Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on January 11, 2012, 08:42:AM
-
Police received screaming and ranting responses from inside farmhouse
According to Shaw's account, police did not try to approach or get into the farmhouse before 7:30am, because they were in contact with Sheila inside the farmhouse from as early as 5:25am, at which stage they got responses from Sheila, who was running amok inside the farmhouse, screaming obscenities and religious rantings. The police knew she was armed with a gun, and that she was moving around inside the farmhouse, and they could not pinpoint her long enough to commence an approach to get into the farmhouse, until WPC Jeapes spotted the rifle at the bedroom window at about 7:15, which was the signal for the police to force an entry to get into the building by way of the (ground floor) back kitchen door on the other side of the building...
-
Whf was a large building, and from 5am there were over 10 trained firearms officers at the scene, plus numerous other police officers who could easily have contained the farmhouse and kept observations, to allow an approach to the house, but we are told that no such approach was actually made to the farmhouse until after another 10 firearms officers arrived at 7am...
-
So, what we have according to the official version of events, is that the police arrive at the farmhouse just before 4am and the only approach to get anywhere near to the house was made when PS Bews, PC Myall, and Jeremy set foot into the grounds and saw the figure moving about in the main bedroom. There is an hour delay before the first group of 10 firearms officers arrive at the scene at about 5am, and nobody makes any move towards the farmhouse. Then at about 6:30am, police at the scene send for two ambulances, one to go directly to the scene (farmhouse) and the other to be held back in pages lane), then at 7am another group of 10 armed officers arrive, and it takes until after the sighting of the rifle at the bedroom window (7:15am) for the police to eventually make a decision to get into the house, as described at about 7:30am...
Police at the scene had been sat there twiddling their thumbs for over three and a half hours, and nobody had thought to go along either to the front door of the house, or the rear door door and knock on the door, or look through any ground floor window...
I mean, I don't get it, if everyone was already dead, what took the police so long to make the approach to get into the farmhouse?
Why not simply go up to the door of the house and knock upon it?
Why not take a look into the kitchen window, or any other ground floor window?
If everyone was already dead by that stage, why wait three and a half hours to try to get into the house?
Boy scouts could have done a better job than the police, if it is their case that they waited three and a half hours before approaching the house, with everybody already dead inside, except for a dog...
Now, how dangerous was this dog?
Were the police frightened off by this dog barking inside the farmhouse, or what?
-
If JB was at the scene how did the Police manage to hide the fact that Sheila was running around screaming from him - as far as I am aware he makes no mention of this ?
-
If JB was at the scene how did the Police manage to hide the fact that Sheila was running around screaming from him - as far as I am aware he makes no mention of this ?
Jeremy was for the main sat in a patrol car or near the patrol car (CA07) which was parked up near the cottages along Pages lane - the screaming and rantings were overheard via the telephone eavesdrop which the operator patched through to the control room, which in turn was relayed to the firearm officers at the scene. Audio recordings of these events have not been disclosed, neither has any written record of what was said over the loud hailers by police outside the farmhouse, or the responses made by Sheila from inside the farmhouse. Anyone stood in pages lane, could not possible have been expected to hear any response made by Sheila from somewhere inside the farmhouse at the time these challenges were being made by the police from outside...
Jeremy did not mention any of these challenges, so does that mean that no such challenges were being made?
There is no information at all, from which side of the farmhouse, or how far away the police were when they made these challenges to the occupants inside the farmhouse, its all been kept a closely guarded secret for some reason...
The only information which has been provided is the positions taken up by members of the firearms team, just prior to the raid team making its approach to get into the farmhouse, after WPC Jeapes spotted the rifle leaning up against the bedroom window at about 7:15am ( she did not arrive at the scene until 7am)...
-
No official record exists to show reason why two ambulances were requested at the scene from 6:30am, onwards, and why was needed immediately at the farmhouse, whilst the the other was put on stand by in pages lane?
-
And shaw's account is where? Surprised 'z' never mentioned this new information earlier as he would have been there at the time?
-
I think J.R.R.Tolkien would have had a run for his money with some of these stories, had he still been in the land of the living.
Shaw's 'An Innocent Man', incomplete, unpublished and unreferenced manuscript can be viewed here:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jP4ZtW5Off0J:www.sleuthingforjustice.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php%3Ff%3D74%26t%3D2445+Barbara+W
In addition to the lack of references, there are many parts which can be unequivocally dismissed as fantasy due to documents which have been posted on this forum. One such example is the claim that Peter Eaton argued with and punched Ralph, on this rare instance Shaw refers people to a police action report No. 1113. Unfortunately this is a complete fabrication, people can view the police action report 1113 in this thread: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1132.0.html
-
Mike the rifle spotted nr the window, im thinking this was elsewhere before the police spotted it, and i was in the scouts and yes i could have done better, stun grenades were around then teargas this was quite a useless operation by then and now a useless police force who employ with officers with a criminal background so nothing new there.
-
Police received screaming and ranting responses from inside farmhouse
According to Shaw's account, police did not try to approach or get into the farmhouse before 7:30am, because they were in contact with Sheila inside the farmhouse from as early as 5:25am, at which stage they got responses from Sheila, who was running amok inside the farmhouse, screaming obscenities and religious rantings. The police knew she was armed with a gun, and that she was moving around inside the farmhouse, and they could not pinpoint her long enough to commence an approach to get into the farmhouse, until WPC Jeapes spotted the rifle at the bedroom window at about 7:15, which was the signal for the police to force an entry to get into the building by way of the (ground floor) back kitchen door on the other side of the building...
My goodness gracious me. Why on Earth do people so blatantly lie? It's not as if on this occasion it cannot be checked, the relevant extract from Shaw's manuscript is below in red. People can make their own minds up whether or not it bears any resemblance to what is described by 'Tell Tale Mike'. :o
It would be eighteen years before Paul Terzeon got to hear any of the above information. Nor was he aware in 1986 of a bizarre radio log message sent back to the control room from the TFU, who arrived at White House Farm a little after 5.00 am. Obviously one of the first jobs of the Tactical Firearms Unit was to try and make contact with anyone alive inside the house. It’s difficult to research this part of the story because the police still refuse to divulge the necessary tapes and transcripts. What we do know is that the crime scene was an isolated farmhouse and that possibly four or five seriously wounded people may have been inside – two of them children; it seems bizarre that if the farmhouse was utterly silent and devoid of any signs of movement or life, that no police officer would even approach the house or attempt any type of entry. The cat’s paw sneaked out the bag in March 2004 when a previously undisclosed 18 pages of Radio Log were handed over to Jeremy’s new defence team. Scanning through this documentation, a single entry stands out like lightning on a perfect summer’s day:
‘05.25 (a.m.)
Firearms team are in conversation with a person from inside the farm.’
It appears to be a staggering entry. How could the TFU be in conversation with someone inside the farmhouse if everyone inside the farmhouse was dead?
When confronted in 2004, Essex police thought long and hard about their answer. Firstly, they argued that the word ‘conversation’ was merely a bad choice of word to describe something that wasn’t… in fact… a conversation. My understanding of the word ‘conversation’ is that it refers to a verbal exchange of some kind – and this makes sense with the timing of the recording – a mere fifteen minutes after the TFU first arrived. The Radio Log further indicates that several minutes later the TFU were still making ‘challenges’ to someone ‘inside the building.’
-
If the police were talking to Sheila, trying to get her to calm down, why would they not ask her brother to talk to her? This whole conversation was never mentioned to JB, yet allegedly lasted several hours. He was only 50m away, if that, no one mentioned it to him??
When the family started questioned the four murders and a suicide theory, why did the police never say, "look, we know it was her, we were talking to her" weeks before JB was in the frame??
Stan Jones would never have even entertained the JB theory if his colleagues had been talking to Sheila that morning.
-
If the police were talking to Sheila, trying to get her to calm down, why would they not ask her brother to talk to her? This whole conversation was never mentioned to JB, yet allegedly lasted several hours. He was only 50m away, if that, no one mentioned it to him??
When the family started questioned the four murders and a suicide theory, why did the police never say, "look, we know it was her, we were talking to her" weeks before JB was in the frame??
Stan Jones would never have even entertained the JB theory if his colleagues had been talking to Sheila that morning.
Good post.
-
with Sheila inside they could have kept her talking and stormed there and then, as this was a firearm situation i would not expect them to ask Jeremy to speak to her, making him a target, seems they botched this up as well.
-
Police received screaming and ranting responses from inside farmhouse
According to Shaw's account, police did not try to approach or get into the farmhouse before 7:30am, because they were in contact with Sheila inside the farmhouse from as early as 5:25am, at which stage they got responses from Sheila, who was running amok inside the farmhouse, screaming obscenities and religious rantings. The police knew she was armed with a gun, and that she was moving around inside the farmhouse, and they could not pinpoint her long enough to commence an approach to get into the farmhouse, until WPC Jeapes spotted the rifle at the bedroom window at about 7:15, which was the signal for the police to force an entry to get into the building by way of the (ground floor) back kitchen door on the other side of the building...
Mike, where did Shaw get this information from? Did he have any documentation to prove all this happened? Also I find it rather odd that the police didn't make Jeremy aware of all this? It is usual for police to wait for quite long periods in hostage situations and try various ways to make contact with the people involved. But I am unsettled as to why they would wait for so long when they got no response from anyone inside the house? In my opinion and I stress in my opinion I would have thought that if the police got no response ofter about half an hour then they would have investigated sooner? Unless of course it took a long time to get the armed response team to the scene?
-
For those who are interested, Shaw and myself shared private emails, where more than is published in his manuscript, is mentioned. I would advise everyone to be careful of an idiot who make posts on here without knowing or referring to the truth...
-
For those who are interested, Shaw and myself shared private emails, where more than is published in his manuscript, is mentioned. I would advise everyone to be careful of an idiot who make posts on here without knowing or referring to the truth...
Mike, did Shaw ever reveal his sources of information?
-
I would advise everyone to be careful of an idiot who make posts on here without knowing or referring to the truth...
I whole heartedly agree. ::)
-
If the police were talking to Sheila, trying to get her to calm down, why would they not ask her brother to talk to her? This whole conversation was never mentioned to JB, yet allegedly lasted several hours. He was only 50m away, if that, no one mentioned it to him??
The verbal exchanges between the police at the scene and Sheila, did not last several hours - but such exchanges did occur and were recorded on the audio tapes being made of the eavesdrop from the patched intercept organised by the operator...
Why woild police tell Jeremy what could be heard via the telephone intercept, he was not with the firearms officers when they received this information via the link up from the control room, Jeremy was along pages lane with uniformed police officers who did not have the same radio frequencies as the firearms officers, so they would not be privy to any information passed between the control room (including the eavesdrop) and the firearms team the scene...
What I find strange, is the means by which the information from the scene, was recorded as being transmitted to the control room by the occupants of CA07, since they were not in direct communication with the control room o0n the same frequency whic allowed the eavesdrop to be transmitted to the firearms officers at the scene?
However...
I think this situation could have arisen because Jeremy was with the officers at the patrol car (CA07) and police did not want him to learn or hear the live information coming from within the farmhouse via the eavesdrop. We there fore must have had an op-en link from the control room to the firearms officers at the scene via the operators 999 link up, and another line of communication between the occupants of CA07, and the control room. What information was passed between the control room and the officers at the scene, has still not properly been disclosed despite over 26 years having elapsed since the time of this incident...
-
Mike, did Shaw ever reveal his sources of information?
yes, he had been speaking to officers who took part in the raid, who were members of the raid team...
-
Members should be very careful about anything said by someone who lives in pages lane, who will say anything to stop the truth coming out...
This person who lives there will say anything, without providing any evidence at all to support what he says, he is basically an idiot, who hides behind a false identity...
-
Anyway...
Something happened at about 6:30am, which caused police at the scene to request the attendance of two ambulances...
I understand that what ever it was, police thought that someone had been shot at around that time, and the communication between the firearms officers and Sheila came to an abrupt halt...
This was when further officers were dr4afte4d to the scene, arriving there at about 7am (same general time as two ambulances)...
-
All of this could be sorted out quickly if Essex police and the COPS released the audio tapes, or a true record of what took place...
-
yes, he had been speaking to officers who took part in the raid, who were members of the raid team...
Thank you.
-
Members should be very careful about anything said by someone who lives in pages lane, who will say anything to stop the truth coming out...
This person who lives there will say anything, without providing any evidence at all to support what he says, he is basically an idiot, who hides behind a false identity...
thats a relief i thought you meant me, there were at yesterdays counting 168 members yet to post, false id s take your pick, all truth comes out Mike in time even in this case.
-
Anyway...
Something happened at about 6:30am, which caused police at the scene to request the attendance of two ambulances...
I understand that what ever it was, police thought that someone had been shot at around that time, and the communication between the firearms officers and Sheila came to an abrupt halt...
This was when further officers were dr4afte4d to the scene, arriving there at about 7am (same general time as two ambulances)...
Why is there no information in the file, as to the reason why these two ambulances were called to the scene at about 6:30am?
What is so sensitive about this information being disclosed?
Are we to assume that the ambulance service simply sent two ambulances to the scene along with crews, of their own accord? They just decided to turn up out of the blue?
How did they know that one ambulance was needed at the house immediately, and that the other opne was to be placed on standby?
What happened inside the farmhouse that the police knew about to cause this to occur or happen?
