped, but moderation on that forum for most of its existence has been limited and very selective and partisan.
-
That is simply not true. It may be that in more recent times the poison has stopped, but moderation on that forum for most of its existence has been limited and very selective and partisan.
Well I can only account for my role as a moderator, which was mainly limited to the Bamber board, and I certainly adopted a zero tolerance. I even deleted emojis and gifs when used to mock.
-
You are not telling the truth, you had two profiles on Red, Holly and Colsville! I have a right to defend myself against you calling me a liar.
I did not have two profiles. If you think otherwise, prove it?
-
So I’m not a Liar as you accused me of being, your opening post states you was Colsville? So you tried to fool members on the Red forum as well as the Blue forum? As a Moderator don’t you think that was unfair and very sneaky?
I’m not diverting away from the case, it’s you who brought up the subject as Red having zero tolerance, yet you are obviously lying to the rest of the forum on Red?
It is simply untrue. If you think otherwise, prove it.
-
That is simply not true. It may be that in more recent times the poison has stopped, but moderation on that forum for most of its existence has been limited and very selective and partisan.
I understand why you feel strongly about the 'Red' forum but all of that went on long before I joined it.
I can only speak as I found and I got on ok with everyone. I was in the minority, if not alone, as a 'supporter'.
Does anyone still post on it?
-
Sitting on the sidelines? I haven't seen JB in 30 years, I'm not a part of his CT, we have no relationship. I just am a man on a forum who has an interest in the case.
I have my own theories about the silencer.
So why not post them up for discussion? Its easy to denigrate the theories of others when withholding your own.
Either the silencer was an authentic exhibit as the prosecution claim or it was fabricated.
-
It's not nonsense, you are accusing a police officer of serious corruption without a scintilla of evidence.
You do not know what evidence I have so please stop pretending otherwise.
ALL police officers are most certainly not paradigms of virtue. No more than priests are or any other profession.
-
You do not know what evidence I have so please stop pretending otherwise.
I've a shrewd idea, the second word is all.
-
ALL police officers are most certainly not paradigms of virtue.
Very true.
-
I've a shrewd idea, the second word is all.
No idea what you are talking about.
-
It is simply untrue. If you think otherwise, prove it.
I don’t have to Cutie, I will let others decide.
-
I've a shrewd idea, the second word is all.
F… all
-
I don’t have to Cutie, I will let others decide.
I could not give a flying fig. I know I only had one profile on the Red forum.
-
I understand why you feel strongly about the 'Red' forum but all of that went on long before I joined it.
I can only speak as I found and I got on ok with everyone. I was in the minority, if not alone, as a 'supporter'.
Does anyone still post on it?
I accept it started before you joined that forum but you were an early member of it and must have been aware of what was going on. Even after you became a moderator there was some atrocious behaviour there. It was frankly often a cesspit with clearly illegal material posted at times.
That forum seems to have virtually died now.
-
Please divulge.
Either Bamber used the silencer.
Or EP lead by Taff worked in unison to fabricate it. Then asked the relatives to say they found it.
Thanks for that Adam.
-
Thanks for that Adam.
Are you not going to divulge your theories?
I believe he used the silencer and put it away. The relatives went snooping and found it.
CC/Curiosity believes the relatives handed SJ a silencer with nothing on. SJ then did an instant turbo charged frame, getting the FSS & the relatives to help him.
-
Thanks for that Adam.
What is your theory behind the silencer?
-
What is your theory behind the silencer?
I don't believe the CCRC should have dismissed Fowlers findings as " speculative "
-
I find personally just my opinion and agree with Mark Williams Thomas that it would be ludicrous of a gulity JB to have put the silencer back in the cupboard. Its my opinion he would have disposed of it or at least throughly cleaned it.
He would not have to be backspatter expert. He would have been aware that the silencer had come into contact with shelias skin.
I struggle with the factor of Nicholas's blood wasn't found in the silencer.
-
I believe CCs theory is only viable if a paper trial of monetary award could be proven. Which is Doubtful. I strongly disagree that a police officer corrupt or on a hero hunch of self righteousness would go to these lengths without monetary incentive.
I am aware that coppers have fitted people up without monetary uncentive. However this is a unique set of circumstances
I also don't believe DS Jones had the intelligence or wherewithal not to make a slip up.
-
I don't believe the CCRC should have dismissed Fowlers findings as " speculative "
Agreed. But who do you think contaminated it? that's more what I am asking.
-
Agreed. But what who do you think contaminated it? that's more what I am asking.
I would lean to the relatives on a solo basis rather than in colusion with DS Jones. However it is difficult to prove.
-
Agreed. But what who do you think contaminated it? that's more what I am asking.
What do you make on the findings of PS?
-
I would lean to the relatives on a solo basis rather than in conclusion with DS Jones. However it is difficult to prove.
You can draw inferences from all the circumstances. I personally believe AE acting alone is the most probable.
-
What do you make on the findings of PS?
PS?
-
PS?
Sutherst.
-
You can draw inferences from all the circumstances. I personally believe AE acting alone is the most probable.
AE and RWB in collusion for me. I believe DB to be somewhat of an enigma. Although he is the one who has taken part in numerous of documentaries and had an indepth conversation with Eric Allison.
What do you believe of PB After all she was the closest relative given that her sister was murdered.
-
Sutherst.
Its probably correct, but its not conclusive.
-
What do you believe of PB After all she was the closest relative given that her sister was murdered.
She died in early 86 IIRC . The circumstances of her will being changed less than a month after the murders is very shady. Another subject that the Jury were not aware of.
-
AE and RWB in collusion for me. I believe DB to be somewhat of an enigma. Although he is the one who has taken part in numerous of documentaries and had an indepth conversation with Eric Allison.
What do you believe of PB After all she was the closest relative given that her sister was murdered.
Its possible he did simply find the silencer and does not know what AE or RWB done to it after.
I find his comments about his sister in the NY article rather telling.
-
I find personally just my opinion and agree with Mark Williams Thomas that it would be ludicrous of a gulity JB to have put the silencer back in the cupboard. Its my opinion he would have disposed of it or at least throughly cleaned it.
He would not have to be backspatter expert. He would have been aware that the silencer had come into contact with shelias skin.
I struggle with the factor of Nicholas's blood wasn't found in the silencer.
The silencer was put back in it's box. Don't believe the police even opened the box.
Afterwards he would not have realised the relatives were suspicious & were going to get access to WHF. Together with not realising the silencer was incriminating.
-
She died in early 86 IIRC . The circumstances of her will being changed less than a month after the murders is very shady. Another subject that the Jury were not aware of.
Pamela Boutflour? Do you mean Mabel speak man the grandmother?
Believe Pamela Boutflour died some years ago and did outlive RB.
-
The silencer was put back in it's box. Don't believe the police even opened the box.
Afterwards he would not have realised the relatives were suspicious & were going to get access to WHF. Together with not realising the silencer was incriminating.
How much forensic awareness do you believe Bamber had?
Why do you believe he ordered the burning of carpets and other artefacts?
-
Pamela Boutflour? Do you mean Mabel speak man the grandmother?
Believe Pamela Boutflour died some years ago and did outlive RB.
Yeah that is who I was talking about.
-
Yeah that is who I was talking about.
In the event of an aquittal for Jeremy Bamber I do believe he would mount a private prosecution against JM and AE, if the CPS takes no action.
Jeremy is strong minded and litigious. And putting it bluntly will want revenge big style.
-
How much forensic awareness do you believe Bamber had?
Why do you believe he ordered the burning of carpets and other artefacts?
I am sorry Ilb but you are repeating a misleading story that is constantly used by guilters. JB did not order the destruction. The police sought/requested his approval and he signed an authorisation. It was the police that burned material on the Wednesday I believe . They initiated this act.
JB burned his parents clothing on the following weekend. I have seen a copy of this document but please do not ask me to find it again.
-
How much forensic awareness do you believe Bamber had?
Why do you believe he ordered the burning of carpets and other artefacts?
Not very aware. He may have only realised the rifle with silencer was too long for Sheila on the night.
Thought he was asked about removals/burnings & agreed.
Do you believe he would use a silencer in a silent massacre attempt?
-
Not very aware. He may have only realised the rifle with silencer was too long for Sheila on the night.
Thought he was asked about removals/burnings & agreed.
Do you believe he would use a silencer in a silent massacre attempt?
Believe he asked for it to be burnt but will recheck.
In answer to your question, it's a possibility
However the sound moderator on its self is not effective in trying to not disturb the household.
Breaking into a property in the middle of the night even a property such as WHF comes with the risk that the occupants could wake.
-
I am sorry Ilb but you are repeating a misleading story that is constantly used by guilters. JB did not order the destruction. The police sought/requested his approval and he signed an authorisation. It was the police that burned material on the Wednesday I believe . They initiated this act.
JB burned his parents clothing on the following weekend. I have seen a copy of this document but please do not ask me to find it again.
I am actually quoting Wilkes Bubo. I am also not a guilter.
-
Must get my laps in the pool in the late maspolomas sun, blighty bound tomorrow back to the grind. Speak later.
-
I am actually quoting Wilkes Bubo. I am also not a guilter.
I was not implying you were. I understand your position. I have seen the authorisation document. I believe there was a discussion initiated by the police during the long day that followed during which he was giving his first statement. They suggested the burning but said he had to give authorisation for that and installing a security system. Wilkes may be wrong on this point in that his wording suggests JB was the driving force.
you could say that technically he ordered it by signing. He was now the head of the household so he was in charge
-
I was not implying you were. I understand your position. I have seen the authorisation document. I believe there was a discussion initiated by the police during the long day that followed during which he was giving his first statement. They suggested the burning but said he had to give authorisation for that and installing a security system. Wilkes may be wrong on this point in that his wording suggests JB was the driving force.
you could say that technically he ordered it by signing. He was now the head of the household so he was in charge
The insinuation from some of the guilt camp is that he did this because he was forensic aware enough to be worried what potentially at least could be yielded. The same with the cremations. When his parents in particular June were staunch Christians and would want a burial.
-
He would take the silencer off after shooting Sheila. She was shot last.
This was after realising on the night or knowing beforehand she could not shoot herself with it on.
It was then a case of - 'do I leave it next to Sheila, or put it back in it's box when I go downstairs'.
-
Another advantage of a silencer is it made the rifle longer.
He was able to get two close range shots at Nevill from June's side of the bed.
Shooting June first a silencer was important. Nevill was next to her. But Nevill was still able to react at the last second.
-
He would take the silencer off after shooting Sheila. She was shot last.
This was after realising on the night or knowing beforehand she could not shoot herself with it on.
It was then a case of - 'do I leave it next to Sheila, or put it back in it's box when I go downstairs'.
I am shocked he didn't clean or throw it to be honest.
-
Another advantage of a silencer is it made the rifle longer.
He was able to get two close range shots at Nevill from June's side of the bed.
Shooting June first a silencer was important. Nevill was next to her. But Nevill was still able to react at the last second.
I believe he shot Nevill first. I also believe Nevill was awake.
-
Another advantage of the silencer would be in the twins bedroom.
-
I believe he shot Nevill first. I also believe Nevill was awake.
Shot first or second. The rifle was longer with a silencer for Bamber on June's side of the bed.
If he chose to shoot June first as me & CAL believe, the silencer would help in preventing Nevill from waking.
-
I am shocked he didn't clean or throw it to be honest.
In a box at the back of the gun cupboard. As good as thrown to him.
Assume the sights were also in the gun cupboard.
-
In a box at the back of the gun cupboard. As good thrown to him.
Assume the sights were also in the gun cupboard.
Have to agree with Williams - Thomas that he would have disposed of it. Or gave it a thorough clean.
Bamber would have handled the silencer and may have also felt wet blood.
Just my opinion.
-
Have to agree with Williams - Thomas that he would have disposed of it.
Just my opinion.
Do you think putting it back in it's box would have been ok if he had cleaned it?
-
Struggle with Bamber " realising on the night that shelias arms would have not been long enough "
He himself had used the rifle before and would have been able to work this out beforehand.
-
Do you think putting it back in it's box would have been ok if he had cleaned it?
I would expect him to have cleaned it.
Or just disposed of it entirely.
Could have chucked it into the sea on his way back before having a burger with the teenagers camped out.
-
Struggle with Bamber " realising on the night that shelias arms would have not been long enough "
He himself had used the rifle before and would have been able to work this out beforehand.
Beforehand or on the night. He took it off after shooting Sheila.
-
Beforehand or on the night. He took it off after shooting Sheila.
Beforehand, he by his own admission used the rifle sporadically.
-
If the moderator has come into contact with skin, your first instinct is to clean it at the very least. You don't have to be forensic minded to do this, even by 85 standards.
-
I would expect him to have cleaned it.
Or just disposed of it entirely.
Could have chucked it into the sea on his way back before having a burger with the teenagers camped out.
The scratch he could do nothing about.
He could have noticed the paint, blood on the outside and grey hair. Depends how dark it was.
Decided to just put it back in it's box at the back of the gun cupboard.
Was not expecting the relatives to be suspicious & get access to WHF to snoop.
-
If he was going to the trouble of taking the sights off, putting the silencer on is no problem.
Lots of reasons why he would do both.
-
Probably the first thing he did after shooting Sheila & going downstairs was put the silencer back.
He could then focus on other things.
-
I would have expected him to have noticed the blood.
Would have flicked on a light switch.
-
For me putting on the hallway light would have been enough prior to entering all the bedrooms.
He knew the property.
If he shot Sheila with the main bedroom light off, he would not notice anything on the silencer.
-
For me putting on the hallway light would have been enough prior to entering all the bedrooms.
He knew the property.
If he shot Sheila with the main bedroom light off, he would not notice anything on the silencer.
Correct, although a light in the vicinity is a big help.
Strongly believe the light would be on. It was the most important victim from his perspective.
-
He knew the property.
Agree, it was his childhood home.
-
Taking everything into consideration, the silencer was probably contaminated after Julie came forward in september. Probably sanctioned by the top brass who believed JB to be guilty and carried out by Stan, Ainsley, Cook or whoever.
The police probably found the silencer for the Anschutz on the 7th, but not in the gun cupboard, and they probably coulldn't change the paperwork to say they had due to protestation from Taff.
So, a believable back story had to be invented about a second silencer found in the gun cupboard by the relatives, and then at some time after poor Taff died they decided there was nothing to stop them fiddling about with the exhibit numbers and merging the two silencers into one.
I suppose the relatives had to be included whatever, in order to get hold of a second silencer. The story was probably going to be that the police found the Pargeter silencer on the 7th and then the Bamber silencer was found in the cupboard with Sheila's blood in it by the relatives some time later. Although it was probably the Boutflour silencer which was contaminated with Sheila's blood, hence Dave's DNA being found in it.
Think of it this way, if it was the rellies who contaminated the silencer with Sheila's blood and paint from the mantle, do you really think they would wait over a month for results? Course not!
And are we really to believe that the police were aware of a blob of blood and the paint from the mantle, and had indeed put two and two together regarding the silencer being used on the night of the murders yet just ignored this and still concluded murder/suicide at the beginning of september? No way!
No, I think we have to conclude that the silencer evidence was fabricated after Julie came forward and that statements and documents were manipulated to suit.
-
Taking everything into consideration, the silencer was probably contaminated after Julie came forward in september. Probably sanctioned by the top brass who believed JB to be guilty and carried out by Stan, Ainsley, Cook or whoever.
The police probably found the silencer for the Anschutz on the 7th, but not in the gun cupboard, and they probably coulldn't change the paperwork to say they had due to protestation from Taff.
So, a believable back story had to be invented about a second silencer found in the gun cupboard by the relatives, and then at some time after poor Taff died they decided there was nothing to stop them fiddling about with the exhibit numbers and merging the two silencers into one.
I suppose the relatives had to be included whatever, in order to get hold of a second silencer. The story was probably going to be that the police found the Pargeter silencer on the 7th and then the Bamber silencer was found in the cupboard with Sheila's blood in it by the relatives some time later. Although it was probably the Boutflour silencer which was contaminated with Sheila's blood, hence Dave's DNA being found in it.
Think of it this way, if it was the rellies who contaminated the silencer with Sheila's blood and paint from the mantle, do you really think they would wait over a month for results? Course not!
