Jeremy Bamber Forum

JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Roch on February 16, 2012, 08:03:PM

Title: Lomax in 'THE PRESS'
Post by: Roch on February 16, 2012, 08:03:PM
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/9534751.Jeremy_Bamber____could_soon_walk_free_from_York_jail___/?ref=twtrec
Title: Re: Lomax in 'THE PRESS'
Post by: TJB65 on February 16, 2012, 08:12:PM
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/9534751.Jeremy_Bamber____could_soon_walk_free_from_York_jail___/?ref=twtrec
Good Stuff! xx
Title: Re: Lomax in 'THE PRESS'
Post by: mike tesko on February 16, 2012, 08:15:PM
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/9534751.Jeremy_Bamber____could_soon_walk_free_from_York_jail___/?ref=twtrec

The world is going to find out that the blood evidence (A, EAP BA, AK1 and HP 2-1) which helped to convict Jeremy Bamber was not found inside the silencer found by the relatives (in the gun cupboard), because that silencer was not used in her shooting (under chin) and besides, it was not sent to the lab' until a date after blood was already supposed to have been found inside it?

Title: Re: Lomax in 'THE PRESS'
Post by: Roch on February 16, 2012, 08:16:PM
Good Stuff! xx

That aspect of the (same?) reports does not seem to have been discussed in the open.  I suspect there is more still to come also.
Title: Re: Lomax in 'THE PRESS'
Post by: Roch on February 16, 2012, 08:54:PM
The way it talks about a speck of blood sounds like the journo getting mixed up with 2002?  Also, the article wrongly describes the murders as 'shotgun'.
Title: Re: Lomax in 'THE PRESS'
Post by: grahameb on February 16, 2012, 10:01:PM
I have a deep respect for Scott Lomax. But this report does not seem like the way he would word things. He is a professional writer and there are some very basic mistakes made here. I would suggest that Scott Lomax is more cautious than what he is supposed to have written here? However I hope what he appears to have written is true. Although it most certainly is not yet in the bag.
Title: Re: Lomax in 'THE PRESS'
Post by: Janet (Formerly known as Takeshi) on February 16, 2012, 10:44:PM
The way it talks about a speck of blood sounds like the journo getting mixed up with 2002?  Also, the article wrongly describes the murders as 'shotgun'.

I know what you mean Rochy. I get a bit excited when I start to read an article like this. Then they make a fundamental error such as the make of murder weapon and my heart sinks once again.

I am looking forward to the day JB gets his appeal because I hope then at last we will learn the truth about what happened that night.

I hope that if/when JB attains freedom he will not be content with just that but will continue to pursue this case until the full truth is known.
Title: Re: Lomax in 'THE PRESS'
Post by: JackiePreece on February 16, 2012, 10:56:PM
Neil is always very very cautious but he is optimistic that's a very good sign.
Title: Re: Lomax in 'THE PRESS'
Post by: Roch on February 17, 2012, 01:18:PM
Neil is always very very cautious but he is optimistic that's a very good sign.

He is extremely cautious and in my personal opinion purely as a member of this forum, sets an example of how any future campaign could approach the problems inherent in interpreting or presenting the available evidence, including new discoveries etc.

There is a knack to presenting the evidence and avoiding the pitfalls.  I have said before that I would very much like to see a serious documentary maker tackle the issue from a 'rough justice' type perspective.  But in my opinion, they would need to know exactly which issues to hone in on and which pertinent questions to ask, in order to avoid the pitfalls.
Title: Re: Lomax in 'THE PRESS'
Post by: JackiePreece on February 17, 2012, 01:35:PM
Rochy that's why I listen when Ngb makes statements.

If a serious documentary were to be made I would expect the person making it would work closely with Simon especially if the documentary were pro bamber
Title: Re: Lomax in 'THE PRESS'
Post by: Roch on February 17, 2012, 02:11:PM
Rochy that's why I listen when Ngb makes statements.

If a serious documentary were to be made I would expect the person making it would work closely with Simon especially if the documentary were pro bamber

Let's hope so, should any future serious look at the case be on the cards.  In the meantime, we're stuck with chokvid vs daddyscaff.  Progress is being made with the latest offing.  The opposition's 'Michael Myers' tune will take some beating though.
Title: Re: Lomax in 'THE PRESS'
Post by: JackiePreece on February 17, 2012, 02:47:PM
Rochy you are in contact with the official campaign team more than most of us do you know what's the latest news from them?
Title: Re: Lomax in 'THE PRESS'
Post by: Roch on February 17, 2012, 02:53:PM
Rochy you are in contact with the official campaign team more than most of us do you know what's the latest news from them?

I only ever contacted them once Jackie.
Title: Re: Lomax in 'THE PRESS'
Post by: JackiePreece on February 17, 2012, 03:24:PM
Sorry Rochy I misunderstood  I thought you had given them some ideas and thought they might take some of them up

At the moment it just seems to be Mikes Forum talking about the case and Traceys Innocence page

Maybe Lorna Lake could comment she would know
Title: Re: Lomax in 'THE PRESS'
Post by: grahameb on February 17, 2012, 07:37:PM
Scott Lomax has just contacted me and stated that he didn't write the article. He was concerned that it was being claimed as his. He gave the reporter a few bits of information and the reporter wrote it out all incorrectly. I didn't think it was his writing.
Title: Re: Lomax in 'THE PRESS'
Post by: Alias on February 17, 2012, 07:54:PM
I am very hopeful.
Just watched some episodes on Youtube about people spending decades in prison for murders they did not commit, BECAUSE OF FALSE TESTIMONIES, meaning outright lies. Guess about whom Imma thinking!
You should watch them, they are interesting!

Here is the link to the first episode, you will find the rest at Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeeCcef1kTk&feature=related