-
thats a relief i thought you meant me, there were at yesterdays counting 168 members yet to post, false id s take your pick, all truth comes out Mike in time even in this case.
I am not picking in anyone, I am not even picking on the idiot, since I am always interested to hear every bodies and anybodies views on features of this case, but when someone like the idiot comes on here making certain specific allegations he should really be identifying himself as the person who he really is, and if necessary posting a true photograph of his own image, so that everybody can see who he is?
I would rather not be the person who does this, but I might have to identify this person and post photographs of him if he carries on telling lies, without any proof to back up what comes out of that cess pit of a gob that belongs to him...
-
This is a question for the idiot to answer:-
Do you and your family live in Pages lane?
-
Members should be very careful about anything said by someone who lives in pages lane, who will say anything to stop the truth coming out...
This person who lives there will say anything, without providing any evidence at all to support what he says, he is basically an idiot, who hides behind a false identity...
As it happens I don't live in Pages Lane, about a mile and a half further East (which is what I have said on this forum since last April) and I'm no more hiding behind a false identity than 90% of the members of this forum who also enjoy a certain amount of anonymity.
I also think people on this forum are completely aware of what is going on here, to be completely transparent, I offer very little in the way of claims or theories without stating where such information has come from, people can see that in the majority of my posts which are usually accompanied by documents or links to locations of documents which confirm what has been stated.
I also think that the reality of the situation is that I just happen to be calling Mikes bluff by pointing out evidence which contradicts his uncorroborated allegations and requesting that he post evidence to prove what he is saying is accurate. Why he is finding that to be so offensive is beyond me, perhaps it is because there is no evidence?
So Mike thinks that I am an idiot because I don't believe a word he says and instead invite him to provide corroborating evidence in support? Yes that seems entirely reasonable to me. ::)
-
I think the idiot has identified himself...
I have northing more to say to the idiot, or about him - other than why doesn't he post a true image of himself since he is making such serious allegations?
-
I dont want to piss on your parade Mike, but instead of threatening to expose "idiot" whoever you think he/she may be.
Why dont you just reveal to us who Z is, and "out" him instead, he's the one making claims etc, that we havent seen proof of yet.
-
I dont want to piss on your parade Mike, but instead of threatening to expose "idiot" whoever you think he/she may be.
Why dont you just reveal to us who Z is, and "out" him instead, he's the one making claims etc, that we havent seen proof of yet.
I am not allowed to...
-
I would rather not be the person who does this, but I might have to identify this person and post photographs of him if he carries on telling lies, without any proof to back up what comes out of that cess pit of a gob that belongs to him...
No, you please do that for me, you have my full permission. The reason for that is because you have no idea who I am, it would be impossible for you to know that, even if I told you who I was, you would not know me or have even heard of me. All as explained to NGB yesterday.
So yet again, another 'FALSE' allegation from someone who makes so many of them. ::)
-
I think the idiot has identified himself...
I have northing more to say to the idiot, or about him - other than why doesn't he post a true image of himself since he is making such serious allegations?
What allegations am I making? I have showed you to be somewhat unconventional with the truth on countless occasions, and again am simply asking, or rather inviting you to provide evidence of what you are stating as the truth, or in turn, be transparent and admit to people that they are simply theories, uncorroborated and unfounded theories.
-
Police have possession of evidence on audio tape recordings that Sheila was still very much alive inside whf after their arrival there, and if they disclosed the audio tapes upon which this evidence is contained, no-one will be in any doubt whatsoever that Sheila was not dead by the time Jeremy contacted the police. This being the case, Jeremy could not have shot her in the bedroom, with or without a silencer fitted to the guns barrel, and he could not have stage managed her body, to make it look like a suicide, as alleged by the prosecution at Jeremy's trial...
-
Since the idiot does not object to me posting images of him/her, why doesn't he/she simply identify himself/herself to all the other members to show how honest he/she is, and refrain from hiding behind a false identity, in view of the serious allegations the idiot is/has been making?
-
Police have possession of evidence on audio tape recordings that Sheila was still very much alive inside whf after their arrival there, and if they disclosed the audio tapes upon which this evidence is contained, no-one will be in any doubt whatsoever that Sheila was not dead by the time Jeremy contacted the police. This being the case, Jeremy could not have shot her in the bedroom, with or without a silencer fitted to the guns barrel, and he could not have stage managed her body, to make it look like a suicide, as alleged by the prosecution at Jeremy's trial...
Again, and if anybody else disagrees with me here then please let me know, but Mike, prove it, tell us, or rather show us the source of this allegation. If you cannot then it is completely worthless.
-
To everyone, and anyone, who is interested in the truth, all 999 calls are automatically recorded on audio tape, and since the line to whf was patched through to the control room by the operator using the 999 emergency system, the monitoring of the link up to the scene, would have automatically been recorded...
-
Since the idiot does not object to me posting images of him/her, why doesn't he/she simply identify themselves to all the other members to show how honest he/she is, and refrain from hiding behind a false identity, in view of the serious allegations the idiot is/has been making?
My Christian name is Steve, my surname is none of your biscuits, which is coincidently, about the same level of information that 90% of other forum members have been willing to share.
Would you care to inform the other members of this forum, what serious allegations you think I have made, please enlighten them (and me).
-
To everyone, and anyone, who is interested in the truth, all 999 calls are automatically recorded on audio tape, and since the line to whf was patched through to the control room by the operator using the 999 emergency system, the monitoring of the link up to the scene, would have automatically been recorded...
Would you also care to inform people what the policy is for deleting these recordings?
-
To everyone, and anyone, who is interested in the truth, all 999 calls are automatically recorded on audio tape, and since the line to whf was patched through to the control room by the operator using the 999 emergency system, the monitoring of the link up to the scene, would have automatically been recorded...
Just to put things into perspective...
the official version of events, is that police taped over the original recording a month after it took place, now I can't accept this as being true, in particular because the relatives were kicking up such a stink from as early as 9th August 1985?
-
Just to put things into perspective...
the official version of events, is that police taped over the original recording a month after it took place, now I can't accept this as being true, in particular because the relatives were kicking up such a stink from as early as 9th August 1985?
Nevertheless, whether you accept it as being true or not, you have no evidence that they have lied, without a hint of evidence then such allegations are illogical in the extreme.
-
Would you also care to inform people what the policy is for deleting these recordings?
Do you really believe EP would delete these recording's , even if it was a suicide case ?
-
Do you really believe EP would delete these recording's , even if it was a suicide case ?
Refer to my previous post.
-
Refer to my previous post.
I am not asking for evidence , i am asking for your opinion !!
-
The idiot has disclosed his Christian name, so what is so top secret that he cannot disclose his surname. And how about a picture of himself, posted by himself, then I will consider talking to him and responding to him, properly. If he does that, I may even change my mind and start responding directly to the idiot, despite the fact that I have previously said, I wouldn't do...
If he was open and honest, I might even consider apologising for calling him an idiot?
If these condition's were met, then who knows, I might even accpet that the only idiot in this matter was/is me...
-
This question is directed personally, at and to the idiot:-
What do you consider to be evidence?
-
I am not asking for evidence , i am asking for your opinion !!
My opinion is that there is nothing which indicates that the police have lied in saying that the tapes were recorded over.
-
Why the hell should Hartley have to give his real surname when noone else has to? If this weren't your forum then the mods should step in to stop this. Quite unfair Mike and behaviour that wouldn't be tolerated by others.
-
The idiot has disclosed his Christian name, so what is so top secret that he cannot disclose his surname. And how about a picture of himself, posted by himself, then I will consider talking to him and responding to him, properly. If he does that, I may even change my mind and start responding directly to the idiot, despite the fact that I have previously said, I wouldn't do...
If he was open and honest, I might even consider apologising for calling him an idiot?
Mike, why are you being so hostile towards Hartley? Why should he post his surname? nobody else does.
He certainly shouldnt be asked to post a picture of himself either.
-
My opinion is that there is nothing which indicates that the police have lied in saying that the tapes were recorded over.
Do you believe EP lied at anytime in the ' Bamber Case ' if so where ?
-
Mike is it simply because Hartley challenges you, and asks you to provide evidence?
Hartley comes up with some great posts, you may have to accept that jeremy bamber is guilty.
-
Mike, why are you being so hostile towards Hartley? Why should he post his surname? nobody else does.
He certainly shouldnt be asked to post a picture of himself either.
I beg to differ, since he is making very serious allegations, which is different to offering an opinion...
-
The idiot has disclosed his Christian name, so what is so top secret that he cannot disclose his surname. And how about a picture of himself, posted by himself, then I will consider talking to him and responding to him, properly. If he does that, I may even change my mind and start responding directly to the idiot, despite the fact that I have previously said, I wouldn't do...
If he was open and honest, I might even consider apologising for calling him an idiot?
I'm extremely open and honest, however I also maintain a certain level of privacy, which as I have stated at least twice before, is similar to 90% of the members of this forum.
There is nothing top secret about it, simply that there is also no incentive for me to offer up my surname or indeed provide you with a mug shot. The fact that my identity is unknown to you and clearly irritates the hell out of you, does nothing but amuse me.
I don't need you to respond to me, you you are anyway.
-
Why the hell should Hartley have to give his real surname when noone else has to? If this weren't your forum then the mods should step in to stop this. Quite unfair Mike and behaviour that wouldn't be tolerated by others.
he is making very serious allegations, as opposed to expressing an opinion...
-
I beg to differ, since he is making very serious allegations, which is different to offering an opinion...
For the sixth time now 'Tell Tale Mike', what is this very serious allegation that you refer to?
-
Why the hell should Hartley have to give his real surname when noone else has to? If this weren't your forum then the mods should step in to stop this. Quite unfair Mike and behaviour that wouldn't be tolerated by others.
The giving of sir names is completely up to the individual member. Although I have given my sir name I personally would not wish to force it on anyone else as there internet is a dangerous place where folk can be targeted as some of my own friends have been. Hartley has the right to withold his sir name if he so desires. As it has been pointed out many use Pseudonyms and it is their right to do so.
-
Mike is it simply because Hartley challenges you, and asks you to provide evidence?
Hartley comes up with some great posts, you may have to accept that jeremy bamber is guilty.
NOT MAYBE, ACUALLY...
-
This question is directed personally, at and to the idiot:-
What do you consider to be evidence?
What I consider to be evidence is something which can be substantiated and a legal professional would be able to look at it and say 'yep this would/could hold up in court'.
Mr Happy said to Mr Bump that Mr Jolly told Mr Tickle that he's innocent, on the other hand, is not what I consider to be evidence.
-
The idiot has not got the balls to identify himslef, even though he makes very serious allegations without any evidence to back up what he is/ has been saying, that is why I refer to him as an idiot, he hasn't got the balls to identify himself when making such false and ridiculous allegations. He knows Jeremy is innocent but will say anything to try and persuade others that he is guilty without a shred of evidence to back up what he is saying. Evidence that was relied upon to prosecute and convict Jeremy is absolutely falsified and worthless...
-
NOT MAYBE, ACUALLY...
proven guilty that is,no amount of mudslinging is going to help the cause Mike.
-
NOT MAYBE, ACUALLY...
You've lost me, explain.
-
My Christian name is Steve, my surname is none of your biscuits, which is coincidental, about the same level of information that 90% of other forum members have been willing to share.
Would you care to inform the other members of this forum, what serious allegations you think I have made, please enlighten them (and me).
Hartley, so far you haven't taken the bait and I'm sure you won't. I'm also "sure" the moderators will step in on this unwarranted personal attack (I am currently holding me breath :-[).
I will not believe the headline of this thread (as grabbing as it is) without actual proof, which I believe is in the possession of Q ;D (and knows Z, apparently only lives about 8 letters away ::))
I believe buddy mentioned recently that the Forum is getting a little quiet. I also believe this thread headline may be designed to evoke a little added interest, so to speak, whilst in this doldrums period leading up the CCRC deadline!!
-
and incidentally,according to google i don't think the use of Idiot is accurate..... ;D
-
The idiot has disclosed his Christian name, so what is so top secret that he cannot disclose his surname. And how about a picture of himself, posted by himself, then I will consider talking to him and responding to him, properly. If he does that, I may even change my mind and start responding directly to the idiot, despite the fact that I have previously said, I wouldn't do...
If he was open and honest, I might even consider apologising for calling him an idiot?
If these condition's were met, then who knows, I might even accpet that the only idiot in this matter was/is me...
You edited your post after I replied to it. I don't need or expect an apology from you Mike, you are welcome to hold whatever opinion of me you like, just as I do of yourself.
Again back to reality, the only issue here is that you are unable to sustain or respond to my opposing and questioning posts, so instead you have become abusive, as you have done many times over the last year or so on this forum. I would say that the issue lies with yourself.
-
There is a vast difference between someone expressing an opinion, and someone making very serious allegations, now if the idiot wants to keep making allegations rather than expressing an opinion, he should identify himself properly to everyone so that everyone can see that he is not hiding behind a false identity, so that everyone can take him at his word for what he says and who he is...
-
The idiot intends to remain unidentified, so that he can keep making faklser and unsubstantiated allegations...
he remains an idiot...
I will not correspond with the idiot or about him, any further...
-
and incidentally,according to google i don't think the use of Idiot is accurate..... ;D
Yeah I'd go along with that at a stretch. :-\
Idiot
A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
-
The idiot intends to remain unidentified, so that he can keep making faklser and unsubstantiated allegations...
he remains an idiot...