And are we really to believe that the police were aware of a blob of blood and the paint from the mantle, and had indeed put two and two together regarding the silencer being used on the night of the murders yet just ignored this and still concluded murder/suicide at the beginning of september? No way!
No, I think we have to conclude that the silencer evidence was fabricated after Julie came forward and that statements and documents were manipulated to suit.
The silencer was checked for Human blood on the 13th of August three weeks before Julie came forward so how was it contaminated after Julie came Forward? It was sent back to the Lab along with the rifle on the 30th of August.
-
The silencer was checked for Human blood on the 13th of August three weeks before Julie came forward so how was it contaminated after Julie came Forward? It was sent back to the Lab along with the rifle on the 30th of August.
By contaminated, I am referring to the paint and flake of blood found inside, HB. The campaign team say the documentation was manipulated and back dated to include the paint from the mantle. That must have been after they decided to merge the two silencers into one, probably after Taffs demise.
-
Taking everything into consideration, the silencer was probably contaminated after Julie came forward in september. Probably sanctioned by the top brass who believed JB to be guilty and carried out by Stan, Ainsley, Cook or whoever.
The police probably found the silencer for the Anschutz on the 7th, but not in the gun cupboard, and they probably coulldn't change the paperwork to say they had due to protestation from Taff.
So, a believable back story had to be invented about a second silencer found in the gun cupboard by the relatives, and then at some time after poor Taff died they decided there was nothing to stop them fiddling about with the exhibit numbers and merging the two silencers into one.
I suppose the relatives had to be included whatever, in order to get hold of a second silencer. The story was probably going to be that the police found the Pargeter silencer on the 7th and then the Bamber silencer was found in the cupboard with Sheila's blood in it by the relatives some time later. Although it was probably the Boutflour silencer which was contaminated with Sheila's blood, hence Dave's DNA being found in it.
Think of it this way, if it was the rellies who contaminated the silencer with Sheila's blood and paint from the mantle, do you really think they would wait over a month for results? Course not!
And are we really to believe that the police were aware of a blob of blood and the paint from the mantle, and had indeed put two and two together regarding the silencer being used on the night of the murders yet just ignored this and still concluded murder/suicide at the beginning of september? No way!
No, I think we have to conclude that the silencer evidence was fabricated after Julie came forward and that statements and documents were manipulated to suit.
It's these kind of ideas that do JB no favours.
-
Both sides agree Bamber would use a silencer in a silent massacre attempt. And take it off after killing Sheila.
The prosecution say he put it back in it's box. At the back of the gun cupboard. Away from the crime scene.
Supporters say he should have cleaned it beforehand. Agree he will wish he did!
-
The prosecution case is backed up by evidence - Sheila's blood, aga paint, a scratch and a grey hair.
The relatives did not have the resources to find out the 40 pieces of information required. Espescially in 2 days.
That is if they had the crazy idea & courage to go ahead in the first place. Based on an early hunch.
-
CC/Curiosity's says SJ fabricated a bit of the silencer. Then got the FSS to fabricate another bit.
This is after the relatives handed in a silencer with nothing on. Who he then persuaded to lie in there WS's.
Again SJ would not have the resources to find out the 40 pieces of information. If he had the crazy idea and courage to go ahead in the first place. Based on an early hunch.
-
By contaminated, I am referring to the paint and flake of blood found inside, HB. The campaign team say the documentation was manipulated and back dated to include the paint from the mantle. That must have been after they decided to merge the two silencers into one, probably after Taffs demise.
There was no paint found inside the Silencer what are you talking about? The paint was on the outside, Stan, Miller and Cooke went on the 14th of August at 6.15pm to WHF and Cooke took a paint sample from the red coloured fire surround?
-
Taking everything into consideration, the silencer was probably contaminated after Julie came forward in september. Probably sanctioned by the top brass who believed JB to be guilty and carried out by Stan, Ainsley, Cook or whoever.
The police probably found the silencer for the Anschutz on the 7th, but not in the gun cupboard, and they probably coulldn't change the paperwork to say they had due to protestation from Taff.
So, a believable back story had to be invented about a second silencer found in the gun cupboard by the relatives, and then at some time after poor Taff died they decided there was nothing to stop them fiddling about with the exhibit numbers and merging the two silencers into one.
I suppose the relatives had to be included whatever, in order to get hold of a second silencer. The story was probably going to be that the police found the Pargeter silencer on the 7th and then the Bamber silencer was found in the cupboard with Sheila's blood in it by the relatives some time later. Although it was probably the Boutflour silencer which was contaminated with Sheila's blood, hence Dave's DNA being found in it.
Think of it this way, if it was the rellies who contaminated the silencer with Sheila's blood and paint from the mantle, do you really think they would wait over a month for results? Course not!
And are we really to believe that the police were aware of a blob of blood and the paint from the mantle, and had indeed put two and two together regarding the silencer being used on the night of the murders yet just ignored this and still concluded murder/suicide at the beginning of september? No way!
No, I think we have to conclude that the silencer evidence was fabricated after Julie came forward and that statements and documents were manipulated to suit.
Who is Dave’s DNA found in it?
-
At least CC/Curiosity does not have a reckless SJ climbing through the WHF windows to fabricate the outside of the silencer anymore. Literally hours after the massacre.
Based on courage, a crazy idea, an early hunch & armed with a mass of inside information.
Then hopeing the relatives find it. Providing Bamber conviniently doesn't hang around & decide to be the police's WHF contact.
-
Who is Dave’s DNA found in it?
The World Chess Champion who can't beat the Boss?
-
At least CC/Curiosity does not have a reckless SJ climbing through the WHF windows to fabricate the outside of the silencer anymore. Literally hours after the massacre.
Based on courage, a crazy idea, an early hunch & armed with a mass of inside information.
Then hopeing the relatives find it. Providing Bamber conviniently doesn't hang around & decide to be the police's WHF contact.
Do me a favour and quit with your CC/Curiosity trope. Thanks in advance.
-
The World Chess Champion who can't beat the Boss?
;D ;D ;D. Well I have won on two occasions out of about 30, I think he threw them on purpose so I would keep playing him though.
-
Do me a favour and quit with your CC/Curiosity trope. Thanks in advance.
I agree, Adam, Curiosity is not CC. CC already has enough doppelgängers to her credit.
-
Do me a favour and quit with your CC/Curiosity trope. Thanks in advance.
Do you agree Bamber used the silencer and put it away. The relatives then found it?
-
Do you agree Bamber used the silencer and put it away. The relatives then found it?
You know very well I do, such a silly question!
-
You know very well I do, such a silly question!
What do you think of CC's theory on the blood, paint, scratch mark & grey hair?
-
SJ was so dynamic in fabricating the silencer. Then lost the grey hair!
-
Taking everything into consideration, the silencer was probably contaminated after Julie came forward in september. Probably sanctioned by the top brass who believed JB to be guilty and carried out by Stan, Ainsley, Cook or whoever.
The police probably found the silencer for the Anschutz on the 7th, but not in the gun cupboard, and they probably coulldn't change the paperwork to say they had due to protestation from Taff.
So, a believable back story had to be invented about a second silencer found in the gun cupboard by the relatives, and then at some time after poor Taff died they decided there was nothing to stop them fiddling about with the exhibit numbers and merging the two silencers into one.
I suppose the relatives had to be included whatever, in order to get hold of a second silencer. The story was probably going to be that the police found the Pargeter silencer on the 7th and then the Bamber silencer was found in the cupboard with Sheila's blood in it by the relatives some time later. Although it was probably the Boutflour silencer which was contaminated with Sheila's blood, hence Dave's DNA being found in it.
Think of it this way, if it was the rellies who contaminated the silencer with Sheila's blood and paint from the mantle, do you really think they would wait over a month for results? Course not!
And are we really to believe that the police were aware of a blob of blood and the paint from the mantle, and had indeed put two and two together regarding the silencer being used on the night of the murders yet just ignored this and still concluded murder/suicide at the beginning of september? No way!
No, I think we have to conclude that the silencer evidence was fabricated after Julie came forward and that statements and documents were manipulated to suit.
Taking everything into consideration……… ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
What do you think of CC's theory on the blood, paint, scratch mark & grey hair?
-
CC/Curiosity's says SJ fabricated a bit of the silencer. Then got the FSS to fabricate another bit.
This is after the relatives handed in a silencer with nothing on. Who he then persuaded to lie in there WS's.
Again SJ would not have the resources to find out the 40 pieces of information. If he had the crazy idea and courage to go ahead in the first place. Based on an early hunch.
Thats why I think the silencer evidence was orchestrated by the top brass once Julie came forward, Adam.
They needed time once she came forward, they had nothing at that time, else JB would have been remanded in custody instead of being freed to go on holiday.
The backspatter theory was probably thought up and the silencer contaminated while JB and Brett were lying on the beach.
-
Who is Dave’s DNA found in it?
David Boutflour!
-
Thats why I think the silencer evidence was orchestrated by the top brass once Julie came forward, Adam.
They needed time once she came forward, they had nothing at that time, else JB would have been remanded in custody instead of being freed to go on holiday.
The backspatter theory was probably thought up and the silencer contaminated while JB and Brett were lying on the beach.
So you agree the relatives handed in the silencer with nothing on.
Was Taff not aware what was happening?
-
So you agree the relatives handed in the silencer with nothing on.
Was Taff not aware what was happening?
Yes, the relatives were simply asked to help snare Bamber by supplying a silencer.
No, Taff would not be in on the 'framing'. Or aware of it!
-
Yes, the relatives were simply asked to help snare Bamber by supplying a silencer.
No, Taff would not be in on the 'framing'. Or aware of it!
Did EP not know how to obtain a silencer?
-
Did EP not know how to obtain a silencer?
But it had to be a believable story, Adam. So the police needed to have a second silencer found after they had vacated WHF and before JB went back inside after the murders, hence the relatives were the perfect choice , and naturally they would agree to the scheme because they were sure JB was guilty anyway.
I mean, obviously the police couldn't just say they searched the house again after questioning JB in sept and lo and behold found another silencer with Sheilas blood inside it, could they?
-
It's these kind of ideas that do JB no favours.
Trouble is, Dave, if JB was indeed framed, its very hard to work out how, all we can do really is have a guess.
-
It is interesting why no blood of Nicholas was in the silencer.
-
Trouble is, Dave, if JB was indeed framed, its very hard to work out how, all we can do really is have a guess.
No, it is not.
-
It is interesting why no blood of Nicholas was in the silencer.
Because it was not on the gun when he was shot. There was no skin tissue in the silencer either.
(https://i.ibb.co/n6gW019/sil555.png)
-
It is interesting why no blood of Nicholas was in the silencer.
Yes, there is far more pressure inside the skull, ILB!
-
Thats why I think the silencer evidence was orchestrated by the top brass once Julie came forward, Adam.
They needed time once she came forward, they had nothing at that time, else JB would have been remanded in custody instead of being freed to go on holiday.
The backspatter theory was probably thought up and the silencer contaminated while JB and Brett were lying on the beach.
The silencer in the state that convicted Jeremy came into existence at the very latest August 13st.
-
But it had to be a believable story, Adam. So the police needed to have a second silencer found after they had vacated WHF and before JB went back inside after the murders, hence the relatives were the perfect choice , and naturally they would agree to the scheme because they were sure JB was guilty anyway.
I mean, obviously the police couldn't just say they searched the house again after questioning JB in sept and lo and behold found another silencer with Sheilas blood inside it, could they?
Ok. So EP asked the relatives to say they found the silencer. Although they didn't.
Guess nothing was found when the relatives were inside WHF with BC & BW.
Poor Taff not knowing what was happening.
-
Trouble is, Dave, if JB was indeed framed, its very hard to work out how, all we can do really is have a guess.
So much evidence against him.
Appreciate he has just focused on the silencer since the 90's as the relatives found it.
-
It is interesting why no blood of Nicholas was in the silencer.
Not enough blood.
-
Ok. So EP asked the relatives to say they found the silencer. Although they didn't.
Guess nothing was found when the relatives were inside WHF with BC & BW.
Poor Taff not knowing what was happening.
What did Cock and Wilson say regarding the finding of the silencer, Adam?
-
Not enough blood.
Elaborate please.
-
What did Cock and Wilson say regarding the finding of the silencer, Adam?
From the new yorker article.
"Shortly beforehand, the family had summoned Barbara Wilson, the farm secretary, to the house, and she told me she suspected that the discovery had been staged for her benefit. “I would say that they’d already found it, but they wanted someone to prove that they’d found it,” she said. (Ann declined to comment on the circumstances in which the silencer was found, but David insisted that “never was there a ‘re-staging.’ ”
-
From the new yorker article.
"Shortly beforehand, the family had summoned Barbara Wilson, the farm secretary, to the house, and she told me she suspected that the discovery had been staged for her benefit. “I would say that they’d already found it, but they wanted someone to prove that they’d found it,” she said. (Ann declined to comment on the circumstances in which the silencer was found, but David insisted that “never was there a ‘re-staging.’ ”
That is interesting but I don't regard BW as the most reliable witness in terms of the supposed NB monologue and her contradictory views on JB.
-
No, it is not.
Do you think the relatives were responsible for the paint on the silencer and the blood inside, Dave?
Had they heard of backspatter or just thought that it was possible for blood to run into the silencer ?
And was Stan unaware of the fact that they were responsible for the blood inside and the paint, if so, were the relatives just hoping that the silencer would be opened up and the blood found?
-
Do you think the relatives were responsible for the paint on the silencer and the blood inside, Dave?
Had they heard of backspatter or just thought that it was possible for blood to run into the silencer ?
And was Stan unaware of the fact that they were responsible for the blood inside and the paint, if so, were the relatives just hoping that the silencer would be opened up and the blood found?
Have you seen Suthersts findings?
-
The areas where nicholas were shot were vascular areas that would produce high blood flow.
-
The idea of Jeremy Bamber cleaning the silencer after shooting the twins and then going on to shoot Shelia last is ludicrous.
-
Have you seen Suthersts findings?
Yes, when did he say the scratches appeared, ILB? Or did he just say they weren't there on the 7th?
-
Elaborate please.
Bamber has never made this suggestion since 1985. So not an option.
-
Bamber has never made this suggestion since 1985. So not an option.
Do you agree given that the high blood flow areas you would expect to find nicholas blood alongside shelias in the silencer?
-
Yes, when did he say the scratches appeared, ILB? Or did he just say they weren't there on the 7th?
For you snow from JBs site
Forensic Expert Reports
In 2011 the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) gave a provisional refusal to Jeremy Bamber's application. The submission itself was supported by three forensic reports one of which is linked below.
At the trial the prosecution claimed that red paint came to be embedded on a sound moderator during a fight between Nevill and Jeremy in the kitchen at White House Farm. The only photographs of this scratch were taken on the 12th of September 1985, some five weeks after the original crime scene photographs. Curiously, the original scene photographs disclosed don't show the area in question which is underneath the mantle shelf. This contention suggests that the scratches were fabricated evidence created to implicated Jeremy Bamber.
To support this contention Peter Sutherst argued in a forensic report that the area where scratch marks were present could be seen in one of the photographs taken on the 7th of August, and that there were not scratch marks present in this photograph. Peter Sutherst was only allowed to examine the photographs at the CCRC's offices and was not given full access at his lab as he requested.
The CCRC initially stated to the defence that Sutherst was their preferred expert and therefore they would not hire another forensic expert to test the validity of his findings. They renaged on this and hired a leading forensic firm to refute this report and argue that the area where the scratches were made could not be seen in the photographs taken on the 7th of August 1985. They sent the case photographs in negative form by courier to LGC forensics lab for examination, and thus giving their expert advantage over Sutherst who worked without the specialist equipment at his own lab.
The defence still refutes LGC forensics contention that scratches cannot be seen owing to miscalculation of the location of the point of where the scratch marks would have been present on the images. The integrity of the CCRC has to be brought into question regarding the full disclosure of negatives outside of their offices. Forensic reports are costly and funding for reports like Sutherst's is difficult to find. From the outset the CCRC had put the defence's forensics at a disadvantage.
-
Do you think the relatives were responsible for the paint on the silencer and the blood inside, Dave?
Yes
Had they heard of backspatter or just thought that it was possible for blood to run into the silencer ?
Both are possible.
And was Stan unaware of the fact that they were responsible for the blood inside and the paint, if so, were the relatives just hoping that the silencer would be opened up and the blood found?
