Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on September 01, 2011, 09:16:PM
-
Choose Albums to listen to in background, whilst browsing, or contributing, to this thread:-
(a) - Click on link of your choice
(b) - Click on white arrow in red box
(c) - Open original link, and browse, music will play in background whilst you peruse...
(1) - "https://www.youtube.com/embed/aDErvbMTZ5I" BEYONCE' (Run The World - Girls)
(2) - "https://www.youtube.com/embed/uaGLNf3fJSA" SAM SMITH (Greatest Hits, 2015)
(3) - "https://www.youtube.com/embed/rYEDA3JcQqw?list=PLA04B51CF28D2D1A4" ADELE (Rolling In The Deep)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Must Read - for all those seeking the truth in this matter...
-
Deary me. There's enough here to make another 5 videos... and still have material to spare.
-
Interesting to note that in 161 Myal states that they saw an unidentified male walking around the room - this apparently is not contested by JB - therefore if Sheila was the murderer then what was this unidentified male doing there ? In his interview Bews looked very unconvincing when he said it was a trick of the light, I think they did see someone at that someone was the hit-man....
-
Most impressive and in my view only the tip of the iceberg .
-
That man Lord Denning was an unjust man to have said what he did. Didn't he know that the Sabbath was made for man and not Man for the Sabbath? Similarly the law was made for the British citizen than the British citizen made for the law. What arse up thinking was that man up to for goodness sake. I'd rather the law was turned completely upside down and even destroyed and those responsible for the administering these unjust laws brought to book, let alone brought into disrepute than for one person to suffer injustice at the hands of this "Law" so called. That statement of that Lord Denning "rogue" really angers me.
-
Interesting to note that in 161 Myal states that they saw an unidentified male walking around the room - this apparently is not contested by JB - therefore if Sheila was the murderer then what was this unidentified male doing there ? In his interview Bews looked very unconvincing when he said it was a trick of the light, I think they did see someone at that someone was the hit-man....
p
Or perhaps, Sheila`s accomplice (One he hides)?
-
Spent the morning contacting the the FSU team to see if they want to accept that their time is up,
This is where the Government decides wheather they can keep a lid on this of if they need to start the purging of the officers involved.
What do you all think?
its still not too late for just one of them to cove over to the Bamber side with their written statement.
Why not write to the man who started this all yourself and ask him if he still thinks he can be protected by EP or the government?
Montgomery Ivor (Monty)
(03) 9354 0782
11 Turner St Pascoe Vale SouthVIC3044
Mr Montgomery was in charge of the FSU he told Ken,Alex,Peter,John and the others what to do inside the house.
Mr Montgomery will have finished reading the allegation doc by the time you call him.
If he comes across quite angry do not worry he is usually like this.
I am off to work now and regards to all on here who are supporting this effort.
-
Certainly raises a number of questions to be answered.
-
NGB , i would be interested to hear your view's on JB point's above !!
-
NGB , i would be interested to hear your view's on JB point's above !!
I know that a lot of work went into the preparation of the document sent to Mike by Jeremy and posted above. It sets out very clearly and in detail the grounds for suggesting that information casting serious doubt upon Jeremy's Bamber's convictions was available to those in authority long ago and that they could and should have acted upon that information. The City of London Police enquiry and the separate Essex Police enquiry should have led to the convictions being overturned but they did not. The final reports in each case amounted to a whitewash. The purpose of the document is to increase public awareness of the issues in order to bring pressure to bear upon the DPP and the Ministry of Justice to take action. This campaign is running in parallel to the work being done in connection with the CCRC application.
-
NGB , i would be interested to hear your view's on JB point's above !!
I know that a lot of work went into the preparation of the document sent to Mike by Jeremy and posted above. It sets out very clearly and in detail the grounds for suggesting that information casting serious doubt upon Jeremy's Bamber's convictions was available to those in authority long ago and that they could and should have acted upon that information. The City of London Police enquiry and the separate Essex Police enquiry should have led to the convictions being overturned but they did not. The final reports in each case amounted to a whitewash. The purpose of the document is to increase public awareness of the issues in order to bring pressure to bear upon the DPP and the Ministry of Justice to take action. This campaign is running in parallel to the work being done in connection with the CCRC application.
Cheer's !!
-
The silencer which as checked for DNA as part of the failed 2002 appeal should be checked for the presence or otherwise of superglue residue (cynoacrylate fumes), since I do not think that the silencer which was subject of the an examination in 2002 was coated in white powder from the superglue treatment, spoken about by DI Cook (soc)?
I also do not think that the silencer which was checked for dna in 2002, had a distinctive scratch m,ark running along its length - this would be easy to check and establish, and could help to demonstrate that there were two different Parker hale silencers which found their way into the possession of Essex police...
-
If the first silencer (SBJ/1) found at the scene by the police belonged to Anthony Pargeters rifle, the one in his possession will still be coated in white powder, and it will have the distinctive scratch mark along its side?