I will not correspond with the idiot or about him, any further...
Well unfortunately most people on here, regardless of their view on the case, do have a certain amount of intelligence and decency about themselves.
I don't think anybody on here would honestly agree that I keep making unsubstantiated allegations (well with the exception of one, and we know who they are ;D ).
-
Police at the scene,and elsewhere in the control room, heard Sheila screaming and ranting whilst officers were present at the scene, furthermore, police stage managed the body at the scene, and blamed Jeremy for doing that which they themselves had been irresponsible for doing - as backed up by the photopgraphic evidence...
-
Police at the scene,and elsewhere in the control room, heard Sheila screaming and ranting whilst officers were present at the scene, furthermore, police stage managed the body at the scene, and blamed Jeremy for doing that which they themselves had been irresponsible for doing - as backed up by the photopgraphic evidence...
Would you care to provide the members of your forum with evidence which supports this please?
-
If Sheila was screaming and ranting, after the armed police arrived at the scene, then of course, Jeremy could not have shot and killed her in the bedroom, and he could not possibly have removed the silencer from the end of the tuns barrel after he shot and killed her in the bedroom, and took the silencer all the way downstairs to hide and conceal it in the gun cupboard, or stageb managed her body in the bedroom to suggest that she had taken her own life, as alleged...
-
If Sheila was screaming and ranting, after the armed police arrived at the scene, then of course, Jeremy could not have shot and killed her in the bedroom, and he could not possibly have removed the silencer from the end of the tuns barrel after he shot and killed her in the bedroom, and took the silencer all the way downstairs to hide and conceal it in the gun cupboard, or stageb managed her body in the bedroom to suggest that she had taken her own life, as alleged...
Yes that's absolutely right, 'IF' Sheila was ranting and screaming. However there doesn't seem to be any evidence to that effect and when asked to provide some you shy away, why is that?
-
Let us also not forget, that members of the raid team which actually entered the farmhouse at about 7:30am, that morning (7th August 1985) told the COLP investigators (1991) that when they got into the farmhouse they saw nothing to contradict anything other that what they were dealing with was a case of "FOUR MURDERS AND A SUICIDE"...
Now...
What more can I say?
-
Reason police at the scene spent over three and a half hours dithering over whether or not to storm the farmhouse, could easily be cleared up if police disclosed audio recordings of eavesdrop...
So, why withhold this evidence under pii?
-
Let us also not forget, that members of the raid team which actually entered the farmhouse at about 7:30am, that morning (7th August 1985) told the COLP investigators (1991) that when they got into the farmhouse they saw nothing to contradict anything other that what they were dealing with was a case of "FOUR MURDERS AND A SUICIDE"...
Now...
What more can I say?
Wasnt it the raid teams job just to go in and make the scene safe, not to actually investigate what went on.
-
Wasnt it the raid teams job just to go in and make the scene safe, not to actually investigate what went on.
Yes SOCO do that bit don't they?
-
Wasnt it the raid teams job just to go in and make the scene safe, not to actually investigate what went on.
Yes, but what they saw and observed was and is important...
-
Yes SOCO do that bit don't they?
Yes along with CID ?
-
SOCO have to complete a handwritten report about the investigations and evidence which was obtained during their investigation of the crime scene - for some reason the original handwritten notes have been/are being withheld under pii, now I wonder why that is?
Jeremy and his legal team have asked for a copy of this, but none has been forthcoming?
why?
-
Yes, but what they saw and observed was and is important...
Yes very, particularly with regards to PC Collins.
Just out of interest why is PC Collins the only raid team member whose statement is not posted on the forum, yet his observations are amongst the most important in relation to one of the theories put forward?
-
So they didn't shoot Sheila then? Because what they say is important and you obviously choose at this moment to trust their statements, and as they don't say that they shot her, or anything else went wrong, we can put all those theories to bed then too.
-
Well unfortunately most people on here, regardless of their view on the case, do have a certain amount of intelligence and decency about themselves.
I don't think anybody on here would honestly agree that I keep making unsubstantiated allegations (well with the exception of one, and we know who they are ;D ).
Untrue. You have made more unsubstantiated and untrue allegations than I have the time or inclination to count, Hartley. Almost every one of the numerous personal attacks you post here is an unsubstantiated lie.
-
It is very odd, that although police received a screaming ranting response from Sheila, that none of the officers make mention of it, in the composite witness statements that were re-written for them by the DPP (Mr Adams) and and his team...
-
Untrue. You have made more unsubstantiated and untrue allegations than I have the time or inclination to count, Hartley. Almost every one of the numerous personal attacks you post here is an unsubstantiated lie.
Not sure what it is that has convinced you to get involved again, but you are welcome to your opinion, unfortunately I believe you are in the minority.
-
Sorry to go back-over but I don't think Hartley is who people think he might be. Therefore any attempt to expose his ID might back-fire.
-
Untrue. You have made more unsubstantiated and untrue allegations than I have the time or inclination to count, Hartley. Almost every one of the numerous personal attacks you post here is an unsubstantiated lie.
Indeed, these seem to me to be part of Hartley's time honoured practice and game plan. As soon as you're in a corner, you begin lobbing personal abuse at a fast a furious pace in order to detract from your inability to address the issue or to deal with a point.
You then whine that you are the one being abused and that your victim is the one abusing YOU!
-
It is very odd, that although police received a screaming ranting response from Sheila, that none of the officers make mention of it, in the composite witness statements that were re-written for them by the DPP (Mr Adams) and and his team...
Unfortunately we are back to that yet again. You are unable to provide and evidence that Sheila was alive at that time, let alone screaming, ranting or responding. Bearing that in mind and therefore the likelihood that it is untrue, it is not unusual that there is no mention of it anywhere at all.
-
Now...
Lets get something right...
If anyone wants to keep relying upon these composite statements that were edited by the DPP and say that this is the truth about what each firearms officer saw, and heard, then of course, it is all fantasy, because the words recorded in these composite statements were not made by the police officers themselves, those/these statements are worded and phrased by the DPP to only include parts of the evidence that supported the prosecutions case...
Now...
This cannot be right or lawful, the DPP was a crook just like all those who falsified the evidence that was used to help convict Jeremy, for these murders...
-
Indeed, these seem to me to be part of Hartley's time honoured practice and game plan. As soon as you're in a corner, you begin lobbing personal abuse at a fast a furious pace in order to detract from your inability to address the issue or to deal with a point.
You then whine that you are the one being abused and that your victim is the one abusing YOU!
I think you're probably referring to the wrong forum!!?? This is not the Hartley I recognise!!
-
Sorry to go back-over but I don't think Hartley is who people think he might be. Therefore any attempt to expose his ID might back-fire.
Hi Rocky, Who do you believe people think Hartley might be?
-
Composite statements are an edited version of what was originally recorded by a witness...
-
Indeed, these seem to me to be part of Hartley's time honoured practice and game plan. As soon as you're in a corner, you begin lobbing personal abuse at a fast a furious pace in order to detract from your inability to address the issue or to deal with a point.
You then whine that you are the one being abused and that your victim is the one abusing YOU!
I'm not whining at all, and I certainly don't think I'm in a corner. I also don't believe that I am being impolite without justification, any time that I am is usually in reply to others.
However, as I said above, you are more than welcome to your opinion.
-
Now...
Lets get something right...
If anyone wants to keep relying upon these composite statements that were edited by the DPP and say that this is the truth about what each firearms officer saw, and heard, then of course, it is all fantasy, because the words recorded in these composite statements were not made by the police officers themselves, those/these statements are worded and phrased by the DPP to only include parts of the evidence that supported the prosecutions case...
Now...
This cannot be right or lawful, the DPP was a crook just like all those who falsified the evidence that was used to help convict Jeremy, for these murders...
Are you not just arguing against your own logic now?
One minute their views are important the next a work of fiction? Which is it?
-
Composite statements are an edited version of what was originally recorded by a witness...
Now, Jeremy has requested that the original statements, which have had the important bits taken out or removed should be disclosed to him and his legal team, but he has been told that these cannot be disclosed because they are being withheld under pii...
Now...
Why can't Jeremy and his legal team, see what the DPP did by changing the contents of the origuinal witness statements into their final account?
What if there is mention in the original accounts of the screaming and ranting antics of Sheila in the original version of thee statements?
-
Now...
Lets get something right...
If anyone wants to keep relying upon these composite statements that were edited by the DPP and say that this is the truth about what each firearms officer saw, and heard, then of course, it is all fantasy, because the words recorded in these composite statements were not made by the police officers themselves, those/these statements are worded and phrased by the DPP to only include parts of the evidence that supported the prosecutions case...
Now...
This cannot be right or lawful, the DPP was a crook just like all those who falsified the evidence that was used to help convict Jeremy, for these murders...
But you yourself have relied on these very statements to put forward theories, so that is a little hypocritical.
-
Are you not just arguing against your own logic now?
One minute their views are important the next a work of fiction? Which is it?
You might be taking my views out of context, since, in some instances I am referring to other peoples point of view, so you could be tying yourself in knots, by suggesting something which might not necessarily be true, now which is it?
-
Now, Jeremy has requested that the original statements, which have had the important bits taken out or removed should be disclosed to him and his legal team, but he has been told that these cannot be disclosed because they are being withheld under pii...
Now...
Why can't Jeremy and his legal team, see what the DPP did by changing the contents of the origuinal witness statements into their final account?
What if there is mention in the original accounts of the screaming and ranting antics of Sheila in the original version of thee statements?
I don't buy that either, the original defence team must surely have had access to the original statements, if they did not then they should surely have asked for them.
I think the old 'It's being withheld under PII' is a somewhat grossly overused term.
-
If a composite (unsigned) is a version of the evidence as put together by the DPP and not the witness, how can such evidence be relied upon to help prosecute a person for an offence?
What we want to know is what the prosecution witnesses said in their own version of their evidence, not what the DPP has edited, and had retyped, so as to support their own case...
-
Hi Rocky, Who do you believe people think Hartley might be?
Various relatives, either by blood or marriage. I'll leave it at that.
-
You might be taking my views out of context, since, in some instances I am referring to other peoples point of view, so you could be tying yourself in knots, by suggesting something which might not necessarily be true, now which is it?
If you are unable to clearly identify your own views from those of others then I hardly think you have the right to be critical to people reading them.
-
Now...
what we have found out, is that the witness statements of prosecution witnesses, has been put together by the DPP in the form of Composite statements, that is edited versions of the original evidence given by witnesses, so that only the parts which support the prosecutions case, are recorded in these composite statements, so what we have here is a situation whereby the DPP decides what a witness needs to say and everything else which is capable of undermining that evidence is edited out, and the original contents not to be disclosed, but which can be withheld under pii - now if this is true the DPP are crooks...
Now..
Lets see in who's name these composite witness statements were made, in addition to the firearms team that stormed whf that morning?
On look:-
relatives, and Julie mugford?
-
If a composite (unsigned) is a version of the evidence as put together by the DPP and not the witness, how can such evidence be relied upon to help prosecute a person for an offence?
What we want to know is what the prosecution witnesses said in their own version of their evidence, not what the DPP has edited, and had retyped, so as to support their own case...
Would I be correct in thinking that it is the sworn testimony of witnesses given in court under oath which is what is taken into account by the jury, rather than the witness statements?
In any event, the original defence team would have had access to the originals.
-
From which room within the house was Sheila allegedly ranting and raving?
-
Would I be correct in thinking that it is the sworn testimony of witnesses given in court under oath which is what is taken into account by the jury, rather than the witness statements?
In any event, the original defence team would have had access to the originals.
They would not unless they were disclosed by the prosecution which in this case they were not. The defence only had the later edited/composite statements prepared under the instructions of the DPP.
-
Prosecution witness can and did make all manner of different witness statements, and the prosecution chose which parts to incorporated into a composite statement (often unsigned) and based on that evidence contained in that composite statement, when the witness in question attended the trial they were questioned on the contents of the composite statement, which had been put together for them by the DPP on their behalf, now how corrupt is that?
-
But arent witnesess given their statements before they take to the stand?
Surely they would have questioned any changes made to them.
-
Prosecution witness can and did make all manner of different witness statements, and the prosecution chose which parts to incorporated into a composite statement (often unsigned) and based on that evidence contained in that composite statement, when the witness in question attended the trial they were questioned on the contents of the composite statement, which had been put together for them by the DPP on their behalf, now how corrupt is that?
I personally would not say that was corrupt if the original contents had been disclosed so that the defence could see what the witness in question originally said, and what the DPP had edited out...
-
But arent witnesess given their statements before they take to the stand?
Surely they would have questioned any changes made to them.
No, but they are often reminded about what they said in their statements, for example, when a disputed point arises during the course of the trial, now the problem here would be that the defence would or might not be able to identify such features, because the statement made in the name of the witness was a composite version, which had been edited, by the DPP to support its own case...
-
What if the screaming and rantings made by Sheila were edited out of the original versions of the firearms officers statements, and not carried over into the composite versions produced by the DPP?
Is this the reason why the CPS and Essex police will not hand over copies of the original versions of those witness statements?
-
Have/has the screaming and rantings of Sheila in response to the challenges made by the police at the scene using a loud hailer, been edited out of the composite versions of the firearms officers statements?