Robert Boutflour told the police that he believed Jeremy had inserted a tampon into the silencer to remove blood from the inside. And that they should examine it for fibres.
Not only does this raise questions as to how he would know there was blood in the silencer at one point. You also need to consider whether he actually believed this tampon idea or whether he was trying to get them to look inside it without making too obvious as to why.
-
Do you agree given that the high blood flow areas you would expect to find nicholas blood alongside shelias in the silencer?
Not looked into it.
The evidence is it was Sheila's. With a remote possibility of it being a mixture of June & Nevill's.
Must be a non starter claiming it could be Nicholas's. As he has never suggested it.
-
The blood from someone as RB and SC at the time would forensically disintguishable.
Backspatter is a phemonon that not all experts agree on.
-
For you snow from JBs site
Forensic Expert Reports
In 2011 the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) gave a provisional refusal to Jeremy Bamber's application. The submission itself was supported by three forensic reports one of which is linked below.
At the trial the prosecution claimed that red paint came to be embedded on a sound moderator during a fight between Nevill and Jeremy in the kitchen at White House Farm. The only photographs of this scratch were taken on the 12th of September 1985, some five weeks after the original crime scene photographs. Curiously, the original scene photographs disclosed don't show the area in question which is underneath the mantle shelf. This contention suggests that the scratches were fabricated evidence created to implicated Jeremy Bamber.
To support this contention Peter Sutherst argued in a forensic report that the area where scratch marks were present could be seen in one of the photographs taken on the 7th of August, and that there were not scratch marks present in this photograph. Peter Sutherst was only allowed to examine the photographs at the CCRC's offices and was not given full access at his lab as he requested.
The CCRC initially stated to the defence that Sutherst was their preferred expert and therefore they would not hire another forensic expert to test the validity of his findings. They renaged on this and hired a leading forensic firm to refute this report and argue that the area where the scratches were made could not be seen in the photographs taken on the 7th of August 1985. They sent the case photographs in negative form by courier to LGC forensics lab for examination, and thus giving their expert advantage over Sutherst who worked without the specialist equipment at his own lab.
The defence still refutes LGC forensics contention that scratches cannot be seen owing to miscalculation of the location of the point of where the scratch marks would have been present on the images. The integrity of the CCRC has to be brought into question regarding the full disclosure of negatives outside of their offices. Forensic reports are costly and funding for reports like Sutherst's is difficult to find. From the outset the CCRC had put the defence's forensics at a disadvantage.
Thanks ILB, yes I was looking at the statements in the archive here under David Bird, and yes the photos of the scratches were not taken until 12th sept.
And interestingly, Mike Tesco states that David Boutflour found a silencer at WHF the day before on the 11th of sept,
-
Yes
Both are possible.
Robert Boutflour told the police that he believed Jeremy had inserted a tampon into the silencer to remove blood from the inside. And that they should examine it for fibres.
Not only does this raise questions as to how he would know there was blood in the silencer at one point. You also need to consider whether he actually believed this tampon idea or whether he was trying to get them to look inside it without making too obvious as to why.
Interesting Dave, interesting.
-
Not looked into it.
The evidence is it was Sheila's. With a remote possibility of it being a mixture of June & Nevill's.
Must be a non starter claiming it could be Nicholas's. As he has never suggested it.
Do you think he would have cleaned it during the massacre in-between victims?
Thirty seconds under a tap?
-
If I recall correctly believed the boys and Nevill had the same blood group and Shelia and June also did. But would have to recheck to be fair.
Believe the boys and Nevill were O and Shelia and June A.
-
If I recall correctly believed the boys and Nevill had the same blood group and Shelia and June also did. But would have to recheck to be fair.
Believe the boys and Nevill were O and Shelia and June A.
Correct but twins also had PGM 2+1+ and Hp 2. None of the other deceased had these in their blood groups.
-
Both sides agree Bamber would use an available silencer in a silent massacre attempt.
Ditto taking off the sights.
Supporters say if the main bedroom light was on & he saw the blood, paint & grey hair on the outside, he would have cleaned it before putting it back in it's box.
He has spent 40 years wishing he did!
-
The 3 possibilities are -
The bedroom/kitchen lights were off & he didn't see anything on the silencer.
The bedroom or kitchen light (or both) was on but he still didn't see anything on the silencer.
He saw some marks on the outside but felt it not important as the silencer was being put back in it's box away from the crime scene.
-
He wouldn't see anything inside the silencer. And may not have been aware of back spatter. So would not believe it could incriminate him.
The prosecution believe he only realised on the night he had to take the silencer off.
Being so hyped up after killing everyone & now with an unexpected removal of the silencer required, he did not consider cleaning it before putting it away.
-
Taking everything into consideration, the silencer was probably contaminated after Julie came forward in september. Probably sanctioned by the top brass who believed JB to be guilty and carried out by Stan, Ainsley, Cook or whoever.
The police probably found the silencer for the Anschutz on the 7th, but not in the gun cupboard, and they probably coulldn't change the paperwork to say they had due to protestation from Taff.
So, a believable back story had to be invented about a second silencer found in the gun cupboard by the relatives, and then at some time after poor Taff died they decided there was nothing to stop them fiddling about with the exhibit numbers and merging the two silencers into one.
I suppose the relatives had to be included whatever, in order to get hold of a second silencer. The story was probably going to be that the police found the Pargeter silencer on the 7th and then the Bamber silencer was found in the cupboard with Sheila's blood in it by the relatives some time later. Although it was probably the Boutflour silencer which was contaminated with Sheila's blood, hence Dave's DNA being found in it.
Think of it this way, if it was the rellies who contaminated the silencer with Sheila's blood and paint from the mantle, do you really think they would wait over a month for results? Course not!
And are we really to believe that the police were aware of a blob of blood and the paint from the mantle, and had indeed put two and two together regarding the silencer being used on the night of the murders yet just ignored this and still concluded murder/suicide at the beginning of september? No way!
No, I think we have to conclude that the silencer evidence was fabricated after Julie came forward and that statements and documents were manipulated to suit.
It was lucky for the police Taff died then a few months before it went to trial.
-
What did Cock and Wilson say regarding the finding of the silencer, Adam?
They may have mentioned this in their previous statements, both say further to my previous Statements, BW made a previous statement on the 27/9/1985 and Cock refers to a previous statement? Not saying they did, but they may have done?
-
Why did DB go to the farm " with the intention of moving firearms for safety purposes"
-
David Boutflour!
So you say that DB put his blood inside the moderator?
So The Top brass sanctioned the team to contaminate the silencer, because all of a sudden they believed Bamber guilty because Julie came forward? But they couldn’t use the silencer they found earlier to frame him, because Taff was against using it, so they got the relatives to invent one of their silencers, hand it in and say they found it earlier and the police did the rest, but they had to wait for Taff a to die a few months before going to trial so they could change and fiddle the paperwork?
Which silencer went to the Lab on the 13th of August and found to have human blood on it? How many was involved in the cover up Snow?
-
Why did DB go to the farm " with the intention of moving firearms for safety purposes"
He says one of the reasons he went to the farm was to help his sister clear up the mess, the keys had just been handed over to the family, obviously this could have been invented, but I would have thought Basil Cock would have sanctioned the removal of the firearms and ammunition from the gun cupboard.
-
He says one of the reasons he went to the farm was to help his sister clear up the mess, the keys had just been handed over to the family, obviously this could have been invented, but I would have thought Basil Cock would have sanctioned the removal of the firearms and ammunition from the gun cupboard.
I would have though the police would have taken them all as a matter of procedure.
-
Then I would have thought that after procedure they would be essentially property of the next of kin. But JB was never a licensed firearms holder or had a certificate I believe?
-
Believe taking the silencer and throwing it in the sea is a bit extreme and far fetched.
Cleaning it before putting it in his box is plausible. So is not cleaning and putting it in his box.
-
Believe taking the silencer and throwing it in the sea is a bit extreme and far fetched.
Cleaning it before putting it in his box is plausible. So is not cleaning and putting it in his box.
Why would the police look for a silencer that wasn’t on the murder weapon, especially given the back story that Jeremy left the rifle minus the silencer? Taff called it murder/suicide and the investigation just went through the motions as murder suicide. Killers do make mistakes or we would never solve any crime/murder case.
-
Why would the police look for a silencer that wasn’t on the murder weapon, especially given the back story that Jeremy left the rifle minus the silencer? Taff called it murder/suicide and the investigation just went through the motions as murder suicide. Killers do make mistakes or we would never solve any crime/murder case.
I doubt they took the silencer out of it's box.
The relatives suspecting Bamber would believe he may use a silencer.
-
Have to agree with Williams Thomas on this.
The moderator would have to be disposed of. Either thrown away or at very least cleaned.
Don't believe throwing the moderator into the sea is extreme in these circumstances he had just murdered 5 people! It's self preservation.
DB says he found it in a " cardboard box "
-
The only other feasible side of the argument is that he put the moderator back in the cupboard on the basis had it been discovered missing question may arise.
AP for example had been at the farm 28th July.
-
What was the relevant law with firearms back in 85?
Was it legal for JB to use the .22 seeing on the premises ( for example such as rabbit shooting, target shooting, etc as though he had no girearm certificate and the gun was owned and certificated to use for Nevill Bamber.
-
What was the relevant law with firearms back in 85?
Was it legal for JB to use the .22 seeing on the premises ( for example such as rabbit shooting, target shooting, etc as though he had no girearm certificate and the gun was owned and certificated to use for Nevill Bamber.
Yes it was legal for him to use it with the permission of Nevill on land owned by Nevill.
-
Then I would have thought that after procedure they would be essentially property of the next of kin. But JB was never a licensed firearms holder or had a certificate I believe?
What normally happens now in cases like this is that the next of kin applies for a temporary certificate to retain the weapons. The certificate is normally granted as a formality. In the 1980s things were much more lax.
-
What was the relevant law with firearms back in 85?
Was it legal for JB to use the .22 seeing on the premises ( for example such as rabbit shooting, target shooting, etc as though he had no girearm certificate and the gun was owned and certificated to use for Nevill Bamber.
I think NGB said he was on Neviles firearm certificate? Could be wrong though.
Lot of Ifs ILB, I don’t ever think we will know the truth, the sights wasn’t needed for close contact killing, maybe the silencer was needed, it keeps him further from his victims after all it has the name silencer, he could have used it and realised it was too long when he placed it on Sheila? So, like you said he could have got rid of it, or he could have wiped it clean (maybe there was more blood on it than we know of) and thinking it was clean put it in the box with the sights, it would look less suspicious than if it was on its own, if it was left out it would have been hard to say he went to shoot bunnies without it on?
Why go out after 12 hour shift to shoot a couple of bunnies at distance without a silencer on, if the silencer is useless why invent one in the first place?
He had no idea how the investigation would develop and it’s easy for us to say he would have done this or he would have done that, killers don’t think everything through or they would never get caught, so he had a choice ditch something the relatives knows is in the house or wipe it clean and give his story he left it he rifle minus the silencer? It nearly worked anyway, Taff and the investigation went for murder/suicide.
-
Yes it was legal for him to use it with the permission of Nevill on land owned by Nevill.
So because Neville was now dead NGB, Jeremy couldn’t touch them or take them to his house? Was he on the licence to use just the .22 or could he use the shotguns as well?
-
So because Neville was now dead NGB, Jeremy couldn’t touch them or take them to his house? Was he on the licence to use just the .22 or could he use the shotguns as well?
At that time in reality Jeremy could simply have taken the rifle and the shotguns and kept them. In order to retain them legally longer term he would have to apply for a Firearm Certificate and a separate Shotgun Certificate, which would have been granted.
-
At that time in reality Jeremy could simply have taken the rifle and the shotguns and kept them. In order to retain them legally longer term he would have to apply for a Firearm Certificate and a separate Shotgun Certificate, which would have been granted.
Ok thanks NGB
-
I think NGB said he was on Neviles firearm certificate? Could be wrong though.
Lot of Ifs ILB, I don’t ever think we will know the truth, the sights wasn’t needed for close contact killing, maybe the silencer was needed, it keeps him further from his victims after all it has the name silencer, he could have used it and realised it was too long when he placed it on Sheila? So, like you said he could have got rid of it, or he could have wiped it clean (maybe there was more blood on it than we know of) and thinking it was clean put it in the box with the sights, it would look less suspicious than if it was on its own, if it was left out it would have been hard to say he went to shoot bunnies without it on?
Why go out after 12 hour shift to shoot a couple of bunnies at distance without a silencer on, if the silencer is useless why invent one in the first place?
He had no idea how the investigation would develop and it’s easy for us to say he would have done this or he would have done that, killers don’t think everything through or they would never get caught, so he had a choice ditch something the relatives knows is in the house or wipe it clean and give his story he left it he rifle minus the silencer? It nearly worked anyway, Taff and the investigation went for murder/suicide.
I have often thought why. The rabbit story maybe true. However, It may have been because the conversation between SC, June and NB was becoming tetchy, creating an aura of unpleasantness and he wished to remove himself from the scene because he could not get involved or take sides.
-
I have often thought why. The rabbit story maybe true. However, It may have been because the conversation between SC, June and NB was becoming tetchy, creating an aura of unpleasantness and he wished to remove himself from the scene because he could not get involved or take sides.
Are you saying he made up the Rabbit story then or are you saying it’s true but he went out after a hard days work to shoot rabbits late in the evening just get out the way? One minute you say it maybe true, then you throw in however?
-
I have often thought why. The rabbit story maybe true. However, It may have been because the conversation between SC, June and NB was becoming tetchy, creating an aura of unpleasantness and he wished to remove himself from the scene because he could not get involved or take sides.
The rabbit story is feasible as they are invasive to farm crops and Jeremy Bamber was a farmer.
-
I have often thought why. The rabbit story maybe true. However, It may have been because the conversation between SC, June and NB was becoming tetchy, creating an aura of unpleasantness and he wished to remove himself from the scene because he could not get involved or take sides.
If you only think it Maybe true, Maybe you should look at why he would invent such a story then?
-
The rabbit story is feasible as they are invasive to farm crops and Jeremy Bamber was a farmer.
They didn’t seem to bother Neville, he took the sights and silencer off and packed them at the back of the gun cupboard, I would have thought a farmer would have sights and silencer on hand to shoot invasive vermin? Well I say Neville took them off, either him or Jeremy did I suppose?
-
Would have thought even with authorization of the keys to AE, the firearms would have been stored securely by police. Even though AE was custodian of WHF she was not living there and the farm was basically a vacant property containing firearms. Even by lax 1980s standards that would be a potential recipe for disaster. Farms are routinely broken into, and public protection was the mantra even in the 80s.
What must have happened is that AE and Co promised to get rid of the guns ( safe place) and the police accepted their word for it. ( Hence DB stating that in his statement )
Shows you how lax things were back in the day.
-
Perhaps if Taff didn't jump to murder suicide straight away a more detailed investigation would have taken place and all the guns and accessories would have been collected.
Whether or not this would have resulted in the blood being found or not at all on the moderator depends which ever stance you take I guess.
-
Really shocked that the moderator wasn't discovered in the immediate aftermath.
Not so much a case of them not looking it for it in the first place. I mean it just been found due to general inqusitvness.
The door of the cupboard was easily accessible and what would have been found would have piqued interest as a matter of common sense.
-
Really shocked that the moderator wasn't discovered in the immediate aftermath.
Not so much a case of them not looking it for it in the first place. I mean it just been found due to general inqusitvness.
The door of the cupboard was easily accessible and what would have been found would have piqued interest as a matter of common sense.
In think you answered that question earlier……….. Shows you how lax things were back in the day. why look for something that wasn’t there on the murder weapon, on a murder/ suicide call by Taff, especially when Bamber said the rifle was left out for Sheila minus the silencer?
-
Are you saying he made up the Rabbit story then or are you saying it’s true but he went out after a hard days work to shoot rabbits late in the evening just get out the way? One minute you say it maybe true, then you throw in however?
That is because it is part of the case which we cannot know. Both could true. Both could be false. JB is the only survivor and we can give him the benefit of doubt or not as the case maybe.
-
That is because it is part of the case which we cannot know. Both could true. Both could be false. JB is the only survivor and we can give him the benefit of doubt or not as the case maybe.
Thank you for being honest Bubo.