-
There are other clues about the existence of the two Parker hale Silencers:-
(1) position of baffle plates at the time DI Cook dismantled the silencer and rebuilt it on 29th August 1985
(2) position of baffle plates at Lab' on 29th April 1986, which show them inverted the opposite way around so as to accommodate the backspatter theory of the ballistic expert, MDF...
-
Where is the exhibit label, SBJ/1, bearing the signatures of DI Cook, and Glynis Howard, dated, 13th August 1985?
-
Do you know what I can't understand?
Why or why didn't DI Cook (SOC) report seeing any blood on the dismantled baffle plates from the silencer he dismantled and rebuilt on 29th August 1985? Why do we have to wait until after 12th September 1985, for the blood grouping of the flake from the silencer to be analyzed?
Of course...
This could have something to do with the flake of blood that David Boutflour claims he scraped from the silencer he found in the gun cupboard by use of a razor blade? Lets put it another way, according to his version about finding the silencer in the gun cupboard on 10th August 1985, he had no opportunity to use a razor blade to scrape off the flake of blood from the silencer, and no-one else claims they saw him do so? Instinct tells me that Boutflour scarped off the flake of blood from the silencer he found in the gun cupboard on or about 11th September 1985, and that the flake he scraped off, was the flake which the scientists examined and analyzed at the Lab...
Guess who claimed he found the flake of blood in the silencer after it had been sent to the lab' on 30th August 1985? You guessed right, none other than the ballistic expert, MDF - and as we have already seen, his evidence about when the test firing of the gun/silencer and control ammunition was conducted exposes him as a serial liar...
Just like Ewen Smith told me in 2004, when evidence about the unofficial test firing emerged - MDF is dodgy...
-
How come DI Cooks dna was not found inside the silencer when it was examined for dna as part of the failed 2002 appeal? Lets be more specific, why wasn't a sample of his dna taken for elimination purposes? Come to think of it, since MDF later allegedly dismantled the silencer and separated the baffle plates, and he allegedly found the crucial flake trapped between baffle [plates that Cook had already separated and rebuilt days before, why wasn't any of his dna found in the silencer, and why wasn't a sample of his dna taken for elimination purposes?
Answer - it was a different silencer to the one found in the gun cupboard by David Boutflour, whilst Basil Cock was at the scene complaining of all that fingermark dust, on 11th September 1985...
Bingo...
-
For some reason, the crucial flake of blood that MDF found in the silencer was never photographed, nor any diagram drawn of it or recorded on any Lab' general examination record? It was never given an exhibit reference, or a Lab' item number at all?
Imagine that?
The most significant piece of prosecutions evidence and it doesn't have an exhibit reference, and it was not photographed, or documented properly...
Oh yeah - pull the other one its got bells on?
-
More importantly...
Cooks interference with the silencer he dismantled and rebuilt, and which he physically screwed directly onto the exposed thread on the end of the rifles barrel after he rebuilt the silencer, may help to explain why there was no blood or DNA belonging or originating from Sheila on the external thread of the rifles barrel, when it was later examined by MDF, on or after 12th September 1985?
We now know, for example, that on or before 13th September 1985, there was an unreported test firing of the rifle in question, a silencer and control bullets, which Essex police and MDF have deliberately sought to deceive everyone about, why?
Well, there was an unofficial test firing, of the gun/silencer and control ammunition, and that is set in stone, and easily provable - so what did this unreported test firing of the rifle/silencer and control ammunition have upon the integrity of the cloth pull-through evidence (MDF/1) allegedly taken from the inside of the barrel of the rifle on 13th September 1985, but this could have been taken after the unofficial test firing of the same had already been undertaken, hence why the barrel was clean by that stage (because the test firing had forced any dried blood out of the inner barrel (and possibly dispersed into the atmosphere, or forced into the silencer)...
-
The original photographs which DI Cook (SOC) took of his experiments where he dismantled the silencer on 29th August 1985, need to be examined by an expert such as Mr Sutherst, to be checked for the presence of blood on the internal baffle plates, and [paint ingrained into its knurled end?
This needs to be done as soon as possible...
-
Alarm bells are ringing...
Why wasn't the paint found ingrained into the knurl of the silencers end cap, given an exhibit reference, a lab' reference, and why oh why wasn't it photographed in situ on the silencer?
Iv'e had one leg already pulled tonight, so pull the other one, it also has bells on it...
-
If paint is found to be present on the knurl of the silencer Cook dismantled and rebuilt on 29th August 1985, before resubmitting it to the lab' on the following day (30th August 1985) then paint could not have been found on the end of the other silencer which Boutflour found in the gun cupboard on or about 11th September 1985, otherwise paint would have been found on the end of two silencers, not one? For this very reason, the photographs which Cook took of the silencer he dismantled and rebuilt on 29th August 1985, need to be thoroughly examined and scrutinized with a view to identifying whether or not there is/was paint on its end cap before he sent it to the lab' on 30th august 1985?
If it is found that there is no paint there at the time Cook took thee pictures, then the silencer must have been scratched against the front face of the aga in the kitchen at whf after Cook took these pictures...
I am all for going in for the kill, so to speak - lets get the corrupt bastard...