Why not disclose the original versions of these statements, so that everyone can see what the DPP got up to and why he edited the original contents so that the evidence contained in the revised version of the original statement, in the form of the composite statement, supported its own case?
-
Whilst the DPP was at it, why not edit out any reference to the sighting or finding of a female body in the kitchen, which would have been counter-productive to the claim that police eventually found Sheila's body upstairs in the bedroom on the floor next to the bed with the rifle atop it?
-
They would not unless they were disclosed by the prosecution which in this case they were not. The defence only had the later edited/composite statements prepared under the instructions of the DPP.
I'm not convinced, but regardless, let's say that was the case. The defence would have had a copy of the later composite statements and they would have known what they were, they would have been studied in great detail prior to cross-examining any prosecution witnesses, so why didn't they bring this up at the time if it is as important as is being made out?
I don't believe this is as important as is being made out, if it were it would have been given more importance during the various investigations. It would also have been known for some 26 years, this isn't a sudden new revelation.
If it is as is described, could it be that it was simply normal practice at that time?
-
What if the screaming and rantings made by Sheila were edited out of the original versions of the firearms officers statements, and not carried over into the composite versions produced by the DPP?
Is this the reason why the CPS and Essex police will not hand over copies of the original versions of those witness statements?
Not even remotely plausible. Especially when there is no evidence of such an incident.
-
Have/has the screaming and rantings of Sheila in response to the challenges made by the police at the scene using a loud hailer, been edited out of the composite versions of the firearms officers statements?
Why not disclose the original versions of these statements, so that everyone can see what the DPP got up to and why he edited the original contents so that the evidence contained in the revised version of the original statement, in the form of the composite statement, supported its own case?
Are you saying that you or the defence do not have any original or hand written notes or statements from the raid team?
-
Police received screaming and ranting responses from inside the farmhouse according to Shaw who spoke to members of the raid team, and other officers, who were present at the scene that morning, Sheila was still alive long after the police arrived at the scene, and she did not die until much later (after police got into farmhouse)...
-
Police received screaming and ranting responses from inside the farmhouse according to Shaw who spoke to members of the raid team, and other officers, who were present at the scene that morning, Sheila was still alive long after the police arrived at the scene, and she did not die until much later (after police got into farmhouse)...
Contact David Shaw and ask him yourselves, if you do not believe me...
-
One of the problems in this case, is that at a debrief held at Witham police station on evening of 7th August 1985, members of the raid team were told by senior officers to write up their notes along the lines of four murders and a suicide and that the bodies had been found where PC Bird later photographed them...
What the all wrote, was dictated to them by senior officers...
-
If anyone has any doubts at all about Sheila screaming obscenities and ranting and raving, they should try to contact David Shaw and ask him if I am not telling the truth?
Ask him, where he got his information from, and ask him to identify the officers who were at the scene at the material time, who witnessed all of this, and who told him?
-
Contact David Shaw and ask him yourselves, if you do not believe me...
But that isn't evidence either, Shaw's manuscript stands out particularly because it is unsubstantiated and mostly unreferenced. there are also glaring provable errors/mistakes which are portrayed as fact when they are not. An example of this is where he refers to police action report 1113.
I think you have finally answered my question though. You do not have any evidence or even anything which might hint at your allegations being truthful.
If you were candid from the outset and simply said, 'David Shaw said this happened, I've got no proof though, what do people think?', then you would have saved a lot of face.
That is your ongoing problem, you keep advertising things as indisputable facts, yet when challenged about them, they turn into watered down theories and/or hearsay based on hearsay.
And you have the cheek to suggest that I have made false allegations? To unashamedly quote Grahame - 'One couldn't make it up'. ::)
-
If anyone has any doubts at all about Sheila screaming obscenities and ranting and raving, they should try to contact David Shaw and ask him if I am not telling the truth?
Ask him, where he got his information from, and ask him to identify the officers who were at the scene at the material time, who witnessed all of this, and who told him?
call him liar and see where that gets you?
-
Shaw has information about the identities of police officers who were present at the scene, who can verify if approached that Sheila was still very much alive, and that in response to challenges by the police using a loud hailer, that Sheila was screaming obscenities and ranting and raving...
Should Shaw identify those partiular officers, and if they were approached and were prepared to tell the truth, then of course the game would be up...
-
Shaw has information about the identities of police officers who were present at the scene, who can verify if approached that Sheila was still very much alive, and that in response to challenges by the police using a loud hailer, that Sheila was screaming obscenities and ranting and raving...
Should Shaw identify those partiular officers, and if they were approached and were prepared to tell the truth, then of course the game would be up...
At that stage, if such officers provided that information, as I say,"Game over"...
-
call him liar and see where that gets you?
I don't need to call anybody a liar, in fact there is no evidence that it is what he even said to you, it is certainly not included in his manuscript, in fact his manuscript completely contradicts such an allegation.
The point being, is if you say something is the case, then people want to see proof that you are telling the truth. Whatever your reasons for doing so, you cannot argue that you have always told the truth on this forum, you can't even pretend that to be the case.
-
Sorry to go back-over but I don't think Hartley is who people think he might be. Therefore any attempt to expose his ID might back-fire.
I've no idea who he is? All I know is that folk know who I am. And I know who I am.............I think? ???
-
Jeremy Bamber is innocent, he was framed by his relatives, and a set of corrupted police officers, who sought to cover up for the mistakes they made during the investigation. At the heart of this investigation was DS 'Stan' Jones, in the pay of the relatives, who falsified entries into a pocketbook that was tamered with. DS Jones is/was a crook and he should be prosecuted and sent to jail, like all those who falsified evidence in this case to get Jeremy convicted for committing offences that he simply could not have committed...
DS Jones can take me to court any time. I have evidence to prove he was /is a pathological liar, a piece of shit, and a despicable liar. He will need to prove he did not take possession of exhivbits SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4, at the scene before 9th August 1985, if he thinks he can take me to court and get compensation out of me - I will win hands down or up...
He is a lying corrupted evil scum-bag...
He deserves to be locked up in jail, in my opinion, I look forward to fucking him up good style at any future Civil court proceedings...
-
Jeremy Bamber is innocent, he was framed by his relatives, and a set of corrupted police officers, who sought to cover up for the mistakes they made during the investigation. At the heart of this investigation was DS 'Stan' Jones, in the pay of the relatives, who falsified entries into a pocketbook that was tamered with. DS Jones is/was a crook and he should be prosecuted and sent to jail, like all those who falsified evidence in this case to get Jeremy convicted for committing offences that he simply could not have committed...
DS Jones can take me to court any time. I have evidence to prove he was /is a pathological liar, a piece of shit, and a despicable liar. He will need to prove he did not take possession of exhivbits SBJ/2, SBJ/3 and SBJ/4, at the scene before 9th August 1985, if he thinks he can take me to court and get compensation out of me - I will win hands down or up...
He is a lying corrupted evil scum-bag...
He deserves to be locked up in jail, in my opinion, I look forward to fucking him up good style at any future Civil court proceedings...
Fuck the then DPP, Mr Adams, also a fucking criminal, IN MY OPINION...
We have got to stop taking this sort of shit from these people who think they are all high and mighty, they are criminals, the lot of them...
-
Yeah I'd go along with that at a stretch. :-\
Idiot
A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
Mike's using the term in the colloquial sense that most of us would understand, defined by the urban Dictionary as:
"A foolish or stupid person."
Hard to dsiagree with that.
-
Mike's using the term in the colloquial sense that most of us would understand, defined by the urban Dictionary as:
"A foolish or stupid person."
Hard to dsiagree with that.
Again, entirely unnecessary, but thank you for conveying your opinion. ???
-
There is no evidence at all that jeremy killed anyone...
Its all in the prosecutions, and the relatives, and the police, and Mugfords, imagination...
-
Police and CPS should disclose the audio recordings to prove that Sheilah was not screaming and ranting and raving when firearms officers used the loud hailer...
They won't do that, because they know that Sheila can be heard to be screaming and ranting and raving...
-
How come, no-one has contacted David Shaw, and how come no -one is saying that what he told me, and what is in the transcript of his book is false and misleading?
-
How come, no-one has contacted David Shaw, and how come no -one is saying that what he told me, and what is in the transcript of his book is false and misleading?
Hi Mike. Do you have Shaw's contact details please?
-
How come, no-one has contacted David Shaw, and how come no -one is saying that what he told me, and what is in the transcript of his book is false and misleading?
Probably because nobody really cares, his work is unreferenced let alone unpublished and carries no weight.
If you want to use him or his work to back up your argument then the onus is on you to provide supporting evidence, not other people who you are trying to convince (or in my opinion mislead).
-
You've lost me, explain.
sorry Andrea, What some people think is JB is not Not Guilty,when in fact he was found so,therefore he is. the challenge is to prove he is not,not to state without evidence his is not guilty
-
Probably because nobody really cares, his work is unreferenced let alone unpublished and carries no weight.
If you want to use him or his work to back up your argument then the onus is on you to provide supporting evidence, not other people who you are trying to convince (or in my opinion mislead).
Maybe, but he can always be questioned and asked where he got certain bits of information and a possible link could be obtained that way?
-
Maybe, but he can always be questioned and asked where he got certain bits of information and a possible link could be obtained that way?
Agreed, but as it is Mike who is introducing these little bits and pieces to support his own arguments then the onus is upon Mike to provide proof, or risk not being believed. It makes no difference to me.
-
Not sure what it is that has convinced you to get involved again, but you are welcome to your opinion, unfortunately I believe you are in the minority.
Hartley, I am not "getting involved again here". I have never been away. I'm always researching in the backroom. I continued researching even when I deleted my account for a few days. A fortnight's leave I took over the Christmas and new year period, coupled with one of the campaigns I'm organising coming to a head, does not leave me much time to post at present, but there are no grounds to suggest that I am no longer involved.
I am very much involved and am as staunchly convinced of Jeremy's innocence and that he has been unjustly denied a fair trial and fair Appeals as ever.
As long as Mike has no problem with me posting here I shall continue. I don't need your permission or for you to tell me I'm welcome to my opinion, I'll post whenever I wish to do so.
As for me being in the minority, dream on, Hartley, the list of people you've lobbed personal abuse at here alone puts you very much in the minority.
-
Hartley, I am not "getting involved again here". I have never been away. I'm always researching in the backroom. I continued researching even when I deleted my account for a few days. A fortnight's leave I took over the Christmas and new year period, coupled with one of the campaigns I'm organising coming to a head, does not leave me much time to post at present, but there are no grounds to suggest that I am no longer involved.
I am very much involved and am as staunchly convinced of Jeremy's innocence and that he has been unjustly denied a fair trial and fair Appeals as ever.
As long as Mike has no problem with me posting here I shall continue. I don't need your permission or for you to tell me I'm welcome to my opinion, I'll post whenever I wish to do so.
As for me being in the minority, dream on, Hartley, the list of people you've lobbed personal abuse at here alone puts you very much in the minority.
Chocho, if there is a problem which you have with me, then please take it up with NGB or Grahame. Thank you .
-
I think you're probably referring to the wrong forum!!?? This is not the Hartley I recognise!!
Hi Vidvic,
You would recognise this Hartley all too well if you were on the pro side of the fence. He's hardly going to heap abuse on you as he does on others on the pro side here, is he?
-
sorry Andrea, What some people think is JB is not Not Guilty,when in fact he was found so,therefore he is. the challenge is to prove he is not,not to state without evidence his is not guilty
Unfortunately that is the problem. Some of us don't think that all the evidence was revealed at the original trial and even that which was, was faulty or should have been inadmissible which constitutes to our mind a miscarriage of justice. These a not but a few people either. But includes many legal people including a substantial number of barristers to boot. Now if these people who know about the law say there was a miscarriage of justice, then I think it would be wise for us to take note of what they say and not continue to wear our blinkers for fear of upsetting the family.
-
Unfortunately that is the problem. Some of us don't think that all the evidence was revealed at the original trial and even that which was, was faulty or should have been inadmissible which constitutes to our mind a miscarriage of justice. These a not but a few people either. But includes many legal people including a substantial number of barristers to boot. Now if these people who know about the law say there was a miscarriage of justice, then I think it would be wise for us to take note of what they say and not continue to wear our blinkers for fear of upsetting the family.
That's a fair point to make, however many of the reasons that people have given for their belief that there was not a fair trial has been looked at and addressed during the two appeals. Okay people may then form an opinion that the Appeal Judges got it wrong, but there's not much else to be done about that.
The only real (just in my opinion) possibility left open, is if there is evidence, which having been withheld, gets released and shows Jeremy to be innocent. Again it is just my opinion, but I do not believe that there is anything withheld that will show him to be innocent, but respect that other people have formed differing opinions.
-
Chocho, if there is a problem which you have with me, then please take it up with NGB or Grahame. Thank you .
I don't need to, Hartley, they've both been on the receiving end of your personal abuse and distortions too, so I'm sure they understand what I'm referring to here.
-
I don't need to, Hartley, they've both been on the receiving end of your personal abuse and distortions too, so I'm sure they understand what I'm referring to here.
Oh okay.
(http://www.smileyhut.com/silly/tumbleweed.gif) (http://www.smileyhut.com)
-
Unfortunately that is the problem. Some of us don't think that all the evidence was revealed at the original trial and even that which was, was faulty or should have been inadmissible which constitutes to our mind a miscarriage of justice. These a not but a few people either. But includes many legal people including a substantial number of barristers to boot. Now if these people who know about the law say there was a miscarriage of justice, then I think it would be wise for us to take note of what they say and not continue to wear our blinkers for fear of upsetting the family.