-
In think you answered that question earlier……….. Shows you how lax things were back in the day. why look for something that wasn’t there on the murder weapon, on a murder/ suicide call by Taff, especially when Bamber said the rifle was left out for Sheila minus the silencer?
Where is the evidence for this sweeping statement. I think he just said he left it out etc. Not that he left it out for Sheila.
-
That is because it is part of the case which we cannot know. Both could true. Both could be false. JB is the only survivor and we can give him the benefit of doubt or not as the case maybe.
If you doubt the rifle scenario you doubt the rifle being left out. You are then left with shelia having to get it from the cupboard and then load it etc
-
Where is the evidence for this sweeping statement. I think he just said he left it out etc. Not that he left it out for Sheila.
Didn't he at some stage blame himself for leaving the rifle out for Sheila? I might have read it before not quite sure, anyway it was left out minus the silencer.
-
Really shocked that the moderator wasn't discovered in the immediate aftermath.
Not so much a case of them not looking it for it in the first place. I mean it just been found due to general inqusitvness.
The door of the cupboard was easily accessible and what would have been found would have piqued interest as a matter of common sense.
Immediate aftermath. You mean by the police?
Doubt they even took it out of the box.
-
Didn't he at some stage blame himself for leaving the rifle out for Sheila? I might have read it before not quite sure, anyway it was left out minus the silencer.
Testified he was being laxidasical.
Also said 'I didn't know what was going to happen, did I'.
-
Bamber leaving the rifle and ammunition out is doubtful.
Nevill & June were in the kitchen. So he would have put it back in the gun cupboard. If he didn't he would have been told to.
-
Didn't he at some stage blame himself for leaving the rifle out for Sheila? I might have read it before not quite sure, anyway it was left out minus the silencer.
Then you should not have phrased it, as you did. I am sure he regrets leaving it out and to some extent he blames himself. But on the other side it was lazy and silly but he could not have foreseen SC's psychotic breakdown after he had left.
-
The carnage inside WHF was done by someone very powerful, proficient & determined. Who knew weapons.
Easier to just suggest Sheila took the rifle from the unlocked gun cupboard.
But the rabbit story was pre planned & he could not retract once he had started it.
-
I did not know about back spatter prior to looking at this case.
Had seen lots of blood in films. From powerful weapons. But would not expect anything from a rifle used for shooting rabbits.
But Sheila received contact shots in areas of high blood flow. Which was enough for a small amount of back spatter.
-
Not sure why Bamber would take the silencer with him & throw it in the sea.
Rob says he should have left it next to Sheila!
-
Then you should not have phrased it, as you did. I am sure he regrets leaving it out and to some extent he blames himself. But on the other side it was lazy and silly but he could not have foreseen SC's psychotic breakdown after he had left.
Why, Bamber said he left the rifle out minus the silencer, and he says Sheila killed everyone with that same rifle minus the silencer, so he left the rifle out for Sheila minus the silencer?
-
Not sure why Bamber would take the silencer with him & throw it in the sea.
Rob says he should have left it next to Sheila!
How far would he be able to throw it, what if it was washed up the next day by the tide? Do they have serial numbers identifiable to the person who owns it?
-
Putting the silencer back in it's box at the back of the gun cupboard when returning downstairs, is the most logical thing to do.
Espescially if not aware of back spatter & seeing nothing on it.
The police would not look at it as it was not part of the crime scene.
-
Immediate aftermath. You mean by the police?
Doubt they even took it out of the box.
That's fair enough you have your opinion and I have mine.
-
How far would he be able to throw it, what if it was washed up the next day by the tide? Do they have serial numbers identifiable to the person who owns it?
Yes it is a bit dramatic & extreme throwing it in the sea.
The box & gun cupboard did it's job with the police.
However the relatives....
-
How far would he be able to throw it, what if it was washed up the next day by the tide? Do they have serial numbers identifiable to the person who owns it?
Plenty of options he could do Hardy. Down a drain etc
-
Yes it is a bit dramatic & extreme putting throwing it in the sea.
The box & gun cupboars did it's job with the police.
However the relatives....
Yes it is dramatic getting rid of a sound moderator you have used given that you had just murdered five people and it had contact of the skin with victims.
-
That's fair enough you have your opinion and I have mine.
Why would the police take it out of it's box?
-
Why would the police take it out of it's box?
Because had they had a look in the easy accessible cupboard it's likely they would have stumbled across it.
It was a firearm cupboard.
-
Yes it is dramatic getting rid of a sound moderator you have used given that you had just murdered five people and it had contact of the skin with victims.
You must disagree with Rob who says he should have left it next to Sheila!
-
You must disagree with Rob who says he should have left it next to Sheila!
I would have expected him to either clean or dispose of it.
I have also gave reasons why I think he put it back.
-
Because had they had a look in the easy accessible cupboard it's likely they would have stumbled across it.
It was a firearm cupboard.
They probably saw the box. No reason to take the silencer out.
The gun cupboard was not part of the crime scene in a murder/suicide case.
-
You must disagree with Rob who says he should have left it next to Sheila!
Haa Rob actually said this or are you making it up?
-
I would have expected him to either clean or dispose of it.
I have also gave reasons why I think he put it back.
Cleaning it in the kitchen sink was an option. As the sink was a few feet from the gun cupboard.
But just putting it in it's box in the gun cupboard was enough......for the police.
-
Haa Rob actually said this or are you making it up?
He's always said Bamber would be 'home free' if he had done that.
I do not make things up.
-
Leaving the silencer next to Sheila was risky.
The police may check the blood inside it - Sheila's blood.
-
They probably saw the box. No reason to take the silencer out.
The gun cupboard was not part of the crime scene in a murder/suicide case.
I would have expected an officer to find it even in a murder suicide case.
Appreciate you will disagree which is fine.
-
Putting the silencer back in it's box at the back of the gun cupboard when returning downstairs, is the most logical thing to do.
Espescially if not aware of back spatter & seeing nothing on it.
The police would not look at it as it was not part of the crime scene.
After cleaning it perhaps yes.
You do not need to be a backspatter expert.
-
He's always said Bamber would be 'home free' if he had done that.
I do not make things up.
OK mate.
-
As with the bike & his clothes, the silencer was another thing used and not disposed of.
-
As with the bike & his clothes, the silencer was another thing used and not disposed of.
Have to agree with common sense and MWT on this I'm sorry
-
Maybe he gave it one of the nightfisherman on the sea wall
-
Why, Bamber said he left the rifle out minus the silencer, and he says Sheila killed everyone with that same rifle minus the silencer, so he left the rifle out for Sheila minus the silencer?
You are doing the same again. He left it out full stop. The fact that It later provided a weapon for SC does not mean he specifically left it out for her as your wording suggests/suggested.
-
Have to agree with common sense and MWT on this I'm sorry
Only thing both sides will agree on is -
Using a silencer in a silent massacre attempt helps.
He had to take it off after shooting Sheila.
Putting it back in it's box was then an option.
The police did not find the silencer. The relatives did.
-
Only thing both sides will agree on is -
Using a silencer in a silent massacre attempt helps.
He had to take it off after shooting Sheila.
Putting it back in it's box was then an option.
The police did not find the silencer. The relatives did.
How can both sides agree on that when one side believes he is an innocent man ?
-
Only thing both sides will agree on is -
Using a silencer in a silent massacre attempt helps.
He had to take it off after shooting Sheila.
Putting it back in it's box was then an option.
The police did not find the silencer. The relatives did.
Appreciate you are a staunch guilter.
-
How can both sides agree on that when one side believes he is an innocent man ?
Do you not agree -
A silencer helps in a silent massacre attempt.
Sheila could not shoot herself with the silencer attached.
The silencer box was in the gun cupboard.
The police did not find the silencer.
The relatives did.
-
You are doing the same again. He left it out full stop. The fact that It later provided a weapon for SC does not mean he specifically left it out for her as your wording suggests/suggested.
His whole story was based around leaving the rifle minus the silencer out ready for Sheila to use, he admits he left the rifle out minus the silencer, he even left her the ammunition and the cassette loaded, you think he maybe made up the story, ask yourself why he would make up something like this?
-
In conclusion I would have expected him to clean it or dispose of it.
He doesn't have to be a backspatter expert or anything. He just needs to distance the moderator from the crime. Either by cleaning or disposal.
The moderator if he used it came into direct contact with the victims.
-
Do you not agree -
A silencer helps in a silent massacre attempt.
Sheila could not shoot herself with the silencer attached.
The silencer box was in the gun cupboard.
The police did not find the silencer.
The relatives did.
Don't the muddy the waters. You said both sides agree, when you know the pro innocent side don't agree with what you've stated.
I don't have a side and I am neutral.
-
Another thing both sides agree on, is he would have to go downstairs after taking the silencer off.
Downstairs was his only exit route.
Taking something as small as a silencer downstairs with him is easy.
-
In conclusion I would have expected him to clean it or dispose of it.
He doesn't have to be a backspatter expert or anything. He just needs to distance the moderator from the crime. Either by cleaning or disposal.
The moderator if he used it came into direct contact with the victims.
He did distance the moderator from the crime, he said it wasn’t on the rifle he left out and he put it in a box at the back of the gun cupboard, he could have cleaned it, we have no idea how much blood was on it.
-
Don't the muddy the waters. You said both sides agree, when you know the pro innocent side don't agree with what you've stated.
I don't have a side and I am neutral.
Thought you would agree Sheila could not shoot herself with the silencer attached etc.
But feel free to disagree with both sides.
-
Another thing both sides agree on, is he would have to go downstairs after taking the silencer off.
Downstairs was his only exit route.
Taking something as small as a silencer downstairs with him is easy.
Adam.
The pro innocent side don't believe Jeremy committed this crime.
-
Thought you would agree Sheila could not shoot herself with the silencer attached etc.
But feel free to disagree with both sides.
I can remember the Birdwell armoury experiment done by Mike but would have to look at the pictures again.
-
But feel free to disagree with both sides.
Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.
-
Another thing both sides agree on, is he would have to go downstairs after taking the silencer off.
Downstairs was his only exit route.
Taking something as small as a silencer downstairs with him is easy.
Quoting my own post.
Once downstairs with the silencer it was either -
Put it in his box at the back of the gun cupboard.
Put it under a tap. Then put it in it's box at the back of the gun cupboard.
----------
He chose the first option which covered the police. However the relatives did some snooping.
-
Adam.
The pro innocent side don't believe Jeremy committed this crime.
Do you agree a guilty Bamber would have to go downstairs after shooting Sheila?
-
Quoting my own post.
Once downstairs with the silencer it was either -
Put it in his box at the back of the gun cupboard.
Put it under a tap. Then put it in it's box at the back of the gun cupboard.
----------
He chose the first option which covered the police. However the relatives did some snooping.
That is the official narrative and yes the conviction has stood come October 39 years.
-
Quoting my own post.
Once downstairs with the silencer it was either -
Put it in his box at the back of the gun cupboard.
Put it under a tap. Then put it in it's box at the back of the gun cupboard.
----------
He chose the first option which covered the police. However the relatives did some snooping.
Why risk putting it under a tap, if it’s found either wet or water inside it might cause suspicion, the best way would be to wipe the blood off, he probably thought he had not knowing that small stains were left.
-
Do you agree a guilty Bamber would have to go downstairs after shooting Sheila?
Yes.
But the pro innocent side don't believe he is gulity and believe he was in Goldhanger.
The obvious point you know I am making.
-
He would take the moderator off.
And he would look at it.
-
Bamber moved 4 fixed items around the kitchen sink when exiting the window.
And that was in the crime scene!
A silencer in a box away from the crime scene he felt comfortable with.
Being wise after the event, cleaning it would have helped!
-
Good thing the window didn't smash when he banged it twenty times.
Where would he have got safestyle mobile at that time of the morning?
-
He would take the moderator off.
And he would look at it.
Could be dark & he may not look at it. Or both.
The silencer evidence supports one or both of these.
But he still got lucky with the police. However the relatives.....
-
Could be dark & he may not look at it. Or both.
The silencer evidence supports one or both of these.
But he still got lucky with the police. However the relatives.....
You know full well he would have put the light on to inspect.
-
Could be dark & he may not look at it. Or both.
The silencer evidence supports one or both of these.
But he still got lucky with the police. However the relatives.....
Wouldn't call come September 40 years in the clink lucky.
-
However the relatives.....
Yes the relatives.
-
It was all hugs and kisses and condolences until AE didn't like the fostering conversation.
Although what business of hers it had and why she was do indignant to " not being told " is anyone's guess.
-
You know full well he would have put the light on to inspect.
The hallway light would have supplied enough light in the bedroom.
Anyway the evidence is he did not put the silencer under a tap prior to putting back in it's box.
Appreciate you believe he should/would have.
-
The hallway light would have supplied enough light in the bedroom.
Anyway the evidence is he did not put the silencer under a tap prior to putting back in it's box.
Appreciate you believe he should/would have.
The pro innocent side disagree.
The case is currently with the CCRC.
Appreciate the conviction still stands and has done for almost 39 years.
-
Appreciate you believe he should/would have.
Just weighing everything up and seeing things how I personally see fit. The same as you.
Beauty of a forum. No bearing in the legal arena.
-
The pro innocent side disagree.
The case is currently with the CCRC.
Appreciate the conviction still stands and has done for almost 39 years.
Do you understand the two silencers ground?
-
The hallway light would have supplied enough light in the bedroom.
Anyway the evidence is he did not put the silencer under a tap prior to putting back in it's box.
Appreciate you believe he should/would have.
Wasn't the kitchen light smashed?
-
Do you understand the two silencers ground?
I do. Please ask your question.
-
Wasn't the kitchen light smashed?
That is a good point.
If there was no light in the kitchen, he would not be able to see the silencer.
-
Wasn't the kitchen light smashed?
It was Hardy.
It was just my opinion mate, I believe he would have the light on upstairs to inspect shelia and the moderator.
Without standing in WHF I can't speak for how much the hallway light would illuminate. It was a big place.
-
I do. Please ask your question.
Please explain it to me.
-
That is a good point.
If there was no light in the kitchen, he would be able to see the silencer.
He could see it upstairs?
-
Please explain it to me.
Two silencers featured, it's self explanatory.
-
That is a good point.
If there was no light in the kitchen, he would not be able to see the silencer.
I would say it would be natural to bring the silencer into the kitchen where cleaning cloths are?
-
I would say it would be natural to bring the silencer into the kitchen where cleaning cloths are?
If the light was on in the master bedroom after taking it off he would look at it there and then in my view.
Agree he would take it downstairs to clean it.
-
He would want to visually inspect it in my estimation.
He may have inspected it in the hallway.
Although believe the most likely place is the master bedroom.
-
He's unlikely to go to the kitchen with it realise in the struggle with nevill the light was smashed and say to himself " bloody he'll I can't look at it now"
-
How far would he be able to throw it, what if it was washed up the next day by the tide? Do they have serial numbers identifiable to the person who owns it?
They do not have a serial number.
-
They do not have a serial number.
Thanks NGB
-
His whole story was based around leaving the rifle minus the silencer out ready for Sheila to use, he admits he left the rifle out minus the silencer, he even left her the ammunition and the cassette loaded, you think he maybe made up the story, ask yourself why he would make up something like this?
Once again you are intimating that he did this for her. He just left these things out. He did not leave them specifically for her. I do not know why he did not put them away. Maybe he was distracted by other issues which emerged when he came back inside. Only he knows but he blames himself for not acting correctly.
-
Wasn't the kitchen light smashed?
Yes it was but it was the shade that was broken not the bulb.
-
If the SM was thrown into the sea it would be lost. It would only be found if someone found it by chance. The silt and mud in this area together with the hundreds of small creeks which form a mosaic would mean a heavyish metal object would sink in the mud and be covered in silt at every incoming tide.
-
If the SM was thrown into the sea it would be lost. It would only be found if someone found it by chance. The silt and mud in this area together with the hundreds of small creeks which form a mosaic would mean a heavyish metal object would sink in the mud and be covered in silt at every incoming tide.
The suppressor is hollow with baffle plates, it weighs very little and is not heavy like your suggesting, the tide washes many objects ashore, I lived by the beach in that area for 8/9 years so don’t tell me about the tides and what washes ashore. People were often metal detecting on the beach and very popular in the eighties. There’s no telling what or where the tide would wash it up, Tollsbury used to have high tides that covered the road, I’ve been many of times and seen high tides and got stuck.