-
By 29th August 1985, there was no exhibit labels attached to either the rifle or the silencer...
-
By 29th August 1985, not only was there no signed exhibit labels attached to the rifle or the silencer, but where is the cardboard tube that the silencer was allegedly wrapped and sealed inside?
What exhibit reference did this cardboard tube have then?
What Lab' item number did the cardboard tube have?
What court exhibit number did this cardboard tubing have?
None, because it is all part of a big lie...
-
Lets just get things into perspective, once and for all, so that no-one can allege that we don't know what we are talking about - here was DI Cook (SOC) on 29th August 1985, in possession of the silencer which Boutflour claims he found in the gun cupboard on 10th August 1985, and Cook is dismantling it, rebuilding it, screwing it onto the end of the rifles barrel, and all the while he is taking photographs at every vital stage, and yet there is no mention of any exhibit label, no packaging, no blood, no paint, etc?
I was going to say, pull the other leg, but I have already had both my legs pulled tonight...
-
How can MDF find blood after the submission of the silencer on 30th August 1985, which Cook fails to make mention of when he examines the same silencer (?) the day before on 29th August 1985?
Something dodgy been going on here, in my opinion...
Furthermore...
How come the ballistic expert (MDF) fails to make any mention of paint ingrained into the knurl of the silencers end cap?
-
How could DS Davidson have fingerprinted a silencer (SBJ/1) on 9th August 1985, if it was not found until 10th August 1985?
Who found other exhibits at the scene on 8th August 1985, marked, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4?
Work it out, you don't need to be a brain surgeon or an Essex police detective, to fathom it out for yourself...
How come DS "Stan" the man, Jones, does not make any witness statement about the find of exhibits SBJ/1, SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4, at the scene in August 1985? Why is there no mention about the seizure of these exhibits from th scene in his pocketbook? Oh - Iv'e just remembered, his pocketbook is dodgy, isn't it?
or not?
-
Fancy that...
Pargeters .22 Bruno bolt action rifle being photographed at the scene on the morning of the shootings?
I thought he told COLP that he took it home on the penultimate week-end?
If his .22 rifle was there. then so was his Parker hale Silencer (SBJ/1)...
According to what ACC Peter Simpson told the press, police found a bloodied silencer hours after entering whf, so this cannot have been the silencer Boutflour found in the gun cupboard then? To whom did this other bloodied silencer belong to? It was this other bloodied silencer which caused DCI Jones, and DS Jones, to visit Bamber at his cottage on 9th August 1985, and speak to him about whether or not a silencer was fitted to the barrel of the rifle on the night before the shootings?
Lets also not forget that DS Davidson had fingerprinted the silencer that same day (9th August 1985) and so we can be absolutely clear that there were two silencers, not one bearing three different exhibit labels (SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1) at different times of the investigations?
-
If blood was found inside the silencer by 13th September 1985, as claimed by MDF, and he relied upon his theory of backspatter to account for how Sheila Caffells blood ended up inside the silencer, why did he write in his working notes, dated, 13th September 1985, that he could not tell if any of the bullets had been fired through the rifle with or without the silencer fitted to its barrel?
-
Well it goes to show that experts can be idiots.
-
Cook claimed in evidence to have looked in the gun cupboard on the 7th august so must have seen Pargetters rifle and silencer at that time.
Collins supposedly removed a shotgun from the gun cupboard on the 7th shortly after entering whf so must have seen Pargetter's rifle and silencer.
-
Look at the following evidence (1):-
Was there any paint on the end of this silencer, by 29th August 1985?
-
Look at the evidence (2):-
Was there a 'U' shaped mark on the front face of the aga, when this photograph was taken on 12th September 1985?
-
Absence of paint on silencer in photographs taken on 29th August 1985, and an absence of any mark on the front face of the aga when this picture was taken on 12th September 1985, gives a big clue as to the time and occasion when or after the silencer was deliberately scratched against the front face of the aga - in particular, since the the photographs of the actual mark were not taken until 1st October 1985...
Three crucial dates then:-
(1) - 29th August 1985
(2) - 12th September 1985
(3) - 1st October 1985
-
Is that a strap fitted to the rifle in one of the photographs?
-
Hartley , Vidvic can you give your view's on JB's submission's here ? Or better stiill in Hartley's case pick any hole's in it ? As both of view seemed to be away when this was posted !!
-
Hartley , Vidvic can you give your view's on JB's submission's here ? Or better stiill in Hartley's case pick any hole's in it ? As both of view seemed to be away when this was posted !!
Are you referring to the paint scratches on the mantel?
-
Hartley , Vidvic can you give your view's on JB's submission's here ? Or better stiill in Hartley's case pick any hole's in it ? As both of view seemed to be away when this was posted !!
Are you referring to the paint scratches on the mantel?
No JB's letter's , on page one !!
-
Hartley , Vidvic can you give your view's on JB's submission's here ? Or better stiill in Hartley's case pick any hole's in it ? As both of view seemed to be away when this was posted !!
Are you referring to the paint scratches on the mantel?
I started this reply before you posted.
Oh I see, you mean the list of allegations.