I totally agree Grahame,but starting posts with IF don't really stack up IMO
-
I totally agree Grahame,but starting posts with IF don't really stack up IMO
I don't think I started my post with if?
-
I don't think I started my post with if?
If you did though, what then? ;)
-
If you did though, what then? ;)
I remember writing a big IF on the side of a lorry for Mr. Sampson at Chigboro Farm once. I asked him what it meant? He replied, "Well it will make people look won't it?"
-
I don't think I started my post with if?
sorry Grahame, misunderstanding.I was in general trying to get across the point that an awfull lot of the posts are "if this happened"or "if that happened" and weave the little evidence into a theory.
I'm sure if i thought not that hard I could come up with some weird and wild theories to fit the known facts.
I look at this subject line and the only screaming and ranting I can see evidence off is Mike loosing his cool this afternoon.
-
Hartley you could spend the next 25 years on this forum defending your friends but there was/is no evidence to show Jeremy is guilty
Of course you will defend Mugford and say she is telling the truth because it helps the relatives your friend when an application to appeal is pending
FACT is I believe 99% of the general public would not believe her if they knew all about her background and NOTW deal
I believe most of what Mike posts on here because he has no reason to lie and I do not believe he would support a child murderer unless he believed 100% in his innocence
On top of that we have the witheld evidence
Juries make mistakes i e Eddie gilfoyle
That jury convicted on the evidence put forward to them
Imagine how they feel today
Justice must be seen to be done on this case and I will fight until this happens
-
That's a fair point to make, however many of the reasons that people have given for their belief that there was not a fair trial has been looked at and addressed during the two appeals. Okay people may then form an opinion that the Appeal Judges got it wrong, but there's not much else to be done about that.
The only real (just in my opinion) possibility left open, is if there is evidence, which having been withheld, gets released and shows Jeremy to be innocent. Again it is just my opinion, but I do not believe that there is anything withheld that will show him to be innocent, but respect that other people have formed differing opinions.
I think the real issue is "reasonable doubt".
Unfortunately I think the trial was tainted by the mass of withheld evidence, and if the whole of the evidence we now have were presentedd there would have been a great probability of at least one more juror having reasonable doubt, therefore bringing a different outcome.
The appeals seem to follow the Denning position of protecting the majesty of the law, and seem massively unfair.
The only way justice will truely be served is a full retrial based on full disclosure. I have repeatedly said this - I wonder if you would think this is a fair position.
-
Another issue surely, was the quality of the last appeal?
Apart from the first item which took a bit of thinking about, the defence were slaughtered.
It's one thing having a theory on a forum, it's quite another to have to back that up with evidence.
Many a journalist in 2002 questioned wether it should ever have made it that far.
I would imagine the CCRC are nervous of a similar outcome and the critisism they'd receive.
-
Hartley continually bleats on about his friends want to live in peace this will never happen unless Jeremy is freed on appeal or if all witheld evidence is released
I do not believe that anyone on this forum in the relatives position would not actively push for this to happen
If they are 100% convinced of JBs innocence then this would bring them peace
I do not believe they want everything witheld released
-
Vidvic
I bet I speak to more journalists than you do and all the ones I speak to believe this case should be referred
I suggest you read what Ngb said about the 2002 appeal
I could list numerous high profile cases that have been turned down at appeal then eventually the conviction is overturned so what you have stated is irrelevant we have moved on from 2002 now
-
Actually Jackie, I have spoken to NGB at quite some length about 2002 and there's not much we disagree on. I was also there myself, everyday, so i have personal memory too.
Next time I'm at Skynews, i'll do a straw poll for you. Had any luck with Panorama? lol
-
Actually Jackie, I have spoken to NGB at quite some length about 2002 and there's not much we disagree on. I was also there myself, everyday, so i have personal memory too.
Next time I'm at Skynews, i'll do a straw poll for you. Had any luck with Panorama? lol
Do you think next time you are with Mr Boutflour , you could ask him , how he mistook a sight for silencer , as Hartley claimed ? Did he tell EP ' pick up a silencer ' on the 11 Sept or not ?
-
I think the real issue is "reasonable doubt".
Unfortunately I think the trial was tainted by the mass of withheld evidence, and if the whole of the evidence we now have were presentedd there would have been a great probability of at least one more juror having reasonable doubt, therefore bringing a different outcome.
The appeals seem to follow the Denning position of protecting the majesty of the law, and seem massively unfair.
The only way justice will truely be served is a full retrial based on full disclosure. I have repeatedly said this - I wonder if you would think this is a fair position.
Hi bigpod,
I think that is a totally fair position.
I've said before that as JB was convicted on a 10-2 majority, it meant that some of the jury members were unsure, and some even wept at the verdict.
However, I don't know if a re-trial is the answer after 26 years. Perhaps having his sentence quashed would be better.
-
Vic why do you have to act like a complete prick
i.e lol re panorama
I am just in the middle of putting a video together with up to date pictures of all the relatives
It might be ready tonight
Lol
The pictures are brilliant
-
Vic why do you have to act like a complete prick
i.e lol re panorama
I am just in the middle of putting a video together with up to date pictures of all the relatives
It might be ready tonight
Lol
The pictures are brilliant
Erm...I think we ought to be careful with pictures Jackie. Most of us know what the older generation look like? But I'm wondering if you should keep the younger generation out of the video? They are completely innocent in all this and we are not sure about any guilt we attach to some of the others either? :)
-
Grahame I wouldn't put any younger members in the video
It's alright being cocky when someone knows so much information has been witheld but it's pointless keep bringing up the 2002 appeal because that has gone
Pointless arguments
The cockiness is not because they have the absolute proof jb is guilty it's because they believe witheld evidence will NEVER be released because of the costs and compensation if the conviction is overturned
Being cocky because you think the truth will never come out is not clever
-
What really bothers me concerning this case,is not just any evidence being witheld by the police,but the unfairness of Jeremys trial.The judge,in my opinion,seemed to a better summing up of the prosecutions case than the prosecutor himself! The judge put a lot of emphasis on the "alleged" use of a sound moderator.For example,the sound moderator MUST have been fitted to the rifle because it scored the mantlepiece.And it seems to me that the 10 members of the jury convicted Jeremy mainly on the grounds of it being highly unlikely that Sheila shot herself upstairs and then returned the sound moderator to the downstairs gun cupboard,and then returned upstairs to shoot herself again.I,myself find that highly unlikely,so can see why the jury came to the decision that they did.Since the trial,the sound moderator evidence has become questionable,and certainly the "scoring" on the mantlepiece has been deemed by an expert to have occured "after" the murders.Surely therefore,Jeremy did not receive a fair trial as on the "sound moderator" evidence alone the jury were misled?
-
What really bothers me concerning this case,is not just any evidence being witheld by the police,but the unfairness of Jeremys trial.The judge,in my opinion,seemed to a better summing up of the prosecutions case than the prosecutor himself! The judge put a lot of emphasis on the "alleged" use of a sound moderator.For example,the sound moderator MUST have been fitted to the rifle because it scored the mantlepiece.And it seems to me that the 10 members of the jury convicted Jeremy mainly on the grounds of it being highly unlikely that Sheila shot herself upstairs and then returned the sound moderator to the downstairs gun cupboard,and then returned upstairs to shoot herself again.I,myself find that highly unlikely,so can see why the jury came to the decision that they did.Since the trial,the sound moderator evidence has become questionable,and certainly the "scoring" on the mantlepiece has been deemed by an expert to have occured "after" the murders.Surely therefore,Jeremy did not receive a fair trial as on the "sound moderator" evidence alone the jury were misled?
I think the best way to answering your points is for me to post a letter that I received some time ago from Jeremy which covers the point about the scratch marks on the aga mantelpiece being made later, after the date when the shootings occurred - in fact we now know that those on the front face of the aga were actually made on 11th September because photographic proof exists which confirms this to be the case, at a time when DI Cook and PC Bird (SOC) were [present at the scene, carrying out their duties...
-
What really bothers me concerning this case,is not just any evidence being witheld by the police,but the unfairness of Jeremys trial.The judge,in my opinion,seemed to a better summing up of the prosecutions case than the prosecutor himself! The judge put a lot of emphasis on the "alleged" use of a sound moderator.For example,the sound moderator MUST have been fitted to the rifle because it scored the mantlepiece.And it seems to me that the 10 members of the jury convicted Jeremy mainly on the grounds of it being highly unlikely that Sheila shot herself upstairs and then returned the sound moderator to the downstairs gun cupboard,and then returned upstairs to shoot herself again.I,myself find that highly unlikely,so can see why the jury came to the decision that they did.Since the trial,the sound moderator evidence has become questionable,and certainly the "scoring" on the mantlepiece has been deemed by an expert to have occured "after" the murders.Surely therefore,Jeremy did not receive a fair trial as on the "sound moderator" evidence alone the jury were misled?
You're correct, Tyler.
From what I can recall, JB was convicted on three main points: the silencer, Mugford's 'evidence', and the 'alledged' phone call from his father.
All circumstantial.
-
What really bothers me concerning this case,is not just any evidence being witheld by the police,but the unfairness of Jeremys trial.The judge,in my opinion,seemed to a better summing up of the prosecutions case than the prosecutor himself! The judge put a lot of emphasis on the "alleged" use of a sound moderator.For example,the sound moderator MUST have been fitted to the rifle because it scored the mantlepiece.And it seems to me that the 10 members of the jury convicted Jeremy mainly on the grounds of it being highly unlikely that Sheila shot herself upstairs and then returned the sound moderator to the downstairs gun cupboard,and then returned upstairs to shoot herself again.I,myself find that highly unlikely,so can see why the jury came to the decision that they did.Since the trial,the sound moderator evidence has become questionable,and certainly the "scoring" on the mantlepiece has been deemed by an expert to have occured "after" the murders.Surely therefore,Jeremy did not receive a fair trial as on the "sound moderator" evidence alone the jury were misled?
Especially the FACT that no concrete evidence either put Jeremy at the scene. Not even forensic evidence. His place was searched. I read (whether true or not) that Jeremy had no marks or cuts or bruises on him at all. NOTHING at all that placed him at the scene of the crime. Yet the judge seemed to find all this illusional "evidence" to be proof of Jeremy's guilt? What a naive fellow he must have been? Still most of them don't live in the real world anyway.
-
Especially the FACT that no concrete evidence either put Jeremy at the scene. Not even forensic evidence. His place was searched. I read (whether true or not) that Jeremy had no marks or cuts or bruises on him at all. NOTHING at all that placed him at the scene of the crime. Yet the judge seemed to find all this illusional "evidence" to be proof of Jeremy's guilt? What a naive fellow he must have been? Still most of them don't live in the real world anyway.
"Illusional evidence" - I like that phrase...
-
Another letter from the past, about silencer matters, and what have you:-
-
Another letter written over two years ago, which contained confidential information, that we all know about now, relating to the additional scratch marks that were made on the front face of the aga surround on 11th September 1985, back up by photographic proof taken by PC Bird (soc) on that date...
So, now we know the silencer and paint evidence was/is/has been fabricated and that the prosecution secured these convictions based upon a reliance upon that evidence...
-
Here's another brief letter I received after receiving a scathing letter previously, about posting on JB's facebook page, which stirred up quite a flurry of hate mail against me, oh and I am supposed to have got facebook closed down because of the things I was posting:-
-
I am currently banned from the facebook site, its great to feel wanted, but they come here now for information, I wouldn't have the heart to ban any of them, bless em...
-
I have two letters from Jeremy which discuss the screaming and rantings of Sheila, which I might get around to posting at some point in the near future...
I have letters covering most things which I have raised and will be raising in due course...
-
I see no ones contacted David Shaw to ask him about Sheila screaming and ranting and raving when the police were challenging the occupants of the house, or asked him where he got his information from?
-
I have two letters from Jeremy which discuss the screaming and rantings of Sheila, which I might get around to posting at some point in the near future...
I have letters covering most things which I have raised and will be raising in due course...
Ooh! Can't wait to read them - but why keep us waiting?
All I can say is if I was wrongly convicted, I would want someone like you helping me - you never give up!
-
Ooh! Can't wait to read them - but why keep us waiting?
All I can say is if I was wrongly convicted, I would want someone like you helping me - you never give up!
As I say...
I will get around to posting them in due course, but I have to wait awhile until something gets done, or is made public by another source...
In the mean time, however, here's another letter with information about the scratch marks...
-
I wonder what happened at about 6:30am, which caused somebody to request two ambulances to be called to the scene, one for immediate use, and the other on standby?
My understanding, from what I have been told is that Sheila had ceased screaming and ranting and raving by that stage, and they thought she had shot somebody...
I wonder what caused them to believe that?
Perhaps the recording of the eavesdrop would have cleared that up...
Wonder if its got anything to do with the officers report about the shooting incident downstairs, did Sheila shoot Ralph at that time, is/was this why two ambulances were called to the scene at about 6:30am?
pii has got a lot to answer for
-
Vic why do you have to act like a complete prick
i.e lol re panorama
I am just in the middle of putting a video together with up to date pictures of all the relatives
It might be ready tonight
Lol
The pictures are brilliant
I apologise jackie. I've only been in tv news 23 years, so I'm sure you know more journo's than little old me.