-
The suppressor is hollow with baffle plates, it weighs very little and is not heavy like your suggesting, the tide washes many objects ashore, I lived by the beach in that area for 8/9 years so don’t tell me about the tides and what washes ashore. People were often metal detecting on the beach and very popular in the eighties.
Being hollow it would fill with water and become heavier. I lived in Tollesbury some years ago so am familiar with the terrain. If he flung it out the chances of it reaching the shore are minimal in my opinion
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=VQhm1czm&id=A4A14144CCE920BADFC7C23074407ACF9508E94D&thid=OIP.VQhm1czmpYeXbUtLN0wWxQEsDI&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fs0.geograph.org.uk%2Fgeophotos%2F04%2F94%2F83%2F4948355_2837de63.jpg&cdnurl=https%3A%2F%2Fth.bing.com%2Fth%2Fid%2FR.550866d5cce6a587976d4b4b374c16c5%3Frik%3DTekIlc96QHQwwg%26pid%3DImgRaw%26r%3D0%26sres%3D1%26sresct%3D1%26srh%3D799%26srw%3D1199&exph=427&expw=640&q=Coastal+MudFlats&simid=608038577050252577&FORM=IRPRST&ck=D2FDBEFB3FE62CAB4C71319BEC115C7E&selectedIndex=14&itb=0&cw=1272&ch=864&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0
-
Being hollow it would fill with water and become heavier. I lived in Tollesbury some years ago so am familiar with the terrain. If he flung it out the chances of it reaching the shore are minimal.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=VQhm1czm&id=A4A14144CCE920BADFC7C23074407ACF9508E94D&thid=OIP.VQhm1czmpYeXbUtLN0wWxQEsDI&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fs0.geograph.org.uk%2Fgeophotos%2F04%2F94%2F83%2F4948355_2837de63.jpg&cdnurl=https%3A%2F%2Fth.bing.com%2Fth%2Fid%2FR.550866d5cce6a587976d4b4b374c16c5%3Frik%3DTekIlc96QHQwwg%26pid%3DImgRaw%26r%3D0%26sres%3D1%26sresct%3D1%26srh%3D799%26srw%3D1199&exph=427&expw=640&q=Coastal+MudFlats&simid=608038577050252577&FORM=IRPRST&ck=D2FDBEFB3FE62CAB4C71319BEC115C7E&selectedIndex=14&itb=0&cw=1272&ch=864&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0
Well you will know about high tides in Tollsbury then that cover the roads
-
Being hollow it would fill with water and become heavier. I lived in Tollesbury some years ago so am familiar with the terrain. If he flung it out the chances of it reaching the shore are minimal in my opinion
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=VQhm1czm&id=A4A14144CCE920BADFC7C23074407ACF9508E94D&thid=OIP.VQhm1czmpYeXbUtLN0wWxQEsDI&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fs0.geograph.org.uk%2Fgeophotos%2F04%2F94%2F83%2F4948355_2837de63.jpg&cdnurl=https%3A%2F%2Fth.bing.com%2Fth%2Fid%2FR.550866d5cce6a587976d4b4b374c16c5%3Frik%3DTekIlc96QHQwwg%26pid%3DImgRaw%26r%3D0%26sres%3D1%26sresct%3D1%26srh%3D799%26srw%3D1199&exph=427&expw=640&q=Coastal+MudFlats&simid=608038577050252577&FORM=IRPRST&ck=D2FDBEFB3FE62CAB4C71319BEC115C7E&selectedIndex=14&itb=0&cw=1272&ch=864&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0
What the fook has Dee estuary got to do with Essex.
-
Well you will know about high tides in Tollsbury then that cover the roads
Only at high spring tides for example and only at the harbour entrance area for boat launching area. The rest of the village was protected by the sea wall. I believe Woodrolfe road runs down to the launching site and water comes up it at higher tides and surges.
https://www.tollesburymarina.com/
You can see the mudflats at the back of the picture. Only floods because there is no sea wall for a few hundred yards to facilitate sailing.
-
What the fook has Dee estuary got to do with Essex.
Most estuaries take on similar patterns it was just an example
-
Only at high spring tides for example and only at the harbour entrance area for boat launching area. The rest of the village was protected by the sea wall. I believe Woodrolfe road runs down to the launching site and water comes up it at higher tides and surges.
https://www.tollesburymarina.com/
You can see the mudflats at the back of the picture. Only floods because there is no sea wall for a few hundred yards to facilitate sailing.
Yes I’ve seen it back right up Woodrolfe road. I used to go to the trinity sometimes.
-
Yes I’ve seen it back right up Woodrolfe road. I used to go to the trinity sometimes.
The national park in faro shows similar characteristics which you see as you come in to land at the airport. Other pictures show similar formations
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=yNd5DJIo&id=D1BE1E72B8AA112FEAEE6ADD461F5A778B7D663D&thid=OIP.yNd5DJIoHAB9XoSRaZ3JEAHaFp&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fwww.alamy.com%2faggregator-api%2fdownload%3furl%3dhttps%3a%2f%2fc8.alamy.com%2fcomp%2fAYP3NN%2faerial-view-of-mud-flats-approaching-faro-airport-algarve-portugal-AYP3NN.jpg&cdnurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.c8d7790c92281c007d5e8491699dc910%3frik%3dPWZ9i3daH0bdag%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=992&expw=1300&q=aerial+photo+of+faro+mudflats+algarve+portugal&simid=608016110061105792&FORM=IRPRST&ck=E3B65D6CB6B8D2C5B08966AF0DC358CE&selectedIndex=0&itb=0&idpp=overlayview&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0
-
Can't see him just putting it back with cleaning it.
-
Bragging to JM " open shut case "
Scapegoats blood on a sound moderator in an accessible cupboard.
Coppers all over the farm.
Giving AE the keys.
It's all madness when you look at it together.
-
The authorisation on burning carpets and the cremations? The guilt view of this must be because he was potentially worried about what could be yielded.
If this is the case it shows some degree of forensic awareness.
Which in turns means it's unlikely he would have placed a silencer back in the cupboard without a thorough clean.
The only other guilt argument for the burning and cremations is spite. Which may be true but unlikely in my view.
-
Bamber was all over the place inside WHF -
Two shots to Sheila.
Pulling her legs.
Opening & closing a bible.
Multiple shots to everyone.
Failing to contain Nevill.
Giving Nevill 40+ horrific injuries.
Moving multiple fixed items.
No blood on the phone.
Burning Nevill's back.
---------
Putting the silencer back in it's box in the gun cupboard was actually quite good by his standards.
Pity he didn't clean it beforehand.
-
The authorisation on burning carpets and the cremations? The guilt view of this must be because he was potentially worried about what could be yielded.
If this is the case it shows some degree of forensic awareness.
Which in turns means it's unlikely he would have placed a silencer back in the cupboard without a thorough clean.
The only other guilt argument for the burning and cremations is spite. Which may be true but unlikely in my view.
Did you read this. guilt supporters always say he instigated the burning.
I was not implying you were. I understand your position. I have seen the authorisation document. I believe there was a discussion initiated by the police during the long day that followed during which he was giving his first statement. They suggested the burning but said he had to give authorisation for that and installing a security system. Wilkes may be wrong on this point in that his wording suggests JB was the driving force.
you could say that technically he ordered it by signing. He was now the head of the household so he was in charge
-
Did you read this. guilt supporters always say he instigated the burning.
Bubo, read what I said.
You must be able to get where I am coming from
-
Bamber was all over the place inside WHF -
Two shots to Sheila.
Pulling her legs.
Opening & closing a bible.
Multiple shots to everyone.
Failing to contain Nevill.
Giving Nevill 40+ horrific injuries.
Moving multiple fixed items.
No blood on the phone.
Burning Nevill's back.
---------
Putting the silencer back in it's box in the gun cupboard was actually quite good by his standards.
Pity he didn't clean it beforehand.
Thanks for that Adam.
Perhaps you will convince somebody of the guilt of Jeremy one day. It has been 12 years.
-
Did you read this. guilt supporters always say he instigated the burning.
I don’t know how true, but this was in Colin’s book I think? Maybe Steve could clarify this?
According to Colin "As time went on, I began to feel that I was constantly being observed and copied by Jeremy, as if he wasn't aware himself of what was appropriate behaviour and needed to follow my lead. In retrospect, these often overstated displays came over as clumsy and grandiose but, above all, devoid of any proper feeling, like a ham actor spouting his lines"
"I want all of the bloodstained bed-linen and carpets taken out and burned" he said "and any bloodstained walls thoroughly washed down"
Colin had just described a 'psychopath' and it seems Jeremy DID ask for the carpets to be burned and the house cleaned. Jones agreed and said it would be done when they had finished the investigation and tests to which Jeremy replied "Tests?"
Colin said JEREMY ORDERED them to be burnt! The quote from his book. Colin was in the room when Bamber asked for them to be burned
-
The insinuation is simple I am putting across.
Someone will get it.
-
Anyway the evidence is Bamber used the silencer. Then took it off and put it away after going downstairs.
The relatives or a rogue officer would not have the resources to get 40 pieces of information. Instantly.
EP working in unison would not involve the relatives. Taff was also supporting murder/suicide.
-
Anyway the evidence is Bamber used the silencer. Then took it off and put it away after going downstairs.
The relatives or a rogue officer would not have the resources to get 40 pieces of information. Instantly.
EP working in unison would not involve the relatives. Taff was also supporting murder/suicide.
Thanks Adam.
-
I don’t know how true, but this was in Colin’s book I think? Maybe Steve could clarify this?
According to Colin "As time went on, I began to feel that I was constantly being observed and copied by Jeremy, as if he wasn't aware himself of what was appropriate behaviour and needed to follow my lead. In retrospect, these often overstated displays came over as clumsy and grandiose but, above all, devoid of any proper feeling, like a ham actor spouting his lines"
"I want all of the bloodstained bed-linen and carpets taken out and burned" he said "and any bloodstained walls thoroughly washed down"
Colin had just described a 'psychopath' and it seems Jeremy DID ask for the carpets to be burned and the house cleaned. Jones agreed and said it would be done when they had finished the investigation and tests to which Jeremy replied "Tests?"
Colin said JEREMY ORDERED them to be burnt! The quote from his book. Colin was in the room when Bamber asked for them to be burned
Remember this?
Posts: 2946
Re: Heather Amos WS
« Reply #202 on: August 15, 2023, 09:56:PM »
Quote from: Hardy Boy on August 15, 2023, 08:02:PM
Colin also made the point that Jeremy said to S Jones on the day, that he didn't want to see the bloodstains on the bedding, carpets and walls, he declioned to go in and identify anyone because he couldn't. He also said if any iof the valubles had stains, they would have to be cleaned before he went in?
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1560.0;attach=7397;image
That is very different from saying he wanted everything burnt/destroyed except the valuables as HA's statement claims and a reason for his not wanting to enter is given.
I see what your getting at but in the early days ( This was on the day of the incident and he was giving his statement which had many interruptions from family and friends including the local vicar). he does not say anything of the kind. HA talks about issues in her statement including the burning of items. We do not know the context or whether she just heard bits and pieces. I have reservations about her statement made 110 days after the event. Years later he has spiced it up in his book.
Maybe he was embellishing what AE had said. It all came about by the police initiating a discussion about security. We do not know whether they asked him what else he wanted them to do for him to enter WHF. He had reservations about entering the premises I have seen a document which authorises the police but for the life of me I cannot find it. Some other member may be able to help with this document.
The context of his statement and what was said to draw out the comments of the burning are crucial to knowing the truth. I say his responses were given to questions posed rather than him independently making the request, which started from a conversation on security issues initiated by EP.
-
Remember this?
Posts: 2946
Re: Heather Amos WS
« Reply #202 on: August 15, 2023, 09:56:PM »
Quote from: Hardy Boy on August 15, 2023, 08:02:PM
Colin also made the point that Jeremy said to S Jones on the day, that he didn't want to see the bloodstains on the bedding, carpets and walls, he declioned to go in and identify anyone because he couldn't. He also said if any iof the valubles had stains, they would have to be cleaned before he went in?
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1560.0;attach=7397;image
That is very different from saying he wanted everything burnt/destroyed except the valuables as AH's statement claims and a reason for his not wanting to enter is given.
I see what your getting at but in the early days ( This was on the day of the incident and he was giving his statement which had many interruptions from family and friends including the local vicar). he does not say anything of the kind. AH talks about issues in her statement including the burning of items. We do not know the context or whether she just heard bits and pieces. I have reservations about her statement made 110 days after the event. Years later he has spiced it up in his book.
Maybe he was embellishing what AE had said. It all came about by the police initiating a discussion about security. We do not know whether they asked him what else he wanted them to do for him to enter WHF. He had reservations about entering the premises I have seen a document which authorises the police but for the life of me I cannot find it. Some other member may be able to help with this document.
The context of his statement and what was said to draw out the comments of the burning are crucial to knowing the truth. I say his responses were given to questions posed rather than him independently making the request, which started from a conversation on security issues initiated by EP.
Its not me saying it, it’s Colin, I haven’t read Colin’s book before and I picked up this from it? He was in the room when Bamber asked for all of the bloodstained bed-linen and carpets taken out and burned" "and any bloodstained walls thoroughly washed down"
He also remembers Jones reply……… Jones agreed and said it would be done when they had finished the investigation and tests to which Jeremy replied "Tests?"
AE was given the keys on the 9th to clean WHF for Jeremy and that’s when they decided to clear the Gun Cupboard of ammunition and Gun, they found a box of ammunition at the rear of the cupboard that contained the silencer and sights as well?
-
It is worth remembering that it was the police who decided to destroy any remaining blood exhibits in 1996.
-
Doubt that Bamber was desperate to get items destroyed.
The raid team & police had come & gone. The bodies removed. Photos taken. Murder/suicide announced to the media.
He was not even around shortly afterwards when AE was given the keys to WHF & said he did not want to go inside WHF.
However if asked if bed sheets & carpets could be destroyed he would say 'yes'.
-
If he didn't want them destroyed then he wouldnt sanction it.
He also wanted his parents who were staunch Christians ( more so june) cremated and not buried.
He only did this for me for two reasons, he genuinely wanted them cremated as he said " because they weren't whole" or he wanted the bodies completely turned to ashes because he was worried what could be yielded. It's that simple.
So if you believe him guilty, he certainly had an inkling of forensic awareness
-
For me the gulity Bamber wouldn't want the relatives on the scene.
They were not close, and even though they were blood relatives of June. Jeremy was the next or kin. Jeremy didn't appear to like them. He by his own words called them " a bunch of fucking magpies" helping themselves to trinkets etc.
AE even wanted stuff belonging to Beatrice Bamber, who Jeremy pointed out quite correctly " she wasn't even related to you "
But getting back to the point I believe if he was gulity he wouldn't sign authorisation over to AE and Co, and probably put the property in the possession of a close and trusted friend.
Or alternatively keep the keys himself with the strict instruction the property was not to be entered by anyone else but him or whoever he said could.
-
If he didn't want them destroyed then he would sanction it.
He also wanted his parents who were staunch Christians ( more so june) cremated and not buried.
He only did this for me for two reasons, he genuinely wanted them cremated as he said " because they weren't whole" or he wanted the bodies completely turned to ashes because he was worried what could be yielded. It's that simple.
So if you believe him guilty, he certainly had an inkling of forensic awareness
'They weren't whole'?
-
'They weren't whole'?
That's the words he used.
-
For me the gulity Bamber wouldn't want the relatives on the scene.
They were not close, and even though they were blood relatives of June. Jeremy was the next or kin. Jeremy didn't appear to like them. He by his own words called them " a bunch of fucking magpies" helping themselves to trinkets etc.
AE even wanted stuff belonging to Beatrice Bamber, who Jeremy pointed out quite correctly " she wasn't even related to you "
But getting back to the point I believe if he was gulity he wouldn't sign authorisation over to AE and Co, and probably put the property in the possession of a close and trusted friend.
Or alternatively keep the keys himself with the strict instruction the property was not to be entered by anyone else but him or whoever he said could.
Did he sign anything over to AE?
Thought SJ just gave her the keys for a WHF tidy up.
He commenced his jolly ups quickly.