No I don't have the desire to run through each and every point, many of the points have been discussed in other threads. I particularly remember discussing with Smiffy and NGB point 161 (I think, need to check) which was about a police issued weapon.
Is there something in particular?
-
It wasn't 161.
-
It wasn't 161.
Have a look at 28 , 29 Acc Simpson's comment's , do you accept he made these and they are factual ?
-
It wasn't 161.
Have a look at 28 , 29 Acc Simpson's comment's , do you accept he made these and they are factual ?
Do you accept that they are factual?
-
It wasn't 161.
Have a look at 28 , 29 Acc Simpson's comment's , do you accept he made these and they are factual ?
Do you accept that they are factual?
If the reporter was to make a sworn statement , yes !!
-
It wasn't 161.
Have a look at 28 , 29 Acc Simpson's comment's , do you accept he made these and they are factual ?
Do you accept that they are factual?
If the reporter was to make a sworn statement , yes !!
To be honest Jon, I have nothing to base an answer on, of course I'm sceptical, but I have nothing to really base an opinion on.
Judging by what has gone before, then I would be very cautious about accepting it without further details, Jeremy does have a habit of releasing half truths, for example the claim that the police were in conversation with somebody in the house, which was truthful, however he failed to mention the next line which said they were met with no reply. Or the mention that police heard voices when they entered the house, when in actual fact it was the voices of the raid team heard over the open telephone line.
So yes I actually do believe that there may be elements of truth, but not the whole truth, and if the whole truth was put together then it would not bear any resemblance to what is alleged.
But as I say, I do not have the information to provide you with an answer, and as there isn't an affidavit from the reporter then would it be fair to say that you don't either?
-
It wasn't 161.
Have a look at 28 , 29 Acc Simpson's comment's , do you accept he made these and they are factual ?
Do you accept that they are factual?
If the reporter was to make a sworn statement , yes !!
To be honest Jon, I have nothing to base an answer on, of course I'm sceptical, but I have nothing to really base an opinion on.
Judging by what has gone before, then I would be very cautious about accepting it without further details, Jeremy does have a habit of releasing half truths, for example the claim that the police were in conversation with somebody in the house, which was truthful, however he failed to mention the next line which said they were met with no reply. Or the mention that police heard voices when they entered the house, when in actual fact it was the voices of the raid team heard over the open telephone line.
So yes I actually do believe that there may be elements of truth, but not the whole truth, and if the whole truth was put together then it would not bear any resemblance to what is alleged.
But as I say, I do not have the information to provide you with an answer, and as there isn't an affidavit from the reporter then would it be fair to say that you don't either?
Of course i do not , do you read anything into the HOLAB form's of DB find of the silencer ( 68 ) having no date upon them ? Provided you was shown this to be the case !
-
Again I would need more information, it is written as an observation rather than an allegation as such.
Davidsons COLP interview is interesting and gives a few details about how the forms are completed, as are the exhibit officers statements, I forget who, it may be Whiddon and Howard, I'd need to check.
Another observation is that the silencer was not entered onto a CID6 form, which is a form that exhibits are entered on upon their discovery and are then transferred to the exhibit log by the exhibit officer. As the silencer was not found by the police, and entered straight into the exhibit log without a CID6 form, then perhaps that is the reason for a missing find date.
Obviously that is a lot of guess work, I'd need further information.
-
Again I would need more information, it is written as an observation rather than an allegation as such.
Davidsons COLP interview is interesting and gives a few details about how the forms are completed, as are the exhibit officers statements, I forget who, it may be Whiddon and Howard, I'd need to check.
Another observation is that the silencer was not entered onto a CID6 form, which is a form that exhibits are entered on upon their discovery and are then transferred to the exhibit log by the exhibit officer. As the silencer was not found by the police, and entered straight into the exhibit log without a CID6 form, then perhaps that is the reason for a missing find date.
Obviously that is a lot of guess work, I'd need further information.
Where was Anthony Pargeters silencer whilst all this was going on?
How did relatives know the silencer they found belonged to the Bamber rifle, and not to Pargeter and his rifle?
-
Again I would need more information, it is written as an observation rather than an allegation as such.
Davidsons COLP interview is interesting and gives a few details about how the forms are completed, as are the exhibit officers statements, I forget who, it may be Whiddon and Howard, I'd need to check.
Another observation is that the silencer was not entered onto a CID6 form, which is a form that exhibits are entered on upon their discovery and are then transferred to the exhibit log by the exhibit officer. As the silencer was not found by the police, and entered straight into the exhibit log without a CID6 form, then perhaps that is the reason for a missing find date.
Obviously that is a lot of guess work, I'd need further information.
Where was Anthony Pargeters silencer whilst all this was going on?
How did relatives know the silencer they found belonged to the Bamber rifle, and not to Pargeter and his rifle?
What number is that?