-
Who was the mysterious Dr Harris who attended the scene (according to what David Shaw told me)?
Why was Dr Harris there inside the house, and why didn't the police surgeon (Dr Craig) or anybody else make any mention of him being there?
Why would there be any need to call out two doctors to the scene, and yet only officially mention one?
Has this got anything to do with the mental health act, and the possibility of sectioning Sheila?
-
Vidvic you are I believe a cameraman end of the food chain don't think you can come on here with those credentials and make us believe you know what all journalists think
You are the friend of people that WOULD be charged and likely go to prison if it is proved the silencer was planted
Everyone on here is impartial to the case except you and Hartley
You know the truth you just choose not to admit it
The truth always comes out in the end
Poor Eddie Gilfoyle
-
Vidvic you are I believe a cameraman end of the food chain don't think you can come on here with those credentials and make us believe you know what all journalists think
You are the friend of people that WOULD be charged and likely go to prison if it is proved the silencer was planted
Everyone on here is impartial to the case except you and Hartley
You know the truth you just choose not to admit it
The truth always comes out in the end
Poor Eddie Gilfoyle
Poor Guldford Four
Poor Birmingham Six
Poor everybody, who has been a victim of the system, and who has had to struggle to get justice, and now - its Jeremy's turn...
-
Why did Sheila stop screaming and ranting and raving at about 6:30am?
-
She had been screaming and ranting and raving for about an hour, and then for some reason it stopped, and a request was sent out from the scene by some faceless, nameless, police officer, for two ambulances to be called to the scene, one for immediate use, and the other on standby?
I wonder who passed the message and why?
Why did the police at the scene need an ambulance to go immediately to the farmhouse at about 6:30am?
-
Why would Sheila be screaming?
Somebody, or something must have been upsetting her, she was that upset that her screaming kept the police from trying to force their way into the farmhouse. Why only send for two ambulances if there were five occupants inside whf? What did the police know at 6:30am, what we haven't been told about, yet?
-
Why did Sheila stop screaming and ranting and raving at about 6:30am?
What happens with regard to ambulance calls? Are they deleted/hidden under pii too? Is there not a record of their responses/statements etc?
-
Why would Sheila be screaming?
Somebody, or something must have been upsetting her, she was that upset that her screaming kept the police from trying to force their way into the farmhouse. Why only send for two ambulances if there were five occupants inside whf? What did the police know at 6:30am, what we haven't been told about, yet?
Why only one ambulance to the scene at that time?
-
What happens with regard to ambulance calls? Are they deleted/hidden under pii too? Is there not a record of their responses/statements etc?
There is no official record of who called them out to the scene, or the reason why they were called out to the scene, or anything about why one ambulance was required for immediate use at the house, whilst the other was on standby in pages lane. It would be interesting to find out the reason why these two ambulances were called out to the scene at that time?
Both ambulances arrived at the scene at more or less the same time as the second group of firearms officers at about 7am, who in turn had been requested to attend the scene at the same time as the ambulances had been requested - clearly the added presence of these extra firearms officers and the two ambulances at the scene arriving there at about 7am, was obviously linked to something which took place, or occurred inside whf at about 6:30am...
-
Is it the case that the two ambulances were called to the scene and arrived at the same time as the second group of firearms officers because the raid team was preparing to force an entry into the farmhouse with the intention of shooting dead Sheila if the opportunity arose? Were the police instructed to shoot to wound Sheila, rather than shoot to kill her, and was that the reason why only one ambulance was required at the house immediately, with another one on standby?
Was the mysterious "Dr Harris" present at the scene, at this time?
There could be some mileage in this proposition...
-
I apologise jackie. I've only been in tv news 23 years, so I'm sure you know more journo's than little old me.
25 years you say? Hardly worth mentioning really is it? ::) ;D ;D
-
Mike I really would love to have some documentary evidence for all this. It would make your case watertight.
-
Is it the case that the two ambulances were called to the scene and arrived at the same time as the second group of firearms officers because the raid team was preparing to force an entry into the farmhouse with the intention of shooting dead Sheila if the opportunity arose? Were the police instructed to shoot to wound Sheila, rather than shoot to kill her, and was that the reason why only one ambulance was required at the house immediately, with another one on standby?
There could be some mileage in this proposition...
Yes, that was what I was wondering.
I think it's people like the ambulance crews, which were on scene but not involved, who could add light on what was happening. I know, obviously, they are there to save lives where possible and need to remain neutral, but it wasn't a Red Cross situation and it would be great if one of them would come forward to explain!
-
Mike I really would love to have some documentary evidence for all this. It would make your case watertight.
I will dig out what can find...
-
Another letter written over two years ago, which contained confidential information, that we all know about now, relating to the additional that were made on the front face of the aga surround on 11th September 1985, back up by photographic proof taken by PC Bird (soc) on that date...
So, now we know the silencer and paint evidence was/is/has been fabricated and that the prosecution secured these convictions based upon a reliance upon that evidence...
The three pictures jeremy was referring to, could be these three:-
One taken at scene showing aga on 7th August 1985, with no marks on front fascia of aga
Another taken on 11th September 1985, showing same fascia with no scratch marks present, and
another showing the same fascia with scratch marks gouged into the aga surround...
-
I will dig out what can find...
Thanks Mike.
-
Do you think next time you are with Mr Boutflour , you could ask him , how he mistook a sight for silencer , as Hartley claimed ? Did he tell EP ' pick up a silencer ' on the 11 Sept or not ?
Huh? ???
Why do people lie?
Why do people lie?
Why do people lie?
Why do people lie?
Why do people lie?
Why do people lie?
Why do people lie?
Why do people lie?
Why do people lie?
Maybe sitting is uncomfortable. ::)
::) ??? :P
-
Huh? ???
Why do people lie?
Why do people lie?
Why do people lie?
Why do people lie?
Why do people lie?
Why do people lie?
Why do people lie?
Why do people lie?
Why do people lie?
Maybe sitting is uncomfortable. ::)
::) ??? :P
You know all about lying , but still i don't understand , care to explain ? Or do you want to repeat your classic claim , they mistook a sight for a silencer ? On what date ?
-
Mike have you anything on how the press were given details on that day, were they off pages lane , did they take any pictures of these Ambulances?
-
Vidvic you are I believe a cameraman end of the food chain don't think you can come on here with those credentials and make us believe you know what all journalists think
You are the friend of people that WOULD be charged and likely go to prison if it is proved the silencer was planted
Everyone on here is impartial to the case except you and Hartley
You know the truth you just choose not to admit it
The truth always comes out in the end
Poor Eddie Gilfoyle
Producer & director jackie.
-
You know all about lying , but still i don't understand , care to explain ? Or do you want to repeat your classic claim , they mistook a sight for a silencer ? On what date ?
It is not something which I have said, hence the fact the you are lying
You have a once in a life time opportunity to prove me wrong, go for it.
(PS. Try a search for Oakey or Oakley, that might help).
I'll wait with baited breath. ::)
-
It is not something which I have said, hence the fact the you are lying
You have a once in a life time opportunity to prove me wrong, go for it.
(PS. Try a search for Oakey or Oakley, that might help).
I'll wait with baited breath. ::)
You said word's to the effect ' that you had been told that Oakey had picked up a sight ' and you were obviously told by someone who would know , care to say who ?
-
Explain to us all , what happened when Mr Boutflour called EP in September saying ' he had a silencer to be picked up ' !! Can you also tell us who told you ?
-
Huh? ???
Why do people lie?
Why do people lie?
Why do people lie?
Why do people lie?
Why do people lie?
Why do people lie?
Why do people lie?
Why do people lie?
Mugford the expert
Why do people lie?
Maybe sitting is uncomfortable. ::)
::) ??? :P
-
Producer & director jackie.
Vidvic please share your showreel I am sure the whole forum would be interested
-
You said word's to the effect ' that you had been told that Oakey had picked up a sight ' and you were obviously told by someone who would know , care to say who ?
As I said, why do people lie. ::)
So what you are now saying, is that I have never said that David or Robert mistook a sight for a moderator or vice versa? That is correct is it not? That is the complete and utter honest truth, of which there is evidence in the form of posts on this forum to check, is it not?
So it is also therefore true that you have lied your arse off, is it not?
Sorry, you failed abysmally in your once in a life time opportunity. ::)
Sheesh. ::)
-
Mike have you anything on how the press were given details on that day, were they off pages lane , did they take any pictures of these Ambulances?
If I remember correctly from the tv news pictures all the filming was taken from a field opposite and some distance from the house. There were police cars blocking the entrance of Pages Lane. I don't remember seeing any ambulances?
-
Vidvic please share your showreel I am sure the whole forum would be interested
That's a brilliant attitude for the campaign to adopt!! Let's try to belittle someone that works in newsrooms that you might well need publicity from. Smart one Jackie. As for all the journo's interested in the case, where are they all? They certainly aren't writing about bamber! If the ccrc refuse the appeal it will be a non story, because at national level editors thought it was already refused. If it gets another appeal it will make news because it's a 2nd go.
-
If I remember correctly from the tv news pictures all the filming was taken from a field opposite and some distance from the house. There were police cars blocking the entrance of Pages Lane. I don't remember seeing any ambulances?
Most of the anglia stuff was filmed by a guy called Tony jewers. 1985 was first year anglia used video, but some news was still shot on film.
-
As I said, why do people lie. ::)
So what you are now saying, is that I have never said that David or Robert mistook a sight for a moderator or vice versa? That is correct is it not? That is the complete and utter honest truth, of which there is evidence in the form of posts on this forum to check, is it not?
So it is also therefore true that you have lied your arse off, is it not?
Sorry, you failed abysmally in your once in a life time opportunity. ::)
Sheesh. ::)
You said , ' you was informed it was a sight , Oakey picked up not a silencer ' is that correct ? Who told you ? Give us your version of event's over EP log , that they had to pick up a silencer in September from the family , explain so there can be no confusing , what happened ?
-
Vidvic incase you try and make out you don't read the forum I have no influence over what the official campaign team do and they have decided not to do anything to draw attention to this case with the general public.
I couldn't give a toss about your opinion of me because anyone who believes Mugford and knows about the NOTW deal has no credibility in my eyes
You or Hartley have not come up with a decent answer as to why you believe Mugford when she was previously shown to be a cunning liar
Please publish the names of the journalist s who believe Jb is guilty and their email addresses and I can see if you are telling the truth
This case is a joke a man convicted on the flimsiest of evidence to a full life sentence
Vidvic go and make up stories to someone else because 95% of people on this forum believe Mugford was telling lies and the silencer was planted
Vidvic please explain why Jeremy did not have a single mark on him after his alleged viscous fight with Neville
There was no marks on jb Because it never happened did it
-
You said , ' you was informed it was a sight , Oakey picked up not a silencer ' is that correct ? Who told you ? Give us your version of event's over EP log , that they ha d to pick up a silencer in September from the family , explain so there can be no confusing , what happened ?
What, again? How many times do I need to repeat myself? I don't care what your opinion is because you've clearly lied and tried to twist things, as is detailed in the last couple of posts.
So for your benefit only and for the very last time, the sound moderator was collected from Oak farm on the 12/8/85 and the Nikon sight was collected by Oakey, from Ann at Oak Farm on 11/9/85.
That's it, you want to disagree, that's fine, but you can't go around knowingly lying about what I have said and then expect me to give you the time of day.
-
Vidvic incase you try and make out you don't read the forum I have no influence over what the official campaign team do and they have decided not to do anything to draw attention to this case with the general public.
I couldn't give a toss about your opinion of me because anyone who believes Mugford and knows about the NOTW deal has no credibility in my eyes
You or Hartley have not come up with a decent answer as to why you believe Mugford when she was previously shown to be a cunning liar
Please publish the names of the journalist s who believe Jb is guilty and their email addresses and I can see if you are telling the truth
This case is a joke a man convicted on the flimsiest of evidence to a full life sentence
Vidvic go and make up stories to someone else because 95% of people on this forum believe Mugford was telling lies and the silencer was planted
Vidvic please explain why Jeremy did not have a single mark on him after his alleged viscous fight with Neville
There was no marks on jb Because it never happened did it
Jackie, you are of course entitled to your own opinion, however if I can just pick out your point regarding Julie. You claim that she lied at the original trial, that's fair enough, but the jury decided otherwise. You then say that Julie lied during the 2002 appeal in the statements she gave, which contradict her original statements, the Appeal Judges noticed these descrepancies also, they also noticed that the bank managers statements contain some gaps, such as whether a police officer (DC Jones) was present at the bank. However, the Appeal Judges took all of this into consideration and put the descrepancies down to 16 years going by rather than witnesses lying, all of this is very clearly described and detailed in the 2002 Appeal Judgement.
So you thing she lied, the Jury, two panels of Appeal Judges, the CCRC and little old me, disagree with you, no toss involved.
-
Who claimed there real name was Steve Augi?
oh that was Hartley was it not...oh yes.
And now he says he has never told us his true identity.
So it was a lie.
And another lie is when he claims to be honest when clearly he is not.
If persons wish to claim Hartley is honest and decent when evidence shows otherwise then it shows what poor judgement they seem to have or that they too are blatantly dishonest.
telling it like it is.