So seemed confident that whether BW, BC, the relatives, the house keeper, EP got inside WHF, there was nothing to find.
-
Did he sign anything over to AE?
Thought SJ just gave her the keys for a WHF tidy up.
He commenced his jolly ups quickly.
So seemed confident that whether BW, BC, the relatives, the house keeper, EP got inside WHF, there was nothing to find.
Why have the relatives on the scene?
-
Adam goes on about jolly ups all the time to Bambers detriment.
Apart from the drug trip ( which to me isn't bad hardly el chapo) he was just a 24 year old bloke drinking and having days out with friends.
-
Why have the relatives on the scene?
..because they ran the caravan park together.
-
Adam goes on about jolly ups all the time to Bambers detriment.
Apart from the drug trip ( which to me isn't bad hardly el chapo) he was just a 24 year old bloke drinking and having days out with friends.
..as well as frequenting the Mud Club. Inappropriate behaviour really.
-
Why have the relatives on the scene?
SJ's choice.
Bamber was on a jolly up.
-
..because they ran the caravan park together.
Doesn't really sanction anything does it though to be honest.
Would you as a gulity individual want them snooping around? Open shut case aside or whatever.
-
SJ's choice.
Bamber was on a jolly up.
Was on Bambers discretion.
-
Jolly up sounds like a night out with George Osborne and Jacob Rees Mogg.
-
Did Bamber know the relatives were suspicious so soon afterwards?
Either way he told Julie he was 'watertight' & it was an 'open & shut case'.
-
Doesn't really sanction anything does it though to be honest.
Would you as a gulity individual want them snooping around? Open shut case aside or whatever.
Well, as someone said: his home was Bourtree Cottage, where he probably felt he could relax more, even though he grumbled about certain aspects at the time. He couldn't really ban the relatives from the building, which was public property run by the Henry Smith Foundation. He wouldn't wish to view the results of his handiwork, and possibly thought the business would fetch more as a going concern, which he had no intention of running.
-
Did Bamber know the relatives were suspicious so soon afterwards?
Either way he told Julie he was 'watertight' & it was an 'open & shut case'.
Course he did.
-
Course he did.
Sources please.
-
David says the relatives gained access on the 9th August. Only 2 days later.
The relatives would have just shown love to Bamber. Although had doubts in private.
-
David says the relatives gained access on the 9th August. Only 2 days later.
The relatives would have just shown love to Bamber. Although had doubts in private.
I think that's overcooking it slightly.
-
I think that's overcooking it slightly.
Love and affection.
-
Sources please.
Sources for what ?
He's hardly going to start shouting to people " they think I've done it" that's gonna draw the wrong sort of attention. And if he's innocent he would just think they were being cold, remember he termed them " a bunch of fucking magpies"
You can pick up subtle signs easy.
-
Love and affection.
For about half an hour.
AE went cold after the fostering conversation.
-
Well, as someone said: his home was Bourtree Cottage, where he probably felt he could relax more, even though he grumbled about certain aspects at the time. He couldn't really ban the relatives from the building, which was public property run by the Henry Smith Foundation. He wouldn't wish to view the results of his handiwork, and possibly thought as a going concern the business would fetch more as a going concern, which he had no intention of running.
He could just say " I don't want you going in there " and the relatives would have to accept.
-
Sources for what ?
He's hardly going to start shouting to people " they think I've done it" that's gonna draw the wrong sort of attention. And if he's innocent he would just think they were being cold, remember he termed them " a bunch of fucking magpies"
You can pick up subtle signs easy.
Since the conviction has he never said 'I knew the relatives thought I was guilty within hours'?
If not, then why would he be against them entering WHF? He was on jolly ups duty.
-
He could just say " I don't want you going in there " and the relatives would have to accept.
Well he didn't.
Another mistake by him. No wonder Nevill had him out in the fields.
-
Well he didn't.
Another mistake by him. No wonder Nevill had him out in the fields.
What do you mean?
Nevill himself as the boss did the graft as well, it was a farm.
-
Well he didn't.
Another mistake by him. No wonder Nevill had him out in the fields.
You know Bamber isn't thick.
-
You know Bamber isn't thick.
No, but it's mostly show. Don't scratch too hard beneath the veneer.
-
No, but it's mostly show. Don't scratch too hard beneath the veneer.
I am a good judge of character Steve.
-
The prosecution narrative on all aspects needs to be as straight forward as possible.
Too complex, intricate or confusing will just create reasonable doubt.
The simple explanations are usually the right ones.
On the silencer you can't get a more straight forward narrative than -
Bamber used it then put it away. Suspiscious relatives then found it.
-
The prosecution narrative on all aspects needs to be as straight forward as possible.
Too complex, intricate or confusing will just create reasonable doubt.
The simple explanations are usually the right ones.
On the silencer you can't get a more straight forward narrative than -
Bamber used it then put it away. Suspiscious relatives then found it.
I know what the prosecution narrative is and as you know Jeremy disputes it. But fair play, they got the result. He remains convicted, come October it's 39 years.
-
All I can do as a man on a forum is look at things objectively and weigh them up and give a judgement on how I see what I believe the most likely scenario is.
The same as everybody else.
It is forum fodder that's all it is.
-
Thanks for that Adam.
Perhaps you will convince somebody of the guilt of Jeremy one day. It has been 12 years.
Adam spent many years thinking he had convinced three people shortly after he joined the forum. It was a huge setback for him when it was pointed out to him he had joined the forum a month before Paul Harrison had changed his agenda (which was the reason those three people changed stance).
Several years later someone came out the blue praising Adam's posts, but it turned out to be a JB supporter on a drink binge.
Poor Adam.
-
The prosecution narrative on all aspects needs to be as straight forward as possible.
Too complex, intricate or confusing will just create reasonable doubt.
The simple explanations are usually the right ones.
On the silencer you can't get a more straight forward narrative than -
Bamber used it then put it away. Suspiscious relatives then found it.
But its not straight forward the relatives finding the silencer instead of the police, Adam!
Far from it!
Highly irregular to say the least!
-
All I can do as a man on a forum is look at things objectively and weigh them up and give a judgement on how I see what I believe the most likely scenario is.
The same as everybody else.
It is forum fodder that's all it is.
The defence couldn't claim Bamber would have cleaned the silencer before putting it away.
That would have suggested police fabrication. Which is too far fetched.
Even Bamber did not start suggesting fabrication until the 90's.
-
For me, no guarantee he would clean the silencer before putting it away.
It is easy to say he should/would have.
The evidence is he didn't.
-
For me, no guarantee he would clean the silencer before putting it away.
It is easy to say he should/would have.
The evidence is he didn't.
Yes, he had to get his priorities right, Adam!
Far more important burning Nevills back for several minutes! ::)
-
For me.
If a person uses a sound moderator which has had direct contact with skin. They either clean it or dispose of it.
If you believe he washed his clothes, ordered the burning of carpets and wanted his parents cremated, you have to believe they were down to forensic awareness as a guilter.
-
The defence couldn't claim Bamber would have cleaned the silencer before putting it away.
That would have suggested police fabrication. Which is too far fetched.
Even Bamber did not start suggesting fabrication until the 90's.
Well he was arguing this in 2002 in front of the countries top three judges.
-
For me.
If a person uses a sound moderator which has had direct contact with skin. They either clean it or dispose of it.
If you believe he washed his clothes, ordered the burning of carpets and wanted his parents cremated, you have to believe they were down to forensic awareness as a guilter.
Agree he would take it off after killing Sheila & take it downstairs.
The evidence is he didn't clean it before putting it back in his box.
Not an own goal for the police. But for the relatives.
We all make mistakes.
-
The COA just says -
149. The appellant returned the moderator to the gun cupboard.
-
The COA just says -
149. The appellant returned the moderator to the gun cupboard.
That is a reference to the prosecution case.
-
AI said this -
'The actions of individuals in such situations are highly variable and depend on many factors, including the specific circumstances, their knowledge, and their personal values.
Additionally, the question is framed in a way that implies cleaning the silencer is a natural or expected action, which may not be the case.'
----------
I asked what % of people would clean the silencer in Bamber's situation.
No guarantee any person in that situation would or would not clean the silencer.
-
Accept you are a passionate guilter.
-
Have to go by the evidence - Bamber did not.
He did put it in it's box. At the back of a gun cupboard. Away from the crime scene.
This was sufficient for the police to believe his murder/suicide narrative.
-
Have referenced there is limited ( if any) scope for him 40 years on to prove the silencer was tampered with.
-
As said earlier I just look at things down the middle weigh it up and make a judgement from my personal perspective.
I think all things considered the evidence of the silencer is suspect.
I am just a man on a forum.
-
Have referenced there is limited ( if any) scope for him 40 years on to prove the silencer was tampered with.
Agree it got moved around. WHF, Oak Farm, SJ, Huntingdon.
All that was from neccessity.
Losing the hair may have benefitted Bamber if it was Nevill's.
-
Why do you believe he wanted his parents cremated?
And why do you believe he seemed concerned when it was announced tests were going to be undertaken?
-
To plan everything to a tee, and then just put a silencer back in box without a clean.........
-
To plan everything to a tee, and then just put a silencer back in box without a clean.........
That is what happened.
He did make a lot of mistakes. Both inside and outside of WHF. It was a big step up from robbing the caravan site.
-
It was classed as murder/suicide for a few days.
That is the direction he led the police in on the 7th August 1985.
Evidence had not been processed or Julie come forward.
-
That is what happened.
He did make a lot of mistakes. Both inside and outside of WHF. It was a big step up from robbing the caravan site.
What mistakes apart from Julie and the moderator ?
-
That is what happened.
He did make a lot of mistakes. Both inside and outside of WHF. It was a big step up from robbing the caravan site.
It's alleged by some he was involved in crime in NZ, including how he got the cartier watches.
Julie says he planned to rob an Arab and he was ever contemplating breaking into Andy and Karen Bishops house.
There was also a drug investigation going on.
So it's possible he was involved in low level crime. But of course this is small potatoes when compared to the massacre.
To me I'd be a hypocrite for calling him out on this. But I see why some might. You yourself reference often his behaviour in reference to what he was doing and up to to his detriment prior the massacre.
-
What mistakes apart from Julie and the moderator ?
There is a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence against him.
He was no Neil McCauley & going for a big jump to the big prize.
-
Even Neil McCauley made mistakes.
-
What circumstantial evidence?
The phonecalls?
-
The whole basis of the conviction is on the silencer and Julie.
For me anyway.
Believe some don't even see Julie's evidence as crucial.
-
It's alleged by some he was involved in crime in NZ, including how he got the cartier watches.
Julie says he planned to rob an Arab and he was ever contemplating breaking into Andy and Karen Bishops house.
There was also a drug investigation going on.
So it's possible he was involved in low level crime. But of course this is small potatoes when compared to the massacre.
To me I'd be a hypocrite for calling him out on this. But I see why some might. You yourself reference often his behaviour in reference to what he was doing and up to to his detriment prior the massacre.
It's not so much the crime which is telling (we also had an allegation recently that he had his finger in the till at Sloppy Joe's), but the fact that he blabbed about it to anyone who would listen.
Sound familiar?
-
Why do you believe he wanted his parents cremated?
And why do you believe he seemed concerned when it was announced tests were going to be undertaken?
Possibly because he didn't want a memorial. Remember he had told Julie they had "forfeited the right to live." The gravestone and the lantern would not be at his behest.
-
Possibly because he didn't want a memorial. Remember he had told Julie they had "forfeited the right to live." The gravestone and the lantern would not be at his behest.
I will always believe from the guilt perspective the fact that he had a belief of something being yielded and thus wanted the bodies turning into ashes
-
To plan everything to a tee, and then just put a silencer back in box without a clean.........
Yes totally crazy when all he had to do was place it beside Sheila. However having placed it in it's box without cleaning it no way would he allow anyone access to the house. When sooner or latter it was just a matter of time it would be found.
Then there was the matter of the hidden phone under the magazines, JB had a few loose ends to sort out before he would let anyone have the run of the house.
-
Yes totally crazy when all he had to do was place it beside Sheila. However having placed it in it's box without cleaning it no way would he allow anyone access to the house. When sooner or latter it was just a matter of time it would be found.
Then there was the matter of the hidden phone under the magazines, JB had a few loose ends to sort out before he would let anyone have the run of the house.
It is fanciful.
-
Yes totally crazy when all he had to do was place it beside Sheila. However having placed it in it's box without cleaning it no way would he allow anyone access to the house. When sooner or latter it was just a matter of time it would be found.
Then there was the matter of the hidden phone under the magazines, JB had a few loose ends to sort out before he would let anyone have the run of the house.
No, the Anschütz rifle was too long for Sheila to manage to commit suicide with the silencer attached.
-
It's not so much the crime which is telling (we also had an allegation recently that he had his finger in the till at Sloppy Joe's), but the fact that he blabbed about it to anyone who would listen.
Sound familiar?
Are you referring to myself and Mike?
-
No, the Anschütz rifle was too long for Sheila to manage to commit suicide with the silencer attached.
I would love to upload the birdwell armoury experiment photos but I can't find them.
Apparently Rivlin was there, believe it was 2004. You will have seen the photos probably from Mike I guess.
-
I personally don't believe the silencer was on the rifle.
-
No, the Anschütz rifle was too long for Sheila to manage to commit suicide with the silencer attached.
No? Sheila would simply unscrew it place it by her side then shoot herself. No need for JB to hide it especially if it was actually used.
-
I personally don't believe the silencer was on the rifle.
The evidence is it was.
Sheila's nightdress has 11 pieces of incriminating evidence. But appreciate why the silencer is focused on as the relatives found it.
-
The evidence is it was.
Sheila's nightdress has 11 pieces of incriminating evidence. But appreciate why the silencer is focused on as the relatives found it.
11 pieces of incriminating evidence! really Adam?
-
11 pieces of incriminating evidence! really Adam?
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,12557.msg581251.html#msg581251
Reply 104.
-
Appreciate the silencer is important. It confirms Sheila was shot (twice) rather than her shooting herself.
-
Appreciate the silencer is important. It confirms Sheila was shot (twice) rather than her shooting herself.
No GSR Adam? why would Bamber change Sheila's nightdress? Bit more staging?
-
I will always believe from the guilt perspective the fact that he had a belief of something being yielded and thus wanted the bodies turning into ashes
I had a relative who told me he wanted to be buried, but said that if he went first his wife would put him up the chimney, and she did.
-
Nevill & June being fully fit adults & Sheila operating at 20% with no rifle experience is more important evidence. Espescially with Nevill's power.
But appreciate supporters will focus on the silencer as the relatives found it.
-
Nevill & June being fully fit adults & Sheila operating at 20% with no rifle experience is more important evidence. Espescially with Nevill's power.
But appreciate supporters will focus on the silencer as the relatives found it.
Nevil's power? he only had one usable arm and was badly wounded, no contest for a woman in a rage with a rifle.
-
Nevill & June being fully fit adults & Sheila operating at 20% with no rifle experience is more important evidence. Espescially with Nevill's power.
But appreciate supporters will focus on the silencer as the relatives found it.
I am not a supporter.
-
He's back to his percentages.
I did ask for his GMC number.
-
It would be strange if the silencer was the only piece of evidence against him.
However there is a mountain of other forensic and circumstantial evidence -
Hands.
Feet.
Fingers.
Nails.
Nightdress - 11 items.
Window entry access.
Window exit access.
Moved fixed items around kitchen window.
Items put in front of lower part kitchen window.
No blood on kitchen phone.
Hugeness of WHF. Unlikely to be heard.
Unlocked gun cupboard.
Bible.
Legs pulled.
Nevill's strength.
Sheila at 20% against Nevill.
Sheila at 20% against Bamber.
No injuries to Sheila.
Knowing WHF. In the dark.
Nevill's multiple injuries.
Nevill bare footed in sleeping attire.
Sheila bare footed in sleeping attire.
Dried blood.
June shot in bed.
Close range face shots to Nevill.
Nevill liftef onto a coal scuttle/chair.
Sheila's no experience with a rifle.
Rifle would have been put away beforehand. By Bamber, Nevill or June.
Supper visit - reconnaisance.
Poor rabbit story.
Avsilable bike.
Bike arriving 2 days before massacre.
Unseen route.
Answering machine.
Two shots.
Sights removed.
One alive suspect.
Motive.
Opportunity.
No alibi.