-
An interesting article below and I believe when the truth of this case is known to everyone you could even use the same newspaper heading
Newspaper Article
Christina Patterson:
Wednesday, 5 October 2011
" We prefer a crazy story to the truth"
None of us knows how we would behave if we were 20, and terrified, and in a foreign country, and in shock
Amanda Knox
In the end, it took two minutes. In the end, after four years in a prison cell shared with a killer, four years of being called a witch, and whore, and she-devil, four years of dreaming of a freedom she never thought she'd lose, and of wondering if she'd ever get to see the place she called home again, it took two minutes for an Italian court to overturn the verdict that had turned a young American woman into one of the most famous murderers in the world.
It was almost unbearable to watch. It was almost surreal, too, to see the TV crews, and satellite vans, squeezed between honey-coloured buildings in streets that were built for horses long before Perugino taught Raphael how to paint his angels and his crucifixion. It was terrible, of course, to see the mother, and sister, and brother, of a young woman who had been left to bleed to death after having her throat slashed like a pig, walking, in front of the world's cameras, into a courtroom, as if walking in front of cameras was a normal thing to do when the smiling girl you loved would never come back.
But it was terrible, too, to see the white face of the young woman in the black hooded jacket, who had waited, waited, waited for the words that were coming, and who looked as if she couldn't carry the burden of that wait for one moment more. "I need to be with people I love," she had written in the diary she kept in prison, "so I wait. And the waiting is such pain that I almost can't stand it – but I do." She stood it, for four years, because she had no choice but to stand it, just as the family of the woman she had been convicted of killing had no choice but to stand the pain of a daughter slaughtered and raped.
Related articles
'Overwhelmed' Amanda Knox arrives back on US soil
Kercher family left with just a question: who killed Meredith?
Knox hopes for book deal and film rights to settle family's $1m legal fees
Prosecutor vows to fight on as delighted Amanda Knox heads for home
Antonio J Manca Graziadei: Knox's defence lays bare a legal system full of flaws
Letters: Knox really is innocent
Search the news archive for more stories
When the judge spoke, in terms that some people at first found so confusing that at least one newspaper briefly ran a story on its website saying that the young woman had lost her appeal, we couldn't see her face. Moments later, she was crying. Moments after that, she was being half led, half carried out of the courtroom, her slender frame still shaking with sobs.
It's hard to imagine the path that took her from dreamy student life in the southern sun to a prison cell where she was told she'd spend 26 years for a crime she didn't commit. It's hard to imagine the path for her then boyfriend of less than two weeks, too, a young man who the world has largely ignored. American students on exchange programmes to Umbrian hill towns don't expect to be caught up in miscarriages of justice, and nor do Italians with rich parents. Like middle-class Westerners everywhere, they expect the police, and justice, to be on their side.
But the police, and justice, weren't on their side. The man in charge of the investigation into the death of Meredith Kercher, Giuliano Mignini, says he has used psychics to help him solve previous cases, and is currently appealing against a conviction of abuse of office for illegally wire-tapping the conversations of journalists. It was he who decided to question Amanda Knox through the night without a lawyer, and he who elicited the "confession" that she had been in the house with a Congolese barman called Patrick Lumumba, a confession she later said was made under duress. It was he who told the world that the young American, and the young Italian, had been involved in a strange Satanic ritual, and then a sex game that had gone wrong, and then a botched break-in, and then a jealous row.
It was he who insisted, even when a young man whose bloody handprints were found on Meredith's pillow, and who had fled to Germany, had been caught, and confessed to being in the house, which he couldn't really deny since his DNA was found all over Meredith's room, that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were the key movers in the murder. And who carried on insisting this, even when the only story he was left with, after all the others had been demolished, was that it was "a senseless killing, without a motive". And it was he who was happy to build a case on "evidence" collected so clumsily that videos of it taking place drew howls of horror in court. There were, according to a report, more than 50 errors in the original case. One piece of "evidence" wasn't "found" for 47 days. It was found, in fact, the day after a TV programme highlighting flaws in the case.
You can see why people might think it was pretty strange of a young girl whose flatmate had been murdered to do cartwheels while waiting to be questioned by the police. You can see why they might think it was pretty awful for a young girl to incriminate a man she sometimes worked for, a man whose customers later proved he was at work when the murder took place. It was pretty strange, and it was pretty awful, though none of us knows how we'd behave if we were 20, and terrified, and in a foreign country, and in shock because our flatmate had been found dead, and because the police were suggesting we'd killed her.
You can see why a prosecutor might think that the young woman and her boyfriend might be involved in the case, and why he might want to find evidence that supported his view. You can see why he might, in the glare of the world's media, feel under pressure to solve the case as quickly as he could. But it's quite hard to see why he would stick to that case, even when the evidence for it seemed to be extremely flimsy, and why he never seemed to consider the possibility that that lack of evidence might mean he was wrong. Unless, that is, it was more important for him to be seen to be right than to solve the crime.
You can just about see why a prosecutor who was very concerned with his professional reputation, and, like many Italians, with "la bella figura", which you could translate as "making a good impression", would be determined to stick with a story that seemed to get crazier every day, and crazier even as the evidence seemed to get thinner, and you can just about see why quite a few people in Perugia would stick with it, too. Perhaps it was out of loyalty to Mignini, or anxiety about the loss of "la bella figura" for Perugia, that baying crowds outside the courtroom greeted the verdict with cries of "Vergogna!", or "Shame".