Hartley also claimed I was using multiple user names on this forum and that he had evidence...which he did not which was another lie.
etc etc etc.
-
Most of the anglia stuff was filmed by a guy called Tony jewers. 1985 was first year anglia used video, but some news was still shot on film.
All I remember is that no one could get anywhere near the house. It's quite a way up Pages Lane as you know and is surrounded by trees for the most part. Although I've never personally been up Pages Lane. The nearest I got was to Frame Farm just up the road back towards Maldon. Never had any dealings with the Bambers or Boutflours. Although I did get to know a few farmers.
-
Who claimed there real name was Steve Augi?
oh that was Hartley was it not...oh yes.
And now he says he has never told us his true identity.
So it was a lie.
And another lie is when he claims to be honest when clearly he is not.
If persons wish to claim Hartley is honest and decent when evidence shows otherwise then it shows what poor judgement they seem to have or that they too are blatantly dishonest.
telling it like it is.
Hartley also claimed I was using multiple user names on this forum and that he had evidence...which he did not which was another lie.
etc etc etc.
Thank you for your valued input Smiffy, very much appreciated.
-
Yes Graham, everything i've ever seen taken from the morning was filmed from opposite pages lane.
-
I would like to clarify something about what David Shaw told me about the presence of a Dr Harris at the scene - he never actually said at what stage he was there. However, I am led to believe that Harris did not attend the scene until after Sheila was fatally wounded by the shot under the chin, which did not occur until after the police surgeon, Dr Craig had left the scene...
Dr Harris attended Sheilas body in the bedroom and pronounced her as being dead at the scene at about 9.30am, some 46 minutes after Dr Craig had originally pronounced her as being dead, at a time when she only had a solitary wound on her throat...
-
I would like to clarify something about what David Shaw told me about the presence of a Dr Harris at the scene - he never actually said at what stage he was there. However, I am led to believe that Harris did not attend the scene until after Sheila was fatally wounded by the shot under the chin, which did not occur until after the police surgeon, Dr Craig had left the scene...
Dr Harris attended Sheilas body in the bedroom and pronounced her as being dead at the scene at about 9.30am, some 46 minutes after Dr Craig had originally pronounced her as being dead, at a time when she only had a solitary wound on her throat...
Why not just ask 'Z' ?? If he took a picture of her on the bed with only one shot to her neck, there's a fair chance he was there when she was shot by the police. David Shaw should be able to confirm all this from the raid team members he's spoken to, but didn't feel that Sheila running around the house screaming and shouting was significant enough to include in his unpublished work.
-
Why not just ask 'Z' ?? If he took a picture of her on the bed with only one shot to her neck, there's a fair chance he was there when she was shot by the police. David Shaw should be able to confirm all this from the raid team members he's spoken to, but didn't feel that Sheila running around the house screaming and shouting was significant enough to include in his unpublished work.
If Shaw is indeed genuine, it could be possible that he was given a sanitised version of events, for reasons known only to those who proffered the info.
-
Another point Mike. David Shaw wrote this unpublished work how many years ago?
So, not only did he think Sheila being alive, insignificant... !!!!!!! .... But you yourself failed to mention it either?? Certainly not in these terms....
-
There are lots of things discussed between shaw and myself which is not published as part of, “ An Innocent Man"...
-
If Shaw is indeed genuine, it could be possible that he was given a sanitised version of events, for reasons known only to those who proffered the info.
Mike said earlier in the thread that Shaw had been told about the shouting and screaming by members of the police he's spoken to.....but surely this isn't true, otherwise he would have included it in his piece.
Do you not agree Roch, that there's a fair chance 'Z' was there at the time? With his Box brownie.....
-
Another point Mike. David Shaw wrote this unpublished work how many years ago?
So, not only did he think Sheila being alive, insignificant... !!!!!!! .... But you yourself failed to mention it either?? Certainly not in these terms....
Well there are emails from 2006.
I think if you read some of these it sheds a little more light on all of this, what it also shows quite clearly is that this is not based on any evidence. It would also appear that Mike actually has very few of his own theories. :-\
-
Remaining pages:
-
The contents of Shaws manuscript was brought to the attention of Jeremy and those representing his interests at that time, including Sheila screaming and carrying on, being the reason why police did not storm the farmhouse earlier, and the presence of Dr Harris at the scene. I have emails and correspondence from that era to confirm everything I am saying, it doesn`t phase me one bit there are some numpty`s out to cause trouble, good luck to the numpty`s who wouldn`t know the truth even if it hit them in the face...
-
The contents of Shaws manuscript was brought to the attention of Jeremy and those representing his interests at that time, including Sheila screaming and carrying on, being the reason why police did not storm the farmhouse earlier, and the presence of Dr Harris at the scene. I have emails and correspondence from that era to confirm everything I am saying, it doesn`t phase me one bit there are some numpty`s out to cause trouble, good luck to the numpty`s who wouldn`t know the truth even if it hit them in the face...
Erm, but, but, but ............... really?
Care to explain your response below then?
-
Bugger, I hate it when that happens! ::)
-
Which room in the house was sheila in when she was allegedly screaming and carrying on?
-
First question.......
Mike, How did 'Z' manage to get a photo of Sheila on the bed with only one wound?
It says here that she was never attended by any officer between running from the kitchen to the bedroom.
He must have photographed her killing herself.
-
Bugger, I hate it when that happens! ::)
Stop laughing hartley. ::) ;D :-[
-
Erm, but, but, but ............... really?
Care to explain your response below then?
Are we not talking of two different thing's here ? One a manuscript , the other communication's ?
-
Stop laughing hartley. ::) ;D :-[
Sorry, it's not attractive I know. :-[
-
Sorry, it's not attractive I know. :-[
Sorry but I had to reluctantly admire your response there. Remind me not to play chess with you.
-
Which room in the house was sheila in when she was allegedly screaming and carrying on?
Keep going Andrea (as it your second time of asking) :P
Unfortunately you are up against some bigger ego's at the moment ;)
-
Are we not talking of two different thing's here ? One a manuscript , the other communication's ?
No Jon, unless you would like to point out to me where it is stated in the manuscript that Sheila was screaming and ranting. ::)
It's a fib, pure and simple, not a particularly important one, and not a hanging offence, but it is a fib nonetheless.
-
Keep going Andrea (as it your second time of asking) :P
Unfortunately you are up against some bigger ego's at the moment ;)
Yes sorry, I'll bow out for a bit. :-[ :-[ :-[
-
I would like to clarify something about what David Shaw told me about the presence of a Dr Harris at the scene - he never actually said at what stage he was there. However, I am led to believe that Harris did not attend the scene until after Sheila was fatally wounded by the shot under the chin, which did not occur until after the police surgeon, Dr Craig had left the scene...
Dr Harris attended Sheilas body in the bedroom and pronounced her as being dead at the scene at about 9.30am, some 46 minutes after Dr Craig had originally pronounced her as being dead, at a time when she only had a solitary wound on her throat...
Mike...........are you absolutely certain that there was a Dr.Harris at the scene? Only,there was a Chief Superintendent Harris there that was comforting Jeremy before Dr.Craig could see to him.
-
Which room in the house was sheila in when she was allegedly screaming and carrying on?
In or around kitchen...
-
There are lots of things discussed between shaw and myself which is not published as part of, “ An Innocent Man"...
Mike - Is David Shaw still involved with the case in any way? Are you still in contact with him?
-
Mike,
any chance of an answer?
First question.......
Mike, How did 'Z' manage to get a photo of Sheila on the bed with only one wound?
It says here that she was never attended by any officer between running from the kitchen to the bedroom.
He must have photographed her killing herself.
-
I suppose the obvious question is who would you rather believe? Shaw or 'Z'?
-
Ive never read so much crap,claim,counterclaim,goading and abuse in a thread.I know it's getting close to Zero hour ,so to speak,but i think the abuse and bullshit ought to calm down a little. I'm not going to elaborate on exactly whats bullshit in this thread,i haven't time or inclination to be honest
-
Mike - Is David Shaw still involved with the case in any way? Are you still in contact with him?
I passed information onto Jeremy, including a copy of his manuscript and our shared emails, and I was asked to leave it in Jeremy`s hands, which is what I did. Not to be overlooked is the fact that Jeremy was wanting to be in control of any and everything to do with his case, including only relying upon a couple of points in a bid to persuade the CCRC to refer his case to the court of appeal? Jeremy was obviously extremely interested in the contents of Shaws manuscript, but stated that he wanted to obtain evidence from the withheld pii material, utilising the freedom of information, before he presented anything to the CCRC, which as I understand it, such efforts to gain access to such material has only partially successful, Essex police continue to deliberately frustrate Jeremy`s cause. I have not been in touch with David Shaw as a result of Jeremy telling me to leave it in his hands, although I have deliberately sought to look into issues raised in the manuscript, something which I have continued to do right up to the present day. I am no longer in direct contact with him, although I know he will have dropping into the forum from time to time monitoring developments and progress...
-
I suppose the obvious question is who would you rather believe? Shaw or 'Z'?
if i HAVE to believe in one of them, it would be Shaw, he exists at least.
-
I passed information onto Jeremy, including a copy of his manuscript and our shared emails, and I was asked to leave it in Jeremy`s hands, which is what I did. Not to be overlooked is the fact that Jeremy was wanting to be in control of any and everything to do with his case, including only relying upon a couple of points in a bid to persuade the CCRC to refer his case to the court of appeal? Jeremy was obviously extremely interested in the contents of Shaws manuscript, but stated that he wanted to obtain evidence from the withheld pii material, utilising the freedom of information, before he presented anything to the CCRC, which as I understand it, such efforts to gain access to such material has only partially successful, Essex police continue to deliberately frustrate Jeremy`s cause. I have not been in touch with David Shaw as a result of Jeremy telling me to leave it in his hands, although I have deliberately sought to look into issues raised in the manuscript, something which I have continued to do right up to the present day. I am no longer in direct contact with him, although I know he will have dropping into the forum from time to time monitoring developments and progress...
Thanks Mike. I hope Jeremy's team followed this up. It does seem as if David Shaw managed to get information from police officers involved and many of his conclusions tie in directly with information which came to light after he wrote his manuscript.
-
Why not just ask 'Z' ?? If he took a picture of her on the bed with only one shot to her neck, there's a fair chance he was there when she was shot by the police. David Shaw should be able to confirm all this from the raid team members he's spoken to, but didn't feel that Sheila running around the house screaming and shouting was significant enough to include in his unpublished work.
vidvic....Where on earth do you get the claim from that "z" took the picture of Sheila on the bed?
I have read what Mike has reported on the claims by "Z" and I have seen no such claim other than "Z" being in possesion of such photographs etc but nothing on who took them.
I hope your not confusing things or trying to attribute claims to Mike or "Z" that were never made in order to discredit them.
-
vidvic....Where on earth do you get the claim from that "z" took the picture of Sheila on the bed?
I have read what Mike has reported on the claims by "Z" and I have seen no such claim other than "Z" being in possesion of such photographs etc but nothing on who took them.
I hope your not confusing things or trying to attribute claims to Mike or "Z" that were never made in order to discredit them.
Smiffy, I think he is referring to David Shaw's theories which appear to be incompatible with 'Z's claims.
I don't think he is trying to discredit anything.
-
Smiffy, I think he is referring to David Shaw's theories which appear to be incompatible with 'Z's claims.
I don't think he is trying to discredit anything.
Why can you never let him answer for himself?
-
Mike...........are you absolutely certain that there was a Dr.Harris at the scene? Only,there was a Chief Superintendent Harris there that was comforting Jeremy before Dr.Craig could see to him.
I am certain that in email correspondence between David Shaw and myself, that he mentioned to me that a Dr Harris attended to Sheila, he was not talking about DCI “George” Harris? I specially asked Shaw about the role played by Dr Harris at the scene, asking him if he was getting confused with the role played by the police surgeon, Dr Craig? No, said he, he was not mistaking the role of Craig for Harris, or vice versa, and he wasn`t mistaking Dr Harris for DCI Harris, but he would not elaborate any further about the role he played at the scene, other than to say it was not necessary for me to know why. Dr Harris was at the scene, or what role he played, only that he was there...
-
I am certain that in email correspondence between David Shaw and myself, that he mentioned to me that a Dr Harris attended to Sheila, he was not talking about DCI “George” Harris? I specially asked Shaw about the role played by Dr Harris at the scene, asking him if he was getting confused with the role played by the police surgeon, Dr Craig? No, said he, he was not mistaking the role of Craig for Harris, or vice versa, and he wasn`t mistaking Dr Harris for DCI Harris, but he would not elaborate any further about the role he played at the scene, other than to say it was not necessary for me to know why. Dr Harris was at the scene, or what role he played, only that he was there...
Do you think there could be a link between this Dr.Harris,the shooting incident in the kitchen and an ambulance requested for immediate use?
-
Do you think there could be a link between this Dr.Harris,the shooting incident in the kitchen and an ambulance requested for immediate use?
Yes, as a result of information received from another source, I am convinced that the presence of this Dr Harris at the scene, was/is linked to the second shot received by Sheila under the chin, and that he could have been at the scene since a much earlier time, for example, he could have either been there before 6.30am when things took a turn for the worse, and a shot having been discharged in the kitchen, and whY it was felt necessary to summon an ambulance to the scene for immediate use, whilst summoning a second ambulance to the scene on standby. This suggests to me that police were aware that a shot or a series of shots had been fired in the kitchen at around 6.30am, hence why police requested an ambulance to attend scene immediately?