Julie's WS. Knowing 19 things.
WS's of relatives.
10am & 3am phone calls.
Susan Battersby.
James Richards.
Mary Mugford.
Caravan break in.
Nevill's mysterious call.
Bamber not ringing 999.
Bamber ringing Chelmsford Police.
Asking to be picked up.
Driving slowly to WHF.
Lack of remorse.
Un coperative police interviews.
Refusal to discuss issues.
Poor explanations - Crispy, Nevill not wanting police involvement.
Twins not waking.
-
It would be strange if the silencer was the only piece of evidence against him.
However there is a mountain of other forensic and circumstantial evidence -
Hands.
Feet.
Fingers.
Nails.
Nightdress - 11 items.
Window entry access.
Window exit access.
Moved fixed items around kitchen window.
Items put in front of lower part kitchen window.
No blood on kitchen phone.
Hugeness of WHF. Unlikely to be heard.
Unlocked gun cupboard.
Bible.
Legs pulled.
Nevill's strength.
Sheila at 20% against Nevill.
Sheila at 20% against Bamber.
No injuries to Sheila.
Knowing WHF. In the dark.
Nevill's multiple injuries.
Nevill bare footed in sleeping attire.
Sheila bare footed in sleeping attire.
Dried blood.
June shot in bed.
Close range face shots to Nevill.
Nevill liftef onto a coal scuttle/chair.
Sheila's no experience with a rifle.
Rifle would have been put away beforehand. By Bamber, Nevill or June.
Supper visit - reconnaisance.
Poor rabbit story.
Avsilable bike.
Bike arriving 2 days before massacre.
Unseen route.
Answering machine.
Two shots.
Sights removed.
One alive suspect.
Motive.
Opportunity.
No alibi.
Julie's WS. Knowing 19 things.
WS's of relatives.
10am & 3am phone calls.
Susan Battersby.
James Richards.
Mary Mugford.
Caravan break in.
Nevill's mysterious call.
Bamber not ringing 999.
Bamber ringing Chelmsford Police.
Asking to be picked up.
Driving slowly to WHF.
Lack of remorse.
Un coperative police interviews.
Refusal to discuss issues.
Poor explanations - Crispy, Nevill not wanting police involvement.
Twins not waking.
Genuine question, do you ever find it tedious discussing a case of a man you believe to be gulity as sin?
-
Genuine question, do you ever find it tedious discussing a case of a man you believe to be gulity as sin?
You know he has lost argument when he resorts to the gish gallop.
-
You know he has lost argument when he resorts to the gish gallop.
I personally don't believe he is as much a guilter as he claims to be. I may be wrong.
-
She died in early 86 IIRC . The circumstances of her will being changed less than a month after the murders is very shady. Another subject that the Jury were not aware of.
PB not MS.
-
I personally don't believe the silencer was on the rifle.
In which case perhaps you can let us have your theories as to how it was fabricated as opposed to simply denigrating the theories of others.
-
I accept it started before you joined that forum but you were an early member of it and must have been aware of what was going on. Even after you became a moderator there was some atrocious behaviour there. It was frankly often a cesspit with clearly illegal material posted at times.
That forum seems to have virtually died now.
Are we talkig about the same forum?
By the time I joined I didn't observe anything I regarded as "atrocious" or "illegal".
I mainly stuck to the JB board in the early days. As time went on I posted on some of the other cases.
I know some members here were subjected to ridicule and rightly so imo.
-
The whole basis of the conviction is on the silencer and Julie.
For me anyway.
Believe some don't even see Julie's evidence as crucial.
Including the CCRC and CoA.
-
Off topic, but has anyone watched The Essex Millionaires Murders?
-
By the time I joined I didn't observe anything I regarded as "atrocious" or "illegal".
I know some members here were subjected to ridicule and rightly so imo.
You obviously turned a blind eye to it. I find it unfortunate to say the least that you consider the abuse directed at members here was appropriate. You did exchange friendly banter with the worst culprits there as I recall.
-
Off topic, but has anyone watched The Essex Millionaires Murders?
I saw it.
-
I saw it.
Hi Jane, really interesting don’t you think? Everyone trusted him and was seen as a nice and trusting man yet the cruel way he was playing mind games with them. The Daughter was blamed as well and I think some still believe she had something to do with it?
-
Hi Jane, really interesting don’t you think? Everyone trusted him and was seen as a nice and trusting man yet the cruel way he was playing mind games with them. The Daughter was blamed as well and I think some still believe she had something to do with it?
It's here. A rather crude attempt to gain an inheritance. https://youtu.be/DIWHOE2gAKU
-
How come all these 'greed for financial gain murderers' are Essex-based - Bamber, McCullough, D'Wit....?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDtkvPWPf8Y&ab_channel=ThisMorning
Luke D'Wit's forged will (part) attached -
-
How come all these 'greed for financial gain murderers' are Essex-based - Bamber, McCullough, D'Wit....?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDtkvPWPf8Y&ab_channel=ThisMorning
Luke D'Wit's forged will (part) attached -
Do you believe Bamber when he said he had turned his answering machine off on the 7th August?
-
Do you believe Bamber when he said he had turned his answering machine off on the 7th August?
We may never know, Adam.
-
It's here. A rather crude attempt to gain an inheritance. https://youtu.be/DIWHOE2gAKU
I agree Steve, It was the Buisness inheritance he rewrote the will for..
-
In which case perhaps you can let us have your theories as to how it was fabricated as opposed to simply denigrating the theories of others.
Can you stop making snide comments against me please.
-
Can you stop making snide comments against me please.
Not snide at all. You tell us you met JB on the cat A wing, so please give the big girls' blousy stuff a break and do us all a favour and just post up your theory about how the silencer was fabricated.
-
I agree, Adam, Curiosity is not CC. CC already has enough doppelgängers to her credit.
Hark at the the pot calling the kettle black ::)
Hardy Boy, Real Justice, Justice ....
-
The silencer was checked for Human blood on the 13th of August three weeks before Julie came forward so how was it contaminated after Julie came Forward? It was sent back to the Lab along with the rifle on the 30th of August.
The forensics on the outside and inside are completely different.
-
Why would the police look for a silencer that wasn’t on the murder weapon, especially given the back story that Jeremy left the rifle minus the silencer? Taff called it murder/suicide and the investigation just went through the motions as murder suicide. Killers do make mistakes or we would never solve any crime/murder case.
Only after it had already been determined murder/suicide by Chief Sup Harris and the police surgeon.
-
I think NGB said he was on Neviles firearm certificate? Could be wrong though.
Lot of Ifs ILB, I don’t ever think we will know the truth, the sights wasn’t needed for close contact killing, maybe the silencer was needed, it keeps him further from his victims after all it has the name silencer, he could have used it and realised it was too long when he placed it on Sheila? So, like you said he could have got rid of it, or he could have wiped it clean (maybe there was more blood on it than we know of) and thinking it was clean put it in the box with the sights, it would look less suspicious than if it was on its own, if it was left out it would have been hard to say he went to shoot bunnies without it on?
Why go out after 12 hour shift to shoot a couple of bunnies at distance without a silencer on, if the silencer is useless why invent one in the first place?
He had no idea how the investigation would develop and it’s easy for us to say he would have done this or he would have done that, killers don’t think everything through or they would never get caught, so he had a choice ditch something the relatives knows is in the house or wipe it clean and give his story he left it he rifle minus the silencer? It nearly worked anyway, Taff and the investigation went for murder/suicide.
Only after Chief Sup Harris and police surgeon Dr Craig determined murder/suicide.
-
They didn’t seem to bother Neville, he took the sights and silencer off and packed them at the back of the gun cupboard, I would have thought a farmer would have sights and silencer on hand to shoot invasive vermin? Well I say Neville took them off, either him or Jeremy did I suppose?
Maybe they preferred the iron sights.
-
His whole story was based around leaving the rifle minus the silencer out ready for Sheila to use, he admits he left the rifle out minus the silencer, he even left her the ammunition and the cassette loaded, you think he maybe made up the story, ask yourself why he would make up something like this?
It was a working farm!
-
You obviously turned a blind eye to it. I find it unfortunate to say the least that you consider the abuse directed at members here was appropriate. You did exchange friendly banter with the worst culprits there as I recall.
I didn't turn a blind eye to anything. Abuse? I think some here left themselves open to ridicule eg the late MT, Lookout and Graham.
-
I didn't turn a blind eye to anything. Abuse? I think some here left themselves open to ridicule eg the late MT, Lookout and Graham.
I am going to try to draw a line under this because I get really angry when I remember it all. Some here, including those who are now friendly but were attacked by you, vigorously opposed you being allowed back. It is because I recognise that you contribute a lot as a result of your detailed research into the case and insight into the key elements that I have encouraged your participation here. I got some flak for this I can assure you.
You have brought a lot to the discussion because your in depth research into some key aspects of the case has been exceptional. We have discussed it privately and you know my views on it. However you should not be any doubt that I do not forget your friendly banter with some of the worst scum to infest the internet. Some of this banter was on the offending threads on the forum you moderate. You knew what you were doing and were happy with it. You now say you were not aware of it but I am afraid that is not true. It was disgusting on any level.
-
Only after it had already been determined murder/suicide by Chief Sup Harris and the police surgeon.
Strange, I thought Dr Craig just certified death? Didn’t realise he called it murder suicide?
-
Maybe they preferred the iron sights.
I think you get a quicker view of your prey through a scope than the V sights, time is of the essence sometimes when shooting prey?
-
The forensics on the outside and inside are completely different.
I don’t think you have followed the discussion properly Cutie? Snow was saying the Silencer evidence was only presented when Julie came forward, I pointed out that Human blood was found on the 13th before Julie came forward?
-
I am going to try to draw a line under this because I get really angry when I remember it all. Some here, including those who are now friendly but were attacked by you,vigorously opposed you being allowed back. It is because I recognise that you contribute a lot as a result of your detailed research into the case and insight into the key elements that I have encouraged your participation here. I got some flak for this I can assure you.
You have brought a lot to the discussion because your in depth research into some key aspects of the case has been exceptional. We have discussed it privately and you know my views on it. However you should not be any doubt that I do not forget your friendly banter with some of the worst scum to infest the internet. Some of this banter was on the offending threads on the forum you moderate. You knew what you were doing and were happy with it. You now say you were not aware of it but I am afraid that is not true. It was disgusting on any level.
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about?
Attacked by me? Who, what , when, how?
Opposed to me be allowed back?
-
Not snide at all. You tell us you met JB on the cat A wing, so please give the big girls' blousy stuff a break and do us all a favour and just post up your theory about how the silencer was fabricated.
You have no one iota of evidence of anything that points to DS Jones committing shady practices.
Period.
-
You have no one iota of evidence of anything that points to DS Jones committing shady practices.
Period.
There is no evidence he contaminated the silencer.
-
I don’t think you have followed the discussion properly Cutie? Snow was saying the Silencer evidence was only presented when Julie came forward, I pointed out that Human blood was found on the 13th before Julie came forward?
Blood was found both on and in the silencer on the 13th.
"
Q: Thank you. Now may I please ask you about the blood you found or saw inside the sound moderator?
A: Yes.
Q: You obviously had to remove it by some means didn't you?
A: Yes I did.
Q: Could you describe the means you used?
A: Yes, with the aid of a low-powered microscope and lenghts of sterile white cotton thread moistened with distilled water, I inserted with fine forceps the damp threads into the bore of the sound moderator. And soaked up the blood that was in there. I allowed the threads to dry before doing further tests.
Q: May I ask you how far into the sound moderator did you go with your threads? How far do you believe?
A: I took some blood which I could actually see. Just on that inner surface approximately 1/8 to 1/4 of an inch. I didn't measure it at the time."
-
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about?
Attacked by me? Who, what , when, how?
Opposed to me be allowed back?
Maggie, Susan, Lookout, Caroline, Jane, Patti. In posts on the red forum. When you joined the red forum following a temporary ban here under your username Egap1.
When you rejoined here under a new username you were spotted quickly. There were several calls for you to be banned again. It annoyed some people when there was no ban.
-
Maggie, Susan, Lookout, Caroline, Jane, Patti. In posts on the red forum. When you joined the red forum following a temporary ban here under your username Egap1.
When you rejoined here under a new username you were spotted quickly. There were several calls for you to be banned again. It annoyed some people when there was no ban.
Twice.
-
You have no one iota of evidence of anything that points to DS Jones committing shady practices.
Period.
How could you possibly know this? You don't so please stop pretending otherwise.
-
Strange, I thought Dr Craig just certified death? Didn’t realise he called it murder suicide?
38. At 8.10 a.m., Dr Craig attended the scene to formally certify the deaths. In cross-examination at the trial he said the deaths could have occurred at any time during the previous night. The appearance of Sheila Caffell's body suggested to him that the wounds had been inflicted by her own hand.In answer to the judge the witness made it clear this was not an opinion the jury should rely upon as a true indication that the injuries had been self-inflicted.
-
I don’t think you have followed the discussion properly Cutie? Snow was saying the Silencer evidence was only presented when Julie came forward, I pointed out that Human blood was found on the 13th before Julie came forward?
Outside pre JM. This would not have been enough to get to trial.
Inside post JM. Enough to get the case to trial and conviction.
-
Maggie, Susan, Lookout, Caroline, Jane, Patti. In posts on the red forum. When you joined the red forum following a temporary ban here under your username Egap1.
When you rejoined here under a new username you were spotted quickly. There were several calls for you to be banned again. It annoyed some people when there was no ban.
That's not correct. I deleted my account with the username 'Egap1'. I rejoined with the username 'Naughty Nun' and it was this account that was subjected to a temporary ban.
The 'Red' forum used the term 'knitting circle' to describe regular members here who they perceived to be female, which I assume included me. I found it amusing and used the term here. As such you imposed a temporary ban. You pm'd me and told me it was "derogatory".
Some months prior to this I set up an account on the Red forum with the username 'Holly Goodhead' and made a few posts over about a month. When the temporary ban was made I simply started posting on the Red forum. After some months/1 year I was asked if I would like to be made a mod which I agreed to.
Prior to me setting up accounts on either forum there was apparently a lot of conflict between the two. By the time I joined, from what I saw, I thought it was six of one and half a dozen of another.
Only recently you accused Jane and myself of turning a blind eye to comments made on the Red forum about a former member's daughter who was apparently unwell at the time. I recovered a thread which showed this happened long before Jane or I even joined the Red forum. In fact I am pretty sure we were not even members of this forum at the time those comments were made. I am not condoning the comments, but when online I think users' need to take responsibility for their own privacy and security. Did the member have permission to discuss his daughter's medical details on an online forum? What was the objective of sharing this information?
With respect I find you use emotive language to describe online conflicts/disputes like "abuse" and "attack" which are completely disproportinate in my view. Or certainly disproportinate to describe any comments I have ever made here or elsewhere. And there seems to be one rule for one and another for another. And unlike some I don't pm others to gossip, complain and tell tales.
-
Twice.
Who gives a flying fig ::)
-
That's not correct. I deleted my account with the username 'Egap1'. I rejoined with the username 'Naughty Nun' and it was this account that was subjected to a temporary ban.
The 'Red' forum used the term 'knitting circle' to describe regular members here who they perceived to be female, which I assume included me. I found it amusing and used the term here. As such you imposed a temporary ban. You pm'd me and told me it was "derogatory".
Some months prior to this I set up an account on the Red forum with the username 'Holly Goodhead' and made a few posts over about a month. When the temporary ban was made I simply started posting on the Red forum. After some months/1 year I was asked if I would like to be made a mod which I agreed to.
Prior to me setting up accounts on either forum there was apparently a lot of conflict between the two. By the time I joined, from what I saw, I thought it was six of one and half a dozen of another.
Only recently you accused Jane and myself of turning a blind eye to comments made on the Red forum about a former member's daughter who was apparently unwell at the time. I recovered a thread which showed this happened long before Jane or I even joined the Red forum. In fact I am pretty sure we were not even members of this forum at the time those comments were made. I am not condoning the comments, but when online I think users' need to take responsibility for their own privacy and security. Did the member have permission to discuss his daughter's medical details on an online forum? What was the objective of sharing this information?
With respect I find you use emotive language to describe online conflicts/disputes like "abuse" and "attack" which are completely disproportinate in my view. Or certainly disproportinate to describe any comments I have ever made here or elsewhere. And there seems to be one rule for one and another for another. And unlike some I don't pm others to gossip, complain and tell tales.