Or perhaps it was just because once there's a story, even if it's a crazy story, and even if it's not all that clear where it came from, and even if the evidence for it is very, very slender, that story seems to harden into something that feels like truth. And so it's important that that story doesn't change, because if something that feels like a kind of truth can change, then anything can change, and we all need some things in the world that don't.
Perhaps that's why the Kerchers, too, seemed reluctant to believe that Mignini might be wrong. On Monday, they talked about the "PR machine" and "hype" that surrounded Amanda Knox's appeal, as if she was a young woman trying to market a pop album, and not one trying to escape a life in jail. They were right to remind the world of the girl at the heart of this terrible story, the girl they said had been "hugely forgotten". But terrible stories don't have just one victim. "In this case," said Amanda Knox's lawyer on Monday night, "there is no winner". Just a dead girl, and a heartbroken family. And two young people who are only just beginning an escape from hell.
-
Im trying really hard to get to grips with all this moderator stuff but at the begjnning of this thread there is even more of it.
Might be interesting for mike to refresh his memory on this.
-
Im trying really hard to get to grips with all this moderator stuff but at the begjnning of this thread there is even more of it.
Might be interesting for mike to refresh his memory on this.
Mike has been discussing this matter today. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6775.1410.html
-
Where was Anthony Pargeters silencer whilst all this was going on?
How did relatives know the silencer they found belonged to the Bamber rifle, and not to Pargeter and his rifle?
At his home in his rifle case along with his rifle. Prior to the murders he took his rifle home with him. When he did leave his rifle at WHF it was inside inside the same case along with his rifle.
-
Im trying really hard to get to grips with all this moderator stuff but at the begjnning of this thread there is even more of it.
Might be interesting for mike to refresh his memory on this.
Part of why you can't understand it is because the claims make no sense.
The general gist of the allegations is that the family or police planted evidence in a different moderator than Nevill's moderator and replaced the real moderator with one form the family which was doctored.
Instead of a straight forward allegation of how this was done they come up with convoluted tales that make no sense, are contradictory and are refuted by evidence.
The efforts more often than not are to try to create a general appearance of impropriety than to present a very specific well articulated allegation that is supported by credible evidence.
-
I think its like that with a lot of evidence , it seems to get lost in a load of piffle and it all becomes too long winded and difficult to follow.
perhaps thats the intention.
-
Its funny because I am sure if I was convicted on a piece of evidence that was removed from the scene and handled by members of the public and not taken from those people in the correct forensic manner I would be shouting from the roofs about how the evidence should not be included .
And lets face it if Jeremy was guilty he had no idea that they would not find the silencer the next day.
And don't give me that rubbish about no one knowing about the possibility of blood getting in the silencer , he and the family were around guns all the time and would know how and why they were cleaned.
-
The other thing jan that concerns me is that the expert photographer couldnt find any scratch marks on the original photos and no paint droppings on the floor. I believed this expert, he had no reason to lie.
this evidence is definately dodgy.
mike and scipio make it so complicated sometimes ive almost given up reading there posts.
-
I think its like that with a lot of evidence , it seems to get lost in a load of piffle and it all becomes too long winded and difficult to follow.
perhaps thats the intention.
Consider the only rational allegations one could make:
Police or family doctored Nevill's moderator
There is no evidence to support that this happened. Nothing can be cited to establish it.
Convoluted tales are made up in order to pretend there is evidence. These convoluted tales take advantage of typos, ambiguity and even things which some may characterize as innocent errors or may characterize as just standard progress.
The fact that police reclassified the moderator DB/1 and then further reclassified it to DRB/1 is used to allege there were multiple moderators and evidence was being planted in different moderators... They make this up because they found the fact the changes were made as useful to make their tale around.
These convoluted stories make no sense though. The only evidence planting that would be even remotely credible is that the police or family planted blood in Nevill's moderator. At the end of the day there is no more support for their wild convoluted tales than there is for the simple allegation. BUT one only realizes that if they scrutinize the convoluted tales in detail. Many just accept the claims without scrutinizing them. Others reject the claims without even bothering to try to look at them because they seem so wacky and convoluted.
At times Mike does try to put together some claims and will say things like:
A) DS Jones collected Nevill's moderator from WHF on Aug 7 along with 3 other exhibits
B) Davidson fingerprinted it on Aug 9
C) The family doctored AP's moderator or one of their own and this was turned in to police on the 12th
from there he goes off into wacky land losing all train of thought in unintelligible gibberish claims of third moderators and moderators being returned to the family then back to police and claiming blood and pain were found on different moderators...
Just looking at the above claims though and trying to scrutinize them it becomes apparent Mike has zero evidence to support these claims.
He has no evidence that Jones took any exhibits from the house let alone 4. He keeps claiming they were exhibits SBJ/1-4. He won't show the paperwork which details what SBJ/2-4 were. Since SBJ/1 was numbered on Aug 13 obviously 2-4 were numbered after this. At the end of the day he just keeps making the allegation SBJ/1-4 were taken from WHF on Aug 7 without being able to provide a shred of evidence. When challenged to provide evidence he says he doesn't have to post anything unless he feels like it and says he doesn't want to.