I think Dr Harris could have been at the scene at that stage, probably called out to the scene to deal with Sheila`s mental health issues?
-
vidvic....Where on earth do you get the claim from that "z" took the picture of Sheila on the bed?
I have read what Mike has reported on the claims by "Z" and I have seen no such claim other than "Z" being in possesion of such photographs etc but nothing on who took them.
I hope your not confusing things or trying to attribute claims to Mike or "Z" that were never made in order to discredit them.
You are correct Smiffy in that It's not claimed that 'Z' actually took the photo which he has shown to Mike, but someone did and it's directly incompatible with David Shaw's piece.
-
You are correct Smiffy in that It's not claimed that 'Z' actually took the photo which he has shown to Mike, but someone did and it's directly incompatible with David Shaw's piece.
What inferences could be taken from 'Z' being incompatible with Shaw? I think numerous ones, which fall upon both sides of the divide.
-
What inferences could be taken from 'Z' being incompatible with Shaw? I think numerous ones, which fall upon both sides of the divide.
The inferences which can be taken are simply that at different times Mike has put theories forward based on information from both sources which are incompatible with each other. Therefore it cannot be denied that regarding individual aspects of these theories, either 'Z' or 'David Shaw' is incorrect. It could also then be inferred, that it is not an unreasonable possibility that both are incorrect.
I'd say the same if their information showed Jeremy to be guilty, without evidence, these types or reports are not worth a bean.
-
You are correct Smiffy in that It's not claimed that 'Z' actually took the photo which he has shown to Mike, but someone did and it's directly incompatible with David Shaw's piece.
I think my latest informants account, fills in the missing pieces of the jigsaw which Shaws account leaves out for reasons best known to himself, and the officers who provided him with information, and any motive such officers may have had to tell Shaw what they told hIm...
I think both accounts are not necessarily incompatible with one another , since they might not be describing the same parts of this covert operation...
-
What inferences could be taken from 'Z' being incompatible with Shaw? I think numerous ones, which fall upon both sides of the divide.
Roch - I hope I don't sound too Hartleyesque, but are you suggesting comparing one set of unsubstantiated theory with another?
What will this achieve, other than discussion simply for discussion purposes!
-
I would like to put on record that any theories Or ideas I had before David Shaw contacted me, were posted pon other internet sites, and that Shaw contacted because he said that 90% of what I had been saying was true. From that point on, I merely asked him a series of questions, to try and elicit as much information as possible from him. Some of the questions I asked of Shaw were not necessarily my beliefs, I was merely asking such questions of him with a view to eliminating possibilities - for these reasons everyone should proceed with caution before taking on board what the numpty`s have been saying about it...
-
You are correct Smiffy in that It's not claimed that 'Z' actually took the photo which he has shown to Mike, but someone did and it's directly incompatible with David Shaw's piece.
I don't know if such a picture exists? Mike said he's seen it and I must take what he says on trust. The only indication that she was on the bed is on one of the pictures of Sheila with the gun across her. There are distinctive blood stains on the bed clothes as if someone had slid her onto the floor? The bedclothes have been moved in one of the other pictures.
-
I don't know if such a picture exists? Mike said he's seen it and I must take what he says on trust. The only indication that she was on the bed is on one of the pictures of Sheila with the gun across her. There are distinctive blood stains on the bed clothes as if someone had slid her onto the floor? The bedclothes have been moved in one of the other pictures.
Its only the "slid her onto the floor" that made me reply. if some one is in respiratory arrest you would slide them onto a hard surface in an attempt to revive them
-
The inferences which can be taken are simply that at different times Mike has put theories forward based on information from both sources which are incompatible with each other. Therefore it cannot be denied that regarding individual aspects of these theories, either 'Z' or 'David Shaw' is incorrect. It could also then be inferred, that it is not an unreasonable possibility that both are incorrect.
I'd say the same if their information showed Jeremy to be guilty, without evidence, these types or reports are not worth a bean.
Nick / Hartley...If only the police would release the 'cover up' file. Then we could at least substantiate some of these claims. It's so frustrating.
-
Nick / Hartley...If only the police would release the 'cover up' file. Then we could at least substantiate some of these claims. It's so frustrating.
Well it's a bit of a catch 22 there Rochy, what if the 'cover up' ::) file doesn't exit? What then?
-
Well it's a bit of a catch 22 there Rochy, what if the 'cover up' ::) file doesn't exit? What then?
You're right. If there is no 'cover up' file in the first place, then a lot of people are going to have egg on their face. Including me.
-
You're right. If there is no 'cover up' file in the first place, then a lot of people are going to have egg on their face. Including me.
Oh well it'll be Easter soon, maybe a decision will be made by then, we could have egg on faces all round. ;)
-
Harters, do you reckon there could be a dust covered lever arch file lying somewhere with...
NOT FOR DISCLOSURE UNTIL 2056
R v BAMBER
Fabrication of sound moderator evidence:
i Inception
ii Method
iii Challenges
iv Remedies & Modifications
v Results
vi Concealment
vii Participants A-Z and roles
-
Harters, do you reckon there could be a dust covered lever arch file lying somewhere with...
NOT FOR DISCLOSURE UNTIL 2056
R v BAMBER
Fabrication of sound moderator evidence:
i Inception
ii Method
iii Challenges
iv Remedies & Modifications
v Results
vi Concealment
vii Participants A-Z and roles
Nope. I don't think EP were competent or had the skill to carry out such a conspiracy/cover up. Particularly given the extent to which everything about the case has since been scrutinised.
-
Pity. That kind of thing might have come in handy. I suppose we're stuck with 'Z' for now then.
-
Hartley
The campaign team keep posting they have all the evidence they need for a referral to the appeal court.
Do you really think they are making it up because they would look really stupid and if it's not true why would they say it and what could they possibly gain from saying stuff like that
It is really baffling me
Also you wouldn't know everything the defence have would you
Do the relatives find out the CCRC decision at the same time as Jeremy
-
Pity. That kind of thing might have come in handy. I suppose we're stuck with 'Z' for now then.
What? You mean zilch? ::)
-
Its only the "slid her onto the floor" that made me reply. if some one is in respiratory arrest you would slide them onto a hard surface in an attempt to revive them
Maybe, but that still puts Sheila on the bed. Which the cops deny.
-
Maybe, but that still puts Sheila on the bed. Which the cops deny.
understood
-
understood
Just take a look at those pictures and see what you think.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2031.0.html The bedclothes do look as if they are bloodstained in one of the pictures? What else could have caused such a stain pattern?
-
Hartley
The campaign team keep posting they have all the evidence they need for a referral to the appeal court.
Do you really think they are making it up because they would look really stupid and if it's not true why would they say it and what could they possibly gain from saying stuff like that
It is really baffling me
Also you wouldn't know everything the defence have would you
Do the relatives find out the CCRC decision at the same time as Jeremy
I've got no idea Jackie, also I don't know anything to do with the defences current application or what their submission contains.
With regards to the relatives being informed about a decision, again I do not know, but they would ni doubt be informed prior to any public announcements.
There's a lot I don't know, contrary to popular belief. ;)
-
Just take a look at those pictures and see what you think.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2031.0.html The bedclothes do look as if they are bloodstained in one of the pictures? What else could have caused such a stain pattern?
i think if you read an earlier post i theorised that possibe scenario.
-
Just take a look at those pictures and see what you think.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2031.0.html The bedclothes do look as if they are bloodstained in one of the pictures? What else could have caused such a stain pattern?
anyway,thats a bedrunner,not a stain.
-
i think if you read an earlier post i theorised that possibe scenario.
So did I. ;D
-
Sheila was on the bed, then the police moved her to the floor, this is the true state of affairs once Sheila ended up in the bedroom...
-
Police ran away from the house, and did not make any attempt to get into the farmhouse, because they feared being shot at by Sheila, who for about a whole hour was screaming obscenities and ranting and raving and putting the fear of god into the minds of the police, in the same way she put the fear of god into those who were close to her, at the time she often lapsed into one of her uncontrollable fits...
-
becoming clear the police were not in control that night it seems Sheila was.
-
Police ran away from the house, and did not make any attempt to get into the farmhouse, because they feared being shot at by Sheila, who for about a whole hour was screaming obscenities and ranting and raving and putting the fear of god into the minds of the police, in the same way she put the fear of god into those who were close to her, at the time she often lapsed into one of her uncontrollable fits...
Mike, I find this very disturbing. How could such a thing as this be kept a secret all this time? Moreover if this comes from Shaw, that he got this information from the police that he interviewed. then why wasn't he called as a witness to these events by the defence?
-
Have been reading Jeremys updated blog.It is really interesting!
Under the section of Jeremys alibi,a PC Brown? also spotted the rifle in the window that morning.How could the rifle have been in the window and yet been found on Sheilas body when raid team entered if everybody in the house was dead?Also,I think it was Collins that stated he found Sheila with the rifle by her right side and not upon her body.
From what I can gather,the defence feel they have proved that Sheila was indeed alive in the farmhouse that morning,albeit maybe unconsious after administering the first shot to her neck?Nobody checked to see if she was still alive,presuming that she was dead.They believe that she made her way up one of the sets of stairs,took hold of the rifle and killed herself with second shot.In a statement,one of the officers admits that he heard a noise upstairs and shouted up the stairs to Sheila.
I presume the defence feel that the "cover up" concerns the fact that they bungled the raid by not checking if Sheila was dead or alive in the kitchen,which therefore allowed her to take her own life in their prescence.They could have possibly saved her life?Looking at all the evidence that we have been allowed to see,it is,in my opinion,an entirely plausable scenario.
-
If logs exist to prove the rifle was spotted before the entry then this is proof that Sheila was still alive, was it the sighting of the rifle that triggered the storming.
-
I dont know Mertol,but I think that it is very damning that it wasnt just Jeapes that spotted the rifle in the window.I had never heard of this PC Brown before.Maybe his statement has been discovered in the new batch of documents that Jeremy has been given?
-
Well i read somrthing on the web that mentions this saying a rifle was spotted, another saying the rifle was made safe and placed there, and both front and back doors had police walking through but only 1 officer at the back door taking names of all who entered.
-
Rifle was spotted in the window before raid team entered.
It is all starting to make sense now as to what actually happened.
I believe that Sheila was initially found in the kitchen but with a different weapon,not the Anshutz.This I believe is why the police referred to the one murdered,one suicide.Was it Davidson that referred to a rifle being found in the kitchen?In his COLP interview?He stated that the rifle had red paint upon its barrel.He was asked by COLP,"dont you mean the silencer"?And he replied no,a rifle.What rifle was this and what happened to it?
Where is Mike when you need him?
-
Rifle was spotted in the window before raid team entered.
It is all starting to make sense now as to what actually happened.
I believe that Sheila was initially found in the kitchen but with a different weapon,not the Anshutz.This I believe is why the police referred to the one murdered,one suicide.Was it Davidson that referred to a rifle being found in the kitchen?In his COLP interview?He stated that the rifle had red paint upon its barrel.He was asked by COLP,"dont you mean the silencer"?And he replied no,a rifle.What rifle was this and what happened to it?
Where is Mike when you need him?
I think we need to see that statement Tyler.
-
I think we need to see that statement Tyler.
Which statement Grahame?Davidsons COLP interview?
-
but he would not elaborate any further about the role he played at the scene, other than to say it was not necessary for me to know why. Dr Harris was at the scene, or what role he played, only that he was there...
What's his game? Why did he go so far and only so far, when you appear to make out he could have gone further still?
And who the hell is this Shaw character anyway? How on earth did he come to be involved in this?
-
Which statement Grahame?Davidsons COLP interview?
See this thread: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,590.msg12022.html#msg12022
-
What? You mean zilch? ::)
Thanks Grahame, now we know what the Z stands for ;)
-
Which statement Grahame?Davidsons COLP interview?
The COLP interview. Wny was this not spotted and remarked upon then?
-
Nick / Hartley...If only the police would release the 'cover up' file. Then we could at least substantiate some of these claims. It's so frustrating.
Roch, as you know I also stand for the release of everything, and yes, it is frustrating. The EG case draws on a disturbing element of unreleased information that clearly would have had a significant effect on the original jury.
16 years a box containing relevant information was witheld by Merseyside police. If EG gets his case overturned, and it is looking that way, the JB campaign should be right on it.
EG (with his sister) was also on Breakfast TV this morning!
-
See this thread: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,590.msg12022.html#msg12022
Thanks hartley. I can't read it very well. Where's the part which talks about him seeing the gun propped up at the window? I notice that he says he got to WHF farm at around 9.16?
-
See this thread: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,590.msg12022.html#msg12022
The attachment is very interesting reading. How can somebody be so unsure of what his role was in a case which was supposed to be like no other that Essex force had ever seen. If I had been involved on that day I am sure I would remember what my role was!
-
Responding to earlier posts on this thread. Why would a barking dog stop armed officers entering the farmhouse? JB had told them the breed of dog so they knew it was small. Surely that would not stop them entering the house, they would simply shoot the dog on site IMO. Also, it has been suggested here that the armed officers only entered the farm following PC Jappes(?) sighting of a rifle in the upstairs window. Why? JB had already told them that there were several firearms inside the house. Why would that siting make them believe it was safe to enter the farmhouse?