You are right about the ban being for NN rather than Egap. It was initially for a few days but was extended when you launched attacks on members here on the red forum. I strongly disagree with the rest of your post - you have glossed over and whitewashed much of what happened. "Abuse" and "attack" are appropriate to describe many of the posts and some of them were truly sickening and crossed the line into criminal behaviour, although I accept that your posts did not fall into that category. I strongly reject your allegation of favouritism in moderation here.
I am not going to continue this argument because it relates to events years ago and it is no doubt boring for most members.
-
38. At 8.10 a.m., Dr Craig attended the scene to formally certify the deaths. In cross-examination at the trial he said the deaths could have occurred at any time during the previous night. The appearance of Sheila Caffell's body suggested to him that the wounds had been inflicted by her own hand.In answer to the judge the witness made it clear this was not an opinion the jury should rely upon as a true indication that the injuries had been self-inflicted.
Thanks, but in fairness he certified death of June at 8.44am and he certified death of Sheila at 8.44 am, he certified death of the boys at 8.50 am, he didn’t do anything other than certify death and appearance wise, and feedback I doubt he would have said any other?
-
Thanks, but in fairness he certified death of June at 8.44am and he certified death of Sheila at 8.44 am, he certified death of the boys at 8.50 am, he didn’t do anything other than certify death and appearance wise, and feedback I doubt he would have said any other?
Well he testified at trial as per what I've quoted. He also spent some time talking with JB to establish whether or not he was fit to provide a statement.
-
How could you possibly know this? You don't so please stop pretending otherwise.
You don't.
-
Maggie, Susan, Lookout, Caroline, Jane, Patti. In posts on the red forum. When you joined the red forum following a temporary ban here under your username Egap1.
When you rejoined here under a new username you were spotted quickly. There were several calls for you to be banned again. It annoyed some people when there was no ban.
For the record, I didn't want CC to be banned permanently, I wanted her to live out the weeks ban that I applied because of Susan whining on. If truth be known, this was all down to Susan in the first place. She caused problems because she whispered in so many ears, turning people against each other. CC made a comment about her being fat (which she clearly wasn't) and Susan brought on the crocodile tears with PM's to the mods. Also, as much as I hate to defend her (no love lost) Patti didn't want CC banned in the first place. I recall the reason for the 'full ban' (which I got the blame for) was because she went over to red and started bleating. To be honest, it was all childish BS and bitchy tit for tat!
-
Also, as much as I hate to defend her (no love lost) Patti didn't want CC banned in the first place.
What happened between you and Patti. I always thought Patti was a great poster. Unlke me and many supporters, Patti was a supporter who didn't believe there was a conspiracy. I found that an interesting line to take.
-
For the record, I didn't want CC to be banned permanently, I wanted her to live out the weeks ban that I applied because of Susan whining on. If truth be known, this was all down to Susan in the first place. She caused problems because she whispered in so many ears, turning people against each other. CC made a comment about her being fat (which she clearly wasn't) and Susan brought on the crocodile tears with PM's to the mods. Also, as much as I hate to defend her (no love lost) Patti didn't want CC banned in the first place. I recall the reason for the 'full ban' (which I got the blame for) was because she went over to red and started bleating. To be honest, it was all childish BS and bitchy tit for tat!
I would agree with the above in terms of how it all played out.
-
For the record, I didn't want CC to be banned permanently, I wanted her to live out the weeks ban that I applied because of Susan whining on. If truth be known, this was all down to Susan in the first place. She caused problems because she whispered in so many ears, turning people against each other. CC made a comment about her being fat (which she clearly wasn't) and Susan brought on the crocodile tears with PM's to the mods. Also, as much as I hate to defend her (no love lost) Patti didn't want CC banned in the first place. I recall the reason for the 'full ban' (which I got the blame for) was because she went over to red and started bleating. To be honest, it was all childish BS and bitchy tit for tat!
CC has always believed I banned her. I never corrected her on that because that would not have been fair to the other mods, but at least she now knows. We discussed terminating the ban before the seven day period but the posts on the red forum whipped everything up again and made it much more difficult. I agree that a lot of this was school playground behaviour although there was a nasty edge to some of it which caused genuine upset. I actually invited CC back because nothing that had happened was in the same category as with the other characters on the red forum. CC declined, but then of course came back under a different identity.
-
I actually invited CC back because nothing that had happened was in the same category as with the other characters on the red forum. CC declined, but then of course came back under a different identity.
I actually asked CC in 2017 why does she not come back. She said because Maggie would not allow it or leave the forum out of protest if she couldn't stop her.
-
I actually asked CC in 2017 why does she not come back. She said because Maggie would not allow it or leave the forum out of protest if she couldn't stop her.
Have you got nothing better to do with your time? You are sounding like an old woman. FFS. When we met in Dec 2016 you were in your late 20's so now in your late 30's. Do you ever worry life is passing you by? When I was your age I had far more important things to do with my time than concern myself about a bunch of women dubbed the 'knitting circle' having a spat.
I enjoyed my time on the Red forum.
-
My 5 point narrative is
Bamber used a silencer in a silent massacre attempt - Credible.
The silencer aquired Sheila's blood, paint, a scratch & grey hair - Credible.
Bamber had to take it off after shooting Sheila - Fact!
He put it back in it's box without cleaning it - Credible.
Suspicious relatives found it - Credible.
-
To be fair it is the prosecution narrative.
They would not present this at trial if it was not credible.
It is backed up with other evidence confirming his guilt and WS's & court testimonies.
-
What happened between you and Patti. I always thought Patti was a great poster. Unlke me and many supporters, Patti was a supporter who didn't believe there was a conspiracy. I found that an interesting line to take.
Are you joking? You don't remember the feud we had? I object to being patronised and I found her patronising. No objection to her posts but we didn't see eye to eye. Some people you like, some you don't - she was a don't.
-
CC has always believed I banned her. I never corrected her on that because that would not have been fair to the other mods, but at least she now knows. We discussed terminating the ban before the seven day period but the posts on the red forum whipped everything up again and made it much more difficult. I agree that a lot of this was school playground behaviour although there was a nasty edge to some of it which caused genuine upset. I actually invited CC back because nothing that had happened was in the same category as with the other characters on the red forum. CC declined, but then of course came back under a different identity.
I only banned her for a week, I didn't ban her permanently. I have told her this before, initially, she thought it was me - not guilty of the full ban.
-
Have you got nothing better to do with your time? You are sounding like an old woman. FFS. When we met in Dec 2016 you were in your late 20's so now in your late 30's. Do you ever worry life is passing you by? When I was your age I had far more important things to do with my time than concern myself about a bunch of women dubbed the 'knitting circle' having a spat.
I enjoyed my time on the Red forum.
;D
-
;D
Nice to see you back Zoso.
-
I only banned her for a week, I didn't ban her permanently. I have told her this before, initially, she thought it was me - not guilty of the full ban.
So who is "guilty" of the full ban?
-
I enjoyed my time on the Red forum.
Unfortunately that is the problem.
-
Are you joking? You don't remember the feud we had? I object to being patronised and I found her patronising. No objection to her posts but we didn't see eye to eye. Some people you like, some you don't - she was a don't.
In defence of Patti, she was always friendly with me and was also loyal when it mattered - as was Roch. Others were far less so. Although this was a long time ago it is still very real for me. I know this does not matter to other members but it was very painful for some of us. We do not forget.
-
I actually asked CC in 2017 why does she not come back. She said because Maggie would not allow it or leave the forum out of protest if she couldn't stop her.
Maggie was treated appallingly. This was before your time on the forum. She was one of the kindest people I have dealt with. I cannot forgive what was done to her by several people. She was a really wonderful person and I spoke to her several times and then had the privilege of viewing her funeral online. It was really moving. I do not want to say more but some people should reflect on their conduct.
-
Unfortunately that is the problem.
Problem for whom?
-
So who is "guilty" of the full ban?
All I know is, it wasn't me. I banned for for a week, that was reduced because Patti thought a week was too long. At that point, I lost interest and didn't want to be involved but then CC started throwing bricks over the red wall and that's when she got banned but not by me - but I did get the blame.
-
Maggie was treated appallingly. This was before your time on the forum. She was one of the kindest people I have dealt with. I cannot forgive what was done to her by several people. She was a really wonderful person and I spoke to her several times and then had the privilege of viewing her funeral online. It was really moving. I do not want to say more but some people should reflect on their conduct.
There has been a lot of abuse on this forum. It would be interesting how we would all interact on a live video conference/meeting.
-
In defence of Patti, she was always friendly with me and was also loyal when it mattered - as was Roch. Others were far less so. Although this was a long time ago it is still very real for me. I know this does not matter to other members but it was very painful for some of us. We do not forget.
She was an absolute bitch to me, but she never struck me as a girls girl. We've all be affected at times by things that have gone on here, none of us really know each other and I honestly don't expect loyalty from anyone. I've always stood up for myself in a hostile situation and now it only matters for as long as I have my laptop open at the forum page.
-
Maggie was treated appallingly. This was before your time on the forum. She was one of the kindest people I have dealt with. I cannot forgive what was done to her by several people. She was a really wonderful person and I spoke to her several times and then had the privilege of viewing her funeral online. It was really moving. I do not want to say more but some people should reflect on their conduct.
You should just say it? If you are referring to myself and Jane, I'm afraid you weren't given the full story - so I will say it here. When the three of us were mods, Maggie found out she was ill, obviously, she couldn't play her part in dealing with forum issues and she was here less and less. She asked Jane if she should take a back seat and Jane said that she thought it might be a good idea so she could concentrate on getting well and I agreed with Jane. Maggie took offence - I guess she was expecting us both to ask her to stay, we were concerned for her health and also needed someone who could back us up when things kicked off and we couldn't expect that of Maggie - she had enough to contend with.
Rumours started flying via PM's (Patti, Susan, Maggie and I believe Graham) about how Jane and I had been horrible to Maggie. Susan at one point had fell out with Maggie and as usual sounded off to me via PM. I said something like 'you can never win against cancer' - meaning that because of her illness, no matter what we said, we would always be seen as the villains - no doubt Susan reported back to Maggie without any explanation of what I meant or the context. That was it in a nutshell. I actually spoke to Maggie many times about this and chatted on the phone. The problem is, things get dragged out of proportion, then the gossip wheel starts turning but I have no regrets for anything I said or did because I know what was said and how it was meant. People can believe what they like and harbour grudges but my conscience is clear as far as this forum is concerned.
-
There has been a lot of abuse on this forum. It would be interesting how we would all interact on a live video conference/meeting.
You would see no change from me - NONE!
-
You should just say it? If you are referring to myself and Jane, I'm afraid you weren't given the full story - so I will say it here. When the three of us were mods, Maggie found out she was ill, obviously, she couldn't play her part in dealing with forum issues and she was here less and less. She asked Jane if she should take a back seat and Jane said that she thought it might be a good idea so she could concentrate on getting well and I agreed with Jane. Maggie took offence - I guess she was expecting us both to ask her to stay, we were concerned for her health and also needed someone who could back us up when things kicked off and we couldn't expect that of Maggie - she had enough to contend with.
Rumours started flying via PM's (Patti, Susan, Maggie and I believe Graham) about how Jane and I had been horrible to Maggie. Susan at one point had fell out with Maggie and as usual sounded off to me via PM. I said something like 'you can never win against cancer' - meaning that because of her illness, no matter what we said, we would always be seen as the villains - no doubt Susan reported back to Maggie without any explanation of what I meant or the context. That was it in a nutshell. I actually spoke to Maggie many times about this and chatted on the phone. The problem is, things get dragged out of proportion, then the gossip wheel starts turning but I have no regrets for anything I said or did because I know what was said and how it was meant. People can believe what they like and harbour grudges but my conscience is clear as far as this forum is concerned.
You have really misunderstood what I was saying. I was certainly not having a go at you or Jane about this and I can honestly say I had no idea of the history of went on behind the scenes without my knowledge between you and Maggie. My complaint was actually directed elsewhere and I do recall you were aware of the background to it. I would rather not go over it again but as I recall you were supportive of Maggie on the issue and very critical of the individual involved.
-
Problem for whom?
It was actually a problem for a number of people. Although I do not think you realise it, it was also a problem for you.
-
She was an absolute bitch to me, but she never struck me as a girls girl. We've all be affected at times by things that have gone on here, none of us really know each other and I honestly don't expect loyalty from anyone. I've always stood up for myself in a hostile situation and now it only matters for as long as I have my laptop open at the forum page.
I am sorry to hear that, but when some of us were being viciously attacked Patti never wavered. She remained staunch and was ridiculed for it.
-
It was actually a problem for a number of people. Although I do not think you realise it, it was also a problem for you.
Hmmm do you mean in a blissful ignorance sort of way?
-
Hmmm do you mean in a blissful ignorance sort of way?
Do you really want to wind me up and provoke me into posting chapter and verse on this? Because you have actually contributed a lot and have a better understanding than most (if not all) about the key issues in the case I have cut you far more slack than has been the case for anyone else. We have shared insights into the case outside the forum, as you know. I have taken you into my confidence because I respect your insight and you are on a personal level easy to deal with. However you also know that I am very critical of you in relation to your friendly interaction with some totally evil scumbags and your validation of some really venal conduct. I do not want to go into this but you really do have to appreciate, as others do, that I feel really strongly about it.
-
You have really misunderstood what I was saying. I was certainly not having a go at you or Jane about this and I can honestly say I had no idea of the history of went on behind the scenes without my knowledge between you and Maggie. My complaint was actually directed elsewhere and I do recall you were aware of the background to it. I would rather not go over it again but as I recall you were supportive of Maggie on the issue and very critical of the individual involved.
OK - thanks. I can only think of one other person that it might involve but I won't mention them.
-
There has been a lot of abuse on this forum. It would be interesting how we would all interact on a live video conference/meeting.
Yes it would, it would be very interesting for you though, you’ve got everyone on ignore 😂
-
Yes it would, it would be very interesting for you though, you’ve got everyone on ignore 😂
Nice one ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes it would, it would be very interesting for you though, you’ve got everyone on ignore 😂
Then how am I replying to anyone? 🤔
-
How can people develop these type of animosities towards each other while discussing a case of which five people are dead and a man claiming wrongful convictions?
In an online capacity as well.
-
If case debates were in a mothers coffee meeting on a Wednesday morning in a face to face capacity I could easily understand!
-
I actually read up on the Red forum as I was interested in John Lambertons case.
-
I actually read up on the Red forum as I was interested in John Lambertons case.
What was your view on his case?
-
How can people develop these type of animosities towards each other while discussing a case of which five people are dead and a man claiming wrongful convictions?
In an online capacity as well.
Because this case attracts too many women with too much time on their hands.
-
Because this case attracts too many women with too much time on their hands.
More evidence that you're an incel.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/predicting-harm-among-incels-involuntary-celibates/press-release-incels-need-mental-health-support-rather-than-a-counter-terrorism-intervention-the-worlds-largest-study-of-incels-finds-accessible
-
How can people develop these type of animosities towards each other while discussing a case of which five people are dead and a man claiming wrongful convictions?
In an online capacity as well.
Its nice to see that your time spent on a cat A wing hasn't desensitised you to the more unpleasant aspects of human nature :)
-
More evidence that you're an incel.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/predicting-harm-among-incels-involuntary-celibates/press-release-incels-need-mental-health-support-rather-than-a-counter-terrorism-intervention-the-worlds-largest-study-of-incels-finds-accessible
I thought incel meant internet celebrity, like tit-lady Bianca Censori?
-
I thought incel meant internet celebrity, like tit-lady Bianca Censori?
Well I am sure David will enjoy mass debating over the subject matter :)
-
Its nice to see that your time spent on a cat A wing hasn't desensitised you to the more unpleasant aspects of human nature :)
Long Lartin prison holds CAT A and B inmates, and did so back in 93. I was the latter. It had no VP wing at the time.
-
What was your view on his case?
There was a reply to this but it appears to have been deleted. ILB - did you delete it, and if so why?
-
There was a reply to this but it appears to have been deleted. ILB - did you delete it, and if so why?
I will confirm it with you via PM if you wish.
-
I will confirm it with you via PM if you wish.
Yes please do that.