He similarly has no evidence to establish Davidson fingerprinted the moderator on Aug 9. The only piece of evidence he submitted is a fingerprint result form. This form indicates the items were fingerprinted on Aug 16 or 1-2 days earlier. It doesn't say who fingerprinted the items, other documents state such. Those documents reveal Cook fingerprinted the on Aug 15. He claims he has other evidence but refuses to reveal it because he doesn't want to. So again we are left with no evidence just his claim he has evidence that he refuses to post.
He has no evidence to prove the family doctored the moderator they handed in he just has his unsupported allegation.
So at the end of the day these 3 claims are all just unsupported allegations.
The rest of the stuff he argues constantly changes and makes no sens eon top of being crafted around innocent things like the exhibits being redesignated or typos. It doesn't even pay to try to keep up with the rest. It's like playing whack a mole.
If he were serious he would post a rational allegation and then post credible evidence to back it up.
The moderator claims are just some of his allegations. He has other wild allegations of police shooting Sheila and moving her body around and shooting the victims with blanks that make no sense. It is bad enough not to have evidentiary support for your allegations but at least come up with something that makes sense for Pete sake.
-
Nobody's talking about " doctoring ". Contamination is the operative word.
-
Nobody's talking about " doctoring ". Contamination is the operative word.
Innocent contamination resulting in blood on the first 8 baffles is not possible. Intentional contamination is simply another way of saying doctoring the evidence by planting it.
-
Innocent contamination resulting in blood on the first 8 baffles is not possible. Intentional contamination is simply another way of saying doctoring the evidence by planting it.
No,they're two entirely different things. Intentional contamination is knowing. Innocent contamination is sheer carelessness in everyone handling an item without gloves.
-
No,they're two entirely different things. Intentional contamination is knowing. Innocent contamination is sheer carelessness in everyone handling an item without gloves.
How do you accidentally get one of the victims blood inside a silencer by just handling it? :o
-
How do you accidentally get one of the victims blood inside a silencer by just handling it? :o
If blood had been running down the side ( particularly if Sheila had handled it ),by scooping it back up and putting it inside.No-one would probably have thought of wiping it clean as in wiping away evidence.Unfortunately if that had happened then obviously it would have made Jeremy a sitting duck. Which it did.
Whether it was done with malice aforethought remains to be seen.
-
If blood had been running down the side ( particularly if Sheila had handled it ),by scooping it back up and putting it inside.No-one would probably have thought of wiping it clean as in wiping away evidence.Unfortunately if that had happened then obviously it would have made Jeremy a sitting duck. Which it did.
Whether it was done with malice aforethought remains to be seen.
A) Wouldn't there have needed to be copious amounts of blood?
B) Having scooped it up the side wouldn't it have been MORE obvious to wipe it on something?
-
No,they're two entirely different things. Intentional contamination is knowing. Innocent contamination is sheer carelessness in everyone handling an item without gloves.
Or even de-contamination with EP by losing a grey hair. But of course it could have been an animal hair we will never know.
Presumably the family told the police when they called the silencer had blood on it. You think that would have rung an alarm bell ? And they would handle it in a forensic manner - but no - kitchen roll was used and no gloves . Great.
-
A) Wouldn't there have needed to be copious amounts of blood?
B) Having scooped it up the side wouldn't it have been MORE obvious to wipe it on something?
No,not copious,just a streak running down the side. It wouldn't have been the done thing to have wiped it at that time. Though I must say that unless blood is collected straight away it deteriorates and the sample is deemed useless anyway,left out as it was as air is a contaminant to blood unless it's tested immediately.
-
Ok scip, say everything youve said regarding moderator is true, there is a big struggle in the kitchen and paint and blood get into the moderator.
its ok to say follow the evidence but the evidencd is what people are questioning.
the expert has over 50 years experience, there were no scratch marks on mantle in original photos and no paint particles on the floor.
You cant argue they were there as the photos dont lie.
-
If blood had been running down the side ( particularly if Sheila had handled it ),by scooping it back up and putting it inside.No-one would probably have thought of wiping it clean as in wiping away evidence.Unfortunately if that had happened then obviously it would have made Jeremy a sitting duck. Which it did.
Whether it was done with malice aforethought remains to be seen.
Not really very likely Lookout.
-
Ok scip, say everything youve said regarding moderator is true, there is a big struggle in the kitchen and paint and blood get into the moderator.
its ok to say follow the evidence but the evidencd is what people are questioning.
the expert has over 50 years experience, there were no scratch marks on mantle in original photos and no paint particles on the floor.
You cant argue they were there as the photos dont lie.
I'm rather afraid they might, Notsure. Most of the photos we have here have been copied almost to the point of extinction. The grainier they are the more they suggest that something IS there which originally WASN'T there, whilst at the same time obliterating what IS actually there. Yer pays yer money, yer take yer choice :D
-
Ok scip, say everything youve said regarding moderator is true, there is a big struggle in the kitchen and paint and blood get into the moderator.
its ok to say follow the evidence but the evidencd is what people are questioning.
the expert has over 50 years experience, there were no scratch marks on mantle in original photos and no paint particles on the floor.
You cant argue they were there as the photos dont lie.
If you're talking about Suthurst, he had to concede that his methods were less than scientific.
-
The cameras should have been spot on. Police used to use a Minolta camera,similar to the ones used in hospitals at that time,which showed up every speck.
They may have been ancient back then compared to today,but they did the job just as efficiently.
-
Ok scip, say everything youve said regarding moderator is true, there is a big struggle in the kitchen and paint and blood get into the moderator.
its ok to say follow the evidence but the evidencd is what people are questioning.
the expert has over 50 years experience, there were no scratch marks on mantle in original photos and no paint particles on the floor.
You cant argue they were there as the photos dont lie.
The blood got inside the moderator from shooting Sheila not the struggle.
The photos do not show the underneath of the mantle where some of the scratches were. It is impossible to see that location. The mantle is so far away in the photos there is no level of detail. Blowing up the photos to try to see the details was no scientifically valid. There is no way such could be done.
At best one could do that with the negatives and even then it is questionable that they could be enhanced to the required detail.
The CCRC believed the experts who said his methodology was not valid because scientific literature backs them up.
-
Well i would tend to agree with the expert with 50 years experience. If he hadnt been able to deduce what he did he would have said so.
He was paid to do a job, it didnt make a jot of difference to him what the outcome was.
The carpet pucture was clear enough to see that there were no particles on the floor which he sajd he would of expected.
like jane says u pay yer money you make yer choice
-
Or even de-contamination with EP by losing a grey hair. But of course it could have been an animal hair we will never know.
Presumably the family told the police when they called the silencer had blood on it. You think that would have rung an alarm bell ? And they would handle it in a forensic manner - but no - kitchen roll was used and no gloves . Great.
Doesn't Jeremy claim to Carol Ann Lee that the grey hair was deliberately lost because he himself had dyed his hair black in the immediate run up to the murders?
-
Well i would tend to agree with the expert with 50 years experience. If he hadnt been able to deduce what he did he would have said so.
He was paid to do a job, it didnt make a jot of difference to him what the outcome was.
The carpet pucture was clear enough to see that there were no particles on the floor which he sajd he would of expected.
like jane says u pay yer money you make yer choice
Agreeing with an expert who is using a methodology other experts say is not valid doesn't make much sense.
-
Doesn't Jeremy claim to Carol Ann Lee that the grey hair was deliberately lost because he himself had dyed his hair black in the immediate run up to the murders?
I wonder why Jeremy would have imagined that one of HIS hairs would have been stuck to the weapon. besides which, his hair was coloured -natural and chemical- and straight whilst his fathers was colourless and curly.
-
Well i would tend to agree with the expert with 50 years experience. If he hadnt been able to deduce what he did he would have said so.
He was paid to do a job, it didnt make a jot of difference to him what the outcome was.
The carpet pucture was clear enough to see that there were no particles on the floor which he sajd he would of expected.
like jane says u pay yer money you make yer choice
Suthurst agreed that his methods weren't scientific - his findings were ripped to shreds and he was discredited.
-
Suthurst agreed that his methods weren't scientific - his findings were ripped to shreds and he was discredited.
Chill out - the lies relied upon will soon be exposed and these convictions will get quashed...
-
Suthurst agreed that his methods weren't scientific - his findings were ripped to shreds and he was discredited.
Absolutely, as have been every other claim that Bamber is innocent.
-
We'll see. ;)
-
We'll see. ;)
See what? He was discredited Lookout, that ship sailed.
-
See what? He was discredited Lookout, that ship sailed.
That " Bamber is innocent ",I meant.
-
That " Bamber is innocent ",I meant.
OIC ;D
-
Absolutely, as have been every other claim that Bamber is innocent.
He was seen as a hero on here by supporters for a while! ;D
-
Hero my eye ! The only people I call heroes were on TV this week !
-
It was after JM had accused JB of murdering his family,so why did she cash the cheque that he'd given to her for her holiday ? Would anyone else have done that or handed it in to police ?
-
It was after JM had accused JB of murdering his family,so why did she cash the cheque that he'd given to her for her holiday ? Would anyone else have done that or handed it in to police ?
She didn't actually get to cash it - it bounced!!
-
She didn't actually get to cash it - it bounced!!
She still went on holiday though at his expense. Does it state anywhere that the cheque bounced ?
-
She still went on holiday though at his expense. Does it state anywhere that the cheque bounced ?
No, she didn't. Her friend paid. It must have been in CAL's book that I read it.
-
She still went on holiday though at his expense. Does it state anywhere that the cheque bounced ?
She didn't go anywhere at his expense! the cheque BOUNCED! I Believe that Liz Rimmington ended up paying. he must have been banking on getting paid for the pictures of Sheila from The Sun - as that didn't happen, he had no ready cash!